|
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. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 15 2016 09:58 BurningSera wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 09:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: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).
In neither case is that true, though in the US election much less than the UK. The "youth vote" is basically about where GH is right now. They "lost" but it was a no-win situation for them because Hillary Clinton winning would be a loss for them as well. Contrast to the Brexit vote where the youth really did have some degree of genuine attachment to the idea of the EU (even if it still isn't a good descriptor of what went down there).
|
burningsera -> I think your attribution of causation is a bit too focused.
while there are some prime causes; it's still a complex multivariate feedback system.
|
On November 15 2016 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 09:07 Jaaaaasper wrote: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" 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.
Just saying, if you watched the same election I did, you should have come to the same conclusion that it really doesn't matter what is fiction and what isn't. This was not a reality based election. It wasn't for Clinton, and it wouldn't have been for Sanders.
I mean, a legitimate talking point in the final week was that Clinton's campaign chair's brother being a satanist, and you think it matters what Sanders actually meant and actually wanted?
|
On November 15 2016 10:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 09:58 BurningSera wrote:On November 15 2016 09:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: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). In neither case is that true, though in the US election much less than the UK. The "youth vote" is basically about where GH is right now. They "lost" but it was a no-win situation for them because Hillary Clinton winning would be a loss for them as well. Contrast to the Brexit vote where the youth really did have some degree of genuine attachment to the idea of the EU (even if it still isn't a good descriptor of what went down there).
Well, i would argue that hilary winning would at least sort of maintain whatever they have currently while Trump is like a giant time bomb, no way i would choose Trump if i was a voter under 30.
And just saying, the pensioners over here went full selfish mode and have the highest turn up rate among all age groups to vote out. It was sickening.
|
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
Hey look the progressives who want to control the DMC showing why they never will
|
On November 15 2016 09:51 BurningSera wrote:
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.
And they're more prone to demagogues, especially when you throw racial anxiety in the mix. And let's not mistake media frenzy/bias with reality here - Trump's a birther, very recently said "there's something going on" with Obama and Islamic terrorism. Trump started on the political scene as a birther, it was his "exploratory committee". It's his seed, combined with the wall plan - his emphasis in his announcement speech. And it's also the seed of his base.
Trump has a history in his business life of getting what he wants whatever it takes. That's not media spin, that's just the facts. He did whatever it takes to get elected - including the false rigging conspiracy against the establishment, heavy racial dog whistling, etc. Just a very shady person, employing a strategy for election that does not require any concept yourself of how to do the job. To in fact be someone who wasn't willing to learn and prepare over the course of the campaign.
By all accounts, he did not ever think he would win, and he is now a deer in headlights. Those who voted for him and expressed arguments in supported of him bear the burden of the risk that he represents, and are certainly morally culpable for the results.
|
On November 15 2016 10:03 zlefin wrote:
burningsera -> I think your attribution of causation is a bit too focused.
while there are some prime causes; it's still a complex multivariate feedback system.
Is the education, and the goddamn media. Educate the people better, and hence they can think better. It is not even a secret that majority of people (in UK or US) are inadequately educated by the status of these 2 biggest anglo countries. Hence, now the whole world laughed at Trump/Brexit. Ok brexit is actually more complicated here, but Trump is an obvious one. But ya I am just going to leave it just here. What a depressing year...
|
On November 15 2016 10:04 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 15 2016 09:07 Jaaaaasper wrote: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. Just saying, if you watched the same election I did, you should have come to the same conclusion that it really doesn't matter what is fiction and what isn't. This was not a reality based election. It wasn't for Clinton, and it wouldn't have been for Sanders. I mean, a legitimate talking point in the final week was that Clinton's campaign chair's brother being a satanist, and you think it matters what Sanders actually meant and actually wanted?
Yes I do. Because Bernie would have been more trusted than any of the people trying to malign him. Hillary's problem there, was that people trusted Trump more than her and the media.
|
On November 15 2016 10:06 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 09:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: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 Hey look the progressives who want to control the DMC showing why they never will
So far we've established that white working class and millenials were the two groups who didn't show up for Clinton. How do you reconcile that with your notion that Sanders wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell?
GH: on top of that, not all fiction sells the same. The anti-establishment literature was really en vogue this year.
|
On November 15 2016 10:08 BurningSera wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 10:03 zlefin wrote:
burningsera -> I think your attribution of causation is a bit too focused.
while there are some prime causes; it's still a complex multivariate feedback system.
Is the education, and the goddamn media. Educate the people better, and hence they can think better. It is not even a secret that majority of people (in UK or US) are inadequately educated by the status of these 2 biggest anglo countries. Hence, now the whole world laughed at Trump/Brexit. Ok brexit is actually more complicated here, but Trump is an obvious one. But ya I am just going to leave it just here. What a depressing year...
I think it's probably best for you to leave it here.
I'll just note that education is HARD, and the people of other countries aren't substantially better educated on things like this, or in general. They're arguably somewhat better in some countries, but it's not that much of a difference.
|
On November 15 2016 10:06 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 09:51 BurningSera wrote:
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. And they're more prone to demagogues, especially when you throw racial anxiety in the mix. And let's not mistake media frenzy/bias with reality here - Trump's a birther, very recently said "there's something going on" with Obama and Islamic terrorism. Trump started on the political scene as a birther, it was his "exploratory committee". It's his seed, combined with the wall plan - his emphasis in his announcement speech. And it's also the seed of his base. Trump has a history in his business life of getting what he wants whatever it takes. That's not media spin, that's just the facts. He did whatever it takes to get elected - including the false rigging conspiracy against the establishment, heavy racial dog whistling, etc. Just a very shady person, employing a strategy for election that does not require any concept yourself of how to do the job. To in fact be someone who wasn't willing to learn and prepare over the course of the campaign. By all accounts, he did not ever think he would win, and he is now a deer in headlights. Those who voted for him and expressed arguments in supported of him bear the burden of the risk that he represents, and are certainly morally culpable for the results.
That sounds just like the brexiter campaign ahaha. Trump is a pathological liar or maybe just lack of brain cells, i don't know, and media helps fueling his speeches so well.
|
On November 15 2016 10:10 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 10:06 Jaaaaasper wrote:On November 15 2016 09:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: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 Hey look the progressives who want to control the DMC showing why they never will So far we've established that white working class and millenials were the two groups who didn't show up for Clinton. How do you reconcile that with your notion that Sanders wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell? GH: on top of that, not all fiction sells the same. The anti-establishment literature was really en vogue this year.
The progressives who didn't show up to get Bernie elected, who didn't show up for Clinton, who didn't show up for the supreme court, are saying they'll show up next time? Its hard to believe. And lets be honest the white working class didn't show up because jobs like coal and steel are gone, and trump was promising to bring them back. Trump can't put the automation genie back in the box, meaning they're not going to be any happer with him than they were with Clinton.
|
The US army corps of engineers has completed its review of the Dakota Access pipeline and is calling for “additional discussion and analysis”, further delaying completion of a project that has faced massive opposition from indigenous and environmental activists.
The statement comes amid heightened tensions between Native American activists and the surrounding community over the pipeline, which the Standing Rock Sioux tribe says could contaminate its water supply and destroy sacred sites. On Saturday, a man brandished a gun during a confrontation with protestors and fired his weapon into the air.
The Dakota Access pipeline operator announced on election day that it had completed construction of the pipeline up to Lake Oahe – a reservoir that is part of the Missouri River – and was preparing to begin drilling under the river. But the company still lacks permission from the army corps of engineering to perform the drilling.
Assistant secretary of the army Jo-Ellen Darcy cited the history of “repeated dispossessions” of the Great Sioux Nation in a letter to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and the pipeline company. She wrote that the corps wanted to begin talks with the tribe about “potential conditions in an easement” that would allow the pipeline to cross the Missouri River but lessen the risks of a spill.
“While these discussions and analysis are ongoing, construction on or under Corps land bordering or under Lake Oahe cannot occur because the Army has not made a final decision on whether to grant an easement,” the letter concludes.
Standing Rock Sioux tribal chair Dave Archambault II said in a statement that he was “encouraged” by the army’s statement, though the delay was not “100 percent what the Tribe had hoped for”.
