Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 09, 2016, 02:27:45 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 44
26  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Trump is not a racist and misogynist... on: November 14, 2016, 10:09:56 pm
...then why has he spent his entire career saying deeply and shamelessly racist and misogynistic things?

Lest we forget, this is the guy who made Birtherism mainstream. And all of these things that he has said as a matter of campaign strategy he has said in public, on a national stage, as part of a successful major-party presidential campaign. And he doesn't have a problem with all of this - quite the contrary. He actively embraces it.

I absolutely believe Trump and his supporters when they say he's "authentic." He's not bulls****ting; this is what he really believes. And he will be the next President of the United States of America. Think about that for a moment.


Yes, of course, challenging the legitimacy of someone's presidency makes one a racist.  That's probably one of the most foolish claims I've yet heard!
Show me ANYONE challenging the legitimacy of Bush's presidency based on birthplace. Or Clinton's. Or  Reagan's. I'll wait.
Was there any reason to? 
I mean
Connecticut, Texas, Andover, Yale, Alabama, Harvard , Texas - son of a US President
and
Arkansas, Yale, Oxford, Arkansas, - Son of town drunk
isn't
Hawaii, Indonesia, Hawaii, occidental, Columbia, Harvard - son of a Kenyan

...Hillary really shouldn't have started that mess and Barack probably should have cleared it up in an early speech like he did with his racist pastor. 
27  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: NBC: Hate crimes spike following the Election on: November 14, 2016, 09:54:10 pm
Nothing to do with campaigns, so I don't know what you're talking about. Sometimes, a public and private position is needed, because you need to keep the trust of those who agree with you (even when they're angered). That is why I think that Obama and co. have not denounced the violence; they don't condone it, they just know that they're powerless to stop it and would only lose future influence if they tried.
What does Obama or Hillary have to lose? 
...Also, can they ever do the right thing? EVEN IF IT HURTS THEM POLITICALLY? ? ?
"Doing the right thing" is to do nothing, that is my point! Nobody is going to stop protesting just because Obama told them to! Better to give them no attention than to reward them, which is how the GOP should've treated the Tea Party. Except that the Tea Party helped them politically Roll Eyes
I strongly disagree.
I think these people are actively supported by some dem affiliated organizations.  This is astro turf in many cases and a easy (silent) step would be to at least stop the organization and money machinery making it possible.  If Obama has to get on the phone with George Soros, than he should. 
The problem is Obama probably doesn't WANT to stop it.  That is the tragedy of the Obama presidency in a nut shell. 
You would be surprised what effect strong public direction can have on mobs... it wouldn't be perfect but it would have an effect.

Do not make an equivalence between the tea party and left wing agitators.  The tea party (not my cup of tea) was a polite quite assembly in parks and on private property with permits and permission, not riots destroying property and disturbing peoples lives. 
Please provide evidence of astroturfing of liberal protests. I'll wait here.

About Tea Party violence... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6mCTU4NpRQ
OK 2 seconds and the top of a bing serch:
https://stream.org/clinton-campaign-dnc-pay-to-incite-violence-at-trump-rallies/
Yeah your arguments are sh**t if you have to cite James "I edit all the video's" O'Keeffe.
LOL, just admit I win... I mean you just did it unintentionally. 
You cite a man who edits video's to show something that didn't happen and you think you win.  Trumpist people are real delusional.
So you 2 are denying that protesters are paid by democrat affiliated groups in this case and in others?

delusional?
28  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hard Choices: Why Trump won and how the Dems must change (Lyin' Steve's autopsy) on: November 14, 2016, 09:07:34 pm
The problem with so much of this well-thought out analysis comes down to this:

"The Dems won the most votes, and therefore they must change."

"The Dems policies are more popular than the Republicans policies, and therefore they must change them"

The logic is totally screwed, because the EC and house districting are totally screwed. It ends up with the Dems having to appeal to different people, rather than more people, which effectively means some kinds of people are more important than others.

