Are the people who put hatred of Hillary above all else happy, now?

173 posts / 0 new
Last post
Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

ikosmos wrote:

alan smithee wrote:
Trump supporters deserve to be mocked and ridiculed. it's not snobbery. and if you choose to defend him, please leave babble and go home to breitbart where you'll find a sympathetic ear..

Just for the record.

Yeah just for the record; you supported and defended Trump becouse Russia liked him... You are one of the people the thread title was talking about; so, are you happy he won?

NorthReport

The left is so out of touch. It's about jobs, it always has been about jobs, and will continue to be about jobs. Wasn't that obvious enough last nite! 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Excellent article. It must have been difficult to choose what to quote.

..yes good piece. i changed my mind actually. :)

Paladin1

bekayne wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Trump knows war is bad business WHEN you don't have stocks in weapons and supplies of war which he doesn't. 

He wants to increase military spending. Especially on nuclear weapons.

 

Increasing money on military spending isn't always a bad thing but nuclear weapons are. With almost 100 missing nukes and storage facilities in Russia and Europe pretty shitty we should be researching and developing ways to safeguard against them somehow.

 

Speaking of military spending one interesting thing about Trumps platform was that he said he will force Canada to spend our promised 2% on military funding and not the 1% or whatever it is we spend on it now. With the Liberals bound and determined to send Canadian soldiers into a warzone and call it peacekeeping, along with other deployments to the Ukraine, Latvia and Iraq, that increase may potentially save the lives of Canadians abroad.

Paladin1

alan smithee wrote:

At the danger of being banned,I'm going to leave a comment and move on.

To you fuckwad Trump supporters. Get the fuck out of here.This is not the place for you. You're baiting and to me,that's worth repremanding.

Fuck off!

 

I'm with you Alan. Together we can makle Rabble great again.

(sorry Laughing  )

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

josh wrote:

Just a word of caution. Don't trust the exit polls when it comes to demographic voting. Particularly with Latinos. In almost every election when the voted is analyzed in detail the Democrats Latino number goes up.

..ok. but still there was plenty to fear from trump so lots of motivation to not want him to win. curious that the numbrs are not in the 80% or more.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
Yeah just for the record; you supported and defended Trump becouse Russia liked him... You are one of the people the thread title was talking about; so, are you happy he won?

Ah, no. I supported Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. It's true that at least one of the Russian networks, RT, gave some decent coverage to Stein, but that was more a reflection of their willingness to give a platform to dissenters of all stripes, rather than a reflection of their preference for Trump.

It's good that Clinton lost. That part I'm happy about. Her odious McCarthyism and foaming Russophobia were in danger of escalating to a hot war with Russia. Any idiot could see that.

But it would have been even better if both Clinton and Trump lost. So not completely happy. However, the "war party" - ruling both the Democrat and Republican establishments - took a hit with this result. There is a smaller likelihood of global war with this result than with a Clinton victory. And that result trumps - pardon the pun - all other issues.

War and peace is more important than any candidate. And the strange truth - for it surely it is strange - is that the Democrat candidate was the war candidate and the Republican had a more realistic perspective. 

NDPP

John Pilger: 'The Truth Is There Was No One To Vote For'

https://youtu.be/o1Ho8OrBzig

 

 

josh

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Bingo!

And precisely why John Horgan will get crushed next May. The NDP just doesn't get it.

josh wrote:
Look, there were tens of thousands of whites in the Midwest who had voted for Obama twice, who voted for Trump. So for them it can't be race. Rather Trump's economic message of bringing back jobs and attacking trade deals appealed to them.

So do we know this? Or were they simply mostly different people -- some voting one time and others another?

Also just becuase you get swayed one time does not mean racism was not involved.

Motivations cannot be directly compared across more than one election. A person who may hear and respond to a racist message one time is not always guaranteed to do so or not another.

And on tis I distinguish between racism of the hate variety (which is certainly there) and of the privilege protection kind. They look different. The first probably knows he is racist while the second would be offended to be called racist and not see themselves as such. They will say "these people" and couch the terms as much as possible to be indirect, even if the meaning is clear to most others, they will try not to see it themselves. They don't want to appear racist but they want to enjoy the spoils of racism.

