Americans who voted against Trump are feeling unprecedented dread and despair

[fskimospy]

Then you have to explain how hers went up against Obama. Remember, he did the same thing just to a much lesser extent. He went way softer on her because he worried about the damage to the party. Trump being Trump and also not a Democrat meant he had no worries of anything other than winning.
I think you are right in that negative partisanship has increased. Right now being in politics makes you radioactive on a national stage.

Clinton remained popular among democrats, it was Republicans that were primarily responsible for her loss of popularity in both cases. As soon as they saw her as an electoral threat they hated her. In the middle she wasn't a threat and they went back to liking her. She became a threat again and they went back to hating her.

Watch Obama's popularity rise once he is out of office.

 

[realibrad]

Clinton remained popular among democrats, it was Republicans that were primarily responsible for her loss of popularity in both cases. As soon as they saw her as an electoral threat they hated her. In the middle she wasn't a threat and they went back to liking her. She became a threat again and they went back to hating her.

Watch Obama's popularity rise once he is out of office.

What do you mean by responsible? This is not a baited question. I want to make sure that I understand you. I'm assuming you are blaming the Right for the leaks and misinformation ect but I want to make sure.

 

[cubby1223]

If anything, he is the most well-sourced and reasoned liberal on this forum, he of all people deserves the elite title because he doesn't partisan shitpost like a lot of us.

He is just as partisan as anyone else, he just takes more care to hide it.

agent00f's very next post was:

I think you're smart enough to figure it out along with Bannon's civic society and O'Reilly's white establishment; even the relatively uneducated trumpsters could.

It doesn't take a genius to piece together the arguments people are making in these threads without explicitly stating them in every post. The original statement made was that Trump's core supporters are wealthier and a question why do you think that is? I merely jumped ahead an extra step, showed that the conclusion agent00f was leading was not even remotely close to provable by what he offered up as evidence, and in my opinion leans more towards the contrary.

And for that fskimospy decides to hurl an insult. That is on him and his partisanship.

 

[fskimospy]

What do you mean by responsible? This is not a baited question. I want to make sure that I understand you. I'm assuming you are blaming the Right for the leaks and misinformation ect but I want to make sure.

I mean responsible in that her popularity among Republicans was fairly high when she was SoS and it tanked as soon as she became the presumptive Democratic nominee. It has nothing to do with what information/misinformation was out there, I mean they switched from liking her to not liking her.

 

[agent00f]

Only if you look at the 2012 numbers, and even then the same issue holds true. In 2008, Obama got 69.4 million votes. In 2012 he got 65.9 million. Hillary got 65.8 million. That said, Hillary lost the % of the demographics. So if 50% of a group had voted for Obama, and that group grew in numbers, she should have gained more votes if she also got 50%. What ended up happening is that she lost some of the % of that group, and retained the nominal number of votes of that group.

LOL "Hillary was a bad candidate. She lost far more votes than Trump gained". Only for people whose math professors can't teach them anything.

I guess Obama must be the worst candidate of all time by losing orders of magnitudes more votes than Clinton.

 

[agent00f]

He is just as partisan as anyone else, he just takes more care to hide it.

agent00f's very next post was:


It doesn't take a genius to piece together the arguments people are making in these threads without explicitly stating them in every post. The original statement made was that Trump's core supporters are wealthier and a question why do you think that is? I merely jumped ahead an extra step, showed that the conclusion agent00f was leading was not even remotely close to provable by what he offered up as evidence, and in my opinion leans more towards the contrary.

And for that fskimospy decides to hurl an insult. That is on him and his partisanship.

Rather simple that uneducated but well-paid gubmint handout types want to keep competitors in their place. Hell, even they understand it rather well, but evidently not simple enough for you.

 

[realibrad]

I mean responsible in that her popularity among Republicans was fairly high when she was SoS and it tanked as soon as she became the presumptive Democratic nominee. It has nothing to do with what information/misinformation was out there, I mean they switched from liking her to not liking her.

