So why did Donald Trump win? Flipside to the Clinton/lose thread

[flexy]

For some reason, this picture just cracks me up :

It's striking how Trump looks like some Soviet leader from the 1970/80s...

 

[Kazukian]

Yes, it means something!

It means that the real majority of Americans is NOT crazy, do NOT want a fascist leader, are not Islamophobic, DON'T want an idiot in office.

To me, this is significant.

Well, it's worked for 240 years without too much problem, we've had centuries to change it, didn't you fucking take a civics class? This is getting old.

 

[flexy]

See this excellent RCP article here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/10/trumps_first_term_and_perhaps_a_second.html

You STILL read RCP, 538 and all those other sites which lied to us for...months?
Respect. I can't.

 

[flexy]

Well, it's worked for 240 years without too much problem, we've had centuries to change it, didn't you fucking take a civics class? This is getting old.

Hey, in this post (by pure coincidence) I didn't even criticize the EC. I just stated facts. For me it IS significant that the majority of Americans don't actually want Trump. The numbers don't lie, even if it's only 250k or so.

 

[Kazukian]

Hey, in this post (by pure coincidence) I didn't even criticize the EC. I just stated facts. For me it IS significant that the majority of Americans don't actually want Trump. The numbers don't lie, even if it's only 250k or so.

Stupid is still stupid. Grow up.

 

[buckshot24]

Hey, in this post (by pure coincidence) I didn't even criticize the EC. I just stated facts. For me it IS significant that the majority of Americans don't actually want Trump. The numbers don't lie, even if it's only 250k or so.

The voters who were most contested for disagree with you.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Funny how people determined not days ago on just how unsophisticated these folks are are now concocting rather elaborate arguments/excuses to explain that situation.

Turns out trump knew to keep it simple for simple folks. Smart guy.

You don't spend your entire life running cons without learning a couple of things along the way.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I'm trying to find the chart, but I saw a graph this morning that showed the 2016 election had the lowest percentage voter turnout in modern history. The chart went back to the 1930's. Roughly 47% of eligible voters exercised their rights to do so. Compare that to 57% in '08 when Obama first ran. Low turn outs will almost always favor GOP candidates as mid term elections show us.

Now a myriad of reasons can be put forth as to why turnout was low. But ultimately these were historically low voter turnouts and that gave the whitehouse and a full house of power to the GOP. Dems put out a lame duck candidate that turned off 10% of the voting base from 8 years ago. The only thing keeping this from being a total bloodbath was the total unappealing idea of Trump and him losing a pile of votes to minorities and educated white people.

historical voter turnout from the beginning to 2012

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections

and the figure I've seen for this election is 56.9 % not 47%.

http://www.electproject.org/2016g

 

[Victorian Gray]

Dammit another post I want to "like" but I'll get cut

It's ok. They're small cuts with not too much blood loss and no scars.

 

[agent00f]

I don't disagree with any of this. But these are the problems that Democrats face when trying to convince those "unfortunate data points" in the middle of technological progress, that their plan is the best:

--You can offer them a social safety net, but many of them don't want it. They think of it as welfare, while they actually have a lot of pride earning their keep. This doesn't mean they are always judging people that are on assistance or always think that the lot of them are "welfare queens" (some do, of course), it is just that for them, personally, not working and receiving a simple pay check to keep you going is its own sort of prison. And this is the common criticism of welfare--depend on it long enough and it becomes a necessity. I think it does work better as a temporary program to aid people through transition, but that sort of model isn't going to fit everyone. And, well, welfare reform is a different discussion.
--They are people, not data points. Displaced people are going to be righteously pissed when they are the victims of progress. No one today mourns the unemployed stagecoach-tilters or fragmented stable boy union c 1910-1920, but I'm sure they had a lot to complain about when the Model T started rolling out and no one was listening then. Eventually, that generation will pass as will the successive generation and again, no one will mourn the non-existent coal miners or steelworkers replaced by robots and cleaner, better energy sources. But right now, those people have to live through it and bring their children up into some new paradigm that their parents probably don't understand and can't predict.

