POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[Brian Swartz]

I think it was a combination of things. In some areas white people came out in bigger numbers for Trump; in others(such as Wisconsin, where he actually got fewer votes than Romney got) they did not. Just as big an issue if not bigger is the lower turnout for Clinton, particularly in urban areas; there's also the fact that the 'persuadable middle' shifted towards Trump compared to the last two elections.

I think some are trying to look for a simple answer to an election that was sum of multiple smaller effects.

[larrymcg421]

It wasn't just coastal elites that the Dems catered to, but suburbanites. And they won many of them (as I posted earlier, they won Cobb County for the first time since 1976). And IS didn't say not to go after the working class, but just not to go after them to the detriment of all else.

[Galaxy]

One thing that Frank Bruni writes in an insightful article is there seems to be a bit of a disconnect between the time Obama came into ofice and what the GOP has gained over that time and what lies ahead.
"A party that keeps the White House for eight years customarily suffers losses elsewhere, as if the electorate insists on some kind of equilibrium. That happened under Bill Clinton and again under George W. Bush — but not to the extent that it has happened under Obama.

His presidency will end with Democrats in possession of 11 fewer Senate seats (depending on how you count), more than 60 fewer House seats, at least 14 fewer governorships and more than 900 fewer seats in state legislatures than when it began. That’s a staggering toll.

While the 2016 race for governor in North Carolina remains undecided, the settled contests guarantee the G.O.P. the governor’s office in 33 states: its most bountiful harvest since 1922.

If Democrats don’t quickly figure out how to sturdy themselves — a process larger than the selection of the right new party chairman — they could wind up in even worse shape. They’re defending more than twice the number of Senate seats in 2018 that Republicans are, a situation that gives the G.O.P. a shot at a filibuster-proof majority.

Meantime, the perpetuation of Republican dominance at the state level through 2020 would grant the G.O.P. the upper hand in redrawing congressional districts after the next census."

The Democrats Screwed Up




Is there too much of a drift to the progressive. populist left wing of the party (Warren, Sanders, ect.) that is pushing away the swing voters in the middle needed to win? Is the smugness of liberals driving away moderates and independents? (The smug style in American liberalism - Vox)

[JPhillips]

The Dems got significantly more votes for the House and more votes for the Senate than did the GOP. The problem nationally is demographic trends bunching Dems together and gerrymandering giving some blue and purple states a solid red congressional delegation.

Now the Dems also don't stand for anything and are generally stupid and spineless, so they should change there too.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

100% agreed. Let's not act like Trump won by like 10% in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania here. Subtle creep from the polls is right. I'm scared that the Dems are going to buy into the narrative and go full on "we need to go completely after the white working class to the detriment of all else" rather than realizing how close it was.

Yes, but it was Donald Fucking Trump.
Never mind that he won, that he was even in the game is reson enough to take a long look in the mirror.

Just saw a poll today, after the election, of Trump voters that had Berine Sanders winning 56 to 44.

Saying everything is fine, and this was just a blip, is denial.

[larrymcg421]

It's kind of interesting, this whole Dems abandoned the working class argument, because that's a very liberal argument to make. I can tell you that wasn't the argument being made in 2000 or 2004 or even earlier when Dems lost. When they appealed to the working class, they were called socialists who were engaging in class warfare. People were saying they needed to support a more pro-business agenda (Like Bill did in the 90s).

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Is there too much of a drift to the progressive. populist left wing of the party (Warren, Sanders, ect.) that is pushing away the swing voters in the middle needed to win? Is the smugness of liberals driving away moderates and independents? (The smug style in American liberalism - Vox)

I don't see how anyone could possibly make this argument considering the Dems nominated Clinton, who was as far away from that wing as possible. And even Obama himself was routinely criticized by that wing of the party.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Calling bullshit on this. I've heard this narrative from Republicans as much as Democrats.

Clinton's 37% is the lowest showing among the white vote for any candidate since Mondale in 1984. And while Trump did slightly better percentage-wise among Hispanics, Hispanic turnout was up, so Clinton actually built up an increased vote margin among that group.

Nate Silver explains it well:

Trump got 58% while Romney got 59%. It seems the lower number for Clinton is because white voters went 3rd party at a higher rate. 5% of white voters voted for a 3rd party compared to 2% in 2012.

So you can say that white voters hurt her, but that's because they voted 3rd party, not Trump.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Trump got 58% while Romney got 59%. It seems the lower number for Clinton is because white voters went 3rd party at a higher rate. 5% of white voters voted for a 3rd party compared to 2% in 2012.

So you can say that white voters hurt her, but that's because they voted 3rd party, not Trump.

But you're still missing the point in the different types of white voters. Trump lost lots of suburban white voters, but made up for that with working class white voters. That hurt him in some places, but helped him in WI/MI/PA. And even if they went third party, I thought we were talking about why Dems lost white voters, so it shouldn't matter where they went.

I think it's interesting to get into these discussion of what happened to the voters and the strategic ramifications of choices each party made, but comments like, "The left just wants to blame white people" are trollish and inaccurate.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

but comments like, "The left just wants to blame white people" are trollish and inaccurate.

Spare me the euphemisms. White people made Trump president. - The Washington Post
White people put Trump in office | Fusion
White People Just Made Trump the Most Powerful Man in the Free World | The Daily Dot
http://www.refinery29.com/2016/11/12...ion-heartbreak
White People Elected Donald Trump | Essence.com
I'm Tired of Good White People | GQ
Samantha Bee: White People Have Ruined America | Video | RealClearPolitics
Dear Fellow White Women: We F**ked This Up | The Huffington Post
Fuck Everything And Blame Everyone
White women sold out the sisterhood and the world by voting for Trump.
White Men Must Bear the Blame — and Shame — for Trump | News | Philadelphia Magazine
So, Who Do We Blame?: Gothamist

This is just a quick Google news search. Pretty much every left-leaning media outlet put up their own piece blaming white people for this.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

but comments like, "The left just wants to blame white people" are trollish and inaccurate.

Literally every person I know who voted for Hillary is blaming this on white people.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Literally every person I know who voted for Hillary is blaming this on white people.

+1 but certain kind of white people, not white like them but white like those people.

[Buccaneer]

BUt it's funny that those were the kind of people the Dems used to gobble up in the 1970s (and presumably before). Guess they didn't get the memo that they were supposed to 'progress' into something they were not.

[larrymcg421]

And every conservative I know is telling me the Dems were dumb for ignoring white people.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

And every conservative I know is telling me the Dems were dumb for ignoring white people.

Are they saying white people or working class?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

It wasn't just coastal elites that the Dems catered to, but suburbanites. And they won many of them (as I posted earlier, they won Cobb County for the first time since 1976).

I haven't parsed out the precinct maps & totals for Cobb but ... that shift most likely isn't about any successful "suburban" tactic, it's about "Hispanic" voters.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I haven't parsed out the precinct maps & totals for Cobb but ... that shift most likely isn't about any successful "suburban" tactic, it's about "Hispanic" voters.

It was a 15 point shift from the last election. I don't think you can solely attribute that to Hispanic voters. I'd say that's a more likely reason she won Gwinnet.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

It was a 15 point shift from the last election. I don't think you can solely attribute that to Hispanic voters. I'd say that's a more likely reason she won Gwinnet.

The thinking,for quite a while now (at least 4-6 years) is that the shift to minority population in Cobb is still having an impact electorally. Gwinnett, eh, it's been a factor there for ages.

I don't blame any sane person for wanting to get out of either county*, but their exit over the past decade (or more) has certainly contributed to a bit of a political map problem. I look forward to the next redistricting round, maybe the issues can at least be minimized.


*for traffic reasons

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Are they saying white people or working class?

I think things got a little confusing during this little digression. We had been talking about how the Dems screwed up and Quik mentioned some white voters being more motivated than usual. There was a response that it wasn't just white voters, which I disputed. And then Rainmaker said it wasn't white voters, that was just made up so the left could blame whites.


Are there liberals who are writing dumb columns and angrily blaming white people for saddling us with Trump? Absolutely. My whole point in this digression is that the idea of white voters being a deciding factor in this election wasn't made up by the left. The right, the left, the middle have all been making this point. Nate Silver used data to back up this point. I agree with this point, not because I "blame" white people, but because I think it was a missed opportunity for Dems.

[Ben E Lou]

NSFW (Uh, just a bit of language )

But...oh my.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The thinking,for quite a while now (at least 4-6 years) is that the shift to minority population in Cobb is still having an impact electorally.

As the board's Cobb county resident, I'd say you're on the money with that thought. The minority population has increased tremendously in areas like Mableton, Austell, Powder Springs...basically the area south of Dallas Highway. All the people who can't live with that change have left the area for Paulding, Cherokee and, more decisively, Bartow.

Cobb in 2012
Romney 171,464 - 56%
Obama 132,526 - 43%

303,990 total voters

Cobb in 2016
Clinton 159,416 - 49%
Trump 152,602 - 47%

312,018 - 2.6% increase in total voters from 2012


Paulding in 2012
Romney 40,771 - 71%
Obama 15,779 - 28%

56,550 total voters

Paulding in 2016
Trump 44,646 - 69%
Clinton 18,004 - 28%

62,650 - 10.8% increase in total voters from 2012


Cherokee in 2012
Romney 76,473 - 78%
Obama 19,813 - 20%

96,286 total voters

Cherokee in 2016
Trump 80,611 - 73%
Clinton 25,203 - 23%

105,814 - 9.9% increase in total voters from 2012


Bartow in 2012
Romney 18,719 - 74.4%
Obama 6,019 - 23.9%

24,738 total voters

Bartow in 2016
Trump 29,879 - 76%
Clinton 8,204 - 21%

38,083 - 53.9% increase in total voters from 2012

[larrymcg421]

I'm in Cobb County as well and have seen the same demographic shifts. I agree that it's a factor, but I don't think that alone can account for a 15 point swing in 4 years.

[JPhillips]

If you don't like Cobb County, look at Orange County, California. I never thought I'd see a Dem take Orange, and yet somehow she took Orange and lost.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If you don't like Cobb County, look at Orange County, California. I never thought I'd see a Dem take Orange, and yet somehow she took Orange and lost.

#calexit

#PLEASE

[JPhillips]

I saw these two tweets and noticed something:

% of Americans “proud” about election outcome, per Gallup

2008: 67%
2012: 48%
2016: 32%

% of Americans “excited” about election outcome, per Gallup

2008: 59%
2012: 40%
2016: 35%

A small portion of Americans aren't proud, but are excited about Trump's victory.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I saw these two tweets and noticed something:




A small portion of Americans aren't proud, but are excited about Trump's victory.

Same survey, or separate (i.e. different respondents)?

[wustin]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I saw these two tweets and noticed something:




A small portion of Americans aren't proud, but are excited about Trump's victory.

Excited could be of different contexts. I'm sure a lot of people when they stood up against the machine saw a shiny red button with TRUMP on it. And above that button there was a sign saying do not push. With Hillary we all know what we're getting, we don't know with Trump. Some people just wanna push that button and see what happens next. And of course there are other people who will push that button with malicious intent.

After Gary Johnson imploded, I didn't know who I wanted to vote. I almost considered pushing that button, I was really damn close.

[Brian Swartz]

A small portion of Americans aren't proud, but are excited about Trump's victory.

Reminds me of the West Wing episode where Toby rambles on about the 15% of respondents who think the US is spending too much on foreign aid, but don't want it cut. People aren't always consistent, to put it mildly.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

NSFW (Uh, just a bit of language )

But...oh my.

That's the best thing I've heard s liberal say since....well, a long time. Hahaha!

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A small portion of Americans aren't proud, but are excited about Trump's victory.

Some people just want to watch the world burn.

[RainMaker]

Clinton blames Comey.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/12/politi...fbi/index.html

[Brian Swartz]

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Most people had their mind made up before that circus the last week or so of the campaign.

[larrymcg421]

Nate Silver seems to think that has some merit. He was surprised more Dems hadn't been making that point. Given how close the margins were in the deciding states, I don't it's so crazy.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

At seemingly every point in this election, we have been tempted to say things like "well, we used to think THAT, but NOW... clearly, we know THIS..."

So, right now we seem to have a "feel" for this general election. After the conventions and some seemingly self-destructive Trump behavior. But we should listen to ourselves...

"Well, back when there were 110 days to go in the election, we thought it was shaping up as close, but NOW that it's 96 days to go, we KNOW this thing is basically over."

Stop it.

There is plenty of time for not just one or two events or cycles that potentially shape the election -- but five or six. We're right to consider a terrorist event of some magnitude... but news events are simply far less predictable than that. The next thing could be a 600-point drop in the Dow Jones, or another LGBT issue flare-up, or something from Wikileaks, or some oddball TV commercial spot, or something that someone from the Cabinet says, or ... who the hell knows what?

This is basically a truly complex system. Right now, we can make projections based on what we have in hand -- and that's fine and plenty entertaining. But the list of things that could change the landscape materially is a really long one.

I think of all of the posts in this thread, this (posted 08/06) was the most accurate.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Clinton blames Comey.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/12/politi...fbi/index.html

Uh oh; run Comey run!!!! Save yourself, she can't take one of FOFC's own.

[Carman Bulldog]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

NSFW (Uh, just a bit of language )

But...oh my.

Nailed it.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Given how close the margins were in the deciding states, I don't it's so crazy.

Is it a factor? Sure. To blame the election on that or even mostly on that is silly though. There are a lot of other things that could have turned it. Turnout issues that have been discussed, the many mistakes made by and flaws in each candidate, etc. At least a dozen such factors seem to be obviously of greater impact/importance than Comey.

[digamma]

Turnout is a result, not a cause.

[Brian Swartz]

Sure, but there are a lot of reasons for it. I've seen no evidence to indicate Comey ranks significantly high among them.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Most people had their mind made up before that circus the last week or so of the campaign.

Those that made up their mind about a week before the election broke overwhelmingly towards Trump. Those that made up their mind in the last few days broke evenly.

What happened about a week before the election?

What happened a few days before the election?

It certainly isn't the only possible reason, but in a close election a dozen different things could be "the" reason.

[Brian Swartz]

I think we're pretty much talking at cross-points here so I'll get off the merry-go-round. Seems to be the same thing I said a few posts up.

[ISiddiqui]

The more I read about the Clinton campaign, the more it reads like a Moneyball article to me. The campaign is being criticized for being 'too analytical'. They decided to go for suburbanites and minorities because their statistical analysis indicated that's where the votes were to win. Those criticizing the campaign are saying they were too much into the stats to listen to those who had the instinct that those in the Upper Midwest weren't going to go the way the models showed.

Seriously reads like the locker room dramas with Billy Beane and the old grizzled scouts in the book.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Working class voters is supposed to be the Democrat's base. Why wouldn't you go hard after them? Catering to some coastal elites like they have been isn't going to win you an electoral victory.

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

It's kind of interesting, this whole Dems abandoned the working class argument, because that's a very liberal argument to make. I can tell you that wasn't the argument being made in 2000 or 2004 or even earlier when Dems lost. When they appealed to the working class, they were called socialists who were engaging in class warfare. People were saying they needed to support a more pro-business agenda (Like Bill did in the 90s).

And besides, election coalitions change and adapt. The 'base' in 1970 isn't going to your 'base' today. Nor should it. Larrymcg is right that in the 1980s, the Dems clung to their white working class base and were getting trounced until they pivoted to a third-way policy under Bill Clinton.

There is a secondary lesson here. I was a reading a Vox article that pointed out (and I totally didn't even think of it until I read it) that Clinton never ran to the center during the general election. She continued to run on her very left leaning primary policy. Generally we always hear that you run to the extremes in the primary and then to the center in the general. Clinton didn't. So an overcorrection to appeal to the white working class by going populist may actually misdiagnose some things.

[JPhillips]

I think a bigger problem is that the average voter had no idea what she or a Dem congress would do if given the chance. "We're not crazy," isn't a compelling marketing pitch.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think a bigger problem is that the average voter had no idea what she or a Dem congress would do if given the chance. "We're not crazy," isn't a compelling marketing pitch.

Actually, I suspect they thought she would be much like Obama, i.e. not much changing, and for a large segment of the populace (at least in key spots), that wasn't good enough.

[JPhillips]

But Obama has an approval rating of almost 60%.

[corbes]

Hillary Clinton's Hallelujah

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG-_ZDrypec

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Dutch

That's the best thing I've heard s liberal say since....well, a long time. Hahaha!

Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog

Nailed it.

Exactly. If you want to know why Trump managed to win this thing, and why the polls couldn't find the Trump supporters, that video summed it up nicely. Well, not nicely, maybe angrily / nastily, but the points he makes are spot on.

[larrymcg421]

I didn't pick Clinton because I thought she was the more electable candidate. I argued several times in this thread that the reason I supported her is because I thought she'd make a better President than Sanders. I stand by that and I'm not at all convinced that Sanders would've won. We would've heard "Socialist" about 5 million times in the campaign.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

We would've heard "Socialist" about 5 million times in the campaign.

You would have heard the sharp report as a fatal round was fired toward Sanders head. Zero percent chance in hell that bastard would have lived long enough to win the election. He was easy enough to ignore as a comedy act in the other party's primary but if there'd ever been an actual chance he'd win ... no. Seriously.

His running mate -- Sam Webb maybe -- might have gotten the sympathy vote and won, but Sanders would never have gotten that far (had he gotten that far).