| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Communion
1) My post was saying she had to earn the votes of poor minorities, which she failed to do, and the facts back me up:
Wayne County (Detroit), Michigan
- 4th highest poverty right in the state (24%)
- 35% of the county's 18-and-under population lives in poverty
- 52.3% White / 40.5% Black / 2.5% Asian, 0.4% Native American
- Total votes cast down by 37k from 2012
- Dem vote total down by 80k from 2012
Genesee County (Flint), Michigan
- Flint water crisis + 21% of people currently live in poverty
- 74.5% White / 20.7% Black
- Total votes cast down by 5k from 2012
- Dem vote total down by 26k from 2012
106k people who voted for Obama in those two counties simply didn't vote for Clinton, and 42k of those 106k simply didn't vote at all. All in a state lost by 11k or so votes.
There's been extensive pieces written about her (and cowardly Dems as a whole) causing poor black voters to turn off from politics. If she and the Dems won't work to earn those votes, then consider American done as a country. She relied on why Trump was bad for them as opposed to how she could make their lives better and they knew she was a fool like most of DC.
2) Again, you're diverting. Who said worked for whites? I know you can't answer the question without suggesting someone is saying to work for whites, but this was totally an election that could have been one with the same demographics as 2008+2012.
3) This obviously means there's a bigger, core issue with the Democrats having too long been sat in the center and sitting on their hands when it comes to revolutionary change. "Just enough" wasn't good enough this time around. Tons of establishment Dems probably thought Obama being black was enough to earn them loyalty. The way they misappropriated identity politics and ran with it, ruining it from its original intent, was something to behold. Identity politics is important and amazing - but having a black attorney general means nothing if you don't better people's lives, and the simple action of diversifying roles won't do that. You have to do that and take action.
Which is the crux of my issue with one specific poster who has suggested, instead of acting on Dems' fears and fighting harder to keep the country okay and then push us back to the left in 2020, the same person in here has literally suggested "Dems need to throw Muslims under the bus" (???) and continues to push out centrist (usually white+male) names out as candidates for 2020 (  ).
Poor black people don't deserve to be thrown under the bus (let's be real - they've always been there for Dems and all political parties too) just cause their politics don't align with someone's and this idea of revenge politics by Clinton stans is.. wild.
4) Someone thought to be a wolf in sheep's clothing can't sell anything to sheep, no matter how good it is. |
My bad. I get what you're saying. Democrats do need to move more to the left. They also need to stop being so scared to fight for their constituents. I give Republicans credit for sticking with their rich donors and idiotic voters. 
But again, Hillary was actually trying to make sure everyone was being fair. I know for a fact that she wanted to go in on women issues, criminal justice, etc. but she thought she had to not be as toxic and add fuel to the fire by getting her base angry at Trump's base. Her deplorable comments hurt her thanks to the media. That was what liberals wanted out of her.
But yeah Lord Blackout and his let's cater to white men is a bunch of ********. I say leave anyone who are against left policies behind. (but that's overwhelmingly white people and it does go against your go after every vote stance) Why rely on them when they continue to say F the best thing for them?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 28,773
|
If people wanted the Clintons to govern on the left, they would have voted in the 1994 midterms.
Think of it this way, liberals' laziness is the very reason Hillary never gave us universal healthcare.
Quote:
Originally posted by midnightdawn
Mark my words, a third party candidate will have a big impact on the next election.
|
No, they're done. Hillary vs Trump was a fluke. The media would really have to try extra hard to replicate it.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/9/2012
Posts: 16,749
|
I would caution from blaming poor minorities esp. blacks for the Hillary loss. They were her biggest supporters.
She had a serious white problem. Man, woman, rich, poor, old, young. Every subset of white people voted RepublIcan. It was unprecedented.
She would have lost even more states had it not been for the black vote.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 28,773
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Nippy'sReceipts
I would caution from blaming poor minorities esp. blacks for the Hillary loss. They were her biggest supporters.
She had a serious white problem. Man, woman, rich, poor, old, young. Every subset of white people voted RepublIcan. It was unprecedented.
|
She had a big advantage with blacks. People have no clue just how weak democrats currently are with the AA crowd after keeping mum on BLM and the rise of black poverty during Obama's 2 terms.
During the 2008 primary, it took Obama like almost a year to overtake her with black voters. I'm telling you another democrat would have done north of 60% with the AA because of how they'd stay home and it wasn't black millennials who were showing up for her.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
If black people, Hispanic, and millennials come out, we can win so many races.
We just need the perfect candidate with the right message and the right personality.
I just don't see the point in trying to appeal to Middle America, when the policies that will actually help them are being looked down upon by those very people.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/9/2012
Posts: 16,749
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lord Blackout
She had a big advantage with blacks. People have no clue just how weak democrats currently are with the AA crowd after keeping mum on BLM and the rise of black poverty during Obama's 2 terms.