Yes we do know this by comparing the precinct and county margins. When Obama wins the Youngstown Ohio area by over 20 points, and Clinton only wins it by 2, you know there were a lot of voters who did this. Not to mention that Obama won the nearly lilly-white state of Iowa by comfortable margins twice, while Clinton lost it.

josh

NDPP wrote:

John Pilger: 'The Truth Is There Was No One To Vote For'

https://youtu.be/o1Ho8OrBzig

 

 


The truth is that Trump is president and Republicans control all three branches of government. And will control the Supreme Court.

josh

They fight all they want but they don't have the numbers to defeat a nominee without 3 Republicans joining them.  The greatest tragedy is that liberals/progressive were on the verge of taking control of the Supreme Court for the first time in at least 35 years.  Now, depending on the number of vacancies and whether Trump wins a second term, they may have to wait another 35.

Aristotleded24

Once again, I looked out my window and noticed that the sun was placed somewhere in the eastern part of the sky. Life seems to be going on, in spite of some of the hyperbolic and exaggerated claims by some liberals and progressives that the opposite would happen.

Aristotleded24

josh wrote:
NDPP wrote:

John Pilger: 'The Truth Is There Was No One To Vote For'

https://youtu.be/o1Ho8OrBzig

 

 

The truth is that Trump is president and Republicans control all three branches of government. And will control the Supreme Court.

Now we will have a chance to see if the Democrats actually try to fight a crazy nominee or if they roll over.

6079_Smith_W

Though for some, life will be going on (or not) without health coverage.

http://kidneedsakidney.blogspot.ca/2016/11/insurance-coverage.html

 

josh

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Once again, I looked out my window and noticed that the sun was placed somewhere in the eastern part of the sky. Life seems to be going on, in spite of some of the hyperbolic and exaggerated claims by some liberals and progressives that the opposite would happen.

I guess you can afford to.  You know that he doesn't take office until January 20?

Pondering

josh wrote:
NDPP wrote:

John Pilger: 'The Truth Is There Was No One To Vote For'

https://youtu.be/o1Ho8OrBzig

The truth is that Trump is president and Republicans control all three branches of government. And will control the Supreme Court.

And the truth is also that Clinton is the embodiment of government corruption and rule by the oligarchs. Trump is not better but at least he doesn't wear a mask while stabbing you in the back.

iyraste1313

¨Trump is not better but at least he doesn't wear a mask while stabbing you in the back.......¨

thank you for this......maybe not better is the right term...bought and controlled by the oligarchic system!

And yes, the primary difference between left and right in politics...is that the right is honest about their intentions, while the bought out left must be secretive, deceptionist.......

and re ¨ Get the f out of here.¨...you would be taken a bit more seriously if you extended your rant to those who supported Clinton, undoubtedly the most corrupt vile, sadistic politician ever!....

I may suggest as well this comment is appropriate for anyone who even takes the fraudulent electoral process seriously, lending credibility to it!....so that our work is to devise alternatives and strategies as to how to cope and resist!

josh

SMH

pookie

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Once again, I looked out my window and noticed that the sun was placed somewhere in the eastern part of the sky. Life seems to be going on, in spite of some of the hyperbolic and exaggerated claims by some liberals and progressives that the opposite would happen.

 

I must admit, Aristotoled24, having been here for years (as you have been) I am surprised to see your comments in this and similar threads.

Sun definitely rose for me.  I have tenure and a fancy German car.  I own my own house and have health care.  I can choose to go the US.  Or not.

I just can't be quite as sanguine about the fate of marginalized people, and women, in the US. 

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

josh wrote:

Look, there were tens of thousands of whites in the Midwest who had voted for Obama twice, who voted for Trump. So for them it can't be race. Rather Trump's economic message of bringing back jobs and attacking trade deals appealed to them.

I don't believe that is anything but pundit spin. In any election it is nearly impossible to track votes by voter characteristics or what issues determined which candidate they chose.  But please share the data with us so I can fairly assess such a claim.

