Ok Tiassa, break down the appeasement in here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/...democrats-can-stop-losing-elections.html?_r=0
On American Appeasement
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
If Hillary is to blame for Trump, Bernie is to blame for Hillary - that makes Bernie the loser who gave us Trump.
The most secure server of any in the news, by all accounts. The only one involved the Russians couldn't hack into, apparently. She is to blame for having a better and more secure server than any other candidate in the race?
Trump was doing State business on his personal Android phone, last I checked.
And it was Bernie's fault she ran - he fucked up. And so did everyone who voted for him.
According to you.
That is illogical: had Bernie not even existed Hillary would still have lost. Had it been Rubio or Cruz, Hillary would have lost. Even the republicans most pathetic candidate EVER beat Hillary.
It does not matter how secure it was, it was private and violated policy. Just the possibility of corruption is all that is need to destroy the electability of a candidate and yet this was just another scandal to add to her baggage. Do you think for a moment she would have beat John McCain in 2008 had we gone with her and not Obama?
Yeah, so? Yes re-affirm the fact she could not win against that piece of shit.
How is it bernie's fault she ran?
And Hillary beat Bernie - so he obviously fucked up pretty badly, to get beat by a candidate who couldn't even beat Trump.
And so did everyone who voted for him.
I'm just learning from you, how to determine whom to blame when the bad guy wins - the losers, of course. The ones who failed to beat the bad guy.
The people not so much at fault were then the media, and the Trump voters - in fact, rather than blame them we need to appeal to them the way Trump did, so we can win elections again. That's the goal, right?
Is that supposed to be some kind of joke?
Same way it's Hillary's fault Trump won. It's your argument, I'm just borrowing it.
By the evidence he was one of the strongest Republican candidates ever to run - 63 million people voted for him in the general, after he mopped the floor with everyone the Republican Party could field in the primary.
#supremacism | #WhatTheyVotedFor
Click because it doesn't smell like a duck. Or a turkey. Or even a chicken, for that matter.
Fine, your argument was a straw man fallacy: You have precisely no reason under the sun to think the problem is "demanding single payer healthcare, free college, progressive taxation, no taking of corporate money for [politcians]". You've been told over and over again that the problem is your denunciation of equal protection and basic human rights as identity politics, and your prescription that we should abandon a majority in favor of white supremacism and male supremacism. We have a couple options, here: You are either unable or unwilling to acknowledge reality.
Get honest.
Oh, can the distraction↗.
Women, primarily. People of color. You know, the same answers you keep ignoring.
I said, "White, straight, cisgendered males who feel somehow cut off by the prospect of a more perfect justice in American society are the problem", and you said the poor ones rightfully feel cut off. You now find yourself obliged to explain how poverty warrants supremacism.
Not the identity conservatives.
I've asked Appeasers to explain it, and they're just not capable of doing so.
As long as you make white, straight, cis males your identity cause while denouncing the human rights of women as mere identity politics, you are a supremacist.
Yes, but they're about equally useful.
You need to quit changing the subject. If you were honest, and had an argument you were capable of explaining, you wouldn't need to do that. Again, you find yourself obliged to explain how poverty warrants supremacism.
Is that a non sequitur, or are you capable of explaining how Donald Trump's election means Democrats should abandon a majority in order to pick off a slender portion of a sliver by appealing to white and male supremacism?
The human rights of women. The human rights of people of color. You know, the human rights you would surrender by running away from "identity politics" so that conservatives could focus on identity politics.
Straw man.
So what's with the misogynistic ravings and arguments denouncing human rights as identity politics?
Look, your pro-supremacist history has been pointed out to you multiple times. You do realize that desperately trying to change the subject doesn't help?
So, what, variations on a theme, in hopes of attracting a few white males who need their identity politics? See, the thing is that when the argument is that Democrats should imitate conservatives, we end up with #RepublicanLinte Democrats who achieve very little economic progress while signing away human rights. It's why liberals have concerns about anti-abortion Democrats. Should we go out and dig up some explicitly pro-war and pro-torture Democrats? Do you think that would help? Or are those potentials irrelevant to your supremacist sentiments?
Oh ... #wellduh.
I completely overlooked penis envy.
