Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 20, 2017, 12:55:14 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Cast your Ballot in the 2016 Mock Election

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  2016 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: AndrewTX, Likely Voter, Justice TJ)
| | |-+  Which are the fairer assessments of the election?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Poll
Question: ?
The Republican Party won in spite of their nominee being Trump   -34 (22.1%)
Donald Trump in spite of being a Republican   -36 (23.4%)
The Democrats lost because of Hillary   -70 (45.5%)
Hillary lost because of the Democrats   -14 (9.1%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 95

Author Topic: Which are the fairer assessments of the election?  (Read 841 times)
🦀🎂
CrabCake
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11195
Kiribati


View Profile
« on: January 05, 2017, 06:51:42 pm »
Ignore

Did Trump win dispute his party affiliation, or did his party save him and any republican would have coasted?

Similarly was Hillay a uniquely bad candidate, or would the Democratic Party have sunk most potential candidates?
« Last Edit: January 05, 2017, 06:53:29 pm by 🦀🎂 »Logged

Fuzzy Bear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4014


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2017, 11:03:19 pm »
Ignore

Hillary's campaign was uniquely annoying.  Lecturing Trump on his behavior was a YUGE turnoff.  Why wouldn't she think Trump couldn't insult his way to the Presidency?  No one really likes her, and Trump proved that slinging mud really works.

Hillary got down in the dirt with Trump.  Bad move.  She should have stuck to policy, tied Trump in knots, and hope that this would keep voters in the middle from giving into their dislike of her.  Instead, she lectured Trump, and that turned lots of voters off, because they find her annoying to start with.

Then, too, there was all this emphasis on "our daughters", "women and girls",  and "the example for our kids", etc.  To that, I'd point out (A) that 1/2 of all kids are males, (B) which means that parents of sons felt left out in Hillary's diatribes, (C) and this reinforced the impression that Hillary was all for improving the lot of women and girls at the expense of men and boys.  Lots of women who are parents of boys know that the condition of boys in America isn't that great, either, and they perceive Hillary as part of the "blame the boys" crowd.  This is not to say that Trump's rhetoric was always commendable; it certainly wasn't.  But Hillary's campaign strategy, her persona, and her pot-calling-the-kettle-black-tut-tutting were just stupid, stupid moves on the part of a candidate who, really, has made herself repulsive to half of America.
Logged

"The family cannot be constituted like the liberal state, nor can it be governed entirely by that state's principles. Yet the family serves as the seedbed for the virtues required by a liberal state. The family is responsible for teaching lessons of independence, self-restraint, responsibility, and right conduct, which are essential to a free, democratic society. If the family fails in these tasks, then the entire experiment in democratic self-rule is jeopardized."-Barbara Dafoe Whitehead
BoAtlantis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 704


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 06, 2017, 03:10:53 am »
Ignore

As much as I acknowledge Trump has outperformed for someone of his persona, this was a GOP year. I am thoroughly unconvinced that only Trump could have pulled it off when a hard-core conservative like Ernst wins by 8 points in Iowa.

Kasich would have likely carried rural Midwest by a bigger margin and wouldn't have needed a huge late break from undecideds to win. Anyone who carries OH by 13 probably is carrying WI, MI, and rural PA by a good margin as well. He would have won the popular vote.

Cruz would have probably done no worse than Trump. It isn't as if he hasn't talked about securing borders or repealing Obamacare. He also would have appealed just as much to evangelicals with his promise on Supreme Court justice.

This election was beyond just rejection of Hillary or "establishment". Look at McGinty and Feingold. They did no better than her.
Logged
twenty42
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 64
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 06, 2017, 07:18:23 am »
Ignore

As much as I acknowledge Trump has outperformed for someone of his persona, this was a GOP year. I am thoroughly unconvinced that only Trump could have pulled it off when a hard-core conservative like Ernst wins by 8 points in Iowa.