2008 McCain   -59,948,323 Obama  -69,498,516

2012 Romney -60,933,504 Obama -65,915,795

2016 Trump -59,704,866 Clinton -59,938,290

I still assert the numbers show that all Trump did was hold the Republican base. Clinton tanked compared to Obama. Obama ran as a Hope and Change candidate unlike Clinton who was an insider status quo candidate. I would speculate that the Bernie youth must have stayed at home as did the new voters Obama inspired with his Hope campaign. So this loss is squarely on the shoulders of the DNC. The tactics that they used against Bernie must have left too sour a taste in the mouths of 1 in 7 Obama supporters.

The last point is that Hillary would have lost to both Obama's competitors just like she lost to Trump. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

josh

I did cite examples.  And the 2016 numbers are far from complete as there are still millions of ballot on the west coast to counted.

josh
al-Qa'bong

I'm by no means a Trump supporter, but yeah, I'm happy that the ghastly Mrs. Clinton will now be put out to pasture.  How anyone here could support this bloodthirsty war criminal and corporatist vampire is beyond me.

 

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factchecks/2016/04/14/hillary-cl...

 

From the State Department and both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, Clinton has made support for Israel one of her top priorities.

This scumbag actually bragged about these positions.

 

bekayne

al-Qa'bong wrote:

I'm by no means a Trump supporter, but yeah, I'm happy that the ghastly Mrs. Clinton will now be put out to pasture.  How anyone here could support this bloodthirsty war criminal and corporatist vampire is beyond me.

 

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factchecks/2016/04/14/hillary-cl...

 

From the State Department and both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, Clinton has made support for Israel one of her top priorities.

This scumbag actually bragged about these positions.

 

Enjoy "the best friend Israel will ever have"

josh

Key blue-collar counties in Iowa

2012 2016 swing

Obama +6 Trump +10 Lee county

Obama +16 Trump +16 Wapello county

Obama +12 Trump +21 Jasper county

Obama +19 Trump 7 Des Moines county

Obama +6 Trump +22 Webster county

Obama +13 Trump +8 Cerro Gordo county

 

 

 

josh

iyraste1313 wrote:

¨Trump is not better but at least he doesn't wear a mask while stabbing you in the back.......¨

thank you for this......maybe not better is the right term...bought and controlled by the oligarchic system!

And yes, the primary difference between left and right in politics...is that the right is honest about their intentions, while the bought out left must be secretive, deceptionist.......

and re ¨ Get the f out of here.¨...you would be taken a bit more seriously if you extended your rant to those who supported Clinton, undoubtedly the most corrupt vile, sadistic politician ever!....

I may suggest as well this comment is appropriate for anyone who even takes the fraudulent electoral process seriously, lending credibility to it!....so that our work is to devise alternatives and strategies as to how to cope and resist!

Trump May Kill the World's Last Hope for a Climate Change Pact 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-may-kill-world-last-220321358.html 

 

Pondering

josh wrote:

iyraste1313 wrote:

¨Trump is not better but at least he doesn't wear a mask while stabbing you in the back.......¨

thank you for this......maybe not better is the right term...bought and controlled by the oligarchic system!

And yes, the primary difference between left and right in politics...is that the right is honest about their intentions, while the bought out left must be secretive, deceptionist.......

and re ¨ Get the f out of here.¨...you would be taken a bit more seriously if you extended your rant to those who supported Clinton, undoubtedly the most corrupt vile, sadistic politician ever!....

I may suggest as well this comment is appropriate for anyone who even takes the fraudulent electoral process seriously, lending credibility to it!....so that our work is to devise alternatives and strategies as to how to cope and resist!

Trump May Kill the World's Last Hope for a Climate Change Pact 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-may-kill-world-last-220321358.html 

Oh I see, the Paris accord, unlike the Kyoto accord, would have succeeded if only Clinton had won the election. Then we could defeat climate change. The Paris agreement is a pacifier.

bekayne

Pondering wrote:

josh wrote:

iyraste1313 wrote:

¨Trump is not better but at least he doesn't wear a mask while stabbing you in the back.......¨

thank you for this......maybe not better is the right term...bought and controlled by the oligarchic system!

And yes, the primary difference between left and right in politics...is that the right is honest about their intentions, while the bought out left must be secretive, deceptionist.......

and re ¨ Get the f out of here.¨...you would be taken a bit more seriously if you extended your rant to those who supported Clinton, undoubtedly the most corrupt vile, sadistic politician ever!....