Which isn't a nice conclusion
While you layout a cohearent thought... it isn't correct. 
1) The popular vote is next to irrelevant.
2) Trump didn't try to win the popular vote, Clinton didn't try to win it either.
3) Trying to downplay a loss because you are in the margin of error of a nearly irrelevant stat isn't a good way to go. 
4) This is the "United States of America", not the "Mass of Americans in a single entity", so this naive abolish the electoral college stuff needs to stop (thats in general not in response)   

I disagree with your points, but thats by-the-by. The question was, how should the Dems change? Its been shown they're popular than the Republicans,  but they are the ones that have to change their policies. I don't see how they can go about that in a coherent way, other than dumping the positions the majority like, and supporting policies the minority like. And once again we've run out of logic right there.
OK, I'll put it like this:
Party A competes successfully in 35 states
Party B competes successfully in 20 states
(5 overlaps)
Party B is shocked that they are out of touch with vast swaths of the country. 
29  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: NBC: Hate crimes spike following the Election on: November 14, 2016, 09:02:24 pm
Nothing to do with campaigns, so I don't know what you're talking about. Sometimes, a public and private position is needed, because you need to keep the trust of those who agree with you (even when they're angered). That is why I think that Obama and co. have not denounced the violence; they don't condone it, they just know that they're powerless to stop it and would only lose future influence if they tried.
What does Obama or Hillary have to lose? 
...Also, can they ever do the right thing? EVEN IF IT HURTS THEM POLITICALLY? ? ?
"Doing the right thing" is to do nothing, that is my point! Nobody is going to stop protesting just because Obama told them to! Better to give them no attention than to reward them, which is how the GOP should've treated the Tea Party. Except that the Tea Party helped them politically Roll Eyes
I strongly disagree.
I think these people are actively supported by some dem affiliated organizations.  This is astro turf in many cases and a easy (silent) step would be to at least stop the organization and money machinery making it possible.  If Obama has to get on the phone with George Soros, than he should. 
The problem is Obama probably doesn't WANT to stop it.  That is the tragedy of the Obama presidency in a nut shell. 
You would be surprised what effect strong public direction can have on mobs... it wouldn't be perfect but it would have an effect.

Do not make an equivalence between the tea party and left wing agitators.  The tea party (not my cup of tea) was a polite quite assembly in parks and on private property with permits and permission, not riots destroying property and disturbing peoples lives. 
Please provide evidence of astroturfing of liberal protests. I'll wait here.

About Tea Party violence... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6mCTU4NpRQ
OK 2 seconds and the top of a bing serch:
https://stream.org/clinton-campaign-dnc-pay-to-incite-violence-at-trump-rallies/
Yeah your arguments are sh**t if you have to cite James "I edit all the video's" O'Keeffe.
LOL, just admit I win... I mean you just did it unintentionally. 
30  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Trump is not a racist and misogynist... on: November 14, 2016, 08:58:59 pm
The problem is you can't make a good case to support your very serious assertions.
Also,
A. If Trump is a racist, than everyone is by that standard, which isn't true so than he can't be. 
B. Donald Trump obviously loves women, so I don't know how you could possibly throw the misogyny word around... Dems have a tendency to turn around a loving man into a "hater" quite often... why?   
Assuming that you aren't trolling (which I'm not sure of at this point, I admit), A. this is absurd. So everyone has decried entire religions, and denied African-Americans housing? OK then. For B., how about "pig", or "bleeding from wherever", or "nasty woman", or "grab 'em by the pussy"? Yeah, sounds like someone who honestly cares about women Roll Eyes give me a break.
It isn't absurd, you just furthered my point.  
1) Trump hasn't "decried" entire religions... he has said he would address dangerous elements within one.
2) He hasn't denied blacks housing, he has built housing for blacks... why the opposite of reality thing again?
3) You can't call a nasty women nasty?  why?
A straight man can't talk about sex with women (privately)? why?
Rosie O'Donnell is a pig and a 911 truther, why can't you say that?