Kasich would have likely carried rural Midwest by a bigger margin and wouldn't have needed a huge late break from undecideds to win. Anyone who carries OH by 13 probably is carrying WI, MI, and rural PA by a good margin as well. He would have won the popular vote.

Cruz would have probably done no worse than Trump. It isn't as if he hasn't talked about securing borders or repealing Obamacare. He also would have appealed just as much to evangelicals with his promise on Supreme Court justice.

This election was beyond just rejection of Hillary or "establishment". Look at McGinty and Feingold. They did no better than her.

Agreed.

We were coming off two terms of a Democratic president. The GOP took both chambers of congress by an earthslide in 2014. The economy wasn't great. Obama's approval ratings were in the 40s before the election season started. Anti-incumbent and and anti-establishment fervor was sky high.

The Democrats, the media, and Hillary herself were kidding and deluding themselves all the way to Tuesday night. Geopolitical undercurrents are far stronger than the candidates on the ballot, pure and simple.

And before anybody replies "But she won the popular vote!!"...just take a look at the swing/trend maps from 2012. My point is still valid.
Logged
Intell
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3914
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -4.84, S: 0.43

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: January 06, 2017, 07:23:08 am »
Ignore

2 and 3.
Logged

Non Swing Voter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1235


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 06, 2017, 02:41:51 pm »
Ignore

Trump was the only Republican in that field that could have won.  Hillary was the only Democrat in that field that could lose.  Coupled with Comey letter it was the perfect storm for non-college whites to make their last stand in a diversifying and liberalizing country.  Thus, I picked options 2 and 3.
Logged
L.D. Smith
MormDem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8995
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 06, 2017, 04:43:08 pm »
Ignore

I believe that Trump and Clinton were the best of the field for the year, despite being the worst for each other in match ups.

Sure, any other Republican probably would've looked better on paper, but none of them captured the anger in the same way, and besides Kasich, all of them are even more unlikable than Hillary...and not in the likably unlikable way.

The debates would've been an even bigger massacre, and thanks to higher expectations, it's highly unlikely that the media would've been like "Oh hey, he actually could say something coherent".


However, while there's no doubt Hillary blew it, at least she had a chance. I'm just not sure Sanders or anyone besides Biden would've been able to get under trump's skin the same way Hillary did. For all the lament about the Midwest, the Sunbelt came a long way closer...and quite likely would've flipped with just another week.

I'm just not sure NH, Nevada, Colorado, or Virginia would've held out without Clinton, so the Popular Vote would likely have been lost too.

All the same, I do believe that someone else would've done more to help Congress and let the candidates run more for themselves than try to get one message across.

While that means, Opt. 2 is solid....I'm not so sure it's either 3 or 4 solidly, but rather a combination of both. I voted 3 because of the high-stakes and the fact that it came to one tipping point to finish off a fragile edge.
Logged

Political Spectrum

Government: 3.65 (Authoritarian)
Economics: -7.05 (Liberal)
Foreign Policy: -6.66 (Dove)
Culture Wars: -3.1 (Centrist)

Political Compass

Economics: -7.88
Social/Libertarian-Authoritarian: 0.92
Axel Foley
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 90


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 06, 2017, 07:58:33 pm »
Ignore

I think only Ted Cruz( maybe) would have lost to HRC, so I choose the first. DJT was really the only one GOP candidate, excluding Cruz, beatable for Hillary, but it is also true the opposite, she was the only dem beatable for Trump.
Logged

Not a native nor full-skilled English-speaker, I hope my writings to be understood anyway. I am here only to discuss about election trends and general arguments, I will not express any judgement about American politics and country direction.
Non Swing Voter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1235


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: January 06, 2017, 08:00:53 pm »
Ignore

I believe that Trump and Clinton were the best of the field for the year, despite being the worst for each other in match ups.

Sure, any other Republican probably would've looked better on paper, but none of them captured the anger in the same way, and besides Kasich, all of them are even more unlikable than Hillary...and not in the likably unlikable way.

