2016 Election Coverage: Aka Every Way You Look at it You Lose.

[bravesnumberone]

And if you want that simple reason spoon fed to you.

Look at the total votes. Donald got the same number or less than McCain and Romney.

In 2012 Romney got 2,115,000 votes in michigan, Trump got 2,277,000. A big improvement but falls well shy of Obama's 2,564,000. In Wisconsin Trump got a measley 4K more votes than Romney.

Basically if 2016 Trump ran against 2012 Obama on pure vote numbers. Trump loses Michigan, Wisconsin, PA, Ohio, and the election. THat's not factoring in outside factors of course, but it's the reality that Hillary lost because she couldn't inspire her base. Not because of anything Trump did or independents did. She couldn't get her base out to vote.

I think it's a little of both. Most people would have been very surprised if Trump had lost but been at like 250 electoral votes, getting that close. I think he deserves some credit for being in it, but you're right. Her base failed to turn out in those Midwestern states. I don't think she inspired the confidence in all minority groups as people thought she would. The Hispanic/Latino community seemed to be the most motivated for obvious reasons.

EDIT: I also think a lot of the people who identify as independents are really Republicans who aren't comfortable with the party's stance on social issues.

[gilesfan]

I'd be interested to know what you think, in that post specifically, was an "ignorant and lazy representation of events". I wouldn't disagree with you that these post-election protests have tinge of "sore loser" to them, but at the same time it's absolutely true that "to many this election represented a step in the wrong direction when it comes to national bigotry." Hell, I personally think this election represented a step in the wrong direction when it comes to national bigotry—though I also think a Clinton victory would have signaled a step in the wrong direction, just across other axes.

Well, you cut out the juicy stuff in the post that was ignorant and lazy.

[Hawk]

I'd be interested to know what you think, in that post specifically, was an "ignorant and lazy representation of events". I wouldn't disagree with you that these post-election protests have tinge of "sore loser" to them, but at the same time it's absolutely true that "to many this election represented a step in the wrong direction when it comes to national bigotry." Hell, I personally think this election represented a step in the wrong direction when it comes to national bigotry—though I also think a Clinton victory would have signaled a step in the wrong direction, just across other axes.

I just think we need to be exceedingly careful about labels and how freely and indiscriminately they are applied. Bigot is not a word I would personally use to characterize those who support an anti-illegal posture. Now, I wouldn't disagree that a noteworthy portion of the people who support that kind of platform often resort to base defenses of that posture, but I've always had a real gripe with anyone who thought that Trump's original comments on Mexicans or Muslims were indefensibly and indisputably racist. Did the national debate devolve into a form of bigoted chaos as a result of those words? Certainly, but to dismiss the discussion out of hand as intolerant is not the right approach.

But really, at the end of the day, a majority of those grousing about this being a 'step in the wrong direction' don't have much ground to stand on - yet. Demonstration is fair and acceptable in the face of legislation or actual action ... but to protest the clear will of the people is absolutely disgusting to me and I can't even pretend to sympathize with anyone who is challenging the underpinnings of our constitution.

[jpx7]

Well, you cut out the juicy stuff in the post that was ignorant and lazy.

I literally quoted the entire post of mqt's to which Hawk was responding ...

[gilesfan]

Was referring to his post:

A Trump victory signals that running a campaign that opposes Muslims, immigrants and refugees, equates African Americans with inner city violence and then proposes profiling across the nation, openly supports restricting the reproductive rights of women, and includes Mike Pence and his views on gay fights is one that can triumph in America. I think that's worth a protest or two to show that not everyone agrees with this.

[Hawk]

Did you unify behind Obama after 2008? Just asking and not accusing.

I did. I voted for him - and cheered Obamacare until I realized it was rushed and not strong enough to be meaningfully progressive.

To me, it's revisionist to assert that Obama didn't come into the White House with a blank check and it's pretty disingenuous to infer that Republican obstructionism prevented him from accomplishing anything meaningful that first term.

There were anti-Obama voices, absolutely, but Obama largely ignored them for the first two years and mishandled many skirmishes prior to the 2012 election which resulted in him losing his grip. He got a reprieve in 2012, but by then people had become disenchanted by 'change' and 'hope' that never materialized in their personal lives.

[jpx7]

I just think we need to be exceedingly careful about labels and how freely and indiscriminately they are applied. Bigot is not a word I would personally use to characterize those who support an anti-illegal posture. Now, I wouldn't disagree that a noteworthy portion of the people who support that kind of platform often resort to base defenses of that posture, but I've always had a real gripe with anyone who thought that Trump's original comments on Mexicans or Muslims were indefensibly and indisputably racist. Did the national debate devolve into a form of bigoted chaos as a result of those words? Certainly, but to dismiss the discussion out of hand as intolerant is not the right approach.

But really, at the end of the day, a majority of those grousing about this being a 'step in the wrong direction' don't have much ground to stand on - yet. Demonstration is fair and acceptable in the face of legislation or actual action ... but to protest the clear will of the people is absolutely disgusting to me and I can't even pretend to sympathize with anyone who is challenging the underpinnings of our constitution.

I don't disagree, really, with much of what you say, except with the idea that "those grousing about this being a 'step in the wrong direction' don't have much ground to stand on - yet". While I'm sympathetic to the assertion that much of what Trump himself said was mis-stated or mis-characterized or otherwise retroactively clarified, at the same time there is a non-trivial contingent of his supporters who actively cleaved to and celebrated the worst interpretations of those statements, who were emboldened to verbally (and sometimes physically) commit acts of outright bigotry, and who now likely feel even more vindicated about that posture and those sentiments—sentiments that went well beyond anti-illegal rhetoric and wishes to tighten immigration regulations.

I think many of the voters Trump decisively poached, especially in the middle west, had genuine (if, in my mind, somewhat misplaced) concerns about illegal immigration and its effect on their family's economic viability—and I am genuinely empathetic, even though (as I said) I think those concerns are misplaced, focusing on treating a symptom and not a cause. However, there is also small but very loud section of Trump voters (some self-identified "alt-right", some simply more conventional assholes coming out of the woodwork) who can and should legitimately be called "bigots"—and yes, it's important we not deploy that word "freely and indiscriminately", so it still has accuracy and authority when it is used legitimately.

[mqt]

Was referring to his post:

A Trump victory signals that running a campaign that opposes Muslims, immigrants and refugees, equates African Americans with inner city violence and then proposes profiling across the nation, openly supports restricting the reproductive rights of women, and includes Mike Pence and his views on gay fights is one that can triumph in America. I think that's worth a protest or two to show that not everyone agrees with this.

I'll admit to a small amount of anger and disappointment leading to some overgeneralizing and hyperbole, but I don't think I'm really too far out of line with the emotions some are feeling that are leading to these protests. For instance, I think it's absurd to try to argue to a Muslim American today that they're being sore losers or overly sensitive if they choose to protest today. Even if you want to grant that Trump has softened his language on certain topics or that some of those claims were sensationalized by the media, there is absolutely reason for a group of Americans (to which I as a straight white male do not belong) to feel apprehensive about the next four years.

[gilesfan]

I'll admit to a small amount of anger and disappointment leading to some overgeneralizing and hyperbole, but I don't think I'm really too far out of line with the emotions some are feeling that are leading to these protests. For instance, I think it's absurd to try to argue to a Muslim American today that they're being sore losers or overly sensitive if they choose to protest today. Even if you want to grant that Trump has softened his language on certain topics or that some of those claims were sensationalized by the media, there is absolutely reason for a group of Americans (to which I as a straight white male do not belong) to feel apprehensive about the next four years.

So it is Muslim Americans that are out protesting?

[mqt]

So it is Muslim Americans that are out protesting?

If you're going to call me out for being "lazy and ignorant" then please at least try not to respond in kind.

1) Yes, in some cases.
2) There are other groups, including but not limited to African Americans, Latinos, refugees, immigrants and women, with valid reason to be concerned with some claims made by the President-elect.
3) You don't have to be a member of one of these groups to feel responsive to the idea of their rights being infringed upon.

[gilesfan]

Since I don't want to be ignorant or lazy, can you provide me reason for what African Americans, Latinos, refugees, "legal" immigrants, and women should have valid reasons to get out and protest. And i mean with legitimate data and not just liberal fear monger media? If so, I can probably better respond to your point of view.

[Hawk]

If you're going to call me out for being "lazy and ignorant" then please at least try not to respond in kind.

That was me who used lazy and ignorant towards you - but those comments weren't directed at you personally, just your generalized belief that these small protests are justifiable and that Trump's election was a harbinger of bigotry and divisiveness.

[Hawk]

Since I don't want to be ignorant or lazy, can you provide me reason for what African Americans, Latinos, refugees, "legal" immigrants, and women should have valid reasons to get out and protest. And i mean with legitimate data and not just liberal fear monger media? If so, I can probably better respond to your point of view.

Yeah, a nuanced argument would be greatly appreciated here.

[sturg33]

Trump got less votes than McCain and Romney... and the liberal elite want to blame Gary Johnson.

Sigh

[sturg33]

http://babylonbee.com/news/police-ca...tion-trophies/

[sturg33]

If you're going to call me out for being "lazy and ignorant" then please at least try not to respond in kind.

1) Yes, in some cases.
2) There are other groups, including but not limited to African Americans, Latinos, refugees, immigrants and women, with valid reason to be concerned with some claims made by the President-elect.
3) You don't have to be a member of one of these groups to feel responsive to the idea of their rights being infringed upon.

Yes... people need to be worried about their safety... from the tolerant left



This is disgusting and frankly hard to watch

[Hawk]

I don't disagree, really, with much of what you say, except with the idea that "those grousing about this being a 'step in the wrong direction' don't have much ground to stand on - yet". While I'm sympathetic to the assertion that much of what Trump himself said was mis-stated or mis-characterized or otherwise retroactively clarified, at the same time there is a non-trivial contingent of his supporters who actively cleaved to and celebrated the worst interpretations of those statements, who were emboldened to verbally (and sometimes physically) commits acts of outright bigotry, and who now likely feel even more vindicated about that posture and those sentiments—sentiments that went well beyond anti-illegal rhetoric and wishes to tighten immigration regulations.

I think many of the voters Trump decisively poached, especially in the middle west, had genuine (if, in my mind, somewhat misplaced) concerns about illegal immigration and its effect on their family's economic viability—and I am genuinely empathetic, even though (as I said) I think those concerns are misplaced, focusing on treating a symptom and not a cause. However, there is also small but very loud section of Trump voters (some self-identified "alt-right", some simply more conventional assholes coming out of the woodwork) who can and should legitimately be called "bigots"—and yes, it's important we not deploy that word "freely and indiscriminately", so it still has accuracy and authority when it is used legitimately.

100% agree with this - with small caveat: I don't find the alt-right to be a bigoted group.

I think it's the future of the Republican party, one of the most powerful grassroots movements in decades, and believe that the Democrats would be smart to build a similar digital base because if they stick to Facebook, Celebrities, and Twitter bots again in 2020 their outreach will be equally as supplanted as it was during this cycle.

[sturg33]

You'd like to think these people rejecting and protesting Trump will take a closer look at the merits of LIMITED GOVERNMENT in the future.

I used to warn my friends on the left that they should never vote to give the President any power they wouldn't trust to Dick Cheney. The universe decided to one up my warning and give those power to Donald Trump.

I hope this at least makes you reflect on why limiting government power is a good idea. Why putting government in charge of health care is a bad idea. Why putting government in charge of education could back fire. Why presidential executive orders need limitations. Why the 60 vote cloture rule wasn't a terrible thing. But alas, you won't remember this next time you have a Democrat for a President and I will have to repeat myself.

[zitothebrave]

Our democratic process (everyone in favor, correct?) elected a president. What are you hoping to accomplish? A non democracy? Or is it just we lost, I want to cry about it?

Not saying I agree with protests (though they're an incredibly effective way of letting people in power know you're dissatisfied and they may think twice before doing anything)but we don't have a democratic process, if we did Hillary would have won. We have a constitutional republic. Trump won because he won the handful of important states. Not because more people voted for him, important fact to not get twisted.

[Tapate50]

Yes... people need to be worried about their safety... from the tolerant left



This is disgusting and frankly hard to watch

Good lord