The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[Sumner 1868]

F- It seems to me that Obama was a disaster. As a far lefty (by American standards) who wants less corporatism, a less corrupt government, more respect for basic rights, less foreign intervention, and a stronger social safety net, Obama was a sellout and an enabler of everything I don't want the government doing, and did little I do want to see happen.

Weak on global warming and green energy. Socially liberal mostly when he was pushed into it. Missed a clear opportunity to revitalize our national infrastructure. His signature piece of legislation was Cato Institute health care plan. He aided and abetted the Bush Administration's regime of torture and illegal spying, giving the criminals a free pass and setting a terrible precedent. He did the same for the  crooks profiting from the 2007 economic crash. He didn't even try to fix our most pervasive and dangerous problems.  He trashed Libya and continued all of the Bush administration's worst offenses. He belongs in jail, in a cell between Bush and Trump.

But even if you don't agree with me, if you want a strong and globally active America, he was a failure. He oversaw the continuing decay of our military, while squandering it's capability to little effect. He failed to counter Russian or Chinese expansionism, and left the nation ill-prepared to do so in the future. Sure, he left our economy better than he found it, but you can say the same about Putin, and I'm not going to sing his praises either.

The most you can really say for him is that the creaky, corrupt, decaying machine that is the American establishment didn't completely break on his watch. He even shined it up really nice. But he certainly didn't do anything revolutionary, or even to change where the US is headed.  And he did set the stage for Trump. He seems good to us now only because anyone would look good in comparison to Trump.

I've written before about the metaphor of the nation as a bus, with Trump as the crazed, intoxicated passenger who seized control, waves around his gun (and appears to be wearing a bomb) and is drunkenly accelerating towards a cliff.

Obama, by contrast, was a nice, clear spoken and polite man. He explained that he'd recently gotten his commercial license, and if he could please drive, he'd take us where we want to go. But once in the chair, he was a pleasant driver, but he kept us on the road to the same place Trump is going, just at a slower and more sedate pace.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Democrats made him a part of their Senate leadership (he's Chairman of Outreach) and he's a member of the Democratic caucus. Because the US political system is set up to only support two parties, the parties have to be Big Tent and allow numerous ideologies and affiliations. That's why open primaries and people registered as independent are not only tolerated but important, and with the numbers of independents rising, tribalism can't be afforded. Democrats in power don't care if he's independent because he's a vote in their favor and he's popular.

https://www.npr.org/2016/02/28/467961962/sick-of-political-parties-unaffiliated-voters-are-changing-politics

http://www.governing.com/topics/elections/gov-ballot-measure-colorado-presidential-primaries.html

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-independent-voters-20161029-story.html

If we excluded independents from the political process or from influencing the Parties (the same Parties who hope independents will vote for them in the general), we'd be excluding nearly half the country's voters: http://news.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

You are deliberately framing this issue in the wrong way. BLM has no stated goal to make it “okay” to resist lawful detention. The fact that you see no issue with how Eric Garner was detained is absolutely appalling. It’s perhaps no coincidence that you have repeatedly mentioned Mr. Garner’s previous criminal convictions in an attempt to muddy the waters. But despite what you may believe, no, choking a man to death is no okay simply because he is a criminal. There was absolutely no need to resort to using an illegal tactic in order to restrain him. The officers reacted in a completely unprofessional manner, period.

You repeatedly, albeit without any proof, assert that Black Lives Matter isn’t, “serious”, which is utterly false. Activists have elected prosecutors, worked to reform issues like probation, cash bail, poverty, and other issues in communities across this country. In Phoenix, for example, activists have helped fund several community centers and engage in a dialogue with Mayor Stanton. The fact that you have utterly dismissed them without so much as listing their accomplishments simply shows that you have no interest in addressing their complaints.

And let’s talk about race, shall we. Why do black people commit crime at a higher rate than white people? Well, first off, if we’re going down this rabbit hole, let’s reframe this question: why do men (of all races) commit crimes at a hugely disproportionate rate compared to women. Is this not a valid question our society should ask then?

Regardless, let’s address race. If you believe that this is an inherent flaw with black people or a cultural problem or some sort of moral failing on a mass scale, there are only two real options: ethnic cleansing or outright genocide. There’s no middle ground here. You cannot seriously argue that this is a widespread moral failing on the part of black people and then argue for compassion.

If, however, this is a problem rooted in history, in inequality, and in the treatment of black people in today’s society, there are concrete actions we can take to address the problem. Concrete actions that are already being taken by black communities and organizations. In Chicago, advocacy groups are working overtime to reduce homicide rates, in Richmond, California, a new program gives at-risk youth the means to connect with other men emotionally and talk about their emotions. Across this country, communities are fighting this issue.