The debates would've been an even bigger massacre, and thanks to higher expectations, it's highly unlikely that the media would've been like "Oh hey, he actually could say something coherent".


However, while there's no doubt Hillary blew it, at least she had a chance. I'm just not sure Sanders or anyone besides Biden would've been able to get under trump's skin the same way Hillary did. For all the lament about the Midwest, the Sunbelt came a long way closer...and quite likely would've flipped with just another week.

I'm just not sure NH, Nevada, Colorado, or Virginia would've held out without Clinton, so the Popular Vote would likely have been lost too.

All the same, I do believe that someone else would've done more to help Congress and let the candidates run more for themselves than try to get one message across.

While that means, Opt. 2 is solid....I'm not so sure it's either 3 or 4 solidly, but rather a combination of both. I voted 3 because of the high-stakes and the fact that it came to one tipping point to finish off a fragile edge.

A generic Democrat could win Virginia at this point.  There are simply more democrats than republicans in the state and they consistently vote.  This state won't even be on the "swing state" list in 4-8 years.  It's basically moving the way New Mexico did 8 years ago.
Logged
m&m
Megameow
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 358
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2017, 12:13:32 am »
Ignore

Hillary's campaign was uniquely annoying.  Lecturing Trump on his behavior was a YUGE turnoff.  Why wouldn't she think Trump couldn't insult his way to the Presidency?  No one really likes her, and Trump proved that slinging mud really works.

Hillary got down in the dirt with Trump.  Bad move.  She should have stuck to policy, tied Trump in knots, and hope that this would keep voters in the middle from giving into their dislike of her.  Instead, she lectured Trump, and that turned lots of voters off, because they find her annoying to start with.

Then, too, there was all this emphasis on "our daughters", "women and girls",  and "the example for our kids", etc.  To that, I'd point out (A) that 1/2 of all kids are males, (B) which means that parents of sons felt left out in Hillary's diatribes, (C) and this reinforced the impression that Hillary was all for improving the lot of women and girls at the expense of men and boys.  Lots of women who are parents of boys know that the condition of boys in America isn't that great, either, and they perceive Hillary as part of the "blame the boys" crowd.  This is not to say that Trump's rhetoric was always commendable; it certainly wasn't.  But Hillary's campaign strategy, her persona, and her pot-calling-the-kettle-black-tut-tutting were just stupid, stupid moves on the part of a candidate who, really, has made herself repulsive to half of America.

Eh I think your criticisms of her campaign are too nit picky. I can't think of people save for outright sexists who were turned off by her advocacy for women and children. It's her niche; that would be like people criticizing a Catholic church for being too focused on Catholic communities and not enough on non-Catholics.

I'm convinced too that annoyance at Clinton's persona is the height of sexist nit-picking. Oh, she's annoying? Nobody's ever been elected or not-elected President for being annoying, or shrill, or for their generic "persona."
Logged
shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15776
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: -4.52

View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 09, 2017, 03:56:58 am »
Ignore

AOTA.
Logged
Fuzzy Bear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4014


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2017, 07:38:34 pm »
Ignore

Hillary's campaign was uniquely annoying.  Lecturing Trump on his behavior was a YUGE turnoff.  Why wouldn't she think Trump couldn't insult his way to the Presidency?  No one really likes her, and Trump proved that slinging mud really works.

Hillary got down in the dirt with Trump.  Bad move.  She should have stuck to policy, tied Trump in knots, and hope that this would keep voters in the middle from giving into their dislike of her.  Instead, she lectured Trump, and that turned lots of voters off, because they find her annoying to start with.

Then, too, there was all this emphasis on "our daughters", "women and girls",  and "the example for our kids", etc.  To that, I'd point out (A) that 1/2 of all kids are males, (B) which means that parents of sons felt left out in Hillary's diatribes, (C) and this reinforced the impression that Hillary was all for improving the lot of women and girls at the expense of men and boys.  Lots of women who are parents of boys know that the condition of boys in America isn't that great, either, and they perceive Hillary as part of the "blame the boys" crowd.  This is not to say that Trump's rhetoric was always commendable; it certainly wasn't.  But Hillary's campaign strategy, her persona, and her pot-calling-the-kettle-black-tut-tutting were just stupid, stupid moves on the part of a candidate who, really, has made herself repulsive to half of America.