You seem to be having some trouble perceiving basic reality. Once again, the problem isn't your unskilled, nuance-free, cookie-cutter Democratic economic pitch. The problem is your pitch against human rights. You know, the one you've been showing for a few years, at least. You know, like refusing the human rights of women for some manner of thought experiment, or, more recently, complaining about the "identity politics" of equal protection while aiding and abetting the identity politics of supremacism at the same time you're trying to pass as some manner of liberal without having ever figured out how to participate in liberal discourse.
Seriously, nobody knows why you keep trying, because it can't possibly still be a matter of who you think you're fooling. Then again, actually making sense never was the point. Stuffing up the discourse and littering it with bullshit? Yeah, you know, it's not like we're unfamiliar with that gig.
This entire thread↑ has been about how to win the supremacist voters Appeasers would advocate for:
... if the point is to get along with other people who refuse to work and play well with others, the Appeasers need to explain just how their advocacy is going to help anything but the advancement of prejudice, bigotry, and bullying.
In a land without any official religion, Congressional Republicans give over space to conservative Christians to pray against people. Yeah, that's kind of rude. But we don't want to worry about who that might offend, right? Because those people, in being offended, might make a conservative uncomfortable! (Oh! the horror!)
No, seriously, what do we do about this?
That is to say, the Appeasers aren't actually suggesting we give them their way, right?
Except, of course, that's the thing. The bigots and bullies are going to be uncomfortable as long as they're not getting their way.
So let us hear from the Appeasement faction: How do Democrats not hurt supremacists' feelings?
In a land without any official religion, Congressional Republicans give over space to conservative Christians to pray against people. Yeah, that's kind of rude. But we don't want to worry about who that might offend, right? Because those people, in being offended, might make a conservative uncomfortable! (Oh! the horror!)
No, seriously, what do we do about this?
That is to say, the Appeasers aren't actually suggesting we give them their way, right?
Except, of course, that's the thing. The bigots and bullies are going to be uncomfortable as long as they're not getting their way.
So let us hear from the Appeasement faction: How do Democrats not hurt supremacists' feelings?
And don't take me wrongly: Most of us knew from the outset the Appeasers would not be able to answer. I don't expect Bernie Sanders↑ could do much better, but at least he could pretend to understand liberal discourse while changing the subject.
Still, as I noted↑ earlier: There is, of course, a reason why Appeasers can't explain themselves.
Primary election is not the general. Being able to win a primary does not mean one can win a general, what ever logic drove the Hillary primary voters into thinking she was our best shot at winning was FACTUALLY WRONG, end of story.
I WISH! Reality is ALL one big sick joke, have you seen who is the president right now?
No your attempting to borrow and twist it, and in the process making no logical sense. Hillary was our LEAST ELECTABLE CANDIDATE, this is a fact proven by Trump winning. Anyone who would have had better chances did not run (Bidden, Elizaebeth) because they did not want to fuck with her, or was ultimately fucked with by her and the DNC (Bernie). It would only be Bernie's fault if somehow you could prove that if he did not run Hillary would have won the general, based on the polls though Hillary always barely managed to trend more then Trump, and less then Cruz and Rubio. Had Bernie not run, she still would have lost, had Trump not run we would have President Cruz or Rubio right now, but had Hillary not run we would most likely have Bernie or Bidden now, so once again, Hillary's fault, once again her ego prevented her from accepting she was not electable. And everyone that promoted her thinking she was actually our best choice, it is their fault as well.
Once again, say it with me: PRIMARY ELECTIONS ARE NOT THE SAME AS THE GENERAL! Polling of hypothetical general election match-up showed Hillary had a few point lead over Trump, and none of the other republicans candidates, Bernie though had a lead over all of them as well as over trump often by double digits.
But I never said such a thing, that your straw-man to begin with. You keep proclaiming any acknowledgement of the white working class suffering as being white supremacism (as well as male) instead of the labor class issues this party was founded on, and that is why you and your ilk has crushed the democratic party and have lost us everything. You keep proclaiming acknowledging their suffering would somehow take away from blacks and gays and women, how? how would not single payer healthcare free college progressive taxation, etc, not help blacks and gays and women?
yes yes I understand you have a hate boner for me, that all your arguments in the end come down to "well oh yeah well your just a misogynist, appeaser, poppy butt hole..." So once again I ask you to break down what Bernie said, show me where he "denunciation of equal protection and basic human rights as identity politic and [his] prescription that we should abandon a majority in favor of white supremacism and male supremacism"
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/...democrats-can-stop-losing-elections.html?_r=0
You keep refusing to listen to me and then proclaim "Appeaser" can't explain themselves, Ok then show how that "Appeaser", who by the way is the most liked politician in America today, can't explain himself.