4)...what does any of that have to do with racism or misogyny?
5) you seem to be implying impoliteness is misogynist.  
6) it isn't.
1. Banning all Muslims from immigration, and acting as if being a Muslim would disqualify one from the Presidency?
2. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/27/hillary-clinton/true-hillary-clinton-says-federal-government-sued-/
3. OK, so would "disgusting pig of a man" be OK? I guess it would... and about "grab them by the pussy", he is not bragging about sex (which is OK in private), but about (potentially) unwanted sexual contact. In other words, if someone siting next to you on the bus suddenly reached for your crotch, would you be OK with that?
4. Misogyny and racism are the preferential treatment of one gender (specifically males, sexism captures both) or race over another. (Obviously this doesn't apply to intimate relationships) If you make denigrating comments towards a woman, that you would not make towards a man (insulting her for her looks, talking about a reporter being on her period, "Miss Housekeeping"), that is misogyny. Vice versa, it is misandry.
5. No, but impoliteness towards females (which is not directed towards males) is.
1) Restricting immigration based on terrorist potential is basic logic... not sure your point... he said all insted of all 6 months ago and refined the position 5 months ago?   
2) No fault settlement 40 years ago on a typically erroneous charge (if you know anything about these government agencies and race hustlers) 
3) in private, hypothetical, potentially unwanted sexual contact with laughter and braggadocio... The context was bottom line calling an attractive women... attractive.  O' the horror!!! ... fantasy scenarios in the locker room, so abnormal!
To your question: Women have grabbed my crotch without my permission... I survived.   
4) OK, by your definition Trump's non preferential treatment for anyone makes him the least misogynist and racist person in the world. 
5) Trump is impolite to males!  LOL.
31  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: NBC: Hate crimes spike following the Election on: November 14, 2016, 08:31:57 pm
Nothing to do with campaigns, so I don't know what you're talking about. Sometimes, a public and private position is needed, because you need to keep the trust of those who agree with you (even when they're angered). That is why I think that Obama and co. have not denounced the violence; they don't condone it, they just know that they're powerless to stop it and would only lose future influence if they tried.
What does Obama or Hillary have to lose?  
...Also, can they ever do the right thing? EVEN IF IT HURTS THEM POLITICALLY? ? ?
"Doing the right thing" is to do nothing, that is my point! Nobody is going to stop protesting just because Obama told them to! Better to give them no attention than to reward them, which is how the GOP should've treated the Tea Party. Except that the Tea Party helped them politically Roll Eyes
I strongly disagree.
I think these people are actively supported by some dem affiliated organizations.  This is astro turf in many cases and a easy (silent) step would be to at least stop the organization and money machinery making it possible.  If Obama has to get on the phone with George Soros, than he should. 
The problem is Obama probably doesn't WANT to stop it.  That is the tragedy of the Obama presidency in a nut shell. 
You would be surprised what effect strong public direction can have on mobs... it wouldn't be perfect but it would have an effect.

Do not make an equivalence between the tea party and left wing agitators.  The tea party (not my cup of tea) was a polite quite assembly in parks and on private property with permits and permission, not riots destroying property and disturbing peoples lives. 
Please provide evidence of astroturfing of liberal protests. I'll wait here.

About Tea Party violence... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6mCTU4NpRQ
OK 2 seconds and the top of a bing serch:
https://stream.org/clinton-campaign-dnc-pay-to-incite-violence-at-trump-rallies/
32  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Trump is not a racist and misogynist... on: November 14, 2016, 08:13:42 pm
He was literally sued by the government for denying housing to Black people. He took front page ads calling for the execution of the Central Park 5 and continued to assert their guilt even after DNA proved them otherwise. Bragged about sexual assault and has 12 women accusing him of assault.`

It is astonishing that republicans can stare at the mountain of evidence and still deny it
unsuccessfully sued 40 years ago.
thought people committed a crime.
is a straight male.

