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

thethe said:
People vote on policies. Not on the candidates personality. At least that's how they should be voting. People voted for Trump as a rejection of the Obama economy and vision for America where we take a backseat in the spirit of globalization.
Click to expand...

Disagree. People voted for Trump as a rejection of the establishment and his 'say it like it is' personality. That rode him through the primaries, knocking off each candidate one by one, and then on into the White House. Obama's job approval ratings are high at the moment, so I expect that actually helped Hillary. But the primary movement of this election was the anti-establishment movement that was seen in both Trump and Bernie and the third party candidates. With Trump pulling the swamp into the White House and surrounding himself with some of the most horrendous establishment people, many of those who pinched their nose while voting for him in hopes of cleaning out Washington will be switching away from the GOP again in 2020 with the disillusionment their heading into the next 4 years. That's my prediction anyway. We'll see.
 
DaneHill said:
Disagree. People voted for Trump as a rejection of the establishment and his 'say it like it is' personality. That rode him through the primaries, knocking off each candidate one by one, and then on into the White House. Obama's job approval ratings are high at the moment, so I expect that actually helped Hillary. But the primary movement of this election was the anti-establishment movement that was seen in both Trump and Bernie and the third party candidates. With Trump pulling the swamp into the White House and surrounding himself with some of the most horrendous establishment people, many of those who pinched their nose while voting for him in hopes of cleaning out Washington will be switching away from the GOP again in 2020 with the disillusionment their heading into the next 4 years. That's my prediction anyway. We'll see.
Click to expand...

I think you make a lot of really good points and we could see a turn-around by the populace in four years for a lot of reasons. One you don't mention is that voters are becoming like consumers and seem to be impatient with a process that needs to be built on compromise. It seems we have more subgroups of the electorate that are convinced they can get 100% of what they want all the time and are dissatisfied when they realize that isn't the case. I don't think things will be that much better for the working class in this country because that horse got out of the barn in the mid-1970s and he's long gone.
 
DaneHill said:
Disagree. People voted for Trump as a rejection of the establishment and his 'say it like it is' personality. That rode him through the primaries, knocking off each candidate one by one, and then on into the White House. Obama's job approval ratings are high at the moment, so I expect that actually helped Hillary. But the primary movement of this election was the anti-establishment movement that was seen in both Trump and Bernie and the third party candidates. With Trump pulling the swamp into the White House and surrounding himself with some of the most horrendous establishment people, many of those who pinched their nose while voting for him in hopes of cleaning out Washington will be switching away from the GOP again in 2020 with the disillusionment their heading into the next 4 years. That's my prediction anyway. We'll see.
Click to expand...

To me it's mostly an anti-globalist agenda that made former Obama voters vote for Trump. This is a sentiment that is spreading all over europe and I don't think it's going anywhere. There are reports that unemployment in the UK is at 11 year lows. Now that is probably residual from before brexit but it's an indicator that the scare tactics from globalist elites may not have any truth to it.

Obama was a symbol for globalism. Him and his ilk are of the belief that what is good for GM is good for the American people. Hard to convince someone in wiscinsin working 60 hours a week that's the case. Unless liberals change their economic principals I don't see how they win in the future unless Trump fails miserably.

If there is any amount of success though then the future of the Democratic is pretty dicey.
 
I see your point thethe but Obama polling as high if not higher than Reagan leaving office. Those numbers don't square with an anti- Obama sentiment.

and Clinton's popular vote margins say that overall there is no great dissatisfaction with the status quo.
Voters returning the legislatures virtually intact say the same

Granted there are pockets of dissatisfaction but isn't that always going to be the case ?
It can be argued Clinton's margins in the populated areas show a great deal of satisfaction with the status quo.

Yet, at the EC level ...
This is like a pitcher with great metrics and a lousy ERA.
I think that is what I mean
 
thethe said:
If there is any amount of success though then the future of the Democratic is pretty dicey.
Click to expand...

Depends on candidates .

I still can't get over the only people under 60 running for POTUS this time around were Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.
Especially galling was (D) after running and winning with a 50ish AA the face was a white grandmother pushing 70

So in that respect I agree with you and disagree with Dane Hill, that it was the personalities.
At the top of the ticket.
 
The popular vote means nothing. If that were the deciding factor in who becomes president then both campaigns are run differently. To me talking about it is meaningless and anything someone might think it represents.

This is all about anti globalism and a rejection of elitists who think they are better and smarter than anyone. Liberal's will need to realize that someone isn't a default racist or idiot of they don't agree with them.
 
50PoundHead said:
I think you make a lot of really good points and we could see a turn-around by the populace in four years for a lot of reasons. One you don't mention is that voters are becoming like consumers and seem to be impatient with a process that needs to be built on compromise. It seems we have more subgroups of the electorate that are convinced they can get 100% of what they want all the time and are dissatisfied when they realize that isn't the case. I don't think things will be that much better for the working class in this country because that horse got out of the barn in the mid-1970s and he's long gone.
Click to expand...

Agree with this a lot, 50. However, I'm not sure what the answer would be for many of the flashpoint topics of today's age. The religious right feel that their beliefs are under attack and compromising on those beliefs is not open for discussion. And the liberal left have reached a point that you can't compromise on human rights any longer because it's 2016 (LGBT rights in particular). Those two immovable sides are now firmly entrenched in their respective parties, and I would say play prominent roles in the current anti-establishment movement due to their uncompromising positions. People are definitely sick of Washington constantly grinding to a halt.

I still think we'll see the Republican party split in two after this 'social experiment' with Trump fails (I know I know, give it a chance) -- those on the religious right taking it far right and being left behind, and those moderate (socially left leaning) Republicans who want to see the party get back to what they feel it should actually be focused on with smaller government, lower taxes and more isolationist ideas (?). Whereas, I'd say most Democrats generally agree on social issues, so their base will remain tied together more strongly in the upcoming years and will adjust more readily to differences in economic and world policies among each other.
 
Obama has always been more popular than his policies. I do think it's fascinating that his approval levelas are so high, yet his party was smoked in the election and a majority think the country is headed in the wrong direction.
 
"The popular vote means nothing "

It is an indicator, just like the speed the ball leaves the bat is an indicator.
The ball leaves the bat at 75 and finds a hole there is a base runner. Ball leaves the bat at 125 and Dansby Swanson doesn't have to move it is an out.

At this point yes it is meaningless, unless used as a metric for discussion.

Who are the "Left Elite " ?? NYT= Washington Post
Is Fox a "Rightest Elite" ?? Brietbart ???

That adjective is silly Nixonian babble
 
thethe said:
To me it's mostly an anti-globalist agenda that made former Obama voters vote for Trump. This is a sentiment that is spreading all over europe and I don't think it's going anywhere. There are reports that unemployment in the UK is at 11 year lows. Now that is probably residual from before brexit but it's an indicator that the scare tactics from globalist elites may not have any truth to it.

Obama was a symbol for globalism. Him and his ilk are of the belief that what is good for GM is good for the American people. Hard to convince someone in wiscinsin working 60 hours a week that's the case. Unless liberals change their economic principals I don't see how they win in the future unless Trump fails miserably.

If there is any amount of success though then the future of the Democratic is pretty dicey.
Click to expand...

I just don't see most voters being that sophisticated, Thethe. Though bottom dollar in a family is certainly often the defining issue. I just think most feel stuck in their current lives due to the perceived inability of Washington to get any meaningful work done due to the incessant bickering between parties. Globalist, Nationalist, whatever....I don't think the great majority think that way. Just improve our lives and get off your rich asses, Washington.
 
thethe said:
If popular vote decided the election are the campaigns run the same?
Click to expand...

No. Not in the slightest. You would see the Southern states (perhaps excepting Florida) and Middle America completely neglected both during the campaign process and likely by government in general.
 
Hawk said:
No. Not in the slightest. You would see the Southern states (perhaps excepting Florida) and Middle America completely neglected both during the campaign process and likely by government in general.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And that's why using the popular vote in any argument is pointless.
 
thethe said:
Disagree. This is a false equivalency IMO.
Click to expand...

Let me be clear, the Electoral College is the decider. Period.

IHowever, Iand the article linked say the numbers don'"the support the notion of rampant dissatisfaction.

No more no less.

Back to the point, does sending legislatures back intact signal too this dissatisfaction ?
 
57Brave said:
Let me be clear, the Electoral College is the decider. Period.

IHowever, Iand the article linked say the numbers don'"the support the notion of rampant dissatisfaction.

No more no less.

Back to the point, does sending legislatures back intact signal too this dissatisfaction ?
Click to expand...

Haven't there been tremendous gains for the Rs since Obama was elected?
 
57Brave said:
Let me be clear, the Electoral College is the decider. Period.

IHowever, Iand the article linked say the numbers don'"the support the notion of rampant dissatisfaction.

No more no less.

Back to the point, does sending legislatures back intact signal too this dissatisfaction ?
Click to expand...

In certain states it did and that's what cost Clinton the election
 
DaneHill said:
Agree with this a lot, 50. However, I'm not sure what the answer would be for many of the flashpoint topics of today's age. The religious right feel that their beliefs are under attack and compromising on those beliefs is not open for discussion. And the liberal left have reached a point that you can't compromise on human rights any longer because it's 2016 (LGBT rights in particular). Those two immovable sides are now firmly entrenched in their respective parties, and I would say play prominent roles in the current anti-establishment movement due to their uncompromising positions. People are definitely sick of Washington constantly grinding to a halt.

I still think we'll see the Republican party split in two after this 'social experiment' with Trump fails (I know I know, give it a chance) -- those on the religious right taking it far right and being left behind, and those moderate (socially left leaning) Republicans who want to see the party get back to what they feel it should actually be focused on with smaller government, lower taxes and more isolationist ideas (?). Whereas, I'd say most Democrats generally agree on social issues, so their base will remain tied together more strongly in the upcoming years and will adjust more readily to differences in economic and world policies among each other.
Click to expand...

I think you've said what I was trying to say (only much better). I can't figure out how we have come to the irreducibles that we've come to. It seems that people have to feel validated for all of their beliefs all of the time or they get all out of sorts. If they ever find the planet where that's the case, I hope they let me know.

I think the religious right's support for Trump boils down to court appointments, particularly the Supreme Court, and little else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top