Hillary's e-mail server became a problem when she erased 30,000 e-mails. There was nothing unprecedented or illegal about a private server. Her trouble began when she erased half the data base, even though its entire contents had been requested by Congress. That was illegal; obstruction of justice.
Had there been nothing to see in the erased e-mails, except family chit chat, revealing this chit chat could have helped her. She was viewed as being cold and distance. If she actually had family chit chat to show, this would have given the voter an insider look at a normal warm person with her hair down. She could have become more human to the voters on the fence. But because she had a team of lawyers erasing things which spanned over 30,000 e-mails warm and fuzzy become colder and diabolical. This is why the term "Crooked Hillary", stuck.
Beyond that, the FBI, when they got her server and looked through the remaining e-mails, found that many governments had hacked her, including but not limited to Israel, China and Russia. Each hacker leaves finger prints. When Trump made the joke maybe the Russians could find her lost e-mails, he hit a sensitive spot. It was almost like they knew they had been hacked. This started the panic mode throughout the democratic party, with Russian collusion the smoke screen to head this off at the pass.
My theory is the Democrats leadership and donors, from Obama all the way downward, were on record in that server that the Russians hacked. If Hillary had won, this would all be made to go away by gaming the system through the injustice department. Hillary got off without an investigation using the FBI dark state.
But when Trump won, they needed to cast suspicion on the Russians, so if they try to publish the data, there was way to discredit the truth as KGB misinformation. They also knew that the best defense is a good offense. They concocted a plan to go after Trump for collusion with the Russians. I would not be surprised if the Russians or even the Chinese already gave Trump the e-mails. This could explain why Trump is staying calm in the face of an all out hit squad assault, based on undisclosed sources. He is waiting for the swamp army to gather.
Had there been nothing to see in the erased e-mails, except family chit chat, revealing this chit chat could have helped her. She was viewed as being cold and distance. If she actually had family chit chat to show, this would have given the voter an insider look at a normal warm person with her hair down. She could have become more human to the voters on the fence. But because she had a team of lawyers erasing things which spanned over 30,000 e-mails warm and fuzzy become colder and diabolical. This is why the term "Crooked Hillary", stuck.
Beyond that, the FBI, when they got her server and looked through the remaining e-mails, found that many governments had hacked her, including but not limited to Israel, China and Russia. Each hacker leaves finger prints. When Trump made the joke maybe the Russians could find her lost e-mails, he hit a sensitive spot. It was almost like they knew they had been hacked. This started the panic mode throughout the democratic party, with Russian collusion the smoke screen to head this off at the pass.
My theory is the Democrats leadership and donors, from Obama all the way downward, were on record in that server that the Russians hacked. If Hillary had won, this would all be made to go away by gaming the system through the injustice department. Hillary got off without an investigation using the FBI dark state.
But when Trump won, they needed to cast suspicion on the Russians, so if they try to publish the data, there was way to discredit the truth as KGB misinformation. They also knew that the best defense is a good offense. They concocted a plan to go after Trump for collusion with the Russians. I would not be surprised if the Russians or even the Chinese already gave Trump the e-mails. This could explain why Trump is staying calm in the face of an all out hit squad assault, based on undisclosed sources. He is waiting for the swamp army to gather.
Yes, yes there was. Like transmitting confidential and top secret goverment data on a private email, all of these comes together to show at the very least incompetence onf Hillary's part with the possibility of corruption and collusions but we will never know for sure, aka 30,000 deleted emials.
Hey look Tiassa and Iceaura, sure wellwisher spouts rightwing stupidity, but this particular passage happens to be what enough Americans actually thought too. Maybe next time we should not run a candidate that gets caught with a private email server and then deletes 30,000 emails and claims nothing to see here? Maybe, just maybe such a candidate is unelectable even against a pig boar, oh wait sorry, not "maybe", factually, literal reality such a candidate is not electable. http://www.sciforums.com/members/iceaura.27090/
Sure they did, got evidence?
Be logical, if russia did in fact have her missing emails, they would have dump all the good stuff on wikileaks like they did the DNC emails.
Well that simply does not make any sense, would not Trump make do on his promise to "lock her up"? Or is Trump also a pawn of the "dark state"?