Here are some examples of why I disagree.

2012 Obama got
45% Male
55% Female
White 39%
Black 93%
Hispanic 71%
Asian 73%
Other 58%

2016 Hillary got
41% Male
54% Female
White 37%
Black 88%
Hispanic 65%
Asian 65%
Other 56%

Change for Hillary vs Obama 2012
Male, lost 4%
Female, Gained 1%
White, Lost 2%
Black, Lost 5%
Hispanic, Lost 6%
Asian, Lost 8%
Other, Lost 2%

Change for Trump vs Romney 2012
Male, Gained 1%
Female, Lost 2%
White, Lost 1%
Black, Gained 2%
Hispanic, Gained 2%
Asian, Gained 3%
Other, Lost 1%

As you can see, Hillary lost more ground than Trump gained. The biggest losses don't come from groups that have large numbers of Republicans. Minorities were a big hit for her.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html

 

[Meghan54]

Why is this wrong?
https://krueger.princeton.edu/sites...r/files/katz_krueger_cws_-_march_29_20165.pdf

Why is what wrong? The only part-time employment numbers I can find described in your linked report is in Table1, which lists part-time employment amongst the survey respondents at an unweighted 26.2%, weighted at 24.2% or by their alt-weighted number at 23.5%. These are essentially the same as the CPS number of Oct. 2015, 25.2%.

Maybe you're looking at Table 3, which is the absolute wrong table to peruse to bolster the argument most jobs are part time. While it's true that table shows CPS part time numbers at 38.9%, with the RAND data showing 35.6%, 47.7%, 46.2% in the same weights as mentioned above, that table is only for employees who are using alternative work arrangements.

And please don't attempt to confuse the RAND data's alternative work arrangement designation to mean part time, because it doesn't. Simply being employed via a temp. agency does not mean part time. The vast majority of industry in this area, for example (NE GA to Greenville, SC) use temp. agencies as their hiring vehicles. I know people who've worked for temp. agencies for a year or longer before being converted/hired into the actual manufacturer's own HR dept. Saves the manufacturer a ton on benefits, etc., plus the ability to weed out those that can't/won't work out on the job with no downside on their part.

So, what in that report supports your suggestion that most jobs have been created are part time?

 

[agent00f]

Here are some examples of why I disagree.

2012 Obama got
45% Male
55% Female
White 39%
Black 93%
Hispanic 71%
Asian 73%
Other 58%

2016 Hillary got
41% Male
54% Female
White 37%
Black 88%
Hispanic 65%
Asian 65%
Other 56%

Change for Hillary vs Obama 2012
Male, lost 4%
Female, Gained 1%
White, Lost 2%
Black, Lost 5%
Hispanic, Lost 6%
Asian, Lost 8%
Other, Lost 2%

Change for Trump vs Romney 2012
Male, Gained 1%
Female, Lost 2%
White, Lost 1%
Black, Gained 2%
Hispanic, Gained 2%
Asian, Gained 3%
Other, Lost 1%

As you can see, Hillary lost more ground than Trump gained. The biggest losses don't come from groups that have large numbers of Republicans. Minorities were a big hit for her.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html

Clinton loses negligible votes to 2012 and Trump gained a couple million: "Hillary lost more ground than Trump gained". Honestly not a surprise when dunning kruger posterkids believe they have a head for numbers.

 

[realibrad]

Clinton loses negligible votes to 2012 and Trump gained a couple million: "Hillary lost more ground than Trump gained". Honestly not a surprise when dunning kruger posterkids believe they have a head for numbers.

You dont see how you can lose more of a demographic in % terms, and still have a flat nominal value?

 

[fskimospy]

Here are some examples of why I disagree.