I may suggest as well this comment is appropriate for anyone who even takes the fraudulent electoral process seriously, lending credibility to it!....so that our work is to devise alternatives and strategies as to how to cope and resist!

Trump May Kill the World's Last Hope for a Climate Change Pact 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-may-kill-world-last-220321358.html 

Oh I see, the Paris accord, unlike the Kyoto accord, would have succeeded if only Clinton had won the election. Then we could defeat climate change. The Paris agreement is a pacifier.

Let's just ignore it. Or better still, make things worse.

josh

The worse, the better.  Has a familiar ring.

josh

Nate Cohn ‏@Nate_Cohn

Dems need to grapple with the fact that they lost this election because voters who supported Obama in 2012 voted Trump. 

 

 

al-Qa'bong

bekayne wrote:

 

 

Enjoy "the best friend Israel will ever have"

 

That shouldn't be a problem.   Trump is essentially Foghorn Leghorn, and will say anythng.  Trump's people have already removed references to banning Muslims from the USA on his website.  Clinton, on the other hand, is a proven killer.

johnpauljones

josh wrote:

Nate Cohn ‏@Nate_Cohn

Dems need to grapple with the fact that they lost this election because voters who supported Obama in 2012 voted Trump. 

 

actually the Dems lost the eleciton because their votes did not materialize. The numbers for the Repubs went down. But the numbers for the Dems went down even further from 12-16. Simply put Dems stayed home in key states in larger numbers.

the great and amazing and tactical Dem ground game that was the saviour for Hillary just didnt deliver

contrarianna

Another must-not-read for those complacently blaiming legitimate critics of Clinton for Clinton's defeat: 

Quote:
Democrats, Trump, and the Ongoing, Dangerous Refusal to Learn the Lesson of Brexit

Glenn Greenwald November 9 2016, 7:43 a.m.

.... Los Angeles Times’s Vincent Bevins, who wrote that “both Brexit and Trumpism are the very, very wrong answers to legitimate questions that urban elites have refused to ask for 30 years.” Bevins went on: “Since the 1980s the elites in rich countries have overplayed their hand, taking all the gains for themselves and just covering their ears when anyone else talks, and now they are watching in horror as voters revolt.”

....The indisputable fact is that prevailing institutions of authority in the West, for decades, have relentlessly and with complete indifference stomped on the economic welfare and social security of hundreds of millions of people. While elite circles gorged themselves on globalism, free trade, Wall Street casino gambling, and endless wars (wars that enriched the perpetrators and sent the poorest and most marginalized to bear all their burdens), they completely ignored the victims of their gluttony, except when those victims piped up a bit too much — when they caused a ruckus — and were then scornfully condemned as troglodytes who were the deserved losers in the glorious, global game of meritocracy.

That message was heard loud and clear. The institutions and elite factions that have spent years mocking, maligning, and pillaging large portions of the population — all while compiling their own long record of failure and corruption and destruction — are now shocked that their dictates and decrees go unheeded. But human beings are not going to follow and obey the exact people they most blame for their suffering. They’re going to do exactly the opposite: purposely defy them and try to impose punishment in retaliation. Their instruments for retaliation are Brexit and Trump. Those are their agents, dispatched on a mission of destruction: aimed at a system and culture they regard — not without reason — as rife with corruption and, above all else, contempt for them and their welfare.

....Beyond the Brexit analysis, there are three new points from last night’s results that I want to emphasize, as they are unique to the 2016 U.S. election and, more importantly, illustrate the elite pathologies that led to all of this:

1. Democrats have already begun flailing around trying to blame anyone and everyone they can find — everyone except themselves — for last night’s crushing defeat of their party.

You know the drearily predictable list of their scapegoats: Russia, WikiLeaks, James Comey, Jill Stein, Bernie Bros, The Media, news outlets (including, perhaps especially, The Intercept) that sinned by reporting negatively on Hillary Clinton.

Anyone who thinks that what happened last night in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Michigan can be blamed on any of that is drowning in self-protective ignorance so deep that it’s impossible to express in words.