...it is astonishing that you think your ridiculous use of serious words is justified.   
33  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump's German harvest on: November 14, 2016, 07:41:12 pm
Pulled from the article I think this is right on:

One other thing: Both Trump and Obama made white working-class voters feel a little better about racial anxiety.
They obviously did it in very different ways.
But I’d say that Obama made a lot of voters feel good, even proud, about supporting an African-American.
Trump made them feel O.K. about their “politically incorrect” reservations about diversity, crime and immigration.
Clinton did something very bold that I don’t think she got very much credit for: She challenged many white Americans to question implicit bias, and revived criminal justice as an issue. That may have been a bridge too far.

---- The  non PC  way of saying that is:
Political correctness is killing the country and people are sick of it... even some democrats.
Clinton shouldn't have called everyone---including Obama voters racist--- that is a bridge to far. 
34  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: NBC: Hate crimes spike following the Election on: November 14, 2016, 07:26:31 pm
Nothing to do with campaigns, so I don't know what you're talking about. Sometimes, a public and private position is needed, because you need to keep the trust of those who agree with you (even when they're angered). That is why I think that Obama and co. have not denounced the violence; they don't condone it, they just know that they're powerless to stop it and would only lose future influence if they tried.
What does Obama or Hillary have to lose?  
...Also, can they ever do the right thing? EVEN IF IT HURTS THEM POLITICALLY? ? ?
"Doing the right thing" is to do nothing, that is my point! Nobody is going to stop protesting just because Obama told them to! Better to give them no attention than to reward them, which is how the GOP should've treated the Tea Party. Except that the Tea Party helped them politically Roll Eyes
I strongly disagree.
I think these people are actively supported by some dem affiliated organizations.  This is astro turf in many cases and a easy (silent) step would be to at least stop the organization and money machinery making it possible.  If Obama has to get on the phone with George Soros, than he should. 
The problem is Obama probably doesn't WANT to stop it.  That is the tragedy of the Obama presidency in a nut shell. 
You would be surprised what effect strong public direction can have on mobs... it wouldn't be perfect but it would have an effect.

Do not make an equivalence between the tea party and left wing agitators.  The tea party (not my cup of tea) was a polite quite assembly in parks and on private property with permits and permission, not riots destroying property and disturbing peoples lives. 
35  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hard Choices: Why Trump won and how the Dems must change (Lyin' Steve's autopsy) on: November 14, 2016, 07:12:16 pm
The problem with so much of this well-thought out analysis comes down to this:

"The Dems won the most votes, and therefore they must change."

"The Dems policies are more popular than the Republicans policies, and therefore they must change them"

The logic is totally screwed, because the EC and house districting are totally screwed. It ends up with the Dems having to appeal to different people, rather than more people, which effectively means some kinds of people are more important than others.

Which isn't a nice conclusion
While you layout a cohearent thought... it isn't correct. 
1) The popular vote is next to irrelevant.
2) Trump didn't try to win the popular vote, Clinton didn't try to win it either.
3) Trying to downplay a loss because you are in the margin of error of a nearly irrelevant stat isn't a good way to go. 
4) This is the "United States of America", not the "Mass of Americans in a single entity", so this naive abolish the electoral college stuff needs to stop (thats in general not in response)   
This ignores his main point, which is that the EC values some people's interests above others'. This is anathema to its original intent, which was to protect all points of view.
The EC intent was similar to, but not "protect all points of view". 
It was to encourage a diversity of interests and regions pick the winner... and also prevent mob rule
It just did that, so I don't understand the point.
Dems need to get broader and more diverse than a small footprint of urban interests in a minimum number of states, basically on the coasts. 