During the 2008 primary, it took Obama like almost a year to overtake her with black voters. I'm telling you another democrat would have done north of 60% with the AA because of how they'd stay home and it wasn't black millennials who were showing up for her.
|
Hillary won a strong majority of black voters. Over 85%
Trump did win more black voters than Romney though, but that does not surprise me because
even black Republicans (like Colin Powell and Condi) voted Obama just off the principle. Nobody black had the heart to kick out the 1st black family out of the WH, and they knew white people were disrespecting the Pres and wanted him out and Romney in which further pushed the drive to vote.
The black vote was always going to down back to pre-Obama levels, but Hillary still had strong support. 85-90% of the AA vote went to her compared to 95% for Obama. The white vote is what was egregiously low for her. Even among the party, black Democrats like HRC more than white progressives do. White progressives hate Hillary. They all love Bernie, and many of them were the ones who voted 3rd Party or for Trump. It's insane. This was a very unusual year.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 28,773
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Nippy'sReceipts
Hillary won a strong majority of black voters. Over 85%
Trump did win more black voters than Romney though, but that does not surprise me because
even black Republicans (like Colin Powell and Condi) voted Obama just off the principle. Nobody black had the heart to kick out the 1st black family out of the WH, and they knew white people were disrespecting the Pres and wanted him out and Romney in which further pushed the drive to vote.
The black vote was always going to down back to pre-Obama levels, but Hillary still had strong support. 85-90% of the AA vote went to her compared to 95% for Obama. The white vote is what was egregiously low for her. Even among the party, black Democrats like HRC more than white progressives do. White progressives hate Hillary. They all love Bernie, and many of them were the ones who voted 3rd Party or for Trump. It's insane. This was a very unusual year.
|
White progressives weren't the only ones driving down her white vote percentage, the record breaking surge of uneducated whites did that as well. She actually became the first democrat to win educated whites and she could have won much more had they not protest voted. She brought in some nice coalitions but Bernie/Obama couldn't give her theirs and that failed her. Trump, being our first know-nothing party candidate in decades, should have been big enough of an indication that uneducated whites were underestimated in the polls. They should have over-sampled them in the swing states including the rust belt ones. Ugh shame the polling was so short-sighted by everyone.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
Y'all blame Robby and Hillary for complacency (true to an extent), but remember how every poll had her up. Even the GOP internals. Remember that Alaska GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski released internal polling that had Trump only up 3 points in Alaska over Hillary while she was ahead of her Democratic opponent by double digits. Eerie.
So strange how everything changed in the last 2 weeks. (Looking at you Comey)
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 28,773
|
I'm pretty sure the Trump campaign thought they were losing well into election day.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/30/2012
Posts: 1,663
|
Quote:
Originally posted by King Maxx
Y'all blame Robby and Hillary for complacency (true to an extent), but remember how every poll had her up. Even the GOP internals. Remember that Alaska GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski released internal polling that had Trump only up 3 points in Alaska over Hillary while she was ahead of her Democratic opponent by double digits. Eerie.
So strange how everything changed in the last 2 weeks. (Looking at you Comey)
|
Yep. Literally every reputable poll had her winning. The only people saying things to the contrary were people on the ground, and honestly can you blame them for trusting pollsters (some of which they paid millions, I'm sure?) over some local campaigners?
I'm really curious to how Trump got wind of this, actually. How did he know to dive in last minute to all these states nobody thought he would win? The whole idea of Hillary avoiding those states was so she could appear to Trump (and everyone else) that she wasn't even the least bit threatened by these states.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 28,773
|
Quote:
Originally posted by lilostolemycoke
Yep. Literally every reputable poll had her winning. The only people saying things to the contrary were people on the ground, and honestly can you blame them for trusting pollsters (some of which they paid millions, I'm sure?) over some local campaigners?
I'm really curious to how Trump got wind of this, actually. How did he know to dive in last minute to all these states nobody thought he would win? The whole idea of Hillary avoiding those states was so she could appear to Trump (and everyone else) that she wasn't even the least bit threatened by these states.
|
Because Trump desperately needed one of those 3 states. It was his only path to victory. The Trump campaign were probably as surprised by the win as the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 27,856
|
I know Republicans are usually seen as being strong on terrorism but I just can't see that applying to Trump. Guess we'll find out.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/30/2012
Posts: 1,663
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lord Blackout
Because Trump desperately needed one of those 3 states. It was his only path to victory. The Trump campaign were probably as surprised by the win as the rest of us.
|
I think there's more to it than that, I dunno. For him "desperately" to need them (November 7th version of myself agrees) things sure came out perfect for him.
The last week and a half of the election, Kellyanne was on CNN and people were basically being like "bitch u cray" re: these blue states and she kept insisting that these states were an untapped market randomly, all of a sudden. Like, I get the notion of speaking things into existence but it doesn't work that good.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 28,773
|
Quote:
Originally posted by lilostolemycoke
I think there's more to it than that, I dunno. For him "desperately" to need them (November 7th version of myself agrees) things sure came out perfect for him.
The last week and a half of the election, Kellyanne was on CNN and people were basically being like "bitch u cray" re: these blue states and she kept insisting that these states were an untapped market randomly, all of a sudden. Like, I get the notion of speaking things into existence but it doesn't work that good.
|
Do you think they knew they'd win them? Especially given how thin the margins were.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
Remember how everyone was in here laughing at Trump for visiting either deep red states or deep blue states instead of swing states, and then all of a sudden in the last 2 weeks, he was stationed in Florida and the Rust Belts.
I think Comey played a big part in that. Hillary and Trump were sure the election was over after the 3rd debate.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 28,773
|
Well duh. Comey played a huge part and only an idiot would deny it.
As soon as the letter came out, all republican officials came out with their "come home" message and white women fell for that ****. It was perfectly orchestrated and Comey has got to be the biggest crook ever for that move. May he never get a night of sleep again if this administration ****s over people.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/15/2012
Posts: 15,569
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lord Blackout
Do you think they knew they'd win them? Especially given how thin the margins were.
|
I think Comey's intervention definitely gave them hope that they could actually pull it out. He essentially sealed Hillary's fate the moment he sent that letter to Congress.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 28,773
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ClashAndBurn
I think Comey's intervention definitely gave them hope that they could actually pull it out. He essentially sealed Hillary's fate the moment he sent that letter to Congress.
|
True. It gave them the confidence for sure but I doubt they were sure they'd win either.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/30/2012
Posts: 1,663
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lord Blackout
Do you think they knew they'd win them? Especially given how thin the margins were.
|
I think they knew they had an excellent shot of winning them. It just worked out too perfectly for them and was way too coincidental.
Like, obviously the Trump campaign knew they were done, up until the Comey **** happened and they saw that as an opportunity to come back. I don't even think they saw that as a sure way to win. If anything, I see the Comey-gate as a key to a locked room and in the room was locked chest with Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and North Carolina inside. If that makes sense.
My question is, how did they get in the locked chest?
I want to know how they knew to go after states that were in the bag for blue. Was their polling data really that accurate? Over Hillary's? Over national polls? I don't think so. I feel like they were possibly tipped off by someone in the Clinton camp with enough influence to get them to prod in these states. (Or maybe they came across some hacked information, but I'm not gonna get too tin-foil hat) Literally the only one of those states that could have flipped realistically looking at polls was North Carolina.
The confidence they had while entering the last week was... odd. Everybody brushed off these random campaign stops as Trump trying to get some last minute votes so his popular vote wouldn't be that bad. But maybe these campaign stops were to prep the country for a huge upset? Because there's no way a couple rallies won him these states. That's ludicrous. Assuming all the polling was correct, of course.
Hell, I remember *every* major pollster going after 538 for how irresponsible he was being for saying Clinton only had a 70% chance of winning. Like what happened?
I also want to add that the media played up these secret Trump voters way too hard. If Hillary won, CNN could pull just as many "secret Hillary voting Republicans" in about 10 seconds.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 28,773
|
Quote:
Originally posted by lilostolemycoke
I think they knew they had an excellent shot of winning them. It just worked out too perfectly for them and was way too coincidental.
Like, obviously the Trump campaign knew they were done, up until the Comey **** happened and they saw that as an opportunity to come back. I don't even think they saw that as a sure way to win. If anything, I see the Comey-gate as a key to a locked room and in the room was locked chest with Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and North Carolina inside. If that makes sense.
My question is, how did they get in the locked chest?
I want to know how they knew to go after states that were in the bag for blue. Was their polling data really that accurate? Over Hillary's? Over national polls? I don't think so. I feel like they were possibly tipped off by someone in the Clinton camp with enough influence to get them to prod in these states. (Or maybe they came across some hacked information, but I'm not gonna get too tin-foil hat) Literally the only one of those states that could have flipped realistically looking at polls was North Carolina.
The confidence they had while entering the last week was... odd. Everybody brushed off these random campaign stops as Trump trying to get some last minute votes so his popular vote wouldn't be that bad. But maybe these campaign stops were to prep the country for a huge upset? Because there's no way a couple rallies won him these states. That's ludicrous. Assuming all the polling was correct, of course.
Hell, I remember *every* major pollster going after 538 for how irresponsible he was being for saying Clinton only had a 70% chance of winning. Like what happened?
I also want to add that the media played up these secret Trump voters way too hard. If Hillary won, CNN could pull just as many "secret Hillary voting Republicans" in about 10 seconds. |
Agreed but they were after MI/WI/PA because, if you can recall, she was dangerously close in those states.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...nton-5533.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...nton-5659.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...nton-5633.html
Which was unusual. She had to be 10 points ahead of him in those states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