2012 Obama got
45% Male
55% Female
White 39%
Black 93%
Hispanic 71%
Asian 73%
Other 58%

2016 Hillary got
41% Male
54% Female
White 37%
Black 88%
Hispanic 65%
Asian 65%
Other 56%

Change for Hillary vs Obama 2012
Male, lost 4%
Female, Gained 1%
White, Lost 2%
Black, Lost 5%
Hispanic, Lost 6%
Asian, Lost 8%
Other, Lost 2%

Change for Trump vs Romney 2012
Male, Gained 1%
Female, Lost 2%
White, Lost 1%
Black, Gained 2%
Hispanic, Gained 2%
Asian, Gained 3%
Other, Lost 1%

As you can see, Hillary lost more ground than Trump gained. The biggest losses don't come from groups that have large numbers of Republicans. Minorities were a big hit for her.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html

Yes but you're equating voter turnout with popularity which is problematic as Republicans weren't going to vote for her (or Obama) even if they did view them favorably. In fact, she turned a 1 point party line voting deficit into a 1 point advantage as compared to Obama.

 

[realibrad]

Yes but you're equating voter turnout with popularity which is problematic as Republicans weren't going to vote for her (or Obama) even if they did view them favorably. In fact, she turned a 1 point party line voting deficit into a 1 point advantage as compared to Obama.

Not really. The total votes were pretty close to 2012. Those %'s represent those polled. So of group x that voted, % voted left or right. So of the Black people that voted, Hillary got less than Obama ect. Many votes went away from her, but not to Trump. That means they did not like Trump, and did not like her. When you include turnout, you see those that simply did not vote for anyone. Many of those simply did not want to vote, but many thought both were not worth voting for.

She ran against Trump. She was never going to get the Republicans to vote for her agreed, but she did not get turnout because...? She lost minority votes because...?

Neither of those answers are Republicans so far as I see it.

 

[fskimospy]

Not really. The total votes were pretty close to 2012. Those %'s represent those polled. So of group x that voted, % voted left or right. So of the Black people that voted, Hillary got less than Obama ect. Many votes went away from her, but not to Trump. That means they did not like Trump, and did not like her. When you include turnout, you see those that simply did not vote for anyone. Many of those simply did not want to vote, but many thought both were not worth voting for.

She ran against Trump. She was never going to get the Republicans to vote for her agreed, but she did not get turnout because...? She lost minority votes because...?

Neither of those answers are Republicans so far as I see it.

You genuinely don't see why black people might have voted for Obama in larger numbers than Clinton even though they may have felt favorably disposed towards both?

 

[Puffnstuff]

This situation makes me glad that my retirement is split 50/50 between the public and private sector.😀

 

[sandorski]

I remember the good old days when I was just annoyed about all the Campaign BS.

 

[raildogg]

Don't feel despair because of Trump. Feel it because of what you and your fellow man are. Liars, haters, frauds and hypocrites. That is why people like Trump get into office and have been for the past couple of centuries.

You are to blame for your misery. Stop the whining.

 

[agent00f]

You dont see how you can lose more of a demographic in % terms, and still have a flat nominal value?

Only one of us has trouble comparing basic numbers, and it's not who can tell 65 million = 65 million.

 

[agent00f]

I think that's she's a Canadian.

It really reveals something about character to insinuate someone is female as a sort of insult. Maybe you can also insinuate that others you don't like are homosexual or one of them other minorities.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes they are full time jobs, if you want to see the BLS methodology for the payroll survey and CPS it is here:

https://www.bls.gov/bls/empsitquickguide.htm

I have to say though the results are not even close to ambiguous. There was a concerted effort by conservatives a few years ago to say that all the jobs created under Obama were 'crappy' jobs as a way to discount the dramatic increases in employment but the data pretty obviously shows that to be false. There is a valid complaint about poor wage growth, but if the jobs being created were crappy you would presumably see the hourly wage falling, not (slowly) increasing.




Fair enough, I don't know how I would define a 'main driver' but you're right you didn't say the only driver. I do find motivational arguments like that to be kind of pointless though as I don't think it's possible to really know someone's motivation by a third party.

It's hard to imagine that Biden hasn't enough knowledge of Hillary first hand that he's be clueless. Motivations however extremely important because knowing what drives a person speaks more than what one says. The problem is that some thought needs to be applies. Note the very free negative comments about those who didn't vote for Hillary. One has in this thread tried that on me and I'll immediately reply to him after this.

 

[desura]

Yeah, I voted against Trump and it freaked me out when he won. I think everyone was surprised including Trump supporters.

I mean, Obama hasn't been perfect, but for the most part Clinton would have been a continuation of Obama for another four years at least, and that would have been fine with me. I definitely am wary of her hatred of Russia because I simply don't care enough about that area of the world to think a war is worthwhile.

I really hope Trump uses his time to be an idiot and not involve American troops...anywhere. Like, he has no legitimacy to launch a war of any sort. This is why people were so mad when Bush started Iraq up all over again--he had barely won and so it wasn't like he had an overwhelming base of legitimacy to go around starting wars.

 

[agent00f]

Yeah, I voted against Trump and it freaked me out when he won. I think everyone was surprised including Trump supporters.

I mean, Obama hasn't been perfect, but for the most part Clinton would have been a continuation of Obama for another four years at least, and that would have been fine with me. I definitely am wary of her hatred of Russia because I simply don't care enough about that area of the world to think a war is worthwhile.

I really hope Trump uses his time to be an idiot and not involve American troops...anywhere. Like, he has no legitimacy to launch a war of any sort. This is why people were so mad when Bush started Iraq up all over again--he had barely won and so it wasn't like he had an overwhelming base of legitimacy to go around starting wars.

How else are the red areas going to make ends meet without some great bogeyman to justify their "defense" money. We'll have to blame everything back on the brown people.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Damn, we've been caught folks, the race baiting slime has figured out we're all white supremacists.

Give it a fucking rest, I've seen you post more racially charged shit than any other single member.


He's less educated than most Trump voters, don't expect miracles from an angry troll.

Seriously, look at what he posts, it's all insults, he doesn't add to the conversation, he demeans us all.

Nah, you manage to do that all by yourself.

 

[theeedude]

I am pretty sure we'll have at least one war under Trump. He has no mandate, and needs to rally support around himself, and cheap militaristic patriotism is the ticket.
Putin did it by staging some false flag terror attacks on his own citizens and restarting the war in Chechnya. Hopefully Trump will not order false flags on the US, but he can ignore some looming threats, let them materialize, and then use the aftermath to push his agenda and wars, like Bush did with 9/11.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's rather amusing their dummy audience can figure that it's advantageous to keep atop the ethnic totem but you have such a hard time.

Obviously I can't keep up with the dummy audience if you like.

 

[desura]

I am pretty sure we'll have at least one war under Trump. He has no mandate, and needs to rally support around himself, and cheap militaristic patriotism is the ticket.
Putin did it by staging some false flag terror attacks on his own citizens and restarting the war in Chechnya. Hopefully Trump will not order false flags on the US, but he can ignore some looming threats, let them materialize, and then use the aftermath to push his agenda and wars, like Bush did with 9/11.

I don't think he will. I can sort of see why Bush did Iraq--in many ways it was him wanting to erase the Vietnam syndrome, have a grand crusade like WWII so he could live up to his father's experience.

I don't know about Putin's "false flag." That apartment building bombing...I just don't know to be honest. It just doesn't seem plausible that any leader would intentionally stage violence like that on his own people. This is like 9-11 conspiracy level stuff.

What I would welcome would be Trump going around the world and solving intractable problems by challenging some of the bedrocks that have become ossified. Like, this whole Palestinian state thing is ridiculous and the official line hasn't worked, and the only people in the world who want to pay a premium to live in that area are Jews and yet for political reasons they aren't allowed to live there. We might stumble into a bigger conflict that way though if he trips over the apple cart in a way that he doesn't prepare for.