Should I, perhaps uncharitably, chastise white communities for the opioid epidemic? Or how the murder rate in recent years has increased at a higher rate among white people when compared with black people? And the answer is an unequivocal NO. Absolutely none of this would justify police brutality or systemic racism. The issue of crime does not have to be answered in the same conversation on police brutality. There is no reason that it needs to be included in the debate.

You may now ask, “well what the hell have you done, DC? Seems like you’re all talk and no action”. Well, I have contributed, albeit not as much as I possibly could, towards the movement for police reform and for black communities. I have worked with a local charity (Wellspring’s Women’s Center in Oak Park, if you’re curious) in my hometown of Sacramento to provide a durable library for the children of impoverished mothers, I have marched with demonstrators. I can always do more, of course, and I feel as though I haven’t done enough. Simply put, I don’t say this out of self aggrandizement. But I say this to show that I actually give a damn about the issue. I’m not arguing in bad faith.

You have broached this issue not out of interest of combating crime in black communities. Rather, you sit at home and use it to bludgeon political opponents on a decades old forum. You are arguing in bad faith, and for that, I cannot respect you in any meaningful way.

[YE]

To be honest, I'm not particularly concerned with what happens to her on a personal level, but I do think it's a bit dicey to start down a path of jailing your political opponents, even if there are technically grounds to do so (and it's over something like using a private email while SoS). It's pretty obvious that conservatives and conservative media have taken to beating up on Clinton to distract from Trump, and so this puts their motives in question, and that could set a bad precedent, particularly when you have to factor in all the voters who might see it in a partisan light as opposed to simply the rule of law. This is also why if a president was being impeached/convicted, I'd much prefer it if they just resigned instead (and also that impeachment be for something worthy and not trivial).

It's one thing if this was about prosecuting her for taking bribes, or perhaps Hillary having people hack her opponent's emails/campaign server(s), or engaging in fraud of some kind, but we're talking about using a private email server. I'd really like Republicans to step back here and ask if it's worth going down this rabbit hole just because they want to distract from Trump's ongoing trainwreck of a presidency.

And for gods sakes, there are better ways to do this if they really, truly only care about holding her accountable (and are not using her as a prop / red meat for their base). First, they could have addressed this quietly and not made a big, public deal about it just months after Trump is sworn in. Second, they could have conducted a long, thorough by-the-book investigation and at least tried to set it up so they conclude maybe in late 2019 or so, when things have settled down some.

All I can say about it now is that it looks like some banana republic-type stuff, even if the charges may have merit.

[Landslide Lyndon]

How did you predict 2016, pal?

how did you predict Virginia and Alabama, pal?

Yep. Ken Cuccinelli vastly over performed the polls. No wonder they are sweating.

Gillespie is closing hard and should finish off Northam with ads about the Redskins.

Monmouth is an A+ pollster on 538. Great momentum for Ed.

Roy Moore is going to win.

Link

Moore 46
Jones 45

Victory is near.

Dominating.

^moore

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

ho burnnnn

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What did he do?

https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/943831712739577856

And yet...https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/02/doug-jones-african-american-chief-of-staff-dana-gresham-320117?cid=apn

He's a slanderous disgusting wretched liar.

Saying that X is likely to happen and then X not happening is not lying. It's just being wrong.

The original rumor (that Doug Jones is going to appoint an all-white senior staff because he "feels burdened" to appeal to white conservatives) doesn't strike me as particularly believable:

1) The idea that conservatives would be impressed with an "all-white senior staff" in this day and age is flawed, and is pretty telling as to how King thinks: he (or whoever he heard this from)  is basically imagining a mirror image of the elite liberal tendency to measure progress by how many women, People of Color, and LGBT people an organization employs. For example, take the handwringing last year over how Trump's cabinet was the whitest and most male in recent memory: relatively little attention was paid to how wealthy the cabinet was or to how little government experience it had, and not enough attention was paid to the fact that it was by most measures the most hard-right of any cabinet in history. There's an annoying tendency in much  of the Left to view appointing women and people of color, even those with reactionary views, as progress: you even see it on Atlas to some degree, with people thinking that Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, and Condoleeza Rice must be nice moderates when they very clearly are not.
2) Jones's campaign shows that he doesn't care about pandering to racist conservatives
3) This isn't the 60s or 70s, when a Southern senator having black senior staff would have been  much more groundbreaking than it is now. Nowadays most people on either side probably wouldn't care, and anyone who would see lack of Black senior staff as a positive won't be voting Democratic anyway.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I don't see what the big deal is. Some parts of Africa are not places you want to live. Even some parts of the U.S. are horrible. Stop overprojecting. He slightly has a point. Everywhere has crapholes.