The Democratic party hasn't had much of an answer for the generations caught in the middle. It doesn't help that the Republicans are running batshit though states like Wisconsin and destroying unions left and right. It used to be that the democrats were the party that had those worker's backs. You can argue that it was just republican legislature and power that let these things happen, but the reality is that the democrats, c. 1988, stopped being the populist working-class party that supported unions, and became their own brand of high-minded, consultancy-driven, big data elitists, applying republican-level thinking and solution-eering to their own demographic base. These voters stuck around patiently and, primarily out of loyalty, respect and generational memory, watched these new grand plans keep them happy enough. But by 2000 or so, when these communities started dissolving, jobs started leaving, Unions started their dissolution (hey--what happened to that party that at least would protect my job while their great plans would work to make a better life for my kids?), drugs and crime took over, I think they started to realize that these grand plans were never going to make their lives better. Modern, advanced jobs weren't showing up in their towns (but hey, they sure did improve big city life, didn't they!), and so naturally they start looking elsewhere.

Simply, the democratic party stopped caring for their core base. Offering them great solutions from afar and asking them to be patient while the solutions come along is not caring. It's the same empty promise of "trickle-down" stupid-nomics (and well, here we go again with that one! )

They already get their welfare through the military industry; respectable jobs spread into the heartland courtesy of taxpayer dollars from the coasts, far better & more than the blacks get anyway.

The whole topic of what actually productive industry these people deserve can be simply explained with some basic econ history. The manufacturing in the heartland was only there because those country bumpkins were the chinese of their day: lower wages than the city folk and readily accessible once the railroads were developed. Now that intl shipping has matured, those even cheaper places have rightly taken over. The rust belt factories were just an intermediate stage between manufacturing in the city and globalization.

Worth noting that the chinese/japanese and other asian econ miracles are much smarter than their american counterparts in offsetting development in planned stages from lower level textiles/etc stepping up to machine work then to electronics and so on, investing at the right time to launch each, balancing the export to domestic consumption every step. Of course our bumpkins didn't need no gubmint socialism/comminism, so they get to reap those righteous consequences.

Again, mainly in media that people in the middle and right do not watch. The discussions people were having was simply he was racist. Check this thread for the type of thing I am talking about. Question was would he make it, and look at the responses. I'm not going to pretend that I too was not in on thinking Trump was a joke. Point is, people talking were insulting, and not debating.

This is so hilarious. Trump devotes his platform to shitting on mexicans, muslims, the (inner) city, etc, and these dumbshits still refuse to believe he's pandering to racism.

 

[agent00f]

You have a quite pessimistic view of these people. Some of what you say I think is true. Some of it I find hard to agree with.

I do spend some time in such an area. When asked mostly they were honest about supporting Trump to me even though I am one of those "minorities". I appreciated the candor. I would even go so far as to suggest that candor is indicative that they don't really see him as racist or they would have lied to me about it.

The number one reason I hear they want Trump is that many of them had good healthcare before Obamacare. Their employers were paying for it. Now their premiums are shooting through the roof.

Other reasons I've heard are from straight admiration of a non establishment candidate.

The big one I heard against Hillary was the late term abortion issue. They still care about stuff like that. I personally don't see why they would care about that stuff when they can't even get their house in order.

I don't think many of them know their lives are subsidized by the rich or by the coasts. They couldn't imagine it.

They are a very proud people and hate the idea of handouts but like all people they obviously won't turn it away.

They really do think that Trump can bring their old glorious lifestyle back.

I've surprisingly never gotten any racist vibe from any of them. If you've come down and seen how much they interbreed between races you'd believe it too. The poverty keeps them together no matter what race.

Having said that they definitely want no more "minorities" coming in. Heck even 19% of Hispanics voted for Trump. It's more of an insider/outsider problem. Once you're in why would care for more of your people to come in?

They actually do think that they might be a victim of a terror attack completely forgetting that their utter and total irrelevance to anything makes them a very poor target. It's the same as city liberals thinking that a Trump presidency would mean all gays and minorities would rounded up and dropped in the ocean. They think their world will stop so they cry as if that will help.

Both sides are so simplistic in their thinking that they are all fair game for the next messiah.