When a political party is demolished, the principal responsibility belongs to one entity: the party that got crushed. It’s the job of the party and the candidate, and nobody else, to persuade the citizenry to support them and find ways to do that. Last night, the Democrats failed, resoundingly, to do that, and any autopsy or liberal think piece or pro-Clinton pundit commentary that does not start and finish with their own behavior is one that is inherently worthless.

Put simply, Democrats knowingly chose to nominate a deeply unpopular, extremely vulnerable, scandal-plagued candidate, who — for very good reason — was widely perceived to be a protector and beneficiary of all the worst components of status quo elite corruption. It’s astonishing that those of us who tried frantically to warn Democrats that nominating Hillary Clinton was a huge and scary gamble — that all empirical evidence showed that she could lose to anyone and Bernie Sanders would be a much stronger candidate, especially in this climate — are now the ones being blamed: by the very same people who insisted on ignoring all that data and nominating her anyway.

But that’s just basic blame shifting and self-preservation. Far more significant is what this shows about the mentality of the Democratic Party. Just think about who they nominated: someone who — when she wasn’t dining with Saudi monarchs and being feted in Davos by tyrants who gave million-dollar checks — spent the last several years piggishly running around to Wall Street banks and major corporations cashing in with $250,000 fees for 45-minute secret speeches even though she had already become unimaginably rich with book advances while her husband already made tens of millions playing these same games.

She did all that without the slightest apparent concern for how that would feed into all the perceptions and resentments of her and the Democratic Party as corrupt, status quo-protecting, aristocratic tools of the rich and powerful: exactly the worst possible behavior for this post-2008-economic-crisis era of globalism and destroyed industries.

It goes without saying that Trump is a sociopathic con artist obsessed with personal enrichment: the opposite of a genuine warrior for the downtrodden. That’s too obvious to debate. But, just as Obama did so powerfully in 2008, he could credibly run as an enemy of the D.C. and Wall Street system that has steamrolled over so many people, while Hillary Clinton is its loyal guardian, its consummate beneficiary.

Trump vowed to destroy the system that elites love (for good reason) and the masses hate (for equally good reason), while Clinton vowed to manage it more efficiently. That, as Matt Stoller’s indispensable article in The Atlantic three weeks ago documented, is the conniving choice the Democratic Party made decades ago: to abandon populism and become the party of technocratically proficient, mildly benevolent managers of elite power. Those are the cynical, self-interested seeds they planted, and now the crop has sprouted.

Of course there are fundamental differences between Obama’s version of “change” and Trump’s. But at a high level of generality — which is where these messages are often ingested — both were perceived as outside forces on a mission to tear down corrupt elite structures, while Clinton was perceived as devoted to their fortification. That is the choice made by Democrats — largely happy with status quo authorities, believing in their basic goodness — and any honest attempt by Democrats to find the prime author of last night’s debacle will begin with a large mirror.

Other points elaborated under the headings:

Quote:
2. That racism, misogyny, and xenophobia are pervasive in all sectors of America is indisputable from even a casual glance at its history, both distant and recent ....


3. Over the last six decades, and particularly over the last 15 years of the endless war on terror, both political parties have joined to construct a frightening and unprecedentedly invasive and destructive system of authoritarian power, accompanied by the unbridled authority vested in the executive branch to use it....

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-ongoing-dang...

swallow swallow's picture

pookie wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Once again, I looked out my window and noticed that the sun was placed somewhere in the eastern part of the sky. Life seems to be going on, in spite of some of the hyperbolic and exaggerated claims by some liberals and progressives that the opposite would happen.

 

I must admit, Aristotoled24, having been here for years (as you have been) I am surprised to see your comments in this and similar threads.

Sun definitely rose for me.  I have tenure and a fancy German car.  I own my own house and have health care.  I can choose to go the US.  Or not.

I just can't be quite as sanguine about the fate of marginalized people, and women, in the US. 

This is my view also. There are minority kids afraid to go to school, women leaving their hijabs at home, etc. You may not share their fears, you may think they're silly even, but they are real. 

I don't think anyone ever said the sun would not rise. (Isn't "the sun will still rise" a quote from Obama, by the way?) People did say the election of a hatemonger would put marginalized people in the USA in danger. 

[url=https://medium.com/@seanokane/day-1-in-trumps-america-9e4d58381001#.oe9t... One in Trump's America[/url]

Is it possible the main divison in politics is no longer left-right, but rather Anti-globalization First vs. Feminism and Anti-racism first? 

josh

johnpauljones wrote:

josh wrote:

Nate Cohn ‏@Nate_Cohn

Dems need to grapple with the fact that they lost this election because voters who supported Obama in 2012 voted Trump. 

 

actually the Dems lost the eleciton because their votes did not materialize. The numbers for the Repubs went down. But the numbers for the Dems went down even further from 12-16. Simply put Dems stayed home in key states in larger numbers.

the great and amazing and tactical Dem ground game that was the saviour for Hillary just didnt deliver

People who are saying that need to wait until all the results from the west coast are tallied. Which could take at least several more days. The overwhelming evidence, some of which I've posted on here, is that Clinton's lost Iowa, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and probably Michigan because of Obama voters who defected from Trump. Win the last 3 and she would have won the electoral college.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I just can't be quite as sanguine about the fate of marginalized people, and women, in the US.

I saw a great tweet the other day, something to the effect of "Voting third party is a great way to tell marginalized people that your abstract politics matter more than their real lives".

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

NorthReport wrote:

The left is so out of touch. It's about jobs, it always has been about jobs, and will continue to be about jobs. Wasn't that obvious enough last nite! 

In America, Hillary ISN'T the left.  She was, at best, the anti-fascist wing of the establishment(and that's a very qualified "at best").

It wasn't the American left saying that jobs didn't matter.  It was the right-wing Democratic Party establishment.

bekayne

al-Qa'bong wrote:

That shouldn't be a problem.   Trump is essentially Foghorn Leghorn, and will say anythng.  Trump's people have already removed references to banning Muslims from the USA on his website.  Clinton, on the other hand, is a proven killer.

Nope. It was just a glitch.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-muslim-ban-website-link-removal-1.384...

The link to Trump's Dec. 7 proposal titled: "Donald J. Trump statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration," in which he called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" vanished temporarily from the website but later reappeared. So too did a list of Trump's potential Supreme Court justice picks as president and certain details of his economic, defense and regulatory reform plans.

"The website was temporarily redirecting all specific press release pages to the home page," Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said in an email.

Links to Trump's policy proposals, including the Muslim ban, were working again by 3:30 p.m. ET.

 

Pondering

contrarianna wrote:

Another must-not-read for those complacently blaiming legitimate critics of Clinton for Clinton's defeat:

Quote:
 

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-ongoing-dang...

Of course there are fundamental differences between Obama’s version of “change” and Trump’s. But at a high level of generality — which is where these messages are often ingested — both were perceived as outside forces on a mission to tear down corrupt elite structures, while Clinton was perceived as devoted to their fortification. That is the choice made by Democrats — largely happy with status quo authorities, believing in their basic goodness — and any honest attempt by Democrats to find the prime author of last night’s debacle will begin with a large mirror.

Excellent article. The bolded part is an important thing to know to win elections. Very few facts get through. It's impressions that elect leaders.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Another must-not-read for those complacently blaiming legitimate critics of Clinton for Clinton's defeat

What about those complacently blaming illegitimate critics of Clinton?

Y'know... the whole "she's dying and won't admit it" crowd, and the "she tried to have Assange droned" crowd.

Sean in Ottawa

josh wrote:

Key blue-collar counties in Iowa

2012 2016 swing

Obama +6 Trump +10 Lee county

Obama +16 Trump +16 Wapello county

Obama +12 Trump +21 Jasper county

Obama +19 Trump 7 Des Moines county

Obama +6 Trump +22 Webster county

Obama +13 Trump +8 Cerro Gordo county

 

 

 

With a lowish turnout in both elections there is no evidence that the swing represents the same voters rather than different ones staying home or coming out.

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Another must-not-read for those complacently blaiming legitimate critics of Clinton for Clinton's defeat

What about those complacently blaming illegitimate critics of Clinton?

Y'know... the whole "she's dying and won't admit it" crowd, and the "she tried to have Assange droned" crowd.

 

C'mon. She didn't try to murder him, she was just asking if they could ;)

 

I'm not sure if I should join in the white woman bashing on SM for voting in the anti-christ or defend them?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

With a lowish turnout in both elections there is no evidence that the swing represents the same voters rather than different ones staying home or coming out.

Trump in the Iowa, Penn, Wisc and Mich races gained almost twice the votes that Clinton lost. Like Sean has said no one knows who voted in both elections and who only voted in one. 

However I was looking at the state numbers and it is obvious who the insiders in Washington DC thought was their candidate, Clinton like Obama won the District with over 90% of the popular vote. Trump lost half of Romneys paltry vote.

bekayne

kropotkin1951 wrote:

However I was looking at the state numbers and it is obvious who the insiders in Washington DC thought was their candidate, Clinton like Obama won the District with over 90% of the popular vote. Trump lost half of Romneys paltry vote.

Most DC "insiders" don't actually live (and vote) there.

josh

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

josh wrote:

Key blue-collar counties in Iowa

2012 2016 swing

Obama +6 Trump +10 Lee county

Obama +16 Trump +16 Wapello county

Obama +12 Trump +21 Jasper county

Obama +19 Trump 7 Des Moines county

Obama +6 Trump +22 Webster county

Obama +13 Trump +8 Cerro Gordo county

 

 

 

With a lowish turnout in both elections there is no evidence that the swing represents the same voters rather than different ones staying home or coming out.


Whether the turnout in both elections was or high or low is not relevant. What is is the comparison of the turnouts. Both elections drew about 1.6 million voters.

Sean in Ottawa

josh wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

josh wrote:

Key blue-collar counties in Iowa

2012 2016 swing

Obama +6 Trump +10 Lee county

Obama +16 Trump +16 Wapello county

Obama +12 Trump +21 Jasper county

Obama +19 Trump 7 Des Moines county

Obama +6 Trump +22 Webster county

Obama +13 Trump +8 Cerro Gordo county

 

 

 

With a lowish turnout in both elections there is no evidence that the swing represents the same voters rather than different ones staying home or coming out.

Whether the turnout in both elections was or high or low is not relevant. What is is the comparison of the turnouts. Both elections drew about 1.6 million voters.

But you are ignoring that the difference is not huge and there is no proof that they are the same voters.

The argument is being made that this is about vote switchers rather than different people staying home. And there is no proof at all for this.

ETA and we are talking in general now -- so let's not get into the search for absolutes and exceptions.

josh

That's why they examine and compare county and local results. Unless you question every voter who voted, and how they voted. Which is an impossibility. I didn't say every voter who voted for Obama in these area sp voted for Trump. But based on the comparison, a significant chunk did. But those who want to believe that every white voter who voted for Trump did so because they are racist, no stastic would convince them otherwise.

Aristotleded24

josh wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

Once again, I looked out my window and noticed that the sun was placed somewhere in the eastern part of the sky. Life seems to be going on, in spite of some of the hyperbolic and exaggerated claims by some liberals and progressives that the opposite would happen.

I guess you can afford to.  You know that he doesn't take office until January 20?

I actually make $11 an hour, have seriously thought about using a cardboard sign and a busy street corner as a source of income, and for most of my adult live have never been in a financial position to stand on my own 2 feet. Plus, many other people I know in similar situations don't even care who Donald Trump is because to them politics is a game where the people get screwed over no matter what and nothing ever changes for them. But I do appreciate you making baseless assumptions about me simply because I refuse to hyperventilate over the election of a candidate I don't like.

But you're right about when Trump takes office. I'll check the eastern sky on the morning of January 21 and report back with my findings.

mark_alfred

I don't really follow American politics too closely, but in this case it seems clear that Clinton was quite qualified for the job whereas Trump was not.  She was stellar in the debates, ran an organized campaign, laid out solid policy (even cooperating with Sanders, whom she defeated for the leadership, in drawing it up), and gave reasonably good speeches and interviews.  I believe she also had past political experience as both Senator of New York and as Secretary of State under Obama.  Trump, on the other hand, has no prior political experience and cares for no one but himself.  He has no redeeming characteristics whatsoever.  The fact that he won is bewildering.  It is simply a sign that people have become really stupid.

Pages