US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

[dismal]

It's like a football game where the losing team gets more rushing and passing yards but the winning team scores more points.

More like a situation where the home team gets to change the field geometry, so it's 60 yards wide at the opponent's endzone and only 30 yards wide at their own endzone.

Except in this analogy the geometry was set before the home team existed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't recall Pelosi being the reason the Democrats lost. The Democrats won the popular vote for President for the 6th time in the last 7 elections.

If Democrats continue to believe that the popular vote for president means shit then they just may continue to lose the presidential elections to the Republicans. They really need to learn that it is the States that elect the President if they want to get back in contention.

A Democrat was President in 4 of the last 6 terms in the US. Losing one election doesn't mean things went to heck in a hand basket and the Democrats are heading for the mountains in a plane on fire.

For someone to solve what they see as a problem they must first learn that what they think "ought to be" doesn't matter - it is what "is" that matters.

Well, it is hard to undo the propaganda from 30 years of radio.

Pelosi didn't fail in connecting with white voters. The Republican AM Radio / Internet empire has convinced poor, uneducated white people to vote against their own interests very well.

Yet another problem with the Democrat strategy. The population, in general, is becoming more and more repulsed by identity politics.

Actually, "identity politics" is bullshit from the right-wing, kind of like "politically correct". All these entitlements for poor people benefit more white people than black people.

 

[Trausti]

The Republican AM Radio / Internet empire has convinced poor, uneducated white people to vote against their own interests very well.

If Dems want to get back into electoral relevance, they ought to stop demeaning "uneducated" White people. (Incidentally, Trump won the "educated" white male vote and just lost the "educated" white female vote.) I've not bothered to search, but I'd bet that Clinton won the uneducated Black and Latino vote. Should they be demeaned as well for being too "uneducated" to know their own interests? The reason that any person votes the way they do is as varied as there are people. Howard Stern did segments in '08 and '12 showing that some Obama supporters didn't understand any of the issues (one said that Sarah Palin was a good VP pick for him). I'm sure you could do that about Trump supporters, too. But this arrogance that people with a differing political viewpoint are stupid or are not capable of determining their own political interest may keep the Dems in the wilderness for a long time to come.

 

[skepticalbip]

If Democrats continue to believe that the popular vote for president means shit then they just may continue to lose the presidential elections to the Republicans. They really need to learn that it is the States that elect the President if they want to get back in contention. For someone to solve what they see as a problem they must first learn that what they think "ought to be" doesn't matter - it is what "is" that matters.

Pelosi didn't fail in connecting with white voters. The Republican AM Radio / Internet empire has convinced poor, uneducated white people to vote against their own interests very well.

Yet another problem with the Democrat strategy. The population, in general, is becoming more and more repulsed by identity politics.

Hmmm.... the popular vote is irrelevant but "the population in general" is?
It doesn't matter at the end of the day. Republican gerrymandering ensures that as long as AM radio-ignorance pervades the people in their target districts, "the population in general" can go fuck itself, and they'll stay in control.

Did your school not teach you anything about American government in the civics class?

The US is a federation of States. It is the States that elect the President. The popular vote within the State directs its electors how they are to vote (regardless of the national popular vote). The EU is set up similarly in that it is the countries within the union that select the EU leadership (not a popular vote) but it is the popular vote within the countries that selects the country's governmental leaders.

And yes, people are becoming repulsed by identity politics and it is people of the State that tell their electoral college for their State how they want them to vote for President.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Democrats won the popular vote for President for the 6th time in the last 7 elections.

It's like a football game where the losing team gets more rushing and passing yards but the winning team scores more points.

I like analogies too.

- - - Updated - - -

The Republican AM Radio / Internet empire has convinced poor, uneducated white people to vote against their own interests very well.

If Dems want to get back into electoral relevance, they ought to stop demeaning "uneducated" White people.

You mean by supporting the fiscal welfare nets that so many of them use?

Besides, talk about entitlements, "I didn't go to college, but the Government should make certain I can have a high paying job! And a living wage is evil!"

 

[Trausti]

It's like a football game where the losing team gets more rushing and passing yards but the winning team scores more points.

More like a situation where the home team gets to change the field geometry, so it's 60 yards wide at the opponent's endzone and only 30 yards wide at their own endzone.

You're saying that Clinton didn't know she needed 270 electoral votes to win?

 

[laughing dog]

And yes, people are becoming repulsed by identity politics

You do realize that Trump ran heavily on identity politics. Or is only identity politics when it isn't your identity?

 

[skepticalbip]

And yes, people are becoming repulsed by identity politics

You do realize that Trump ran heavily on identity politics. Or is only identity politics when it isn't your identity?

No shit? And how many people did that upset? Both candidates did and that is one of the big reasonx both had negative approval ratings of more than 50%.

ETA:
For a hell of a lot of people the election amounted to choosing which of the two they thought was less disgusting.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You do realize that Trump ran heavily on identity politics. Or is only identity politics when it isn't your identity?

No shit? And how many people did that upset? Both candidates did and that is one of the big reasonx both had negative approval ratings of more than 50%.

Clinton didn't run on identity politics.

 

[skepticalbip]

No shit? And how many people did that upset? Both candidates did and that is one of the big reasonx both had negative approval ratings of more than 50%.

Clinton didn't run on identity politics.

Thanks.

 

[Trausti]

Clinton didn't run on identity politics.

Thanks.

It's not the same type of identity politics when we do it.

Identity politics is the glue that kept the Dems' disparate coalition together: make'm all hate the evil cis-gendered white dude. But why should Blacks give a hoot about allowing increased migration from Mexico?

 

[laughing dog]

You do realize that Trump ran heavily on identity politics. Or is only identity politics when it isn't your identity?

No shit? And how many people did that upset? Both candidates did and that is one of the big reasonx both had negative approval ratings of more than 50%.

Yeah, Trump's identity politics were so repulsive that all those rural white folks voted Democratic and cost him the election.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Thanks.

It's not the same type of identity politics when we do it.

Identity politics is the glue that kept the Dems' disparate coalition together: make'm all hate the evil cis-gendered white dude. But why should Blacks give a hoot about allowing increased migration from Mexico?

Migration from Central America and Mexico was down under Obama due to the economy. The manufacturing jobs left in the 80s and 90s. Hillary Clinton seems to have lost on a referendum on the past.

 

[Trausti]

It's not the same type of identity politics when we do it.

Identity politics is the glue that kept the Dems' disparate coalition together: make'm all hate the evil cis-gendered white dude. But why should Blacks give a hoot about allowing increased migration from Mexico?

Migration from Central America and Mexico was down under Obama due to the economy. The manufacturing jobs left in the 80s and 90s. Hillary Clinton seems to have lost on a referendum on the past.

Telling coal miners she hopes they lose their jobs didn't help.

 

[skepticalbip]

Migration from Central America and Mexico was down under Obama due to the economy. The manufacturing jobs left in the 80s and 90s. Hillary Clinton seems to have lost on a referendum on the past.

Telling coal miners she hopes they lose their jobs didn't help.

Oh come on now, do you really think her pledge to put the coal mines out of business cost her votes in coal mining states like West Virginia or more importantly Pennsylvania?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Migration from Central America and Mexico was down under Obama due to the economy. The manufacturing jobs left in the 80s and 90s. Hillary Clinton seems to have lost on a referendum on the past.

Telling coal miners she hopes they lose their jobs didn't help.

Well, trying to explain simple arithmetic to them would have been a waste of time.

Coal employment actually bottomed out in 2000 when it was less than half of what it was in 1985. The number of coal jobs in the US in 2015 is only 5,000 fewer than in 2000.
link

So yeah, Clinton blamed for losing coal jobs in the 80s and 90s.

What is even better is that coal production went up while employment went down. link

So again, Clinton blamed for efficiency too!

 

[skepticalbip]

Telling coal miners she hopes they lose their jobs didn't help.

Well, trying to explain simple arithmetic to them would have been a waste of time.

Coal employment actually bottomed out in 2000 when it was less than half of what it was in 1985. The number of coal jobs in the US in 2015 is only 5,000 fewer than in 2000.
link

So yeah, Clinton blamed for losing coal jobs in the 80s and 90s.

What is even better is that coal production went up while employment went down. link

So again, Clinton blamed for efficiency too!

Hmmmmm...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States

There are approximately 174,000 blue-collar, full-time, permanent jobs related to coal in the U.S.: mining (83,000), transportation (31,000), and power plant employment (60,000). (See below for details on each sector.)

Yeah, what the fuck it would only be 174,000 people that are put out of work if Clinton had been elected and made good on her pledge.

 

[Trausti]

Well, trying to explain simple arithmetic to them would have been a waste of time.

Coal employment actually bottomed out in 2000 when it was less than half of what it was in 1985. The number of coal jobs in the US in 2015 is only 5,000 fewer than in 2000.
link

So yeah, Clinton blamed for losing coal jobs in the 80s and 90s.

What is even better is that coal production went up while employment went down. link

So again, Clinton blamed for efficiency too!

Hmmmmm...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States

There are approximately 174,000 blue-collar, full-time, permanent jobs related to coal in the U.S.: mining (83,000), transportation (31,000), and power plant employment (60,000). (See below for details on each sector.)

Yeah, what the fuck it would only be 174,000 people that are put out of work if Clinton had been elected and made good on her pledge.

It's okay. They're likely to be deplorable white cis-gendered dudes. They're not an identity anyone should care about. Why haven't they just died off yet? Srly.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, trying to explain simple arithmetic to them would have been a waste of time.

Coal employment actually bottomed out in 2000 when it was less than half of what it was in 1985. The number of coal jobs in the US in 2015 is only 5,000 fewer than in 2000.
link

So yeah, Clinton blamed for losing coal jobs in the 80s and 90s.

What is even better is that coal production went up while employment went down. link

So again, Clinton blamed for efficiency too!

Hmmmmm...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States

There are approximately 174,000 blue-collar, full-time, permanent jobs related to coal in the U.S.: mining (83,000), transportation (31,000), and power plant employment (60,000). (See below for details on each sector.)

This didn't actually address anything.

Yeah, what the fuck it would only be 174,000 people that are put out of work if Clinton had been elected and made good on her pledge.

The Democrats have been blamed for the death of coal for a while now, this isn't new for Clinton.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmmmmm...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States

There are approximately 174,000 blue-collar, full-time, permanent jobs related to coal in the U.S.: mining (83,000), transportation (31,000), and power plant employment (60,000). (See below for details on each sector.)

Yeah, what the fuck it would only be 174,000 people that are put out of work if Clinton had been elected and made good on her pledge.

It's okay. They're likely to be deplorable white cis-gendered dudes. They're not an identity anyone should care about. Why haven't they just died off yet? Srly.

The gas chambers would have killed them painlessly, at least that was Clinton's pledge. But seriously... can you discuss anything seriously?

 

[Trausti]

Hmmmmm...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States

There are approximately 174,000 blue-collar, full-time, permanent jobs related to coal in the U.S.: mining (83,000), transportation (31,000), and power plant employment (60,000). (See below for details on each sector.)

This didn't actually address anything.

Yeah, what the fuck it would only be 174,000 people that are put out of work if Clinton had been elected and made good on her pledge.

The Democrats have been blamed for the death of coal for a while now, this isn't new for Clinton.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmmmmm...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States

There are approximately 174,000 blue-collar, full-time, permanent jobs related to coal in the U.S.: mining (83,000), transportation (31,000), and power plant employment (60,000). (See below for details on each sector.)

Yeah, what the fuck it would only be 174,000 people that are put out of work if Clinton had been elected and made good on her pledge.

It's okay. They're likely to be deplorable white cis-gendered dudes. They're not an identity anyone should care about. Why haven't they just died off yet? Srly.

The gas chambers would have killed them painlessly, at least that was Clinton's pledge. But seriously... can you discuss anything seriously?

Why don't there concerns matter, Jimmy? Seriously. Why don't the concerns of working class people matter to Democrats? If you tell someone you plan on making them unemployed if elected, on what basis could you be genuinely surprised that that person voted for your opponent?