But they voted for Trump mostly for economic reasons. The minorities were thrown in for symbolic reasons but it was more symbolic than actual racism.

This would have merit if not for the fact that the core differentiator of Trump's campaign was hating on minorities, and this is what propelled him to the head of the GOP pack. The economist had studies like this during the primaries: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/09/daily-chart-8
and it was rather shocking how racially resentful his fans were even compared to Cruz or Rubio (whose supporters were actually quite neutral).

Now to be fair, it's arguable that they're just incredibly gullible, thus willing to blame scapegoats (mexicans) for economic troubles or fear bogeymen (muslims)--people who they know little about but are taught to distrust by conservative media. But OTOH ignorance is not a great defense for grown ass adults who think they've got it all figured out.

Also btw, minorities incl LGBT do have something to legit fear since a trump victory validates what these people think about the other. Wouldn't be surprise to see a rise in racially or similarly motivated attacks just like in Britain.

 

[buckshot24]

It's striking how Trump looks like some Soviet leader from the 1970/80s...

That's President-Elect Trump

 

[lopri]

Well, it's worked for 240 years without too much problem, we've had centuries to change it, didn't you fucking take a civics class? This is getting old.

I do not think you want to get into why Electoral College was set up to begin with. "240 years without too much problem" is a vast understatement.

 

[zinfamous]

I do not think you want to get into why Electoral College was set up to begin with. "240 years without too much problem" is a vast understatement.

I think this is just more evidence of why we need the electoral college and that it is working perfectly. Popular vote only would mean that large cities which nearly always have the same needs would dominate the federal offices in this country.

Some may like that, but it's terrible for democracy. The more a general political thought controls those offices, the more insular it becomes. Their continued success acts as some false validation that they are always right, while millions of people outside of that climate continue to suffer.

I think there is a valid complaint that we end up with only a few states that "matter" form election to election, that only a pure democracy would ever allow for a simple majority rule.

But this country was never set up to be a pure democracy because a pure democracy is inherently dangerous. The founders understood the threat of "tyranny of the majority" and the EC is just one of the tools in place to protect against it.

Now we have to live under threat of Sarah Palin as head of the NIH and some Big Oil PoS heading the (dismantling of) the EPA. It's one of the worst things that has happened to this country since 1861, but the people have that power to make their choice.

Good bye, Eastern Europe.

 

[agent00f]

I think this is just more evidence of why we need the electoral college and that it is working perfectly. Popular vote only would mean that large cities which nearly always have the same needs would dominate the federal offices in this country.

Some may like that, but it's terrible for democracy. The more a general political thought controls those offices, the more insular it becomes. Their continued success acts as some false validation that they are always right, while millions of people outside of that climate continue to suffer.

I think there is a valid complaint that we end up with only a few states that "matter" form election to election, that only a pure democracy would ever allow for a simple majority rule.

But this country was never set up to be a pure democracy because a pure democracy is inherently dangerous. The founders understood the threat of "tyranny of the majority" and the EC is just one of the tools in place to protect against it.

Now we have to live under threat of Sarah Palin as head of the NIH and some Big Oil PoS heading the (dismantling of) the EPA. It's one of the worst things that has happened to this country since 1861, but the people have that power to make their choice.

Good bye, Eastern Europe.

If you can read this post as a neutral observor you'd understand why trump types consider you guys cucks.

 

[realibrad]

You claimed the left did not engage on the merits and I showed you explicitly that it did. You have changed your argument to 'random people I talked to behaved a certain way which I assume is indicative of the nationwide discourse'.

Basically what you're saying here is that no evidence that anyone can supply can change your mind. I'm sorry but I wish you had just said that to begin with because this has been pointless. If you're immune to contrary evidence then why bother discussing it?

Not everything can be proven at the time. I gave my opinion which I think is logical even if it turns out to be wrong.

Look at it like this. I gave my opinion on this topic, and you say its nonsense, I was duped, and I'm dodging. Your reaction to me, a person who thinks Hillary is better than Trump is exaggerated when you look at what I said. If you think I have made a mistake, point it out and I usually try to understand it. Instead of doing that, you wrap any explanation in anger. This turns people off to what you have to say. I will still hear you out, but I am not someone that so easily walks away.

