|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 15 2016 08:28 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 06:58 zlefin wrote:
on your 3rd point, I'm not sure why you restated that thesis when I already gave an answer to it, though you added a clause on repugnant personality which changes a lot. Because you didn't answer my question. Would the Left/Democrats/liberals who are protesting against Donald Trump now for his incompetence do the same if he was their candidate, or would they excuse his gaffes the same way they did Hillary's? Would they be able to admit that he both advocates their worldview and is probably unfit for the presidency?
I don't get the same impression of Hillary talking to some people/liberals (Cali/Wash) I know. We seem to be a bit more trusting of the institution and all that than a lot of the anti-Clinton anti-establishment types in this thread. Maybe that's naive, but yeah, that's the sentiment. A lot of people are more tired of the mudslinging at Hillary (and to a lesser extent Trump), especially because so much of it has been just uncorroborated noise that they're not even sure what to believe anymore. I don't see the same Hillary is unfit for presidency or Hillary is corrupt or Benghazi was literally a disaster in real life as much as this thread seems to suggest. I disliked a lot of her attacks on Trump, but a lot of other ones were understandable too.
Anyways that was just context for me saying that I would gladly protest the left candidate in the same way I detest Trump, if the left candidate lacked experience, or promoted bigotry, or promoted violence, or lied constantly. Nothing about this was about me vs them, I'd protest them both gladly and sit in my room in apathy lol. If the Republican positions were better, I'd totally be onboard - I'm actually closet Conservative.
|
On November 15 2016 07:15 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 07:00 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2016 06:29 TanGeng wrote:On November 15 2016 06:23 farvacola wrote:
The self-evidence of the truth underpinning a leftist approach to civil rights is not really at issue here, though maybe I'm misunderstanding Cosmic. Instead, I think the issue comes down to using issue-based signposts as a means of ascertaining character. I think this is the morality based approach to issues. Like slavery, abortion, religion, and racism are morality issues where you can be beyond the pale for being on the wrong side of issues, we do have new morality issues by the left. But instead of being framed as morality issues, there is shift to "intelligence" "scientific" or other angles to what is at its core moral judgements. Just two pages ago we had a TL example of someone claiming "smart people have to believe this". It's hard to even have a conversation when there is very little attempt to listen or understand. Indeed. How can you even argue the moral merits if the other side asserts you're either (1) too dumb to understand you're arguing against science or (2) too clingy to your traditions to ever give fair hearing to unquestionable science? That's the kind of dismissiveness that drives people, reluctantly, into Trump's camp. At least you can start with calling ten more issues up for debate, and not get talked down to like Privilege Class is back in session. If dialogue has to go back to the ballot box for five to ten years, so be it. Whatever it takes to return the other side to the negotiating table they left when declaring a new era of enlightened social justice supported by demographic destiny. You're going to be waiting a long time if you think any democratic losses are going to cause them to rethink social/moral issues. They're going to do things like put Keith Ellison as chair, adopt messages more like Bernie's, and double down on pushing forward social progress on top of more middle class friendly politicians & policies.
They can do a much better job dialoguing on them and not browbeating with them. Which comes back to TanGeng's point: the framing matters when you're trying to convince an electoral majority that your cause is just. Hillary & Co were remarkably bad following the bad trend and paid the price.
|
cosmic ->
Please read more carefully, you said:
"Because you didn't answer my question. Would the Left/Democrats/liberals who are protesting against Donald Trump now for his incompetence do the same if he was their candidate, or would they excuse his gaffes the same way they did Hillary's? Would they be able to admit that he both advocates their worldview and is probably unfit for the presidency? "
i did in fact answer the question.
however you changed the question in this rephrasing and included different additional questions, I will ignore those since it's not helpful if you change what you're asking mid-discussion.
I had already said:
"as to your larger point. I'd say no; people don't actually protest over competence; at laest not prior to the point where it has been demonstrated in a severely hurtful way."
which is in fact an answer to the original issue, which was whether the protests were actually about competence, or were about the disagreements over moral beliefs/attitudes.
now it's possible I was unclear in my statement and you needed clarification in how it was an answer, in which case you should have said so. the clarification would be: the demonstration in a severely hurtful way, to be applicable here, would have to be one where it's clearly due to incompetence, not due to different moral attitudes. People aren't going to run around protesting because your competence is in general questionable or poor or terrible; they go around protesting on the issue of competence when people have directly died as a result (e.g. failure to uphold proper safety standards)
On the tautology debate, I'd say you're looking at a small subset of the actual left and conflating it with the bulk of the left. you seem to be looking at the group that's into things like the college "women's studies" classes.
and at any rate, the notion that people on the left do not distinguish between morality and competence/intelligence is highly questionable on its face.
|
On November 15 2016 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Eichenwald sounds like an idiot, hard to imagine him punching anyone. Someone should tell him the only reason the race wasn't over by 10PM was third parties, namely Johnson keeping Clinton competitive (he's been told this probably thousands of times by now). The same people telling us Bernie couldn't have won are the ones that told us Trump couldn't run, get nominated, or win. They should get on a boat with Bill Krystal and the rest of the people who have been so wrong for the last couple decades. That analysis wreaks of everything Hillary's camp still doesn't understand. Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 08:55 Jaaaaasper wrote:Great article from Eichenwald that progressives swallowed that cost them the white house and the supreme court. www.newsweek.comSome high lights include some of the opposition research on Bernie from the GOP and the fact that despite the claims from Bernie or Busters, he got far more chances to debate Clinton than any previous democratic primary canidate. This repost is a great example of how Clinton's campaign worked. Show nested quote +Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out. That's just pathetic. The interpretation of Bernie's essay, the comparing it to Hillary's email/lies, and the idea it would have been campaign ending against Captain "grab her by the" Pu**y takes such an inordinate amount of obliviousness, I'm surprised people are still sore enough for it not to stand out as ridiculous. That's just one paragraph.
It makes a very good point (along with the environmental racism part you didn't link because you can't defend that, its what it was), that Bernie would not have stood a snowballs chance in hell of winning the general election. It also makes it very clear that Bernie got more chances to beat the front runner than any previous candidate for the nomination. And he makes a good point that Bernie's creepy essay could easily be spun into something far worse than a kinda gross intellectual paper. The narrative that Bernie would have won is both delusional and damaging to the attempt to beat Trump in 2020 (along with take state houses to ungerrymander them, or do it in the dem's favor).
|
Tells you something about the state of our country, and really the future of our country, that partisanship is bad enough that each successive administration starts out with the goal of tearing to shreds everything the previous president did LOL.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 15 2016 08:16 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 07:53 TanGeng wrote:On November 15 2016 07:19 Nebuchad wrote:On November 15 2016 06:29 TanGeng wrote:On November 15 2016 06:23 farvacola wrote:
The self-evidence of the truth underpinning a leftist approach to civil rights is not really at issue here, though maybe I'm misunderstanding Cosmic. Instead, I think the issue comes down to using issue-based signposts as a means of ascertaining character. I think this is the morality based approach to issues. Like slavery, abortion, religion, and racism are morality issues where you can be beyond the pale for being on the wrong side of issues, we do have new morality issues by the left. But instead of being framed as morality issues, there is shift to "intelligence" "scientific" or other angles to what is at its core moral judgements. Just two pages ago we had a TL example of someone claiming "smart people have to believe this". It's hard to even have a conversation when there is very little attempt to listen or understand. The shift that you're making is not really warranted. Most of the time, we are having factual discussions rather than moral ones. If the other camp is ignoring facts, and I'm trying to reach it, I'm going to try and reach it by bringing it back on the side of facts, not by accepting that they have a different point of view and that opinions are awesome. Now my opinion can be wrong, that's a given, I can be wrong about the facts and I generally have been, a lot, during my life. But that's going to be determined through a discussion. And if we have that discussion and I'm in the wrong, I don't want you to accept that I have a different point of view and respect that, I want you to show me that I'm wrong, so that I can be given the opportunity to be right instead. I see two different approaches to discussing any issue. The first is genuine discussion with some level of empathy and mutual understanding in the conversation. The moral foundations or value judgements can be different among people in the conversation, and the resulting conclusions can still be different, but at least there is a conversation. The second is an attempt to talk with someone with an inflexible worldview with no attempt to understand anything that might originate from a different set of values or morality. With the religious, it is openly recognized as moral judgements. With the left and the intellectual elite, they may cover it under a layer of intellectual sophistry or scientific sophistry. This group certainly won't appreciate a comparison to religious nuts, but an open discussion is as difficult among the two. Well let's look at what you did there. You've used the word "sophistry" to describe the positions of the left, which is the use of arguments that look logical at face value but are actually invalid. This is a factual claim: you're saying that leftists use false logic, and as such, are wrong. Now this is a very general claim, but if we specify it, it has the capacity to be true. We can have a discussion about it. But it is not very different from what you accuse "the left" (I really dislike the way Americans classify these) of doing.
What is wrong with the word selection? I used religious nut to describe similarly indoctrinated and close minded individuals. I am being more specific about how they encase their value judgements to both themselves and the people they attempt to have a discussion with.
|
On November 15 2016 09:07 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Eichenwald sounds like an idiot, hard to imagine him punching anyone. Someone should tell him the only reason the race wasn't over by 10PM was third parties, namely Johnson keeping Clinton competitive (he's been told this probably thousands of times by now). The same people telling us Bernie couldn't have won are the ones that told us Trump couldn't run, get nominated, or win. They should get on a boat with Bill Krystal and the rest of the people who have been so wrong for the last couple decades. That analysis wreaks of everything Hillary's camp still doesn't understand. On November 15 2016 08:55 Jaaaaasper wrote:Great article from Eichenwald that progressives swallowed that cost them the white house and the supreme court. www.newsweek.comSome high lights include some of the opposition research on Bernie from the GOP and the fact that despite the claims from Bernie or Busters, he got far more chances to debate Clinton than any previous democratic primary canidate. This repost is a great example of how Clinton's campaign worked. Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out. That's just pathetic. The interpretation of Bernie's essay, the comparing it to Hillary's email/lies, and the idea it would have been campaign ending against Captain "grab her by the" Pu**y takes such an inordinate amount of obliviousness, I'm surprised people are still sore enough for it not to stand out as ridiculous. That's just one paragraph. It makes a very good point (along with the environmental racism part you didn't link because you can't defend that, its what it was), that Bernie would not have stood a snowballs chance in hell of winning the general election. It also makes it very clear that Bernie got more chances to beat the front runner than any previous candidate for the nomination. And he makes a good point that Bernie's creepy essay could easily be spun into something far worse than a kinda gross intellectual paper. The narrative that Bernie would have won is both delusional and damaging to the attempt to beat Trump in 2020 (along with take state houses to ungerrymander them, or do it in the dem's favor).
I didn't bring up the nuclear waste issue because, like the 40+ year old article he wrote it came out in the primaries, and went no where, mostly because there is "no there, there". In a much more stark instance than the alleged "nothing" that Hillary's emails were.
It in fact doesn't make the case "Bernie would not have stood a snowballs chance in hell"
Could Sanders still have won? Well, Trump won, so anything is possible.
Bernie's "radical left" stuff was mostly a fiction, both Republicans and Democrats managed to turn doing stuff for working Americans into both racist against minorities and ignoring working whites, when it was not. That could be one of the most destructive results from Hillary's campaign.
For instance Bernie talked about an option for people who didn't plan on attending college (when he talked about free college), but no one payed any attention. It upset the types of false narratives displayed here.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 15 2016 09:11 Doodsmack wrote:
Tells you something about the state of our country, and really the future of our country, that partisanship is bad enough that each successive administration starts out with the goal of tearing to shreds everything the previous president did LOL.
Nah, that's always been the case, same with the backtracking. Contrast jealous monarch's children who had absolute power to undo their parents' work and often did.
|
Hillary gets demolished in the electoral college by working class whites and mainstream democrats reaction is "lets attack progressives." And I somehow thought that there was no terrible option for them to take.
|
On November 15 2016 09:12 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 08:16 Nebuchad wrote:On November 15 2016 07:53 TanGeng wrote:On November 15 2016 07:19 Nebuchad wrote:On November 15 2016 06:29 TanGeng wrote:On November 15 2016 06:23 farvacola wrote:
The self-evidence of the truth underpinning a leftist approach to civil rights is not really at issue here, though maybe I'm misunderstanding Cosmic. Instead, I think the issue comes down to using issue-based signposts as a means of ascertaining character. I think this is the morality based approach to issues. Like slavery, abortion, religion, and racism are morality issues where you can be beyond the pale for being on the wrong side of issues, we do have new morality issues by the left. But instead of being framed as morality issues, there is shift to "intelligence" "scientific" or other angles to what is at its core moral judgements. Just two pages ago we had a TL example of someone claiming "smart people have to believe this". It's hard to even have a conversation when there is very little attempt to listen or understand. The shift that you're making is not really warranted. Most of the time, we are having factual discussions rather than moral ones. If the other camp is ignoring facts, and I'm trying to reach it, I'm going to try and reach it by bringing it back on the side of facts, not by accepting that they have a different point of view and that opinions are awesome. Now my opinion can be wrong, that's a given, I can be wrong about the facts and I generally have been, a lot, during my life. But that's going to be determined through a discussion. And if we have that discussion and I'm in the wrong, I don't want you to accept that I have a different point of view and respect that, I want you to show me that I'm wrong, so that I can be given the opportunity to be right instead. I see two different approaches to discussing any issue. The first is genuine discussion with some level of empathy and mutual understanding in the conversation. The moral foundations or value judgements can be different among people in the conversation, and the resulting conclusions can still be different, but at least there is a conversation. The second is an attempt to talk with someone with an inflexible worldview with no attempt to understand anything that might originate from a different set of values or morality. With the religious, it is openly recognized as moral judgements. With the left and the intellectual elite, they may cover it under a layer of intellectual sophistry or scientific sophistry. This group certainly won't appreciate a comparison to religious nuts, but an open discussion is as difficult among the two. Well let's look at what you did there. You've used the word "sophistry" to describe the positions of the left, which is the use of arguments that look logical at face value but are actually invalid. This is a factual claim: you're saying that leftists use false logic, and as such, are wrong. Now this is a very general claim, but if we specify it, it has the capacity to be true. We can have a discussion about it. But it is not very different from what you accuse "the left" (I really dislike the way Americans classify these) of doing. What is wrong with the word selection? I used religious nut to describe similarly indoctrinated and close minded individuals. I am being more specific about how they encase their value judgements to both themselves and the people they attempt to have a discussion with.
The word selection is not wrong. It's just evidence of the same mindset that you criticize.
Again with the caveat that this is a really general statement, ultimately, the claim that smart people are on the side of the left boils down to "the left tries to use logic, the far right doesn't". The counter presented is that the left uses sophistry, not logic. Now the left can't do both (on the same subject). We can try and see the world from each other's point of view all we want, it won't change the fact that one of those two premises is factually incorrect. My interest in this discussion would be to figure out which one is.
|
On November 15 2016 09:23 Nevuk wrote:
Hillary gets demolished in the electoral college by working class whites and mainstream democrats reaction is "lets attack progressives." And I somehow thought that there was no terrible option for them to take.
Yeah, its getting pretty stupid. This election was what we all knew it would be. Both sides dragging their feet as they reluctantly vote along party lines. But with one distinct difference: Trump, just like Bernie, body slammed Clinton with working whites. These working whites in particular being very reliable democrat voters who have kept Wisconsin blue for quite some time. And some fucking how, I am supposed to believe Trump would have also stolen these voters from Bernie.
Absurd. Its one thing to say "We can never know", but dismissing the idea that Wisconsin would have gone to Bernie is stupid. Wisconsin would have gone to Bernie.
|
Alternatively, this is what I think is a great article that is exactly in line with my thoughts about this stupid circular firing squad on the left.
DEMOCRATS ARE licking their wounds, arguing about what or whom to blame and opening a fight over who should next lead the party. That’s normal after losing the presidency, both chambers of Congress and all but 15 governorships. They also are beginning to argue about what the party should stand for. That, too, is normal — and potentially healthy. The country will be better off if it has a vibrant, left-of-center party making the case for progressive views.
But what does it mean to be progressive? We don’t propose to lay out an agenda here — this is a debate that will and should go on for months, hopefully drawing on new ideas and up-and-coming leaders, and we expect to return to it often. We would, though, like to suggest that in some key areas, the people who are defining themselves as the progressive wing of the Democratic Party — identified with Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — are embracing principles that are not genuinely progressive.
Specifically: They want to enlarge government entitlements and hand out the benefits as broadly as possible — free college, free health care, expanded Social Security — regardless of need or available resources. They emphasize redistribution over growth. And their ostensible protection of American workers leaves no room to consider the welfare of poor people elsewhere in the world. On all three counts, we think that the higher moral ground and the smarter policy lie elsewhere.
Take free college, a key plank of Mr. Sanders’s presidential campaign. Generally two arguments are offered for making such a benefit universal. One is political: If everyone gets a benefit, everyone will press Congress or state legislatures to keep funding it. The other is moral: This is something society should do. We don’t make the wealthy pay tuition for high school; why should college be any different?
Our answer — we would argue, the progressive answer — is that there are people in society with far greater needs than that upper-middle-class family in Fairfax County that would be relieved of its tuition burden at the College of William & Mary if Mr. Sanders got his wish. In an era of constrained resources, is the nation serious about helping the “left-behinds” in small-town America, whose plight President-elect Donald Trump supposedly championed? How about the mothers and children who remain trapped in multi-generational poverty in our biggest cities? Government programs should benefit those who most need the hand up.
Source
|
On November 15 2016 09:23 Nevuk wrote:
Hillary gets demolished in the electoral college by working class whites and mainstream democrats reaction is "lets attack progressives." And I somehow thought that there was no terrible option for them to take.
Hillary lost the electoral college by less than 150,000 votes. Of course the reaction is to wonder why the dems turn out was bad in some places due to a combination of apathy and third party voters.
And the progressives pretending the party shifting farther to the left when said progressives didn't get a candidate nominated with the best chance a candidate has ever had would win national elections is hilarious.
|
On November 15 2016 09:36 ticklishmusic wrote:Alternatively, this is what I think is a great article that is exactly in line with my thoughts about this stupid circular firing squad on the left. Show nested quote +DEMOCRATS ARE licking their wounds, arguing about what or whom to blame and opening a fight over who should next lead the party. That’s normal after losing the presidency, both chambers of Congress and all but 15 governorships. They also are beginning to argue about what the party should stand for. That, too, is normal — and potentially healthy. The country will be better off if it has a vibrant, left-of-center party making the case for progressive views.
But what does it mean to be progressive? We don’t propose to lay out an agenda here — this is a debate that will and should go on for months, hopefully drawing on new ideas and up-and-coming leaders, and we expect to return to it often. We would, though, like to suggest that in some key areas, the people who are defining themselves as the progressive wing of the Democratic Party — identified with Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — are embracing principles that are not genuinely progressive.
Specifically: They want to enlarge government entitlements and hand out the benefits as broadly as possible — free college, free health care, expanded Social Security — regardless of need or available resources. They emphasize redistribution over growth. And their ostensible protection of American workers leaves no room to consider the welfare of poor people elsewhere in the world. On all three counts, we think that the higher moral ground and the smarter policy lie elsewhere.
Take free college, a key plank of Mr. Sanders’s presidential campaign. Generally two arguments are offered for making such a benefit universal. One is political: If everyone gets a benefit, everyone will press Congress or state legislatures to keep funding it. The other is moral: This is something society should do. We don’t make the wealthy pay tuition for high school; why should college be any different?
Our answer — we would argue, the progressive answer — is that there are people in society with far greater needs than that upper-middle-class family in Fairfax County that would be relieved of its tuition burden at the College of William & Mary if Mr. Sanders got his wish. In an era of constrained resources, is the nation serious about helping the “left-behinds” in small-town America, whose plight President-elect Donald Trump supposedly championed? How about the mothers and children who remain trapped in multi-generational poverty in our biggest cities? Government programs should benefit those who most need the hand up. Source
I think the article is pretty clueless about the effect of selectively applied benefits have on the population. Constrast how that article talks about giving benefits to only the lower class(es) with how the class divides are described in an article like: https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-so-many-people-dont-get-about-the-u-s-working-class
People that are above the benefit cut-off, but not feeling secure (and basically no one ever feels that secure) will push back against these programs. We've seen it a lot too which how much the right has driven people against welfare programs time and time again.
I think the way forward has to be more universally applied benefits because that should help reduce (of course not eliminate) resentment between classes and ingrain benefits as a part of everyone's society and life.
|
I might get myself into trouble but this is my genuine comment, i dont even know why people are still pulling left/right/liberal or not into this mess, 2016 happened because of one very simple reason: the chavs, the working class, the lambs.
Trump is still better than Brexit as a whole, because no matter how hard Trump will fuck it up for the next 4 years, US is still the boss of this planet (unless China decided to bomb taiwan and then starts to take over the world with russia in the next few years). And there is no need to go 'deep' or any kind of intellectual reasoning into Trump, because there is none of that in Trump or Brexit.
The majority of the people (ie the working class) are very much not happy, what can they lose if they voted a braindead comical joker be their president? Nothing. Life is getting worse one way or another, if 'we' could drag down the rich then we would be happy to do that, because those people have given up hope to go up, and they knew they will never be rich anyway. This is exactly like how all the poor places who are supported by EU's funding voted out, while most of the richer cities that are independent from EU wanted to stay, the ignorant, the uneducated, the poor do not have the ability to think. And they are the majority of the people in the country. Those are the blind people who follow whatever said by media, more so by movies, tv shows, social media etc that make them feel like they are thinking for themselves but in fact they are being contained in a bubble world.
I on the other hand am so happy that Brexit/Trump happened, because enough is enough, i have had enough too, no more hypocrisy, no more bullshit political correctness, the world can now see what kind of people there are in the 2 biggest nations in anglo countries. Obviously not all people supported trump, many people still have their senses etc etc, but this is a start of changing the world, and I am so excited for 2017. Finally, we might have a chance to see some huge changes in humanity/civilization. And i hope it is good. If this turned out real bad? Tough luck, thats the risk of wanting good changes.
|
On November 15 2016 09:37 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 09:23 Nevuk wrote:
Hillary gets demolished in the electoral college by working class whites and mainstream democrats reaction is "lets attack progressives." And I somehow thought that there was no terrible option for them to take. Hillary lost the electoral college by less than 150,000 votes. Of course the reaction is to wonder why the dems turn out was bad in some places due to a combination of apathy and third party voters. And the progressives pretending the party shifting farther to the left when said progressives didn't get a candidate nominated with the best chance a candidate has ever had would win national elections is hilarious.
Its not about how much she lost, it is about who she lost. Wisconsin should not have been competitive.
|
On November 15 2016 09:20 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 09:11 Doodsmack wrote:
Tells you something about the state of our country, and really the future of our country, that partisanship is bad enough that each successive administration starts out with the goal of tearing to shreds everything the previous president did LOL. Nah, that's always been the case, same with the backtracking. Contrast jealous monarch's children who had absolute power to undo their parents' work and often did.
Hopefully Trump would learn from hasty Iraq withdrawal that hasty Obamacare repeal wouldn't be good...but by all accounts, he'll be charging ahead without a clue what he's doing.
|
Millennials might have been Hillary Clinton's Achilles' heel on Tuesday night.
Obama won 60 percent of the millennial vote. Clinton got only about 55 percent. (We're using "millennials" as shorthand for voters between the ages of 18 and 29, but some millennials are in their 30s).
But it's not that young voters across the country were necessarily flocking to the Republican Party this year.
The real shift seems to have come from an increase in third-party candidate support, potentially low turnout, and stronger than expected support for Donald Trump in some Midwestern states that Clinton lost.
Among voters younger than 29, 55 percent supported Clinton and 37 percent supported Trump, according to national exit polls.
By itself, that statistic might seem like a good sign for Democrats; but if you compare it with 2012, Clinton underperformed President Obama, particularly in key battleground states.
Nationally, Trump did just as poorly as Mitt Romney did four years ago with millennials — only 37 percent of young voters supported the Republican candidate in 2012 and 2016.
We'll have a better sense of turnout among young voters when we see the percentage of 18- to 29-year-olds who voted, according to the self-reported census numbers next year, but exit polls indicate turnout was a problem in key states.
In fact, in every key swing state, according to exit polls, Clinton did worse than Obama with young voters. Now, of course, there's a margin of error, especially when you drill down to state-specific data, but the overall trend is clear.
For example, in 2016, 26 percent of Arizona voters were millennials; on Tuesday, voters ages 18-29 were just 14 percent of the state's electorate.
Source
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 15 2016 09:53 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 09:20 LegalLord wrote:On November 15 2016 09:11 Doodsmack wrote:
Tells you something about the state of our country, and really the future of our country, that partisanship is bad enough that each successive administration starts out with the goal of tearing to shreds everything the previous president did LOL. Nah, that's always been the case, same with the backtracking. Contrast jealous monarch's children who had absolute power to undo their parents' work and often did. Hopefully Trump would learn from hasty Iraq withdrawal that hasty Obamacare repeal wouldn't be good...but by all accounts, he'll be charging ahead without a clue what he's doing.
One man can't undo everything. And if he's not alone and he has enough political power to get all his crazy shit to pass, then we absolutely have bigger problems.
|
On November 15 2016 09:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Millennials might have been Hillary Clinton's Achilles' heel on Tuesday night.
Obama won 60 percent of the millennial vote. Clinton got only about 55 percent. (We're using "millennials" as shorthand for voters between the ages of 18 and 29, but some millennials are in their 30s).
But it's not that young voters across the country were necessarily flocking to the Republican Party this year.
The real shift seems to have come from an increase in third-party candidate support, potentially low turnout, and stronger than expected support for Donald Trump in some Midwestern states that Clinton lost.
Among voters younger than 29, 55 percent supported Clinton and 37 percent supported Trump, according to national exit polls.
By itself, that statistic might seem like a good sign for Democrats; but if you compare it with 2012, Clinton underperformed President Obama, particularly in key battleground states.
Nationally, Trump did just as poorly as Mitt Romney did four years ago with millennials — only 37 percent of young voters supported the Republican candidate in 2012 and 2016.
We'll have a better sense of turnout among young voters when we see the percentage of 18- to 29-year-olds who voted, according to the self-reported census numbers next year, but exit polls indicate turnout was a problem in key states.
In fact, in every key swing state, according to exit polls, Clinton did worse than Obama with young voters. Now, of course, there's a margin of error, especially when you drill down to state-specific data, but the overall trend is clear.
For example, in 2016, 26 percent of Arizona voters were millennials; on Tuesday, voters ages 18-29 were just 14 percent of the state's electorate. Source
this makes Brexit is literally like the miniature model of the US election, the old are screwing the young (so hard).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