   
36  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Trump is not a racist and misogynist... on: November 14, 2016, 06:57:47 pm
The problem is you can't make a good case to support your very serious assertions.
Also,
A. If Trump is a racist, than everyone is by that standard, which isn't true so than he can't be. 
B. Donald Trump obviously loves women, so I don't know how you could possibly throw the misogyny word around... Dems have a tendency to turn around a loving man into a "hater" quite often... why?   
Assuming that you aren't trolling (which I'm not sure of at this point, I admit), A. this is absurd. So everyone has decried entire religions, and denied African-Americans housing? OK then. For B., how about "pig", or "bleeding from wherever", or "nasty woman", or "grab 'em by the pussy"? Yeah, sounds like someone who honestly cares about women Roll Eyes give me a break.
It isn't absurd, you just furthered my point.  
1) Trump hasn't "decried" entire religions... he has said he would address dangerous elements within one.
2) He hasn't denied blacks housing, he has built housing for blacks... why the opposite of reality thing again?
3) You can't call a nasty women nasty?  why?
A straight man can't talk about sex with women (privately)? why?
Rosie O'Donnell is a pig and a 911 truther, why can't you say that?

4)...what does any of that have to do with racism or misogyny?
5) you seem to be implying impoliteness is misogynist.  
6) it isn't.
37  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hard Choices: Why Trump won and how the Dems must change (Lyin' Steve's autopsy) on: November 14, 2016, 06:48:01 pm
The problem with so much of this well-thought out analysis comes down to this:

"The Dems won the most votes, and therefore they must change."

"The Dems policies are more popular than the Republicans policies, and therefore they must change them"

The logic is totally screwed, because the EC and house districting are totally screwed. It ends up with the Dems having to appeal to different people, rather than more people, which effectively means some kinds of people are more important than others.

Which isn't a nice conclusion
While you layout a cohearent thought... it isn't correct. 
1) The popular vote is next to irrelevant.
2) Trump didn't try to win the popular vote, Clinton didn't try to win it either.
3) Trying to downplay a loss because you are in the margin of error of a nearly irrelevant stat isn't a good way to go. 
4) This is the "United States of America", not the "Mass of Americans in a single entity", so this naive abolish the electoral college stuff needs to stop (thats in general not in response)   
38  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: NBC: Hate crimes spike following the Election on: November 14, 2016, 06:33:15 pm
Nothing to do with campaigns, so I don't know what you're talking about. Sometimes, a public and private position is needed, because you need to keep the trust of those who agree with you (even when they're angered). That is why I think that Obama and co. have not denounced the violence; they don't condone it, they just know that they're powerless to stop it and would only lose future influence if they tried.
What does Obama or Hillary have to lose? 
...Also, can they ever do the right thing? EVEN IF IT HURTS THEM POLITICALLY? ? ?
39  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Trump is not a racist and misogynist... on: November 14, 2016, 06:26:58 pm
The problem is you can't make a good case to support your very serious assertions.
Also,
If Trump is a racist, than everyone is by that standard, which isn't true so than he can't be. 
Donald Trump obviously loves women, so I don't know how you could possibly throw the misogyny word around... Dems have a tendency to turn around a loving man into a "hater" quite often... why?   
40  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: NBC: Hate crimes spike following the Election on: November 14, 2016, 06:19:53 pm
As mentioned earlier:

We have literally thousands of crimes committed in protest of the election in the past week and 8 cities+ overrun with riots by the left. Businesses (dozens and dozens and dozens) destroyed, electrical utilities destroyed, police cruisers vandalized, fires set and Trump supporters literally beaten.. totaling hundreds of felonies or misdemeanors committed by these liberal nuts: not a single damn word or denouncement by the Democrats. (Surprise!)

meanwhile there are maybe a couple dozen national reports of incidents by stereotypically far right cousin lovers, with a handful of the bag having absolutely weak claims to intentionally build the narrative or being shown or admitted to as blatant hoaxes.

What a joke, don't even begin to start bitching when the representation of your party is making a complete SHAME of your voting base. You guys just don't have the stones to step up and admit how ridiculous it is because they are the type of voters that pretty much keep your party even alive in elections.

Tough facts, huh.
Were Democrats to denounce the protests, they would only end up legitimizing them. Seriously: you think that thousands of protestors are going to calm down just because Obama or Clinton told them "please stop"? They'd wind up like John Boehner, unable to contain the anger of their party, and suddenly a pariah because of it.