When you are president, you cannot refer to other countries during a backroom policy discussion, no matter how impoverished they are, as being s***holes. Period.

This

But if your say Johnson, it is ok to say "I'll have these n***ers voting Dem for the next 100 years" and that passes muster. Ok....

It does not pass muster.  Johnson was a jerk-off.  But there is still a difference.  Johnson, despite his un-presidentai mouth and the hypocrisy and self-serving nature of his shifting positions, at least ended up benefitting disadvantaged African Americans in the end.  Trump looks at refugees, and says: "hey, your country is in political and economic chaos, so screw you too."  And that's all he will ever do.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Perhaps we should look at the root cause of Haiti's situation, which lies in its history of brutal slavery, a French Revolution inspired slave revolt that overthrew their French slavemasters, and the subsequent period of chronic indebtedness to Western imperial powers for the sole purpose of receiving guarantees that their country wouldn't be invaded and enslaved again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That "Double French Debt" became a triple debt to the US and France, which forced Haiti to begin borrowing simply to fund its national expenditures by the 1880s. Foreign pressure to repay debts forced Haiti to borrow even more from French private banks, thereby ensuring that by the end of the 19th century around 80% of the nation's wealth was devoted to serving external debts to France, Germany, and the US. By the 1890s the situation was so bad that the Banque Nationale de la Republique d'Haiti (BNRH) came under the tutelage of France's Societe Generale, which became the official treasury of the country. Haitian finances were horribly mismanaged and exploited by the bank, which then opened another branch of the BNRH in America, due to the shifting of global power and Haitian debt along with it, to America; a branch was open at National City Bank (US Citibank).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, even if Haiti is a "sh**hole," which is a completely inaccurate description of a country systematically exploited and oppressed by White colonial powers, the fault lies not with the Haitian people, but with the "Western" imperialists.

Trump's comments are not only racist and xenophobic but incredibly ignorant of Haitian and African history (which deserves far, far more detailed explanation of its exploitation and abuse than could be described in a single comment here). Like his bigoted, know-nothing supporters, they don't know nor care to know about these facts; all they see is an underdeveloped country and people with dark skin who, to them, are basically all the same.

[Tartarus Sauce]

You don’t judge immigrants by the caliber of the countries in which they are born, but by the caliber of American they can become

[Oldiesfreak1854]

No. Liberals have a broad definition of racism. To millions of Americans, slavery was racism, segregation was racism, and the KKK was racism.

If you don't actively like those three things, then you're not a racist. Of course, according to today's liberals, everything is racist which almost turns conversations about race into the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome. When everything is racist and everyone is racist, that's when you begin to get eye-rolls from many Americans.

[Kamala]

No. Liberals have a broad definition of racism. To millions of Americans, slavery was racism, segregation was racism, and the KKK was racism.

If you don't actively like those three things, then you're not a racist. Of course, according to today's liberals, everything is racist which almost turns conversations about race into the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome. When everything is racist and everyone is racist, that's when you begin to get eye-rolls from many Americans.

The titular thread is that way ->

[IceSpear]

This should give people some real good insight into the "Economic distress" the "White Working Class" was worried about when they all voted for Trump LOL. As I've said many times most of these WWC have above average incomes (50k+), own their own homes, and are relatively economically comfortable, and the only things they think about when they vote are 1) Making sure Blacks don't get Welfare, 2) Making sure Hispanics get deported, 3) Making sure Abortion is banned, 4) Making sure they can buy Assault Rifles, 5) Making sure gays and lesbians can't marry, and finally 6) Making sure America keeps on bombing Muslim countries. Due to this Democrats should not focus on trying to win these people, and should instead try to turnout their base of Nonwhites and young people to flip the three states Trump won by less then a point (MI, PA, and WI).

Why did nearly 7 million vote for Obama and then Trump then that are disproportional located in the Midwest? You're confusing a small portion of te White WWC with the average Republic voter?

Because Trump is "one of them", Romney and McCain were not. Listen, I'm not saying that all of these guys are racist, but the notion that Trump won because of "economic anxiety" is just bull. Cultural issues, identity voting and depressed democratic turnout decided that election.

These same people will turn around and at the drop of  hat curse billionaires (like Trump), coastal elites (like Trump), Jews (like Trump's son-in-law), bankers (like his Goldman Sachs appointees), big corporations (like his administration is made of and intervenes on behalf of), godless sinners (like Trump)... the list goes on and on. Trump is everything these people claim to hate, and yet they support him. I'm sure the fact that he's an outspoken bigot and racist is just a coincidence.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Context:

Has nobody heard of dark humor?

Sure have.

As a woman, the fact that I should just shut up and deal with it because it's funny is exhausting.

Sure, it was a "joke." That doesn't make it okay. It's /not/ funny and it's not okay. Culture has covered for this kind of stuff for too long with "it's just a joke ahaha" and "can't you relax?!" for way too long.

Imagine this: Every day while you're at work or school or whatever, someone comes up behind you and pokes you in the shoulder. Not hard enough to hurt or even really bother you the first time. But this person does it every time they walk by. So, you know, 3-4 times a day. Whatever. The first day, you can shrug it off. The next day, they do it again. So you tell them to stop. "I'm just messing with you man, can't you take a joke?" So you put up with it for the rest of the week.

You come back from the weekend, feeling ready to tackle the week, refreshed, yeah! And then, just as you sit down to really do something amazing, p-o-k-e. You jump up from your chair and smack the person's hand. "Stop TOUCHING me." "DUUUUDE It's just a joke. I wasn't even hurting you. Chill out!" Likely, your coworkers only saw this one poke, so now it also looks like you're overreacting to this one interaction, even though your reaction is, in truth, appropriate.

Now, the person poking you probably lays off for the rest of the day, and maybe even the next day. Maybe you even tell your coworkers that this person has been doing this, and ask them to keep an eye out. Of course, they're busy, and the poker stays away for a little bit. But on Wednesday, he pokes you again. Maybe some people notice, maybe they don't. It still doesn't look like that big of a deal. Like, they're not even really touching you. And it was only that one poke for the whoole day. That's not that big of a deal, right?

But then on Thursday it's back up two or three pokes. And by Friday, every time they go by. You do your best to ignore it, but now you're feeling defensive. Your work is interrupted and distracted because you're keeping an eye out for this person. You're tensed up, waiting for that annoyance and also trying to self-talk yourself into ignoring it, because if everyone else says it's no big deal, then why are you so uptight about it? Maybe you were overreacting and you should just get over it?

So, you go home over the weekend and think about it. Everyone said you were overreacting, so you figure you might as well just deal with it. Some of your coworkers did notice on Friday. Maybe some of them even told the poker to chill out. But they're not the ones being poked, so their request was pretty low-key and they didn't follow up.

This goes on for months. In some ways, you get used to it. It's just part of life. Most days you can almost always ignore it. Sometimes the poker pokes a bit more, just to get your attention. Sometimes they walk by more often. Sometimes there's days where they're out of the office, and those days are a blessed relief. You get so much more done, even though you're to the point where you're not actively thinking about it. Maybe the poker even goes on vacation and you have the most productive week you've ever had.

And then... then they come back from vacation. And you enjoyed that time off you had. Or maybe you're just having a really bad day. Maybe you're stressed out about something at home. Maybe you have a really big project. Or maybe you're just absolutely tired of this person constantly poking you. But there they come... and they poke you again, this time a little bit harder than they normally do, and there's a smirk on their face. You take it to your boss. They investigate, but seriously? It's just a gentle little poke. Can't you take a joke? They do ask the poker to stop, because they can see how it would be distracting. Likely the poker stops for a while again.

But then... it starts again. You can't take it anymore. You flip out. You curse this person out, shove them away from you. You end up looking like a crazy person for such a reaction. You ask that the poker be moved to a different department, or something. Why couldn't you just take a joke? This isn't that big of a deal, is it?

Imagine that. For years. Every day of your life. From multiple people. You get good at ignoring it and not saying anything about it, and maybe even covering for the people who do it. "Oh, I don't mind." "It's just office banter." "I mean, that's what happens at work." "Oh, I know they're just kidding."

It's. Exhausting.

So, yeah. It's just a joke. Hahaha. This isn't his first joke like this, and we are all exhausted. I don't care what they do to him. I'm just glad he's getting called on it. It's disgusting and it's time we acknowledge that. I'd like to see him fired, because Hillary has had to put up with really disgusting stuff for way too long, and that was completely unnecessary.

So, yeah, no. It's not just a joke and it's not funny.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Just another success of the tax reform. It's almost like letting companies keep more of their own money allows them to actually use that money towards productive ends in the economy. Gee, how strange...

Yeah... the problem is... America needs more roads, bridges, upgraded rails, air traffic control upgrades, properly maintained dams and waterways, replacement of huge numbers of sewer and water systems, electrical grid upgrades, school building upgrades, home energy efficiency upgrades, healthcare options for the poor so they don't cost more down the road... 

Not more iPhones.

That you can't see or understand this exposes a major problem with your logic systems.

America does need those things, but it's not Apple's job to provide them. However, with Apple bringing in their overseas money and paying taxes on said money ($38 billion, according to the article) AND creating new jobs (those workers will now be paying taxes too), more money will be going to the government to fund those projects you speak of. The economy is not some zero sum game, where if Apple increases supply of iPhones, money has to be taken away from somewhere else; new wealth is being created in this situation, not being diverted away from public projects towards iPhones, as you suggest.

So now we're only talking about Apple?  Not corporations in general?  And no, it's not a zero sum game.  Nor is it an infinite sum game as you suggest.  Economic growth potential is not infinite.  And one of the great limits to economic growth is the quality of infrastructure available to facilitate economic growth.  So yes, it is entirely possible that an economy is inefficiently giving excess profits to corporations at the cost of infrastructure maintenance which reduces potential future economic growth.  Beyond that, the distribution of wealth to the consumers in an economy is a major limiting factor in their ability to purchase the products and services that might contribute to innovation, progress, and economic growth.  If you give one guy billions and 100,000 people some debt owed to the billion aire and a wink and a smile... things won't go well for very long.

[Antonio the Sixth]

... That proves nothing, except that you guys almost certainly never visited Ohio. Neither have I, for the record, but at least I don't proclaim to know the future political orientation of a state based on one Presidential election and a couple of out-of-context maps.

Ohio wasn't some massive swing towards Trump; Clinton hemorrhaged former Obama supporters, due to a variety of reasons. Let's take a look at turnout in the state from the 2012 and 2016 Presidential Elections. Overall, 54,387 fewer people voted in 2016 than 2012.

5,590,934 - 5,536,547 = -54,387

Now, look at the change in raw numbers from Obama to Clinton and from Romney to Trump. There were 433,540 fewer people who voted for the Democrat in 2016 than 2012, but only 179,569 more that voted for the Republican.

2,827,709 - 2,394,169 = -433,540
2,661,437 - 2,841,006 = +179,569

So, where did voter turnout drop the most?

Cuyahoga County (Cleveland): 645,262 - 608,879 = -36,383
Summit County (Akron): 268,358 - 260,346 = -8,012
Stark County (Canton): 181,746 - 176,165 = -5,581
Mahoning County (Youngstown): 121,584 - 115,971 = -5,613
Lucas County (Toledo): 210,621 - 198,830 = -11,791
Montgomery County (Dayton): 266,707 - 259,876 = -6,831
Hamilton County (Cincinnati): 418,894 - 409,109 = -9,785

What really happened in these counties?

Cuyahoga County
447,273 (Obama) - 398,276 (Clinton) = -48,997
190,660 (Romney) - 184,212 (Trump) = -6,448

Summit County
153,041 (Obama) - 134,256 (Clinton) = -18,785
111,001 (Romney) - 112,026 (Trump) = +1,025

Stark County
89,432 (Obama) - 68,146 (Clinton) = -21,286
88,581 (Romney) - 98,388 (Trump) = +9,807

Mahoning County
77,059 (Obama) - 57,381 (Clinton) = -19,678
42,641 (Romney) - 53,616 (Trump) = +10,975

Lucas County
136,616 (Obama) - 110,833 (Clinton) = -25,783
69,940 (Romney) - 75,698 (Romney) = +5,758

Montgomery County
137,139 (Obama) - 122,016 (Clinton) = -15,123
124,841 (Romney) - 123,909 (Trump) = -932

Hamilton County
219,927 (Obama) - 215,719 (Clinton) = -4,208
193,326 (Romney) - 173,665 (Trump) = -19,661

In counties where the Democrats lost the most voters, there wasn't a significant shift towards the Republicans. Voters simply went third party or, more often, stayed home.

It's also important to note that even though Trump won Ohio with a higher percentage of the vote than Bush in 2004 (51.31% for Trump, 50.81% for Bush), Trump didn't even reach Bush's raw vote totals (2,841,006 for Trump, 2,859,768 for Bush). And, this is not due to population decline in the state, since Ohio's population was 11,353,140 at the 2000 census and 11,613,423 in 2015.

Voter turnout in Ohio since 2000...

2000: 4,705,457 (2,186,190 = Gore | 2,351,209 = Bush)
2004: 5,627,908 (2,741,167 = Kerry | 2,859,768 = Bush)
2008: 5,721,831 (2,940,044 = Obama | 2,677,820 = McCain)
2012: 5,590,934 (2,827,709 = Obama | 2,661,437 = Romney)
2016: 5,536,547 (2,394,169 = Clinton | 2,841,006 = Trump)

Basically, Trump experienced a decent increase in votes over Romney, but Clinton experienced a dramatic decline over Obama - especially from his 2008 peak, and even from Kerry's results. There's nothing to indicate that (a) there were a significant number of Obama-Trump voters and (b) the next Democrat cannot recreate the results that Obama received simply by turning out the vote. Even if Trump held all of his voters, if the next Democrat could slightly increase Obama's 2012 numbers, the Democrat would win.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

... That proves nothing, except that you guys almost certainly never visited Ohio. Neither have I, for the record, but at least I don't proclaim to know the future political orientation of a state based on one Presidential election and a couple of out-of-context maps.

Ohio wasn't some massive swing towards Trump; Clinton hemorrhaged former Obama supporters, due to a variety of reasons. Let's take a look at turnout in the state from the 2012 and 2016 Presidential Elections. Overall, 54,387 fewer people voted in 2016 than 2012.

5,590,934 - 5,536,547 = -54,387

Now, look at the change in raw numbers from Obama to Clinton and from Romney to Trump. There were 433,540 fewer people who voted for the Democrat in 2016 than 2012, but only 179,569 more that voted for the Republican.

2,827,709 - 2,394,169 = -433,540
2,661,437 - 2,841,006 = +179,569

So, where did voter turnout drop the most?

Cuyahoga County (Cleveland): 645,262 - 608,879 = -36,383
Summit County (Akron): 268,358 - 260,346 = -8,012
Stark County (Canton): 181,746 - 176,165 = -5,581
Mahoning County (Youngstown): 121,584 - 115,971 = -5,613
Lucas County (Toledo): 210,621 - 198,830 = -11,791
Montgomery County (Dayton): 266,707 - 259,876 = -6,831
Hamilton County (Cincinnati): 418,894 - 409,109 = -9,785

What really happened in these counties?

Cuyahoga County
447,273 (Obama) - 398,276 (Clinton) = -48,997
190,660 (Romney) - 184,212 (Trump) = -6,448

Summit County
153,041 (Obama) - 134,256 (Clinton) = -18,785
111,001 (Romney) - 112,026 (Trump) = +1,025

Stark County
89,432 (Obama) - 68,146 (Clinton) = -21,286
88,581 (Romney) - 98,388 (Trump) = +9,807

Mahoning County
77,059 (Obama) - 57,381 (Clinton) = -19,678
42,641 (Romney) - 53,616 (Trump) = +10,975

Lucas County
136,616 (Obama) - 110,833 (Clinton) = -25,783
69,940 (Romney) - 75,698 (Romney) = +5,758

Montgomery County
137,139 (Obama) - 122,016 (Clinton) = -15,123
124,841 (Romney) - 123,909 (Trump) = -932

Hamilton County
219,927 (Obama) - 215,719 (Clinton) = -4,208
193,326 (Romney) - 173,665 (Trump) = -19,661

In counties where the Democrats lost the most voters, there wasn't a significant shift towards the Republicans. Voters simply went third party or, more often, stayed home.

It's also important to note that even though Trump won Ohio with a higher percentage of the vote than Bush in 2004 (51.31% for Trump, 50.81% for Bush), Trump didn't even reach Bush's raw vote totals (2,841,006 for Trump, 2,859,768 for Bush). And, this is not due to population decline in the state, since Ohio's population was 11,353,140 at the 2000 census and 11,613,423 in 2015.

Voter turnout in Ohio since 2000...

2000: 4,705,457 (2,186,190 = Gore | 2,351,209 = Bush)
2004: 5,627,908 (2,741,167 = Kerry | 2,859,768 = Bush)
2008: 5,721,831 (2,940,044 = Obama | 2,677,820 = McCain)
2012: 5,590,934 (2,827,709 = Obama | 2,661,437 = Romney)
2016: 5,536,547 (2,394,169 = Clinton | 2,841,006 = Trump)

Basically, Trump experienced a decent increase in votes over Romney, but Clinton experienced a dramatic decline over Obama - especially from his 2008 peak, and even from Kerry's results. There's nothing to indicate that (a) there were a significant number of Obama-Trump voters and (b) the next Democrat cannot recreate the results that Obama received simply by turning out the vote. Even if Trump held all of his voters, if the next Democrat could slightly increase Obama's 2012 numbers, the Democrat would win.

Came here to post this.

[IceSpear]

The "Opinion of ____" threads with FF/HP polls are a permanent staple of the Atlas forum, for better or worse. They are very much a part of the forum culture. I enjoy the existence of "opinion of" threads because of how bizarre and uniquely Atlas the entire concept is. I doubt there's anything like it at all anywhere else on the internet.

Like, think about it for a moment. The forum membership literally polls itself to determine the favorability ratings of posters as if they were politicians or something. We even use our own bizarre jargon in the polls: "freedom fighter" and "horrible person," and there's only a very small group of us still around who were forum members when those two phrases were first created. Yet for some reason the phrases and acronyms took root and now we've been saying them for an entire decade!

The thousands of you who have joined since then must have been so perplexed the first time you noticed "FF" and "HP" were a standard part of the forum's parlance. "Isn't it rude to call someone a "horrible person where they can read it?," I'm sure most of you thought at one point, and "why does 'Freedom Fighter' mean good?"

Yet almost everyone accepts it without question and soon starts using the acronyms themselves. This bizarre tradition has been in place for a decade and it would be a travesty to do away with it now.

[RINO Tom]

... That proves nothing, except that you guys almost certainly never visited Ohio. Neither have I, for the record, but at least I don't proclaim to know the future political orientation of a state based on one Presidential election and a couple of out-of-context maps.

Ohio wasn't some massive swing towards Trump; Clinton hemorrhaged former Obama supporters, due to a variety of reasons. Let's take a look at turnout in the state from the 2012 and 2016 Presidential Elections. Overall, 54,387 fewer people voted in 2016 than 2012.

5,590,934 - 5,536,547 = -54,387

Now, look at the change in raw numbers from Obama to Clinton and from Romney to Trump. There were 433,540 fewer people who voted for the Democrat in 2016 than 2012, but only 179,569 more that voted for the Republican.

2,827,709 - 2,394,169 = -433,540
2,661,437 - 2,841,006 = +179,569

So, where did voter turnout drop the most?

Cuyahoga County (Cleveland): 645,262 - 608,879 = -36,383
Summit County (Akron): 268,358 - 260,346 = -8,012
Stark County (Canton): 181,746 - 176,165 = -5,581
Mahoning County (Youngstown): 121,584 - 115,971 = -5,613
Lucas County (Toledo): 210,621 - 198,830 = -11,791
Montgomery County (Dayton): 266,707 - 259,876 = -6,831
Hamilton County (Cincinnati): 418,894 - 409,109 = -9,785

What really happened in these counties?

Cuyahoga County
447,273 (Obama) - 398,276 (Clinton) = -48,997
190,660 (Romney) - 184,212 (Trump) = -6,448

Summit County
153,041 (Obama) - 134,256 (Clinton) = -18,785
111,001 (Romney) - 112,026 (Trump) = +1,025

Stark County
89,432 (Obama) - 68,146 (Clinton) = -21,286
88,581 (Romney) - 98,388 (Trump) = +9,807

Mahoning County
77,059 (Obama) - 57,381 (Clinton) = -19,678
42,641 (Romney) - 53,616 (Trump) = +10,975

Lucas County
136,616 (Obama) - 110,833 (Clinton) = -25,783
69,940 (Romney) - 75,698 (Romney) = +5,758

Montgomery County
137,139 (Obama) - 122,016 (Clinton) = -15,123
124,841 (Romney) - 123,909 (Trump) = -932

Hamilton County
219,927 (Obama) - 215,719 (Clinton) = -4,208
193,326 (Romney) - 173,665 (Trump) = -19,661

In counties where the Democrats lost the most voters, there wasn't a significant shift towards the Republicans. Voters simply went third party or, more often, stayed home.

It's also important to note that even though Trump won Ohio with a higher percentage of the vote than Bush in 2004 (51.31% for Trump, 50.81% for Bush), Trump didn't even reach Bush's raw vote totals (2,841,006 for Trump, 2,859,768 for Bush). And, this is not due to population decline in the state, since Ohio's population was 11,353,140 at the 2000 census and 11,613,423 in 2015.

Voter turnout in Ohio since 2000...

2000: 4,705,457 (2,186,190 = Gore | 2,351,209 = Bush)
2004: 5,627,908 (2,741,167 = Kerry | 2,859,768 = Bush)
2008: 5,721,831 (2,940,044 = Obama | 2,677,820 = McCain)
2012: 5,590,934 (2,827,709 = Obama | 2,661,437 = Romney)
2016: 5,536,547 (2,394,169 = Clinton | 2,841,006 = Trump)

Basically, Trump experienced a decent increase in votes over Romney, but Clinton experienced a dramatic decline over Obama - especially from his 2008 peak, and even from Kerry's results. There's nothing to indicate that (a) there were a significant number of Obama-Trump voters and (b) the next Democrat cannot recreate the results that Obama received simply by turning out the vote. Even if Trump held all of his voters, if the next Democrat could slightly increase Obama's 2012 numbers, the Democrat would win.

Came here to post this.

Posts like this are why this site remains valuable.  It's so simple and easy to think of Ohio as "Obama-Trump Ground Zero," and he just pretty much destroyed that narrative with, ya know, actual research and facts.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

You should probably try to define conservatism and define what you mean by morally justifiable if you want to have this conversation.

