US Elections: Never Trust a Man with Orange Eyebrows

[ummester]

6 minutes ago, mormont said:

Anyone who would vote for Trump because they couldn't vote for Sanders, never really understood who Sanders is and what he stands for. I strongly suspect that such voters would have found some excuse to switch to Trump even if Sanders had been the nominee.

Yes and no - perhaps they only cared about the economic aspect and not the social. I think that is more what it shows, that the voters or more worried about economic equality than social equality now.

[karaddin]

@Altherion I think so much of reality is shaped by how people choose to frame it that treating it as such completely changes how people view it. It's not a victory over Clinton, but its a smashing victory over prior expectations of what a socialist can accomplish. I dunno, perhaps part of this comes down to me simply not thinking Bernie was actually a particularly strong candidate either - his politics is pretty good, but the old white (ignoring that he's Jewish when we're talking optics) guy shouting has just as many limitations on his appeal as Clinton did. But given the popularity of Trump many people clearly don't see things the same as me, so perhaps this makes me misread things.

I see Bernie doing as well as he did from as bad a start as he had, and I think a younger candidate with the same message and broader appeal can smash it out of the park.

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I'm wondering if Kaine as VP was a good choice? That tag as a "Right to Work Governor" was immediately bitched about in Union halls across the upper Midwest. They needed Virginia pretty bad, but i'm thinking it probably cost them elsewhere with that pick.

No-one votes based off the VP.

[mormont]

9 minutes ago, ummester said:

Yes and no - perhaps they only cared about the economic aspect and not the social.

Look, Sanders told his supporters that if they wanted to advance his economic platform they should vote Clinton. Trump told them that if they wanted economic change, they should vote Trump. Any alleged Sanders supporter who voted for Trump already picked Trump over Sanders once on economic issues. It's absolutely fair to assume they would have done so anyway.

[ummester]

Just now, mormont said:

Look, Sanders told his supporters that if they wanted to advance his economic platform they should vote Clinton. Trump told them that if they wanted economic change, they should vote Trump. Any alleged Sanders supporter who voted for Trump already picked Trump over Sanders once on economic issues. It's absolutely fair to assume they would have done so anyway.

Your assuming that they didn't think he was lying when he said that they should vote Clinton to advance his platform.

I can understand ranking them in this preferred order

1 Bernie

2 Trump

distant 3 Hillary

If you ignore the party elements.

[Sivin]

One might think this is a thread dedicated to a Rose episode of LOST, what with this endless pining for Bernard.

[mormont]

36 minutes ago, ummester said:

Your assuming that they didn't think he was lying when he said that they should vote Clinton to advance his platform.

So these people think Sanders was a lying sellout but they'd totally have voted for him over Trump?

No. These are people who preferred Sanders to Clinton but would ultimately almost certainly have voted for Trump. They'd have found a reason. If Trump proved anything, it's that he's simply better than Sanders at appealing to this exact kind of voter, people motivated mainly by anger.

There are many committed Sanders supporters who voted Clinton or Stein or stayed home, and I want to be clear I'm not talking about any of those people. I'm talking about specifically people who voted Trump in the end. There may be rare exceptions, but I'm betting that 99% of those people would have gone to Trump anyway, whatever they now say.

[ummester]

10 minutes ago, mormont said:

So these people think Sanders was a lying sellout but they'd totally have voted for him over Trump?

No. These are people who preferred Sanders to Clinton but would ultimately almost certainly have voted for Trump. They'd have found a reason. If Trump proved anything, it's that he's simply better than Sanders at appealing to this exact kind of voter, people motivated mainly by anger.

There are many committed Sanders supporters who voted Clinton or Stein or stayed home, and I want to be clear I'm not talking about any of those people. I'm talking about specifically people who voted Trump in the end. There may be rare exceptions, but I'm betting that 99% of those people would have gone to Trump anyway, whatever they now say.

The truth is neither you, nor I can truly quantify other people's reasons for voting how they do. They are as varied and unique as the people they belong to. Just because a given voting logic is inexplicable to either of our minds does not mean that it does not exist, or even exist in greater numbers than either of us imagine.

I think, when you look at the candidates simply:

Clinton was establishment, who had a husband that had already been president. The Clinton name may have smelt bad to many, many people.

Bernie was arguing this anti establishment economic idea - socialism, sharing, perhaps the answer to their prayers. He was also arguing sharing in a socially nice way. And, he never really felt like part of the click. He was a democrat, but he felt like an outsider, because of what he stood for.

Trump was arguing going against the establishment for Americans only. He was saying he'd make things better, for Americans only. Very nationalistic but at least he didn't reek of the establishment like Hillary.

I agree a majority probably had their minds set. The nationalists were always nationalists.

But there may have been a significant swing vote that thought 'we want a change and I think going with that nice guy seems better but, now that that nice guys gone, we still want a change so are prepared to suck up that angry nationalistic guy.'

I read an article (I read so many during this election period that I don't have it to link) that polled the number 1 motivator for how Americans wanted to vote this election as change. Change, above all else, even bad change was preferable to no change. It doesn't matter how she sold, or what she really meant - Hillary never came off as an icon of change.

[DunderMifflin]

Hillary and the DNC definately got pitted as the enemy of Bernie after the emails.

Wouldn't be surprised if a significant amount voted Trump out of spite.

[Jo498]

I think many are missing the point of Pie's rant. It's not that many who voted Trump would have voted for Clinton. It's that Clinton was a weak candidate for many reasons independent of Trump and most thought she would win anyway because Trump was not to be taken seriously. I don't see how the fact that apparently too many Democratic supporters stayed at home contradicts the rant. Doesn't their staying at home clearly show that Clinton was a very poor choice of a candidate? Why would one leaning democrat stay at home unless severely dissapointed by the candidate?

True, part of the problem ist that the US voting system is screwed and apparently the obsolete and fairly idiotic electoral college cannot be changed to a more modern system that would make a win without the popular vote (second time in only 16 years) very unlikely and avoid the focus on swing states.

But how bad must the shape of the center/left be if someone like Trump can win? (and even if he lost the popular vote, it was much closer there than most expected) And I think another point of the rant was that it does not help at all to keep screaming "racist, misogynist, deplorable" etc. because this does not help the left at all to realize how poor their shape is if they cannot easily beat a buffoon posing as racist, misogynist etc.

 

[Yukle]

19 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Hillary and the DNC definately got pitted as the enemy of Bernie after the emails.

Wouldn't be surprised if a significant amount voted Trump out of spite.

Or didn't vote at all. Turnout in Democratic strongholds was pretty low (although Clinton still won the popular vote).

[Free Northman Reborn]

6 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Or didn't vote at all. Turnout in Democratic strongholds was pretty low (although Clinton still won the popular vote).

Well see, as per my previous argument, I question the certainty with which the above is asserted. Maybe Democrat turnout wasn't low. Maybe they turned out, but voted for Trump. And maybe it was the conservative Republican turnout that was low. Resulting in Trump getting more or less similar numbers to what Romney got, but without a large swathe of the conservative Republican vote. Instead, he replaced that with votes from Democrats (and Independents) who voted for Obama last time around.

[ummester]

41 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well see, as per my previous argument, I question the certainty with which the above is asserted. Maybe Democrat turnout wasn't low. Maybe they turned out, but voted for Trump. And maybe it was the conservative Republican turnout that was low. Resulting in Trump getting more or less similar numbers to what Romney got, but without a large swathe of the conservative Republican vote. Instead, he replaced that with votes from Democrats (and Independents) who voted for Obama last time around.

That argument does make a lot sense given that the entire point of being conservative is to oppose change. To a conservative republican, Trump would have represented a change they could have felt compelled to oppose. I mean the GOP opposed Trump, why would a die hard conservative republican support him?

[butterbumps!]

17 minutes ago, ummester said:

That argument does make a lot sense given that the entire point of being conservative is to oppose change. To a conservative republican, Trump would have represented a change they could have felt compelled to oppose. I mean the GOP opposed Trump, why would a die hard conservative republican support him?

uh, the diehard conservative republican elite got behind him too.  It looks likely that Republicans tend to be more loyal to their party in terms of casting a vote than Dems.   I personally know a good handful of diehard conservative Reps (some of the Reagan/ Ryan brand, others in the evangelical camp) who "gritted their teeth" and voted for the R in front of Trump's name.   I think a lot of the accounts in the thousands of profiles of Trump voters we've gotten over the election cycle point to this as well.  People convinced themselves that the true conservatives would actually be in charge and that that's what they were voting for.

[Free Northman Reborn]

11 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

uh, the diehard conservative republican elite got behind him too.  It looks likely that Republicans tend to be more loyal to their party in terms of casting a vote than Dems.   I personally know a good handful of diehard conservative Reps (some of the Reagan/ Ryan brand, others in the evangelical camp) who "gritted their teeth" and voted for the R in front of Trump's name.   I think a lot of the accounts in the thousands of profiles of Trump voters we've gotten over the election cycle point to this as well.  People convinced themselves that the true conservatives would actually be in charge and that that's what they were voting for.

Well we know George Bush himself didn't vote for Trump. I question whether Romney did either. In contrast, the last Democratic president vociferously endorsed Clinton.

We know that Trump didn't exceed Romney's total vote number - at least not when I last checked the count. We also know that a large number of independents and working class Democrats voted for Trump, particularly in the rust belt, but presumably in other areas too.

So that already tells us that if Trump added a bunch of voters who did not vote for Romney last time around, and yet he still did not beat Romney's total, then a sizeable portion of Romney voters did not vote for Trump. 

[mormont]

2 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

Hillary and the DNC definately got pitted as the enemy of Bernie after the emails.

Wouldn't be surprised if a significant amount voted Trump out of spite.

Me neither, but I would be even less surprised if these people are voters who, in a hypothetical Sanders/Trump matchup, would have been easily persuaded to switch sides by Trump.

22 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

We know that Trump didn't exceed Romney's total vote number - at least not when I last checked the count. We also know that a large number of independents and working class Democrats voted for Trump, particularly in the rust belt, but presumably in other areas too.

Weren't you just cautioning against making presumptions about how people voted?

[butterbumps!]

20 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well we know George Bush himself didn't vote for Trump. I question whether Romney did either. In contrast, the last Democratic president vociferously endorsed Clinton.

We know that Trump didn't exceed Romney's total vote number - at least not when I last checked the count. We also know that a large number of independents and working class Democrats voted for Trump, particularly in the rust belt, but presumably in other areas too.

So that already tells us that if Trump added a bunch of voters who did not vote for Romney last time around, and yet he still did not beat Romney's total, then a sizeable portion of Romney voters did not vote for Trump. 

How do we "know" this?  You presented that prospect as a hypothetical above:  

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Maybe Democrat turnout wasn't low. Maybe they turned out, but voted for Trump.

 

I'll also point that I wasn't arguing against the idea that maybe some former Dems turned toward Trump.   I'm sure some did.  I was pointing out that Trump's being an alleged agent of change, supposedly anathema to true conservatives, wasn't enough to turn them off from voting for him.  Some of which is because many Reps convinced themselves he couldn't do the things he claimed, that true conservatives would really be in charge, and that he therefore wasn't truly an agent of change.   

In the copious accounts of Trumps voters I've read over the last year and a half, it does seem that those who identify as Republican frequently used projection to justify voting republican this cycle.

[Fez]

6 hours ago, karaddin said:

@Kalbear oh I don't think Presidential elections are unwinnable, they very much are and I wouldn't be surprised if Trump/Pence only get one term (I also won't be surprised if they get two). I don't even think the Senate is unwinnable, although the prospects for 2018 are very poor. What I do think is that the House is essentially unwinnable, and all the gerrymandered advantage is going to be used to the fullest extent possible. I think SCOTUS is legitimately fucked for a very long time if one of the 4 'liberal' justices or even Kennedy die or retire. And more than any of these the prospects of a government that can function without holding both houses of congress and the presidency are fucked.

Things can change quickly. As I've seen pointed out elsewhere, this year Nevada was more Democratic than Minnesota, Virginia was more Democratic than Maine. Michigan went Republican. That would've been unthinkable 16 years ago, probably even 12 years ago too. West Virginia was the second most Democratic state in the country 28 years ago.

The House is unwinnable right now, but it wouldn't even take a political shift as large as any of those to make it extremely winnable. Gerrymanders fall apart if voting patterns change, and voting patterns will change at least some just based on the fact that party control of the White House has shifted. Will it be enough? No idea; it depends on how the next two years go.

Its important to remember that the last time there was a midterm when Democrats didn't hold the White House, 2006, they had a very good election. 2002 was less so, but at least some of that was because of how unsettled things were post-9/11. And even though Democrats loss congressional seats that year, they gained Governorships and it was mostly a wash for state legislatures. 1990 was also a good midterm for Democrats; although the political landscape was different enough back then that I don't think any comparisons are valid anymore.

All politics is cyclical and Democrats will comeback from this. Though when they came back in 2006 that was because of the unpopularity of the Iraq War and because Democrats reached out to the blue dogs and conservative Democrats. It wasn't by going to the left from where they were in 2004. Maybe things are different this time, but that's a lesson worth keeping in mind.

The main question for now is, how much damage will Trump and Congress do in the mean time? And the jury is very much out on that, because its impossible to tell what Trump wants or how much he cares about getting it.

[MorgulisMaximus]

6 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I'm wondering if Kaine as VP was a good choice? That tag as a "Right to Work Governor" was immediately bitched about in Union halls across the upper Midwest. They needed Virginia pretty bad, but i'm thinking it probably cost them elsewhere with that pick.

In my opinion, Hillary's choice of VP was her single biggest mistake of the campaign. She could have easily won the election had she made a better VP pick.

During the Democratic primaries, Bernie was drawing enormous crowds while Hillary rallies were muted and lacking in energy. Not, only that but Bernie was a virtually unknown 2 years ago. The more crowds he drew, the larger his support would grow. Bernie was a snowball rolling down a hill of wet snow. Momentum. Enthusiasm. Trust. Devotion.

Hillary could have captured much of that energy had she choose Bernie as her VP. Instead she basically said FU to Bernie supporters by choosing Tim Kaine, a choice even Bernie himself was perplexed by. Bernie said that he himself would not have choosen Kaine. Kaine was basically a mirror image of Hillary. Highly influenced by lobbyists and special interests.

Why did she choose Kaine? It was all part of her original strategy to move towards the center after the primaries. This strategy worked twice for Bill Clinton.

 

 

[OldGimletEye]

Okay, I think I’ve been saying or hinting at a while, that as far as Trump’s economic policies are concerned don’t expect a slump anytime soon.

In fact, there will probably be a Trump Boom, in the short term.

The problems with his policies may not manifest themselves until later. The way I see it the problems are likely to be 1) huge deficits in the long term, which the Republicans will cynically use for spending cuts, 2) a slowing of worldwide economic growth in the long term, 3) greater income inequality caused primarily by the Trump tax cuts, 4) if Peter Navaro’s infrastructure plan is any indication, the privatization of American Public Assets,5) a more vulnerable financial system, and 6) a healthcare system that will be a mess.

But in the short term there will be a Trump boom and that will bode well for Trump and the Republicans politically. And that is another thing Democrats will have to contend with.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/opinion/trump-slump-coming.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1

Quote

In fact, don’t be surprised if economic growth actually accelerates for a couple of years.