Lol, did you say the same about Trump?

H.Y.P.O.C.R.I.C.Y.

What good do it do Boehner?




 








MUH RACIST GRAFFIT Sad Sad Sad Sad
And these are wrong as well. But it says something when one side can only attack the people, and not the ideas, of the other side. This was Clinton's mistake, and the right won't convince anyone this way either. I would rather join the side whose leaders condemn left-wing and right-wing violence alike, than the side whose leaders ignore hate crime (of all kinds) while glomming onto left-wing protests/violence like moths to a candle.

TL;DR: Your side needs to stop acting like an army of Hillary Clintons.
You mean Democrats need to:
1) run an issues based campaign like Trump did?
2) denounce both sides that get out of line... like Trump did?

...I mean I agree,
i'm not sure you know what you're saying.

Here is some good work documenting the censored coverage you get of these "protesters".   
http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2016/11/the-rest-of-the-story-anti-trump-protests-packed-with-profanity-crude-signs/
41  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hard Choices: Why Trump won and how the Dems must change (Lyin' Steve's autopsy) on: November 13, 2016, 09:43:50 pm
Quote
The problem with the Democratic Party is simple and easy to understand.  The party has gone overboard with its identity-politics-based "coalition of the ascendent" strategy, it's drowning in snark, self-righteousness, moral superiority and ego, and it goes out of its way to alienate vast swaths of the country.
This is perfect.  
It is like poetry.  

I was trying to explaine it to a friend of mine and the courtroom scene from a few good men popped into my head....

"my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall -- you need me on that wall.
We use words like "honor," "code," "loyalty." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.
I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way.
Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you're entitled to!"

http://www.youtube.com/embed/_frM44bBMfA?rel=0&start=226&end=276&autoplay=1

...Now if you substituted the military points for economic points you have the working/middle class revolt to a T.  these people make the country function and you despise them.  They don't hurt anyone and you call them irredeemable bigots.  

The democrats
drowning in snark, self-righteousness, moral superiority and ego, it goes out of its way to alienate
the working man and the small businessman supporting his family and making the economy function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps us all alive.

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me
to continue building this country, you need me to make the economy work!


We use words like "honor," "family," "truth." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent building something. You use them as a punch line.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very prosperity that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.
I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a "wrench" and fix the problem (car, machine, building, etc) yourself(you don't know how). Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you're entitled to!"

 
http://www.youtube.com/embed/_frM44bBMfA?rel=0&start=226&end=276&autoplay=1
42  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Should democrats focus on the South instead of Upper Midwest going forward? on: November 13, 2016, 07:42:41 pm
This is the map dems should be afraid of... they win Florida and out west and still can't pull it off... demonizing common sense whites to gin up block voting by minorities is overall a losing strategy.  You lose more than you gain.  They should stop doing it. 


43  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump's German harvest on: November 13, 2016, 07:18:35 pm
The new Trump 'homeland'
 and the new battle grounds?



44  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Should democrats focus on the South instead of Upper Midwest going forward? on: November 13, 2016, 06:22:59 pm
You should probably stop the institutional demonetization of whites, males, and Christians...  

They aren't going to flip back unless you stop the witch hunt, but than you would lose your boggie-man to scare 'victim groups' with.  

The Sunday shows today were filled with those 2 camps:
1) we should stop (purposely) alienating whites, rurals, working class, middle class, etc
2) we need to stand up to the "racist" "dark forces" of the whites, rurals, working class, middle class, etc.

...I Now realize some democrats will need me to point out that #1 and #2 are:
 IN CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER.
...That's a tough pickle to be in democrats.  

PS: The 3rd camp was "form an economic message", but the only substance was minimum wage hikes or tax the rich rhetoric.  