Oh oh I like this, by all means let trump dump these emails (and win the game of 4D Chess also known as "Go"), I'll wait. Now just a question though, if trump never dumps the emails, because, just maybe he does not have them, and even gets impeached and replaced with loyalist pence... what would that mean?
Here is a clip of Trump playing Go against the world champion:
Bernie lost the primary to a candidate so weak they could not even beat Trump in the general - that's the worst fuckup, and everyone who voted for him is to blame along with (most of all) Bernie himself, according to you.
A guy who was obviously and thoroughly corrupt, which you seemed to think would doom a candidate. It obviously didn't.
She beat Bernie pretty solidly, and lost to Trump on fraud and vote rigging - looks like Bernie was the least electable Democrat. Too bad he and all his supporters fucked up so badly.
So? Is a large number of Americans buying into rightwing stupidity something you expect will change any time soon?
No it is not, because a primary is a completely different kind of election. Bernie inability to appeal to neo-liberals and sjws, the very people who fucked us all, was why he lost, dooming us to loose the general with an unelectable candidate.
Oh I once thought that, then I talked to trump supports, turns out trumps corrupt is totally different and somehow forgivable, see he is a businessman, corruption is just good business, and he is a billionaire so he can't be bought off, it is not like he wants more money (seriously I was told this to my face!) More fundamentally people felt trump was honest, yes he is honest at being a pig boar, but at least he is honest, unlike Hillary. At it is core people are fed up with conventional politicians, seeing them all as liars and corrupt, they are willing to vote for anything different, even if it is worse. So why did we run a conventional politician in this highly anti-establishment times?
If you mean electoral college as vote rigging, sure, I agree, but unfortunately that is legal and will be with us for some time, maybe she should have worked those blue states we lost better? As for beating Bernie again that was a the primary, not the general election, that was democrats of which enough of them were neo-liberals and sjw to fuck us all. Again and I have repeated this now, a primary is not a general election.
Yes, if the economy crashes. Last crash we won everything and got a black president. If though in 2020 the economy is still at least chugging along it will not be a easy fight for us.
He lost on the black vote, mostly. He was unable to appeal to black voters.
A lot of that was name recognition, of course.
So how well do you think a Democratic candidate that couldn't get the black vote would have done in the general?
No, I mean crosscheck policies and ID policies and voting site suppressions and count manipulations on electronic machines and so forth. These factors were far larger than Hillary's loss margins in Michigan and Wisconsin, probably enough to solidly flip Pennsylvania, North Carolina, even Florida, and quite possibly woulds have gained her Ohio as well.
A Note on the Fool's Errand
Amanda Marcotte↱ tries to explain the obvious, yet again:
Struggling to accommodate and normalize prejudice is a manner of lowering expectations. The Democratic Party would do well to attend Matthew Rozsa's↱ advice for Doctor Who fans trying to deal with a sudden outbreak of masculinist hysteria as Jodie Whittaker steps up to the role. The male supremacist complaints, Rosza explains, "don't deserve our respect and they don't deserve our sympathy. What they deserve is our scorn. It might be just what they need."
Think of it this way: If it's jobs people want, sure, the Democrats will do what they can. But if people won't follow that plan unless we also put women back in some proverbial, subservient place, Democrats should think thrice, at least, before dealing with such Devils. After all, what next, should Democrats pretend the "Ferguson Effect" is real? Maybe pitch segregation? That's the thing: Economic justice cannot in and of itself be stratified. Accommodating stratification in order to achieve economic justice is a preclusive contradiction.
____________________
Notes:
Marcotte, Amanda. "Democrats are still chasing rural white voters, and it's a strategy doomed to fail". Salon. 22 July 2017. Salon.com. 22 July 2017. http://bit.ly/2eF91zp
Rosza, Matthew. "Sexist 'Doctor Who' haters don't just deserve our scorn, they need it". Salon. 22 July 2017. Salon.com. 22 July 2017. http://bit.ly/2umBiQT
Amanda Marcotte↱ tries to explain the obvious, yet again:
Left-leaning political Twitter erupted in mockery on Thursday when the Democratic Party unveiled its cringeworthy new slogan: "A Better Deal: Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Wages", which was not only bad on its own but painfully reminiscent of the Papa John's slogan. Despite the rush from many diehard Bernie Sanders acolytes to write off the slogan as neoliberal business-as-usual Democratic nonsense, the reality is that the slogan reflects Democratic efforts to incorporate the criticisms of those who argue that Democrats should abandon the emphasis on "identity politics" and instead try to woo white working-class voters with populist economic policies.
"Democrats jettisoned social and foreign policy issues for this exercise, eschewing the identity politics and box-checking that has plagued Democratic campaigns in the past, most recently Hillary Clinton's. This will be purely an economic message," writes Dana Milbank for the Washington Post. "This is meant to be a populist manifesto that doesn't conform to the left/right debate but instead aims to align Democrats with ordinary, middle-class Americans fighting powerful special interests."
It's a tempting idea, of course: Just stop talking so much about racism and sexism so much and instead talk about jobs and wages (never mind that Hillary Clinton actually did focus more on jobs and wages than any other issue) and boom! Watch the white rural voters that handed states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan to Donald Trump come into the Democratic fold.
Who doesn't want to believe liberals have that much control — that Democrats alone could make the cultural struggles tearing apart this country go away by putting the focus on jobs and other economic issues, and watch white voters return to the flock, drawn by all those progressive policies?
The problem is, and continues to be, that there's no evidence for this. The roller-coaster politics around health care really drive home how much Republican base voters view politics through a culture-war lens. Progressive policy is, however appealing in the abstract, is a secondary concern to the desire of angry white conservatives to exert or reassert their cultural dominance.
41 percent of Republican voters actually want a single-payer system. The issue isn't with Democratic policy, but with Democrats, who are perceived as snooty, educated, racially diverse city-dwellers, and therefore hated. Even if Democratic politicians tried to abandon "identity politics" entirely, it wouldn't matter. Conservative voters can see, with their own two eyes, that the nation is changing culturally. They will continue to use the Republican Party as a cudgel to beat up the people that threaten them.
None of this is to say that Democrats shouldn't embrace progressive policies. If anything, they need to be bolder and offer a more robust health care safety net (such as an option to buy into Medicaid) and a guaranteed jobs program. But doing this in hopes of winning over rural white voters is a fool's errand. Those voters mostly aren't voting their economic self-interest, and won't start doing so anytime soon. Instead, they are clinging to a mythological past of Christian white dominance, and the Republicans, especially Donald Trump, are promising to restore it.
What Democrats need to do instead is harness those cultural changes that Republican voters resent, and turn them towards this progressive agenda. Which is a fancy way of saying that they need to give up chasing white voters and instead put their resources towards organizing voters of color, as well as urban whites (particularly women), who embrace these cultural shifts, and try to increase turnout with those groups.
"Democrats jettisoned social and foreign policy issues for this exercise, eschewing the identity politics and box-checking that has plagued Democratic campaigns in the past, most recently Hillary Clinton's. This will be purely an economic message," writes Dana Milbank for the Washington Post. "This is meant to be a populist manifesto that doesn't conform to the left/right debate but instead aims to align Democrats with ordinary, middle-class Americans fighting powerful special interests."
It's a tempting idea, of course: Just stop talking so much about racism and sexism so much and instead talk about jobs and wages (never mind that Hillary Clinton actually did focus more on jobs and wages than any other issue) and boom! Watch the white rural voters that handed states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan to Donald Trump come into the Democratic fold.
Who doesn't want to believe liberals have that much control — that Democrats alone could make the cultural struggles tearing apart this country go away by putting the focus on jobs and other economic issues, and watch white voters return to the flock, drawn by all those progressive policies?
The problem is, and continues to be, that there's no evidence for this. The roller-coaster politics around health care really drive home how much Republican base voters view politics through a culture-war lens. Progressive policy is, however appealing in the abstract, is a secondary concern to the desire of angry white conservatives to exert or reassert their cultural dominance.
‡
41 percent of Republican voters actually want a single-payer system. The issue isn't with Democratic policy, but with Democrats, who are perceived as snooty, educated, racially diverse city-dwellers, and therefore hated. Even if Democratic politicians tried to abandon "identity politics" entirely, it wouldn't matter. Conservative voters can see, with their own two eyes, that the nation is changing culturally. They will continue to use the Republican Party as a cudgel to beat up the people that threaten them.
‡
None of this is to say that Democrats shouldn't embrace progressive policies. If anything, they need to be bolder and offer a more robust health care safety net (such as an option to buy into Medicaid) and a guaranteed jobs program. But doing this in hopes of winning over rural white voters is a fool's errand. Those voters mostly aren't voting their economic self-interest, and won't start doing so anytime soon. Instead, they are clinging to a mythological past of Christian white dominance, and the Republicans, especially Donald Trump, are promising to restore it.
What Democrats need to do instead is harness those cultural changes that Republican voters resent, and turn them towards this progressive agenda. Which is a fancy way of saying that they need to give up chasing white voters and instead put their resources towards organizing voters of color, as well as urban whites (particularly women), who embrace these cultural shifts, and try to increase turnout with those groups.
Struggling to accommodate and normalize prejudice is a manner of lowering expectations. The Democratic Party would do well to attend Matthew Rozsa's↱ advice for Doctor Who fans trying to deal with a sudden outbreak of masculinist hysteria as Jodie Whittaker steps up to the role. The male supremacist complaints, Rosza explains, "don't deserve our respect and they don't deserve our sympathy. What they deserve is our scorn. It might be just what they need."
Think of it this way: If it's jobs people want, sure, the Democrats will do what they can. But if people won't follow that plan unless we also put women back in some proverbial, subservient place, Democrats should think thrice, at least, before dealing with such Devils. After all, what next, should Democrats pretend the "Ferguson Effect" is real? Maybe pitch segregation? That's the thing: Economic justice cannot in and of itself be stratified. Accommodating stratification in order to achieve economic justice is a preclusive contradiction.
____________________
Notes:
Marcotte, Amanda. "Democrats are still chasing rural white voters, and it's a strategy doomed to fail". Salon. 22 July 2017. Salon.com. 22 July 2017. http://bit.ly/2eF91zp
Rosza, Matthew. "Sexist 'Doctor Who' haters don't just deserve our scorn, they need it". Salon. 22 July 2017. Salon.com. 22 July 2017. http://bit.ly/2umBiQT
First of all how about just: "Make America Greater!" to one up Trump? As for Hillary Clinton focusing on jobs and wages, no one believed her because she is establishment shill with decades of dirt and Machiavellian on her record, when your caught saying one should have both a public and private position you can't even win against a pig boar at that point. We need not just economic reform but a candidate people will believe will actually implement it. As such there is no re-branding the democratic establishment, they are damaged by their record.
As for white middle class voters in what were formally blue states, hey they voted for Obama, twice, so it should be possible to get enough of them back:
This is a portrait of the most common Obama-to-Trump voter: a white American who wants government intervention in the economy but holds negative, even prejudiced, views toward racial, ethnic, and religious minorities. In 2012, these voters seemed to value economic liberalism over a white, Christian identity and backed Obama over Romney. By 2016, the reverse was true: Thanks to Trump’s campaign, and the events of the preceding years, they valued that identity over economic assistance. In which case, you can draw an easy conclusion about the Clinton campaign—even accounting for factors like misogyny and James Comey’s twin interventions, it failed to articulate an economic message strong enough to keep those populists in the fold and left them vulnerable to Trump’s identity appeal. You could then make a firm case for the future: To win them back, you need liberal economic populism. --- http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...p_and_why_obama_voters_defected_to_trump.html
Different sources offer varying estimates of Obama 2012-Trump 2016 voters. The ANES found that about 13% of all Trump voters cast a ballot for Obama in 2012. Meanwhile, the CCES found a slightly smaller figure of around 11%. Lastly, the UVA Center for Politics poll found that about 15% of Trump voters claimed to have backed Obama four years earlier. Using these percentages (not rounded) and Trump’s overall 2016 vote total, estimates of the raw number of such Obama-Trump voters range from about 6.7 million to 9.2 million. That’s a wide range, and considering the caveats regarding voter recall of past votes, it is important to be clear about the relative uncertainty of these figures. Nonetheless, these surveys offer additional evidence about a critical part of the 2016 equation: the millions of voters who switched from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016. Given the extremely close margins in some states, particularly the Rust Belt trio of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, these voters played a crucial role in handing over the White House to the GOP. --- www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_geoffrey_skelley/just_how_many_obama_2012_trump_2016_voters_were_there
The poll found that Obama-Trump voters, many of whom are working-class whites and were pivotal to Trump’s victory, are economically losing ground and are skeptical of Democratic solutions to their problems. Among the findings: 50 percent of Obama-Trump voters said their incomes are falling behind the cost of living, and another 31 percent said their incomes are merely keeping pace with the cost of living A sizable chunk of Obama-Trump voters — 30 percent — said their vote for Trump was more a vote against Clinton than a vote for Trump. Remember, these voters backed Obama four years earlier. 42 percent of Obama-Trump voters said congressional Democrats’ economic policies will favor the wealthy, vs. only 21 percent of them who said the same about Trump. (Forty percent say that about congressional Republicans.) A total of 77 percent of Obama-Trump voters said Trump’s policies will favor some mix of all other classes (middle class, poor, all equally), while a total of 58 percent said that about congressional Democrats. --- https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...rs-a-worrisome-answer/?utm_term=.1e6e6c0a0e16
As for your fear that stripping way enough voters from trump via having inspiring economic reform policy from candidates they think actually mean it will mean appealing to alt-rights and tradcons : Show me where Bernie demanded putting women back in the kitchen or sending blacks back to Africa? We don't need to back track on anything social justice, we merely need to emphasis economic reform for EVERYONE, heck I noticed you did not put gay marriage up there, that is because even the republicans are not touching that one, we won, end of story.
As for white middle class voters in what were formally blue states, hey they voted for Obama, twice, so it should be possible to get enough of them back:
This is a portrait of the most common Obama-to-Trump voter: a white American who wants government intervention in the economy but holds negative, even prejudiced, views toward racial, ethnic, and religious minorities. In 2012, these voters seemed to value economic liberalism over a white, Christian identity and backed Obama over Romney. By 2016, the reverse was true: Thanks to Trump’s campaign, and the events of the preceding years, they valued that identity over economic assistance. In which case, you can draw an easy conclusion about the Clinton campaign—even accounting for factors like misogyny and James Comey’s twin interventions, it failed to articulate an economic message strong enough to keep those populists in the fold and left them vulnerable to Trump’s identity appeal. You could then make a firm case for the future: To win them back, you need liberal economic populism. --- http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...p_and_why_obama_voters_defected_to_trump.html
Different sources offer varying estimates of Obama 2012-Trump 2016 voters. The ANES found that about 13% of all Trump voters cast a ballot for Obama in 2012. Meanwhile, the CCES found a slightly smaller figure of around 11%. Lastly, the UVA Center for Politics poll found that about 15% of Trump voters claimed to have backed Obama four years earlier. Using these percentages (not rounded) and Trump’s overall 2016 vote total, estimates of the raw number of such Obama-Trump voters range from about 6.7 million to 9.2 million. That’s a wide range, and considering the caveats regarding voter recall of past votes, it is important to be clear about the relative uncertainty of these figures. Nonetheless, these surveys offer additional evidence about a critical part of the 2016 equation: the millions of voters who switched from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016. Given the extremely close margins in some states, particularly the Rust Belt trio of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, these voters played a crucial role in handing over the White House to the GOP. --- www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_geoffrey_skelley/just_how_many_obama_2012_trump_2016_voters_were_there
The poll found that Obama-Trump voters, many of whom are working-class whites and were pivotal to Trump’s victory, are economically losing ground and are skeptical of Democratic solutions to their problems. Among the findings: 50 percent of Obama-Trump voters said their incomes are falling behind the cost of living, and another 31 percent said their incomes are merely keeping pace with the cost of living A sizable chunk of Obama-Trump voters — 30 percent — said their vote for Trump was more a vote against Clinton than a vote for Trump. Remember, these voters backed Obama four years earlier. 42 percent of Obama-Trump voters said congressional Democrats’ economic policies will favor the wealthy, vs. only 21 percent of them who said the same about Trump. (Forty percent say that about congressional Republicans.) A total of 77 percent of Obama-Trump voters said Trump’s policies will favor some mix of all other classes (middle class, poor, all equally), while a total of 58 percent said that about congressional Democrats. --- https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...rs-a-worrisome-answer/?utm_term=.1e6e6c0a0e16
As for your fear that stripping way enough voters from trump via having inspiring economic reform policy from candidates they think actually mean it will mean appealing to alt-rights and tradcons : Show me where Bernie demanded putting women back in the kitchen or sending blacks back to Africa? We don't need to back track on anything social justice, we merely need to emphasis economic reform for EVERYONE, heck I noticed you did not put gay marriage up there, that is because even the republicans are not touching that one, we won, end of story.
That was mostly lies and slanders, though - you can't stop Trump voters from believing lies and slanders.
Do you believe that number?
That's about the same percentage that will falsely claim to have voted when they haven't.