Now, what is the point of discussing something that cannot yet be proven, well, because its how I learn. If you don't want to be part of that, then fine. You very likely have better things to do. For me, I look at what happened, look at what I see, and then try to draw conclusions. I then continue to look around and see if my ideas explain other things, or fail.

For example, I see the protests that look to be turning into riots. When the Right lost to Obama, we also had the "not my president" bs. What we did not have was protests and or riots like we are having now. While Obama is vastly different from Trump, the Right did not think so. The right as you likely remember thought Obama was going to be the ruin of the nation. Its why the media gave so much shit to the pill addict when he said he hoped Obama failed. Back then that was too much, but now, look at the Left.

Not all of the left is protesting. Its probably less than 1%. That however does not change that that 1% is representing the entire group. Those in the middle and Right are going to look at the protests as they grow and further dismiss the Left as a bunch of dumb hot heads.

 

[realibrad]

They already get their welfare through the military industry; respectable jobs spread into the heartland courtesy of taxpayer dollars from the coasts, far better & more than the blacks get anyway.

The whole topic of what actually productive industry these people deserve can be simply explained with some basic econ history. The manufacturing in the heartland was only there because those country bumpkins were the chinese of their day: lower wages than the city folk and readily accessible once the railroads were developed. Now that intl shipping has matured, those even cheaper places have rightly taken over. The rust belt factories were just an intermediate stage between manufacturing in the city and globalization.

Worth noting that the chinese/japanese and other asian econ miracles are much smarter than their american counterparts in offsetting development in planned stages from lower level textiles/etc stepping up to machine work then to electronics and so on, investing at the right time to launch each, balancing the export to domestic consumption every step. Of course our bumpkins didn't need no gubmint socialism/comminism, so they get to reap those righteous consequences.



This is so hilarious. Trump devotes his platform to shitting on mexicans, muslims, the (inner) city, etc, and these dumbshits still refuse to believe he's pandering to racism.

Perfect example Agent. Shitting on the inner city.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...concerned-surge-inner-city-violence/73961214/

The nation's top federal law enforcement official said Wednesday that violent crime is escalating in inner cities across the country and that local and federal agencies need to band together to figure out the causes and how to stop it.

FBI Executive Director James B. Comey also said that his agency stands ready to help local departments with more intelligence and analysis tools.

He said that while many outside the inner city think they can avoid the issue by just "driving around" the affected areas, the escalating violence "affects younger men of color killing each other ... and there are no lives that do not matter."

But fuck that guy right. What does he know? Oh, he is Comey, the Executive Director of the FBI... weird.

You just showed perfectly what I was saying was happening.

What did politifact say?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-wrong-inner-city-crime-reaching-recor/

We should note that even if crime isn’t hitting record levels, there is growing evidence that there has been a one-year uptick, at least in certain cities. Trump’s supporters have seized on this as evidence that Trump isn’t totally off base in claiming that crime is on the rise.

Some background: In early June, we gave Trump a Pants on Fire for his statement that "crime is rising," noting that he had made a sweeping statement while ignoring the consistent and long-term decline cited above. Critics took issue with our rating, citing preliminary figures for 2015 that showed crime rising.

Scholarly research published since our original fact-check suggests that the uptick is indeed notable.

Later in June, the National Institute of Justice -- an office within the U.S. Justice Department -- released a paper that analyzed the uptick. It was written by Richard Rosenfeld, who studies crime at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

Rosenfeld found that the preliminary increase in homicides "was real and nearly unprecedented." But he also added that it was not universal in the nation’s big cities. Only certain cities seemed to see significant increases.

Specifically, he found that 10 out of the 56 large cities he studied "produced two-thirds of the big-city homicide increase in 2015." Most cities either showed small increases or declines. Here is a chart he assembled showing how big or small a spike each of the cities experienced:

So, instead of saying that we are at historical lows, and that for his statement to make sense, we would need to have years of the growth we are seeing to be at record levels, you say he is "shitting on inner cities".

 

[First]

You STILL read RCP, 538 and all those other sites which lied to us for...months?
Respect. I can't.