45  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: NBC: Hate crimes spike following the Election on: November 13, 2016, 05:55:49 pm
Is there a dispute that the hate crimes committed by leftist affiliated groups / mobs / individuals / protesters vastly outnumber the rare incidents of graffiti or whatever you think is the end of the world?

I mean depending on how you look at it it's 100 to 1 or 1,000 to 1 and you dismiss the 1,000 and try to hammer good people over the head with the 1.  

Here is some steps to fix the country:  
1) Learn how to quantify problems
2) Prioritize the biggest problems
3) promote solutions

So, in practice:
1)
 we have 10,000 crimes motivated by hate or politics committed by leftists and we have 10 "possible" incidents of "hate" coming from Trump supporters or racist groups who prefer Trump to Clinton.  Half of the graffiti incidents are typically proved to be hoaxes done by a democrat.  

2)
So, we have
10,000 crimes and 8 cities overrun with riots by the left
(not denounced by democrats)
and
5 to 10 incidents by right-ish people and some hoaxes by leftists
(denounced by republicans)

3)
I think we need to:
A) pressure democrats, namely clinton, obama, and sanders to publicly slap down these protests  riots / crimes committed in their name.
B) aggressively arrest and prosecute these anarchist agitators.
C) actively educate the public about the error and danger of the lefts actions.  
D) continue to denounce and prosecute the rare incident of someone on the right committing a "hate" crime.  

I hope the country can unite behind my common sense proposals.
46  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Clinton received fewer EVs than Kerry on: November 13, 2016, 04:51:36 pm
The question this really begs is....why did Bush get so few electoral votes in 2004 relative to his three million vote win in the popular vote?  Just looking at the states that were closest doesn't help a whole lot...

Bush did very well in Republican states in 2004 and among many different voting groups, while Kerry did worse in many Democratic states compared to Obama and Clinton. Trump performed worse in several Bush states and barely won many of the states that catapulted him to a wide electoral college victory, resulting in a wide PV/EV disparity. Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are still Democratic states, it's just that Democrats didn't vote like they did in previous elections, allowing Trump to win despite only modestly overperforming Romney.
They are GOP states every off year election and are probably tossups (maybe lean dem) in presidential years. 

47  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump's German harvest on: November 11, 2016, 06:28:00 pm
  The huge Russian spread for Clinton probably due to the big amount of Jews in that group.  Would like to see difference between German ancestry by Protestant vs Catholic.
Just my guess is that Catholic is closer to 50/50 and Protestant 65/30 ish.  That has a lot to do where they live urban / rural, blue collar / union household etc etc.

Germans from Russia used to be mistakenly counted as "Russian" because that was the country they 'came' from last.  It made some weird ethnicity maps with data from early 1900's.  

48  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Could a respectable, sane Trump have won with this map? on: November 11, 2016, 06:19:51 pm

That is also the map of States Republicans can win Senate races in... In other words they should have an advantage winning up to 70 seats.  Over that would be a reach.   
49  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump's German harvest on: November 11, 2016, 06:10:11 pm
BuzzFeed actually polled by ancestry, and German-Americans were super Trump supporters: https://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/trump-and-the-white-vote?utm_term=.hqBya6yjy#.so5ZyVZoZ

They have:

German: 33% Clinton, 51% Trump (Trump +18)
American: 33% Clinton, 50% Trump (Trump +17)
Italian: 33% Clinton, 44% Trump (Trump +11)
English: 37% Clinton, 43% Trump (Trump +6)
Irish: 39% Clinton, 40% Trump (Trump +1)

I also went through their raw data earlier and got this for the less-polled ancestries:
Swedish: Clinton 33%, Trump 48% (Trump +15) n=39
Polish: Clinton 35%, Trump 44% (Trump +9) n=125
Dutch: Clinton 34%, Trump 41% (Trump +7) n=41
French: Clinton 35%, Trump 35% (even) n=71
Norwegian: Clinton 37%, Trump 37% (even) n=49
Scottish: Clinton 41%, Trump 38% (Clinton +3) n=107

They also allowed volunteered responses, here are some of the more notable ones:

Danish: Clinton 45%, Trump 27% (Clinton +18) n=11
Greek: Clinton 47%, Trump 12% (Clinton +35) n=17
Russian: Clinton 67%, Trump 29% (Clinton +38) n=21

Great find, thx.