And it's also way too high - statistically improbable - for switch voting. Obama lost the white vote, remember, by more than 20 points. He lost the Trump demographics by closer to 30 points.
Trump got about 2 million more votes than Romney.
Clinton got about 60,000 fewer votes than Obama.
So for those polls to be accurate, Clinton had to have picked up more than 7 million voters who did not vote for Obama in 2012, almost all of them white and a majority of them male, from the Romney voters and the non-voting pool, while losing the white male vote by double digits and the Republican vote by 85 points;
and Trump had to have underperformed Romney by more than 5 million votes in the core Republican base - almost every single one of the lost votes white, a majority of them male.
or to summarize: Clinton beat Trump by more votes than Trump beat Romney, drawing almost even with Obama while underperforming among black people compared with Obama - there just isn't a whole lot of room for switch voting by white people in there.
The lesson: Clinton didn't lose this thing, Trump won it. And what that says about the country is central to the discussion.
Last edited:
Yes precisely! Don't run a candidate with decades of baggage on top of them regardless if real of not.
If it was just a few hundred thousands in the right states, which is was, it was enough to end Hillary and give us Trump.
Yeah so? He got more votes in the right states. Look we all hate the electoral college, but there is nothing we can do about that now or for some time and we must win in that system. Popular vote is nothing but bragging rights until we do away with the electoral college.
This is contrived, lets go back to basics: who is president right now? Sure Hillary pick up millions of voters who did not want trump, unfortunately they were in the wrong states, Trump gain voters, general whites and males in the most electorally important states, many of these had previously voted for Obama, and not republican base voters some of whom did in fact not vote for trump out of disgust.
Oh well then you take your calculations to those DNC pollsters,
So just hold the glass upside-down and call it half what ever?
What this says about the country is that enough of them, in the right states would rather vote for a huckster pig boar over yet another corporatist establishment shill, at least next time lets not run an corporatist establishment shill and focus on regaining the blue wall.
The question is how to avoid unreal baggage - since no real doings or behaviors matter.
Al Gore had a ton of it, John Kerry had a ton of it, they both got beat by it; the only way Obama beat it was by turning out a couple of million extra black votes (he had name recognition in the black towns) and having the good luck to have the economy collapse late in W's watch and after Katrina.
So probably there was nowhere near 9 million switched votes from Obama to Trump. Even a third of that number is unlikely.
It's called arithmetic. It's pretty basic.
It says they don't know who they voted for, or against. Just as in 2004, they seem to have ascribed the virtues and positions on issues they want to the candidate they have decided to vote for.
So running a "better" candidate, in itself, won't help. And addressing the issues the Trump voter says they care about, to draw their vote, is a waste of time. You can't get a Trump voter's vote that way.
Beside the extra black vote Obama had very little baggage, he did not have a long political career inside the party to stain his cloths.
Says you, more so even if it as just a few hundred thousands, those in the right states made the difference, so stop looking at the useless popular vote and look at the state votes. In the end it call came down to just 80,000 votes in 3 states: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...eople-in-three-states/?utm_term=.59e5f8d44a5f
And yet the pollsters arithmetic are very different from yours.
Are all trump voters a hive mind now, are they the borg? They do not all think alike, all we need is small single digit percentage of them to switch votes. Just like we lost because a small percentage of former Obama voters switched votes.
Thank you.
For the last time, pay attention now: Real baggage is not the issue. Reality is irrelevant.
Obama had lots of delusion baggage, even more than Gore and Kerry - from his Muslim faith and Communist allies and Black Radical church allegiance, from his illegitimate Kenyan birth and his jihadist father and his arrogance and elitist attitude, from his phony affirmative action credentials and expedient "black" identity and inability to speak without a teleprompter and fake authorship of ghost-written books and transexual ugly "wife", from his trillion dollar budget deficits and his loss of the Iraq War and his bailout of the big banks,
to his terrorist sympathies and liberal ineptitude.
Trump got about the same percentage of the male vote that Romney got.
Which is how we see that voter suppression and rigging plus the third party candidates, not switching Obama voters, were the critical factors at the end.
No, it isn't. They didn't do any relevant arithmetic. They didn't even attempt to correct their polls for the known self-report bias in that question, let alone handle the overall stats.
Pretty much, yeah.
You need millions of them to switch, if that's how you want to play it - that hasn't happened in your lifetime, and compromising with the bad guys to try to make it happen has never worked yet.
That's not what happened.
Last edited: