2016 Presidential Horse Race

[phgreek]

I'm on your side here, but you have to acknowledge that he moved the voters that mattered in the right places on the map. That is something that the dems need to lock down before these states turn red in the future. Which the optimist in me believes Trump will go too far and drag more than a few of his supporters to be in a box four years from now. If, for example, he dicks with trade by throwing a big tariff on China, as he suggested, that will have an upward impact of prices on all manner of goods. Will 4 years of such policy inspire people who vote on pocketbook issues to stick with him? What effect might throwing 20 million people off heath insurance roles have on angry voters to whom promises were made and results "guaranteed" by this deal making genius?

Even it is some sort of migration to the right, which on a national level I agree there is not, in the rust belt it appears to have mattered to the folks who decided to vote. I believe it will be short lived if there are no results -- the math stops working. If they don't deliver they are just another politician who lied to them.

I would think that SHOULD ALWAYS be the case regardless of party.

 

[GoIrish41]

I would think that SHOULD ALWAYS be the case regardless of party.

Perhaps it should, but you should at least acknowledge that it is not the reality for most people in this country. Most prefer their "beliefs" to be packaged for them by a political party, sadly.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

So you two are saying that the ACA had no impact? I totally disagree.

And yes, I understand that Trump is NOT a small government person, that wasn't my claim...but you're missing my point about the ACA. Trump is about repealing it. That's what resonates. The people only see dollars and cents. They see their health care rising and the insurance companies that are backing out. They lost their doctors when government told them they wouldn't. What makes you think that Bernie could sell them on even more government in that specific sector? I think you are way off on that one.

Your argument seemed to be, "I don't think Bernie would have beaten Trump, because he was promising more government involvement in healthcare, and people don't like the ACA." People don't like the ACA because it's a shitty law that has caused premiums to skyrocket for millions of Americans; not because it's "big gubmint". The people who put Trump in the White House like their government benefits quite a lot, and there's plenty of evidence that they liked what Bernie was selling.

Bernie, like Trump, found success due to a cult of personality ad a vocal minority of very fervent supporters. He was also running against the single worst candidate in the modern history of presidential politics and he still got trounced.

If Hillary was the only common thread here, you might have an argument. But that doesn't explain why the Establishment candidate lost against the outsider in the last 3 elections. And it doesn't explain why Trump was +16 over Romney with voters in the lowest income bracket:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I wish people would stop sharing this without noting the 16 point swing to Trump among <$30k incomes <a href="https://t.co/8tU3KDI0ph">https://t.co/8tU3KDI0ph</a></p>— ryan cooper (@ryanlcooper) <a href="https://twitter.com/ryanlcooper/status/796483224016920576">November 9, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Marco Rubio would have run away with the nomination in February if Chris Christie hadn't boned him in the New Hampshire debate. Any one of the other candidates, including Jeb, would have beaten Trump. I don't need to explain to you the mathematical advantage of a small plurality of supporters in a crowded field. I'm not crying "no fair," it is what it is. I just think we're going overboard with our retrospective analysis of how popular Trump was in either the primary or the general.

(1) If a couple of nasty comments from Christie was all it took to turn Rubio into a stuttering robot (and thereby wreck his entire campaign), he wasn't ready for prime time. And Trump made countless gaffes, none of which seemed to touch him. Perhaps that means GOP primary voters didn't just reject Rubio because of that one miscue?

(2) Jeb would have lost almost as badly as Clinton did. He had all the same establishmentarian baggage that she did.

(3) You're simply not comfortable with this retrospective analysis because it quite clearly demonstrates that your favored politics has no future.

Holy conflation, batman. The populism is in Europe is a revolt against exactly the kind of policies Bernie Sanders advocates for America. They're not the same in the slightest. The "Remain" supporters in the UK are quintessential Bernie people.

Absolutely not. The populism sweeping Europe is a revolt against globalists like Clinton, Jeb and Romney. Bernie was, in many respects, running against that same class of people. He has never been a member of the Davos/ Martha's Vineyard crowd.

 

[Cackalacky]

I Cack is trying to get me to move to this place... I see what's going on here...........

East of Highway 17 along the coast is generally great. The Redneck Riviera (Myrtle Beach) is still a bit dicey. Otherwise....

 

[phgreek]

Perhaps it should, but you should at least acknowledge that it is not the reality for most people in this country. Most prefer their "beliefs" to be packaged for them by a political party, sadly.

Yup...thats why I stressed SHOULD ALWAYS.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Yeah, Whiskey's analysis is on the money here. Trump himself said it- Brexit X 100. This was a rejection of the political elite- on both sides, and that includes economic conservatism.

I don't know if Sanders would have won. He might have captured more of the rural vote but I think Trump would have been able to hammer away on the socialist aspect. But he would have tapped into the exact same energy Trump did.

 

[Bluto]

And Cack is trying to get me to move to this place... I see what's going on here...........

You could do that TV show Wife Swap. Is that still on? Maybe Donald can be the first President on that show. In the spirit of healing the nation he could trade spouses with Elton John or something.

 

[wizards8507]

East of Highway 17 along the coast is generally great. The Redneck Riviera (Myrtle Beach) is still a bit dicey. Otherwise....

There's a breakfast place in Hilton Head with the best potatoes known to mankind. Kenny B's French Quarter Cafe.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I don't know if Sanders would have won. He might have captured more of the rural vote but I think Trump would have been able to hammer away on the socialist aspect. But he would have tapped into the exact same energy Trump did.

He had all of Trump's upside, and none of his many downsides. It would have been a bloodbath (in his favor).

 

[Cackalacky]

He had all of Trump's upside, and none of his many downsides. It would have been a bloodbath (in his favor).

Absolutely agree with all that you have posted today. HRC was soooo fragile politically. Bernie had a forty year record of being strong politically whether you agreed with him or not. He had tons of strength.

 

[phillyirish]

I didn't vote Trump (Gary Johnson), but man is it satisfying to see people on Facebook crying saying "we gotta remain strong" or "this only a step back, the fight continues".

Shit man, it's just an election not the Super Bowl, get over it.

 

[Emcee77]

Your argument seemed to be, "I don't think Bernie would have beaten Trump, because he was promising more government involvement in healthcare, and people don't like the ACA." People don't like the ACA because it's a shitty law that has caused premiums to skyrocket for millions of Americans; not because it's "big gubmint". The people who put Trump in the White House like their government benefits quite a lot, and there's plenty of evidence that they liked what Bernie was selling.



If Hillary was the only common thread here, you might have an argument. But that doesn't explain why the Establishment candidate lost against the outsider in the last 3 elections. And it doesn't explain why Trump was +16 over Romney with voters in the lowest income bracket


(1) If a couple of nasty comments from Christie was all it took to turn Rubio into a stuttering robot (and thereby wreck his entire campaign), he wasn't ready for prime time. And Trump made countless gaffes, none of which seemed to touch him. Perhaps that means GOP primary voters didn't just reject Rubio because of that one miscue?

(2) Jeb would have lost almost as badly as Clinton did. He had all the same establishmentarian baggage that she did.

(3) You're simply not comfortable with this retrospective analysis because it quite clearly demonstrates that your favored politics has no future.



Absolutely not. The populism sweeping Europe is a revolt against globalists like Clinton, Jeb and Romney. Bernie was, in many respects, running against that same class of people.

Right, all true, but especially the bolded. No doubt that a huge factor in the outcome of this election was the fact that many white working-class voters the Dems were counting on didn't vote for Hillary because they just despise her. But they didn't just not vote ... they VOTED FOR TRUMP. Ideologically, this makes no sense, and that's what party leaders need to worry about. This election was not about traditional Dem/Rep core principles. People are and should be worried that populism is the wave of the future.

It's also a factor that black and Latino voters didn't turn out for Clinton as expected; in fact, unbelievably, Trump did better with Latinos than Romney did. But that's not what the election turned on. There just aren't enough of those voters in the Rust Belt states that flipped or swung to Trump to have really made the difference. And that's what has to be worrying to the Dems, at least in the short term. The demographic trends are broadly in their favor, but the Dems don't live in the right places. It doesn't help in a national election to win California by 35 points. It's only 55 electoral votes whether you win by 35 points or 1 point.

And I have no doubt that Sanders would have won. He would have scored enough of those Rust Belt white working-class voters who traditionally vote Democratic to win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and maybe even Ohio.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Worth noting that the last 5 democratic presidents have been:


Obama
Clinton
Carter
Johnson
and
Kennedy

Johnson only was elected because of Kennedy's assassination and Carter was able to take advantage of the post Watergate backlash and was only a one term president.

Outside of those two, the three who managed to win office under normal circumstances are three of the most charismatic politicians of the modern era.

In post-dixiecrat America, I'm no longer convinced that Democrats can win without a political wünderkind. We rely too much on enthusiasm to generate turnout.

 

[phgreek]

I didn't vote Trump (Gary Johnson), but man is it satisfying to see people on Facebook crying saying "we gotta remain strong" or "this only a step back, the fight continues".

Shit man, it's just an election not the Super Bowl, get over it.

...Seriously

#Priorities

 

[IrishinSyria]

It doesn't help in a national election to win California by 35 points. It's only 55 electoral votes whether you win by 35 points or 1 point.

This is why the medium term picture in the House and Senate is grim. Dems are just too concentrated and the value our system allocates to a vote is directly and inversely correlated to population density.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I love this board. There are very few places on the internet where you can find civil political discourse on this level.

 

[GoIrish41]

This is why the medium term picture in the House and Senate is grim. Dems are just too concentrated and the value our system allocates to a vote is directly and inversely correlated to population density.

And since that is the reality we need to figure out a plan for the rural voters that resonates and have that charismatic leader to deliver it. Despite the map, this was a very close election and we would be wise to be as "inclusive" as we claim to be. I believe there is a compelling argument to be made to rural voters, but an attempt must be made to reach them.

 

[phillyirish]

Worth noting that the last 5 democratic presidents have been:


Obama
Clinton
Carter
Johnson
and
Kennedy

Johnson only was elected because of Kennedy's assassination and Carter was able to take advantage of the post Watergate backlash and was only a one term president.

Outside of those two, the three who managed to win office under normal circumstances are three of the most charismatic politicians of the modern era.

In post-dixiecrat America, I'm no longer convinced that Democrats can win without a political wünderkind. We rely too much on enthusiasm to generate turnout.

Yet on the other hand, Republicans have only won the popular vote once (2004) since 1992, so......

 

[NorthDakota]

And since that is the reality we need to figure out a plan for the rural voters that resonates and have that charismatic leader to deliver it. Despite the map, this was a very close election and we would be wise to be as "inclusive" as we claim to be. I believe there is a compelling argument to be made to rural voters, but an attempt must be made to reach them.

Getting rural voters as well as the very liberal ones is going to be hard for the Democrats. I don't know how you'd go about getting both groups.

 

[IrishBroker]

And since that is the reality we need to figure out a plan for the rural voters that resonates and have that charismatic leader to deliver it. Despite the map, this was a very close election and we would be wise to be as "inclusive" as we claim to be. I believe there is a compelling argument to be made to rural voters, but an attempt must be made to reach them.

You know what won't reach them? Telling them they are racists, burning cars, acting like children.

Rural voters are salt of the earth people that aren't going to be swayed by a charismatic leader of crybabies.

But I agree they missed on this. I mean, as I said earlier, she didn't even step foot in Wisconsin. Really!?!?!


Same goes for Repubs and the inner city voters. Which is why I like what Trump said in his victory speech...Rebuild the inner cities and infrastructure. That's reaching out.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Yet on the other hand, Republicans have only won the popular vote once (2004) since 1992, so......

But that's the problem- certain votes in the US count for way more than others. Dems apparently need to win by 2% or so to feel comfortable with the electoral college. They haven't been able to do that without young, exciting, charismatic politicians.

 

[IrishinSyria]

You know what won't reach them? Telling them they are racists, burning cars, acting like children.

Rural voters are salt of the earth people that aren't going to be swayed by a charismatic leader of crybabies.

But I agree they missed on this. I mean, as I said earlier, she didn't even step foot in Wisconsin. Really!?!?!


Same goes for Repubs and the inner city voters. Which is why I like what Trump said in his victory speech...Rebuild the inner cities and infrastructure. That's reaching out.

This is kind of a selective hearing problem though- and it goes both ways (like you point out). No way you can control everything your base does- and to be honest, I bet half of the people out in the streets last night didn't even fracking vote because they were butt hurt about Bernie.

Each side hears the loudest voices and the most objectionable ones from across the aisle.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Speaking of the loudest and most objectionable voices...

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I'm an American journalist. I majored in US politics. I was a White House intern, a CNN producer.<br><br>This is what Trump voters think of me. <a href="https://t.co/nsEeeBeWss">pic.twitter.com/nsEeeBeWss</a></p>— Wilfred Chan (@wilfredchan) <a href="https://twitter.com/wilfredchan/status/796657824625553408">November 10, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[IrishBroker]

This is kind of a selective hearing problem though- and it goes both ways (like you point out). No way you can control everything your base does- and to be honest, I bet half of the people out in the streets last night didn't even fracking vote because they were butt hurt about Bernie.

Each side hears the loudest voices and the most objectionable ones from across the aisle.

Then I'd suggest having the Dem elite have a talk with the liberal news outlets....

The problem is, the news media has created it's own political party, if you will

 

[IrishBroker]

Speaking of the loudest and most objectionable voices...

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I'm an American journalist. I majored in US politics. I was a White House intern, a CNN producer.<br><br>This is what Trump voters think of me. <a href="https://t.co/nsEeeBeWss">pic.twitter.com/nsEeeBeWss</a></p>— Wilfred Chan (@wilfredchan) <a href="https://twitter.com/wilfredchan/status/796657824625553408">November 10, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Thanks, Twitter.

Keep in mind that twitter is full of scholars and great people.


(this is the reason I don't have twitter)

 

[NDgradstudent]

Speaking of the loudest and most objectionable voices...

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I'm an American journalist. I majored in US politics. I was a White House intern, a CNN producer.<br><br>This is what Trump voters think of me. <a href="https://t.co/nsEeeBeWss">pic.twitter.com/nsEeeBeWss</a></p>— Wilfred Chan (@wilfredchan) <a href="https://twitter.com/wilfredchan/status/796657824625553408">November 10, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

We've all been called nasty names in our lives. Certainly any conservative in academia has to put up with plenty of it. Some people were rude to you on Twitter? Get over it. Yeesh.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Yeah, I think one of the things people who are worried about Trump are saying is that he clearly used Twitter to reach out to and energize and in some sense legitimize a lot of these people. And sure, a lot of them are probably trolling... but at some point even that becomes a real act.

IDK, this has not been the finest moment in American politics. I don't think I have any insights or analysis beyond that.

 

[IrishinSyria]

We've all been called nasty names in our lives. Certainly any conservative in academia has to put up with plenty of it. Some people were rude to you on Twitter? Get over it. Yeesh.

Same.

 

[Shamrock Theories]

What the hell is going on? Look at all this shit

https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656

 

[ulukinatme]

Thanks, Twitter.

Keep in mind that twitter is full of scholars and great people.


(this is the reason I don't have twitter)

The unsilent minority destroyed GamerGate too. What started as a movement towards journalism ethics devolved into "misogynistic, racist, sexist hatemongering" after a subset of idiots took to Twitter and attacked some of the people involved. It became all about the attacks as the media swept the journalism ethics portion under the rug. Wait, media calling people a bunch of sexist, racist, misogynistic jerks...hope they never resort to that in politics!