The bizarre moralizing about the left and elites needing to listen better to the common (white) man and support his need to go Trump is extra silly given that:
1. We're really talking about a miniscule number of swing voters in rust-belt states, many of which Trump won by such small margins that it amounts to a rounding error easily corrected by running a better candidate than Clinton.
2. Trump won by a tiny margin in those rust-belt states while losing the popular vote by 3 million, and with the most bizarre anti-factual social media support (read: lies) ever drummed up in a presidential election.
Rust-belt states that have been reliably Democrat for a generation. Even to win by his narrow margin, Trump needed to swing several hundred thousand votes for each of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Quote:
Yeah, Trump won. But really, Texas is getting closer and closer to flipping. Once that happens, the Republicans may never win another presidential election unless they realize the rural white vote is ultimately a losing bet in presidential elections.
Perhaps, or maybe it was closer than usual because Trump didn't have the full support of the Republican Party and he didn't have the same money and resources that Clinton so he spent in in the area that would be decisive.
You love narrative but hate data. You think he "sums it up nicely" because it fits the narrative you like, which is ironic considering the piece you just posted.
In fact, the single largest factor in predicting vote share was not income (not buy a lot actually), not race (though there's plenty of evidence of it's role, but it was education
The lower educated, the more likely to vote Trump, especially in swing states. The purge piece of data that destroys the "these poor folk are just frustrated no one was helping them" narrative was the undecided swings based on news events. The Comey letter moved polls with sharply in Trump's favour, and we all know how that played out.
On the end there's literally no data to support your narrative, but it sounds good, so you claim others are ignoring it.
As the Upshot’s Nate Cohn warned early in this race, the Obama coalition was always more dependent on support from white working-class voters than liberals popularly understood. This was owing in part to the demographic’s underrepresentation in exit polls — white voters are disproportionately older, and older people are less likely to participate in such surveys. So while exit polls suggested 25 percent of Obama’s supporters were white working-class, Cohn’s estimate based on census and survey data put the figure at 34 percent.
For example, two thirds of the white working class characterizes “an economy that works for everyone, not just the richest 1 percent” as exactly what America needs today (9-10 on a 10 point scale). And 82 percent of these voters agree that “the middle class is being squeezed and we are increasingly becoming a nation divided between the rich and everyone else.” In addition, by a 2:1 margin (67-33) white working class voters agree more that “Government is too concerned with what big corporations and the wealthy want, instead of helping the middle class” than that “Government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals”.
The Democrats were destroyed in the last election. Destroyed. I think the Republicans feel pretty good about their chances moving forward.
So out of touch. I hope the conservatives continue to believe this. AltaGuy was 100% accurate in his assessment of the state of American politics. Trump won because of 107,330 votes in three rust belt states. The southwest is changing dynamics quickly and becoming more liberal. New Mexico went first, then Nevada, and now Texas and Arizona are on the verge of going purple to blue. The firewall of the SW is all but disappearing, as is the aged population the Republicans use fear upon to drive them to the ballot box.
Trump will certainly exacerbate the shift. The only hope for Republicans long term is to use the states to call the ALEC led demand for a constitutional congress and drive through their agenda into the constitution itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
I just don't know why you started going off on the Kristols when I posted an article from Buckley's magazine.
Bill Kristol, btw, is probably the most stalwart "Never Trumper" out there.
It has to do with the intellectual dishonesty of the current conservative intellectuals, like the piece from Tuttle. The ultimate in providing leadership to these wannabes is Kristol. The conservative intellectual movement follows his lead, and while he has been very anti-Trump, we'll see if that holds. A large percentage of the conservative intellectual community was anti-Trump and they've been coming around pretty quickly, reverting to ideological dogma to guide their way.
It comes back to the economy. Trump offered hope to working class whites while Hilary ignored them. The people who didn't like either voted 2:1 for trump.
It wasn't bathroom laws or casual racism. It's the economy, stupid
Nope. Looking at income didn't have much predictive power on determining which way people voted.
Facts just don't support that theory
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
In fact, the single largest factor in predicting vote share was not income (not buy a lot actually), not race (though there's plenty of evidence of it's role, but it was education
Well yeah, because intelligent working-folk weren't brainwashed by Liberal ivory-tower elite professors!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following User Says Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
Even the most partisan analysis shows that the Republicans only gain a net of 6-7 seats from gerrymandering. Not significant.
uh.... Gerrymandering at the state level has huge implications, probably more so than at the federal level.
Safe ridings are anti-democratic because their representatives aren't terribly threatened by their policy decisions.
Take wisconsin for example...:
Quote:
By that measure, Wisconsin’s state legislature’s gerrymandering appears unusually egregious. In 2012, its efficiency gap — the difference between the parties’ wasted votes divided by the total number of votes — was 13 percent in favor of the Republicans. The average state legislature’s bias was a third of that.
The plaintiffs argued that a 7 percent bias should be considered unconstitutional. Professor Simon Jackman of the University of Sydney found that was the point above which “you can be confident that you’ve seen … something that’s going to persist over the life of the plan.” That is, with a bias above 7 percent, it’s exceedingly likely — more than a 95 percent chance, a common threshold used to determine statistical significance in academia — that the plan will never favor the other party in a subsequent election.
But breaching the 7 percent threshold is far from unique to Wisconsin. In the 2012 election, Stephanopoulos and McGhee determined efficiency gaps for 38 state legislature district maps. (It’s not possible to make the calculation if there’s no election, or if there are too many uncontested seats, among other reasons). Of those 38, 15 states’ efficiency gaps exceeded 7 percent. All but two of these were in favor of Republicans.
Well yeah, because intelligent working-folk weren't brainwashed by Liberal ivory-tower elite professors!
More like poor rural white people who couldn't afford to go to college and get educated were sick of being told by Harvard and Yale grads how privileged they are.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DiracSpike For This Useful Post:
Interestingly this is the same guy who gave Hillary a 98% chance of winning for the entire duration of the election cycle. Never once changed from his 98% prediction. Obviously he'd like that have that one back.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Interestingly this is the same guy who gave Hillary a 98% chance of winning for the entire duration of the election cycle. Never once changed from his 98% prediction. Obviously he'd like that have that one back.
Sure, his math could be bad. I have no idea. It was just the most frequently cited source that I could find.
The Democrats were destroyed in the last election. Destroyed. I think the Republicans feel pretty good about their chances moving forward.
That's complete hyperbole. They won the Presidential vote by 3 million votes despite having a seriously flawed candidate. They reduced the vote spread in the House election from nearly 6 points in 2014 to just over 1 point which is their 4th best result in the last 10 elections. And they won the Senate vote by over 11 points, compared to losing it by 5 points when this same group of seats was last contested.
The Following User Says Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
More like poor rural white people who couldn't afford to go to college and get educated were sick of being told by Harvard and Yale grads how privileged they are.
Damn if only there was some way to try and get all people into some form of secondary schooling, like Universities, and Colleges, and Trade Schools...
I wonder if the Republicans have a solution?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
This stuff turns moderates away from your party. This is a candidate for the DNC chair:
Yup still pretty clueless - there maybe some truth but she is certainly going about the wrong way. The oppression business has gone from, "I am superior! Let me oppress you to I am more oppressed than you, let me oppress you!" Same #### different generation.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie Telford The chief of staff to the prime minister of Canada
That doesn't at all jive with your comment that gerrymandering only affects a small number of seats...
Quote:
There are some simple lessons to take away from this.
Republican-controlled redistricting led to a swing in margin of at least* 26 seats, almost as large as the 31-seat majority of the new Congress. Those actions created a new power reality in the House – or more accurately, retained the old power reality.
In the states listed above, the net effect of both parties’ redistricting combined was R+11.5 seats. Putting all of this redistricting into nonpartisan commissions would lead to a swing of at least 23 seats. The resulting seat count would be 213 D, 222 R or even closer. It is possible that in the absence of partisan gerrymandering, control would have been within reach for the Democrats.
This is the comment on the asterisk...
Quote:
*Update, 7:57pm: By using this year’s vote totals, I am also counting in the baseline the overall shift in partisan voting index (PVI) that took place in this year’s redistricting. In other words, the baseline itself tilts Republican because gerrymandering is still in it – it’s just “scrambled” all over the country. This baseline corresponds to the calculations I did in October and November – that’s why the black points intersect the green line at >50%. The upshot is that the total effects of partisan redistricting are, overall, even larger than what I have highlighted today.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