Eh I think your criticisms of her campaign are too nit picky. I can't think of people save for outright sexists who were turned off by her advocacy for women and children. It's her niche; that would be like people criticizing a Catholic church for being too focused on Catholic communities and not enough on non-Catholics.

I'm convinced too that annoyance at Clinton's persona is the height of sexist nit-picking. Oh, she's annoying? Nobody's ever been elected or not-elected President for being annoying, or shrill, or for their generic "persona."

If you were a parent of boys (as I am), you might see things differently.

Before you fire off some piece of ignorance about how I'm some kind of sexist, I'm also a grandfather of seven granddaughters.  One of my sons is 11 (the other two are grown), so I am aware of what kids of both genders are going through in the here and now.

Lots of folks are shrill and annoying.  Lyin' Ted and Little Marco fit that mold.  They are nowhere near the hypocrites that Hillary is in doing so, however.  Someone who conducts campaigns to trash the reputations of Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey for the benefit of her own political future (which would have ended in 1999 if she hadn't trashed them) isn't the person I want lecturing me as to how to behave.  Hillary has the shrillness of someone who believes it's all about them; she cannot exude a modicum of humility, no matter how hard she tries.  That's a quality that's unpleasant from any gender.
Logged

"The family cannot be constituted like the liberal state, nor can it be governed entirely by that state's principles. Yet the family serves as the seedbed for the virtues required by a liberal state. The family is responsible for teaching lessons of independence, self-restraint, responsibility, and right conduct, which are essential to a free, democratic society. If the family fails in these tasks, then the entire experiment in democratic self-rule is jeopardized."-Barbara Dafoe Whitehead
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18823


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: January 11, 2017, 08:43:44 pm »
Ignore

Admittedly, Hillary comes off as a bit arrogant at times, but that's part of what I like about her. Though it's understandable many don't. (FWIW, Obama comes off as arrogant at times, too) Just as I'm sure some of Trump's supporters are thrilled about his polarizing personality while others are repelled by it. The point is though, all these things are subjective.
Logged
Vosem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: -6.26

P P

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: January 11, 2017, 09:06:44 pm »
Ignore

Congressional results seem to point to the first one being true. The rest are all disputable. Only voted for the first one.
Logged

I will NOT be accepting any result other than a victory for America's next President, Governor Gary Earl Johnson Angry
L.D. Smith
MormDem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8995
United States


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: January 12, 2017, 03:10:54 am »
Ignore

Congressional results seem to point to the first one being true. The rest are all disputable. Only voted for the first one.

Keep in mind how over-nationalized Congressional Races are and how overly anti-Trump things became on the D side, I'm just not sure that holds up so well.

Pretty much all things rested on that gamble paying off, it quite obviously didn't.


Logged

Political Spectrum

Government: 3.65 (Authoritarian)
Economics: -7.05 (Liberal)
Foreign Policy: -6.66 (Dove)
Culture Wars: -3.1 (Centrist)

Political Compass

Economics: -7.88
Social/Libertarian-Authoritarian: 0.92
pikachu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1226
United States


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2017, 11:05:42 pm »
Ignore

1 and 3. By any objective measure, Trump was s**t candidate who was unprecedentedly unpopular and had a megaton worth of scandals and bad qualities who won by an extremely slim margin. (The same can be said by Hillary.) In a world where Trump doesn't run, most the 2016 GOP field beats Hillary by a bigger margin. With an ok candidate, I think the Dem wins with a 2012-esque margin.
Logged

PM Scores:
E: -2.52 > -4.13
S: -4.61 > -3.48
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines