1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Thanks, scara
    Dismiss Notice

Donald Trump - The president of the United States of America

Discussion in 'Randomination' started by Danishfurniturelover, 26 Jan 2016.

  1. the dza

    the dza Chris Perry

    Joined:
    28 Jul 2013
    Messages:
    10,369
    Likes Received:
    7,006
    Clinton lost because she lost in the rust-belt, which is the same reason Sanders would beat Trump. Those voters want change and she just assumed they'd vote for her, without her making an offer of real change to them. These are the places where you get districts that voted for Obama twice but took a punt on Trump last time out.

    Just more Democrat/Clinton dodging why they lost "It was Russia! "It was Bernie!" -- Nobody made her decide not to campaign in a state like Wisconsin, that was her decision. The Democratic Party (elite) stitch-up to make sure she won the nomination back-fired, yet it's Sanders who cost her the White House. Cloud cuckoo land.
     
    thfcsteff likes this.
  2. Hootnow

    Hootnow Gerry Armstrong

    Joined:
    21 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    4,300
    Likes Received:
    1,051
    This 'fact' is repeated so often that, like so many things on the internet, it has become almost gospel, when what evidence we have indicates that it is not true.

    We 'know', with the polling we have, a few things about the 2016 election and the Sanders/ Clinton/ Trump dynamic. We know that somewhere between 6-12% of people who voted for Sanders in the primaries ended up voting for Trump. We know, again with the estimates we have, that approximately 75% of Sanders voters ended up plumping for Clinton in the end, with the other 13-19% going to other candidates.

    In isolation, this seems pretty shocking and like it would back up your point. If it wasn't for a couple of things. Firstly, despite the caricature that it was a bunch of disillusioned hippy democrats who voted for Sanders and then refused to vote for Clinton, what we see is that a lot of the people who voted for Sanders and then refused to vote for Hilary actually self identified as conservative or at least independent and actually were not members of the democratic party initially.

    What we also know is that in 2008, about 24% of the people who voted for Clinton in the primaries vs Obama voted for McCain in the general election (ie more than double the Sanders voters who ended up voting for Trump).

    As I said above, its an easy caricature to score cheap political points, used to explain a very complex topic but which doesn't have basis in facts.

    Clinton lost in 2016 for many reasons. Is it partly because she's a woman? I'm sure that was an aspect to some. Was it also because she's a Clinton? Because she represented a continuation of the status quo that is no longer working for so many Americans? Because she has been held up as a bogey (wo)man by Republicans for years now? Because she is an almost uniquely bad candidate? Because she compaigned on continuing the current system and more important, campaigned essentially on not being Trump, whereas he, for all his faults and regardless of what you think of his actual policies, actually campaigned for tangible things? Clinton lost middle America and the rust belt and the Democrats did not bother actually appealing to voters properly.

    I hope they have learnt their lesson because if they're still crying about Russia/Sanders in 2020, they're going to see another 4 years of Trump and most likely, an entire generation of a conservative Supreme Court.

    Some references below if you want to get a bit further into it:

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...vote-what-does-that-mean-for-his-chances-now/

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lection/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.70748779b281
     
  3. scaramanga

    scaramanga David Ginola Staff Member

    Joined:
    13 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    21,484
    Likes Received:
    9,853
    Your numbers miss one fairly large group - those who voted for Sanders who stayed home on election day.

    It's a couple of years since I saw the figures, but I'm fairly sure they were large.
     
  4. Hootnow

    Hootnow Gerry Armstrong

    Joined:
    21 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    4,300
    Likes Received:
    1,051
    It doesn't at all, the 538 link has that included quite early on. 3.5% of his voters in the primary did not vote in the general election.

    Not to mention like I said that Sanders had a quarter of his primary supporters not vote for Clinton (due to a mixture of different reasons including voting for 3rd party candidates), whereas a quarter of Clinton's primary supporters in 2008 not only didn't vote for Obama but actually directly voted for Mccain, who let's not forget had Palin as his running mate. Its always dangerous to assume anything, in any field really. But I really doubt those were the only Clinton voters that ended up not voting for Obama. So we have as many Clinton primary voters deciding to vote for the GOP as we did Sanders voters not voting for Clinton period.

    The difference? Obama was a better candidate, without baggage, actually put forward policies rather than 'I'm not the other guy' and didn't arrogantly assume he would win.

    Like I said, it's a caricature. Stupid hippy leftists don't want to compromise and ruined the election. Actually, seems more like conservatives who didn't usually vote democrat jumped back to the GOP once they went for a status quo candidate, seems like most of his voters voted for Clinton anyway and seems like a lot more of her voters in 08 voted directly for the opposition than Sanders' did in 16, despite her supporters being the mature, sensible ones I guess?

    It's an easy one to follow though cos it allows people to shape it to how they believe. Some more right wing people use it to continue with this belief that the left wing candidate is silly and ruined the election. Democrats like it because it means they don't have to approach why they lost an election to an almost uniquely bad candidate. Some liberals like it because they can feel less bad that so many people in the country support Trump. And republicans who hated him, were and are embarrassed by him and his antics, can hide away from the fact that behind some of his more extravagant mishaps... He really isn't too far away from the GOP when it comes to most policies.
     
  5. Jordinho

    Jordinho Clive Allen Staff Member

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    41,413
    Likes Received:
    9,353
    Location:
    Next season
  6. Jordinho

    Jordinho Clive Allen Staff Member

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    41,413
    Likes Received:
    9,353
    Location:
    Next season
  7. Mr_B

    Mr_B Steed Malbranque

    Joined:
    21 Apr 2013
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    549
    Pete Buttigieg, Beto O' Rourke and Andrew Yang, pete is 37, the others are in there 40's, Buttigieg would be the first gay president, Yang would give every citizen $1000 a month as universal income stipend and Beto, well he thinks he's a rock star. All have received substantial donations already.
     
    Aldo likes this.
  8. thfcsteff

    thfcsteff Colin Calderwood Staff Member

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    17,141
    Likes Received:
    7,004
    This is bang on the money.
    The democrats have never ever owned their part of the loss, a loss that could easily have been turned into a win despite everything. Clinton simply didn't think she needed to adopt the tone which was necessary to win over the rust belt et al. Trump won on one thing - attacking Clinton. She couldn't mount a credible "fudge you Donald Trump" defense, which was necessary. It became a power-tinkling contest except she wasn't up for tinkling back on him as I suspect she felt it was "beneath" her. as the case may be, but her primary job was to win, and it needed more of that from her which she sadly wouldn't do.
     
  9. Rorschach

    Rorschach Tommy Harmer

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    22,092
    Likes Received:
    10,544
    Location:
    ...here
    Sickening. He's effectively condemning millions of people to die by starvation.
     
    nayenezgani likes this.
  10. Gilzeantoscore

    Gilzeantoscore Ruel Fox

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    3,814
    Likes Received:
    1,105
    Yeah, cause if you are on the left, what you really want is a do nothing neo liberal...wait... wait... Clinton is a progressive right?
     
  11. Gilzeantoscore

    Gilzeantoscore Ruel Fox

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    3,814
    Likes Received:
    1,105
    He is now!
     
  12. Jordinho

    Jordinho Clive Allen Staff Member

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    41,413
    Likes Received:
    9,353
    Location:
    Next season

Share This Page