Lied? What are you referring to? Trende's missing white voters theory appears to have been spot on. And 538 was most accurate of the aggregators this election from what I can tell, but still off because the polls fundamentally were about 2-3 pts off. Which isn't uncommon (see 2012 election).

 

[realibrad]

Maybe this will help a little.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ul2OuvPOQE

The right has been calling its opponent evil for a while. The Left has been picking this up too, and its come to bite them in the ass. That is because the Right embraces its crazy. We all assume the "passion" aka dumb stubbornness comes from the Right. The Left has missed that they are doing much of the same. Maher is right that the Left has cried wolf too many times, and was even worse with Trump. You couple that with Hillary's past and Trump suddenly has a good shot. The Left needs to go back to taking the high road and actually being what they say they are.

 

[agent00f]

Perfect example Agent. Shitting on the inner city.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...concerned-surge-inner-city-violence/73961214/



But fuck that guy right. What does he know? Oh, he is Comey, the Executive Director of the FBI... weird.

You just showed perfectly what I was saying was happening.

What did politifact say?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-wrong-inner-city-crime-reaching-recor/



So, instead of saying that we are at historical lows, and that for his statement to make sense, we would need to have years of the growth we are seeing to be at record levels, you say he is "shitting on inner cities".

Thanks for verifying you share the same views on uppity blacks as the guy angling to get in good with the boss.

 

[realibrad]

Thanks for verifying you share the same views on uppity blacks as the guy angling to get in good with the boss.

Yeah I guess so. Me and the Director of the FBI are like super racist. I'm assuming that is what you are referring to. Oh, and anyone who says crime in the inner cities is a problem are also racist. Better to ignore the things that happen in inner cities.

Spy, I hope you see this. Agent is pretty far out there, but he is a good rep for what drove people in the middle and Right away. If we, and I do mean we, want to get the party back on track, it will take us pointing out shit like this to build credibility. We have to accept there is a double standard. People like Agent are just the reverse of the Right. When we let people like this and other types be the voice of the Left, we all lose.

 

[agent00f]

Yeah I guess so. Me and the Director of the FBI are like super racist. I'm assuming that is what you are referring to. Oh, and anyone who says crime in the inner cities is a problem are also racist. Better to ignore the things that happen in inner cities.

Spy, I hope you see this. Agent is pretty far out there, but he is a good rep for what drove people in the middle and Right away. If we, and I do mean we, want to get the party back on track, it will take us pointing out shit like this to build credibility. We have to accept there is a double standard. People like Agent are just the reverse of the Right. When we let people like this and other types be the voice of the Left, we all lose.

Take it as a sign of astonishing naivety+stupidity that it's so hard to figure out Comey knows which side his bread is buttered on.

He's basically the opposite of you, just like Trump is the opposite of the dumbshits he preaches to.

 

[realibrad]

Take it as a sign of astonishing naivety+stupidity that it's so hard to figure out Comey knows which side his bread is buttered on.

He's basically the opposite of you, just like Trump is the opposite of the dumbshits he preaches to.

Oh I see, you believe it's a big conspiracy. It would have to be a big conspiracy because Comey was not the person who gathered the data, it was all the others working for the FBI. So, way ahead of the election they gathered data to show a big rise in inner city violence just so Trump could make a statement. Never mind that the statement is one that I have heard from many people before him, because this time it was a conspiracy.

 

[agent00f]

Oh I see, you believe it's a big conspiracy. It would have to be a big conspiracy because Comey was not the person who gathered the data, it was all the others working for the FBI. So, way ahead of the election they gathered data to show a big rise in inner city violence just so Trump could make a statement. Never mind that the statement is one that I have heard from many people before him, because this time it was a conspiracy.

Rather unsurprising naive idiots would think a clever person acting in their self-interest yet again is a conspiracy.

 

[realibrad]

Rather unsurprising naive idiots would think a clever person acting in their self-interest yet again is a conspiracy.

You realize that Comey is talking about numbers gathered by the FBI right? The numbers are out there for anyone to see. Its why the two things I linked to before agreed that crime in the inner city areas is going up. But, you would rather dismiss that and everything else as...