Typically normative ethics is divided into three different schools of thought: utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics. A sort of "traditional values" based conservatism is more or less a watered down version of virtue ethics or deontology, though it doesn't fit well with a utilitarian system since it's evaluating ideas by some sort of intrinsic metric and utilitarianism is measuring them by outcome. A more free market style "conservatism" is going to match up a bit better with utilitarianism. But simply stumbling in to opine that conservatives value some undefined principles you see as arcane over an ill-defined set of outcomes you think important (i.e. "people's lives") says very little if anything about its moral justifiably.

[Don Vito Corleone]

For those of you who don't know the story behind this, a while ago Admiral President made a timeline called "Misfire", where Oswald's gun jams and JFK Lives. The first reply was a comment by FDB saying "go on", and there were quite a few people (including me) who empty quoted this. Eventually, one user said our empty quoting had gotten out of hand, but another user decided to not only again empty quote FDB's go on, but to empty quote the user who had said the empty quoting had got out of hand, and to merge these two empty quotes. From then on the entire thread was just people merging empty quotes to see just how big we could get this empty quote. The final empty quote, dear reader, before a mod deleted the thread, looked like this:

Can I assume that this TL is dead?

Why would it be dead?

Because all the useless messages and quote chains.

But that's the best part!

Can we stop with these quoting from a quote that quotes from a quote, etcera etcera?

Go on

Can we stop with these quoting from a quote that quotes from a quote, etcera etcera?

Get out.

This thread was a mistake.

The only mistake here is you outing yourself as a blasphemer!

When can we expect the first update?

I think this may have gotten a little bit out of hand.

Agreed. Are we going to actually wait for an update, or make this gargantuan quote chain even longer?

Make it longer. Why the hell not!

What the hell happened to my timeline

You didn't update quick enough, that's what happened. If you had just posted an update earlier First Degree Burns wouldn't have posted "Go on", and the quote chain wouldn't have started. So basically, it's all your fault.

[RINO Tom]

I agree with your assessment of Jefferson's views, but will say that I don't think it's much different than the rhetoric used my many today in arguing against protectionism. Economic conservatives/libertarians believe in pro-free market policies, not pro-business policies. Government should not take a proactive role in protecting business, giving them special favors/protections. etc. Government simply should get out of the way and let businesses succeed or FAIL on their own.

Such has not been the case historically, however. Opposition to government intervention in the economy as a matter of principle is a relatively new phenomenon; in Jefferson's day, the battle over the tariff was waged between manufacturers in one corner, who favored a strong tariff to protect their interests, and an alliance of farmers and southern planters in the other, who opposed the tariff for the same self-interested reason. The former represented the Hamiltonian faction who organized as the Federalist Party and later merged with Henry Clay's "National" Republicans to become the Whig Party in the 1830s—and by every meaningful standard, they represented the conservative element in the politics of their time. Jeffersonian support for free trade sprung from the same well of distrust for centralized power, whether political or financial, that inspired their admiration for the French Revolution. Theirs was not a principled support for the free market, but a reflexive opposition to the expanding power of big business, which they saw as an existential threat to the republican nature of the United States much in the same way progressives today talk about campaign finance reform.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

For those of you who don't know the story behind this, a while ago Admiral President made a timeline called "Misfire", where Oswald's gun jams and JFK Lives. The first reply was a comment by FDB saying "go on", and there were quite a few people (including me) who empty quoted this. Eventually, one user said our empty quoting had gotten out of hand, but another user decided to not only again empty quote FDB's go on, but to empty quote the user who had said the empty quoting had got out of hand, and to merge these two empty quotes. From then on the entire thread was just people merging empty quotes to see just how big we could get this empty quote. The final empty quote, dear reader, before a mod deleted the thread, looked like this:

[snip]

"Misfire" - the greatest thread in the history of forums, deleted by a moderator after 3 pages of heated empty-quoting,

[Cactus Jack]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=283036.0

Everything in this thread.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Considering Republican opposition to affordable healthcare being available to everyone is by their worst trait, I suppose I'd say FF.

As has been said a thousand different times by a thousand different people, simply because conservatives don't support GOVERNMENT providing a service doesn't mean that conservatives don't believe in the utility/necessity of said service in the first place. The current system under Obamacare has been a disaster and the system before Obamacare was a disaster, but the system previous to Obamacare was absolutely, in no way, a free market. Even before Obamacare, government spending on healthcare in the United States was some of the highest in the world. The best solution is to move to a system of increased competition, person-centered (instead of employer-centered) insurance, increased use of HSAs, as well as other market reforms. Lower insurance costs resulting from there reforms will ensure that poorer Americans can afford health insurance for themselves.