I think there was no subsample for Austrian ancestry (there are only 1 million Americans with Austrian ancestry).

But I guess they would not vote that different than the Germans.

PS: Most Austrians who migrated to the US settled in Wisconsin btw. It is the state with the highest Austrian ancestry.
I live near a highway 'adopted' by the Austrian-American society -- or some org named like that. 

I like the thread, but I did lay this and more out like 6 years ago.  I'll look for the threads when I have time...  It's even in my name "American Nation"  based on the book American NationS by colin woodard.  You take into account ancestry as well as the history of settlement and a few other factors and you can see "fault lines" others are oblivious too. 
50  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Last minute expand the map megathread - Spending & visits in AZ, GA, WI, NM, MI on: November 01, 2016, 01:46:46 pm
Looking at Trump and Pence's schedule  between now and Thursday

FL 7 stops
PA 4
NC 2
MI 2
WI 1

Look at this and their spending, PA is still 'plan A' to break the Clinton wall, as it always has been, but they are hunting for backup path plans like MI, WI (and CO and NM which were visited over the weekend).

Sounds very similar to the McCain/Romney strategy in the end game.
Academically similar, but this is perfect positioning.  They are winning the big 3 (OH, NC, FL) and are looking for the last 10 to 11 Electoral votes in 9 states/districts.  If he wins NV he is looking for 4 or 5 electors in 8 states/districts.  How is Clinton going to defend everywhere when she is radioactive right now? 

In order:

He's not winning OH, NC, and FL right now.  OH at this point is probably Lean R, NC and FL Tossup to Lean D.

She's not radioactive right now.  Polls have shown very little movement due to Comey and she still has a clear lead in the polls, though narrower than it was a couple of weeks ago.
1) He is winning in OH, NC, and FL.  NC is the closest he's only up 2 there. 
2) She has the highest negatives of any candidate ever (she is significantly higher than trump now), she is (Publicly) under federal investigation for the 2nd time, she is guilty of many serious crimes that will result in impeachment or constitutional crisis...  what would you consider radioactive?

Let's look at real numbers and not feelings or opinions, shall we?

1) Don't cherry pick polls.  It's intellectually dishonest.  Looking at the two major poll aggregators, RCP and HuffPo, the current averages are:

OH: T+2.5, C+1 (average of the two: T+0.75)
NC: C+2.0, C+3 (average: C+2.5)
FL: T+1.0, C+2 (average: C+0.5)

They're all close, but Clinton is slightly ahead in NC, Trump in OH, and FL is a tossup (I won't quibble about a fraction of a percent).  Please explain how you translate these numbers to Trump is winning in all of them.

2) I invite you to look at Gallup's rolling samples of candidate favorability at  http://www.gallup.com/poll/189299/presidential-election-2016-key-indicators.aspx?g_source=ELECTION_2016&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles#pcf-image.  In the latest sample (Oct. 25-31), Clinton is at 43/54 (-11), which is indeed pretty bad.  But Trump's favorability is FAR worse at 34/63 (-29).  So it's quite clear which candidate is more unpopular.

Actually, looking at the previous Gallup numbers explains a lot about why the race has tightened in the past couple of weeks.  Clinton's been in a narrow range for the past two weeks of -14 to -11, with one day at -9.  But Trump has improved since then; two weeks ago he was at -34, but he's been gradually trending upward and was as high as -27 a few days ago.
when a candidate moves ahead in recent polling after long trailing they will be behind in aggregators for a while.  the fact that you don't know that or it didn't occur to you is disconcerting.  When many polls all over the place move in one direction it isn't cherry picked, it is a clear pattern.  Trump could win 300 EV and be behind in the aggregators. 

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 44


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines