6
   

So, where did the dems go wrong?

 
 
Builder
 
Sat 10 Dec, 2016 10:38 pm
If you believe the hype, the exit polls, the MSM opinion pieces, the election was "decided" long before the votes were cast, and the US of A was set to have its very first woman president.

So, in your opinion, what lost it for the dems?
 
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Sat 10 Dec, 2016 11:28 pm
I believe factors such as voter suppression and other cheating at the polls, plus many Democrats staying home, for starters. Clinton was completely on the defensive and not campaigning like a liberal at the end. If she had been decent to Bernie Sanders' people, she still might have managed a win.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Sat 10 Dec, 2016 11:50 pm
@Builder,
They didn't play the electoral vote properly seeing as how they won the popular vote by more than two and a half million votes.
Builder
 
  1  
Sun 11 Dec, 2016 12:11 am
@InfraBlue,
How do you "play" the electoral vote "properly"?

From my brief research, the electoral vote "weights" rural votes a little heavier than city votes.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Sun 11 Dec, 2016 01:07 am
@Builder,
and small, low population states heavier than the more populous states, basically the EC is an antidemocratic anachronism, foisted on us by the faction of Founding Fathers who really didn't trust the people or democracy.
Builder
 
  0  
Sun 11 Dec, 2016 01:16 am
@MontereyJack,
Would this be an issue for you, if it handed the dems a presidential win?

I understand the need for the EC, coming from a nation where there's heavily populated regions based around city centres, with vast, underpopulated regions rurally, where people feel under-represented, politically.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  0  
Sun 11 Dec, 2016 01:42 am
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
...plus many Democrats staying home, for starters.


Can you expand on that for us, Edgar?

Quote:
If she had been decent to Bernie Sanders' people....


Her chastisement of Trump supporters as "deplorables" was also a huge factor, in my opinion.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Sun 11 Dec, 2016 01:54 am
@Builder,
Builder wrote:

How do you "play" the electoral vote "properly"?

From my brief research, the electoral vote "weights" rural votes a little heavier than city votes.

It weighs lower populated states higher than larger populated states, not rurality. The last three presidential elections indicate that the votes of poorly educated white males (PEWMs) weighed more than the votes of other demographics.

The Democrats needed to have brought out about five million more voters throughout the country and especially their traditional strong states to offset the voting weight of the PEWMs.
Builder
 
  0  
Sun 11 Dec, 2016 02:07 am
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
It weighs lower populated states higher than larger populated states, not rurality.


Rural areas are less populated.


Quote:
The last three presidential elections indicate that the votes of poorly educated white males (PEWMs) weighed more than the votes of other demographics


That doesn't tie in with this information at all. In fact, rural educated caucasian voters were the turning point, according to statistics here.


Quote:
Townhall’s Matt Vespa called it “the revenge of the white working class,” Politico the “Revenge of the rural voter.” Clinton, according to CNN contributor and historian Stephanie Coontz, “was simply unable to present herself as a forceful defender of everyone who has been left behind by the march of globalization, professionalization and the emergence of a new just-in-time, winner-take-all economy.” And Cracked’s David Wong, in an article with nearly ten million views, explains why rural voters came out so strongly for Trump: “To those ignored, suffering people, Donald Trump is a brick chucked through the window of the elites. ‘Are you assholes listening now?’”

It’s true that the white working class was instrumental in delivering Trump the White House. In the Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, Clinton underperformed Barack Obama among white working class voters, and this cost her the electoral college. Had about 100,000 of these voters across the three states voted for her instead of Trump, she would be president–elect now, instead of sitting on a possible two-million vote Pyrrhic popular vote victory.


InfraBlue
 
  2  
Sun 11 Dec, 2016 02:38 am
@Builder,
Builder wrote:

Quote:
It weighs lower populated states higher than larger populated states, not rurality.


Rural areas are less populated.

Right. The Electoral College is based on state votes specifically not rural area votes, however. States with small populations can have large cities which can hardly be regarded as rural.

Builder wrote:
Quote:
The last three presidential elections indicate that the votes of poorly educated white males (PEWMs) weighed more than the votes of other demographics


That doesn't tie in with this information at all. In fact, rural educated caucasian voters were the turning point, according to statistics here.



That's a minority opinion that contradicts itself in your quote.
Builder
 
  -1  
Sun 11 Dec, 2016 02:55 am
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
States with small populations can have large cities which can hardly be regarded as rural.


Which explains the need for the EC vote, does it not? How else would the rural voters feel empowered, if the city vote cancelled out the rural vote?

Quote:
That's a minority opinion that contradicts itself in your quote.


How does it contradict itself? You'd need to expand on that a little for us.


InfraBlue
 
  2  
Sun 11 Dec, 2016 04:42 am
@Builder,
Builder wrote:

Quote:
States with small populations can have large cities which can hardly be regarded as rural.


Which explains the need for the EC vote, does it not? How else would the rural voters feel empowered, if the city vote cancelled out the rural vote?

Again, the EC isn't about empowering rural voters. It's about empowering states with small populations.

Builder wrote:
Quote:
That's a minority opinion that contradicts itself in your quote.


How does it contradict itself? You'd need to expand on that a little for us.


The article claims that college-educated white suburbanites (not rural educated caucasians) are to blame for
Trump's victory, but in your quote the article states that, "it’s true that the white working class was instrumental in delivering Trump the White House. Had about 100,000 of these voters across the three states voted for her [Hillary Clinton-me] instead of Trump, she would be president–elect now..."
Builder
 
  0  
Sun 11 Dec, 2016 04:56 am
@InfraBlue,
So states with small populations aren't rural states?

And college-educated white suburbanites aren't rural educated caucasians?

Why not?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  3  
Sun 11 Dec, 2016 06:42 am
@Builder,
They underestimated the number of moderate voters who wanted "change in Washington" at any cost. They thought the risk of electing Trump was too high for most to to accept in the name of "change" but that turned out to be wrong. The rest is history.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 11 Dec, 2016 03:50 pm
@rosborne979,
Trump won because he ran against Hillary.
0 Replies
 
Skeleton
 
  -1  
Sun 11 Dec, 2016 09:10 pm
At the end of the day, she couldn't stump the trump.
TomTomBinks
 
  3  
Sun 11 Dec, 2016 10:09 pm
@Skeleton ,
The right wing has been building it's social media informed army of robot slaves for years. The propaganda has been flying thick and heavy for a long time.
Skeleton
 
  -1  
Mon 12 Dec, 2016 03:14 am
@TomTomBinks,
Good thing I don't use Facebook or Twitter and I don't watch the news
0 Replies
 
Frugal1
 
  -2  
Thu 15 Dec, 2016 09:24 am
A better question is when did liberal democrats get it right?

The list of dems getting it wrong spans decades.
0 Replies
 
Frugal1
 
  -2  
Thu 15 Dec, 2016 11:36 am
Runner up to Time Magazine's 'Person of the Year' was Hillary's makeup artist.
0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » So, where did the dems go wrong?
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2025 at 05:15:48