“Not all of our prayers were answered, but this time, they were heard,” he said.
While today’s announcement may be good news for the Standing Rock Sioux, it is unclear how long the delay will last – and whether it will survive under the Trump administration.
Source
|
On November 15 2016 10:13 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 10:10 Nebuchad wrote:On November 15 2016 10:06 Jaaaaasper wrote:On November 15 2016 09:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: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 Hey look the progressives who want to control the DMC showing why they never will So far we've established that white working class and millenials were the two groups who didn't show up for Clinton. How do you reconcile that with your notion that Sanders wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell? GH: on top of that, not all fiction sells the same. The anti-establishment literature was really en vogue this year. The progressives who didn't show up to get Bernie elected, who didn't show up for Clinton, who didn't show up for the supreme court, are saying they'll show up next time? Its hard to believe. And lets be honest the white working class didn't show up because jobs like coal and steel are gone, and trump was promising to bring them back. Trump can't put the automation genie back in the box, meaning they're not going to be any happer with him than they were with Clinton.
They didn't show up to vote for Bernie in Arkansas or in Florida. They showed up in Michigan and Wisconsin (Pennsylvania was a closed primary). And the article you quoted talks about Obama numbers, so if you follow that article, they did show up last time, as we're looking at last time's numbers...
It's also clear to me that Trump won't improve the situation of people in Wisconsin and Michigan. Apparently it wasn't clear to them. In any case, this is an unrelated issue.
|
On November 15 2016 10:13 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 10:10 Nebuchad wrote:On November 15 2016 10:06 Jaaaaasper wrote:On November 15 2016 09:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: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 Hey look the progressives who want to control the DMC showing why they never will So far we've established that white working class and millenials were the two groups who didn't show up for Clinton. How do you reconcile that with your notion that Sanders wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell? GH: on top of that, not all fiction sells the same. The anti-establishment literature was really en vogue this year. The progressives who didn't show up to get Bernie elected, who didn't show up for Clinton, who didn't show up for the supreme court, are saying they'll show up next time? Its hard to believe. And lets be honest the white working class didn't show up because jobs like coal and steel are gone, and trump was promising to bring them back. Trump can't put the automation genie back in the box, meaning they're not going to be any happer with him than they were with Clinton.
They showed up for Bernie in droves. Clinton won the support off the back of minority support during the primaries. There's nothing wrong with that, but to say that Bernies supporters didn't show up during the primaries is a flat out lie - Hillary just had more supporters in the right place during the primary season. Kind of like Trump did during the general election.
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.
In this polarized environment energizing the base is a much better strategy than appealing to a nonexistent center. I find it especially hilarious all of the Hillary supporters who flat out SAID "Whatever, we don't need Bernie's supporters to win anyways" are surprised that those supporters took that as a cue to not show up. The attitude of Hillary's surrogates and supporters should bear a heavy amount of the blame.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
For all intents and purposes Hillary gave every indication that she had no intention of changing anything about her policy. I wanted to see her throw an olive branch in the progressives' direction in her VP choice - no dice, she chose someone who was literally a carbon copy of herself. I wanted to see her appeal to the people who were skeptical of her, especially from the base which should have easily voted for her, in the convention. Nope, just an endless stream of identity politics with a brief and evidently sidelined appearance by the progressive stars (Warren and Sanders). I also wanted to see her take responsibility for her own past mistakes and promise to make them better - this wasn't done in any meaningful way.
This was arrogance, pure and simple. The idea that the other choice is so impossibly unfeasible for people to vote for, that she could get away with anything she wanted in the process of getting her win. And while I can't say that I was one of the ones brave enough to send that "fuck you" to her attitude (I have my own living situation to worry about and the status quo doesn't hurt me as much as Trump might), I absolutely can't feel bad about seeing her get this completely and utterly deserved comeuppance. The hardcore Sanders leftists who voted for her probably feel the exact same way right now.
|
Clinton ran for Clinton not for the country, did she ever say why she was running in the first place?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Democrats were their own worst enemy this election cycle. Between generating a poison pill third party vote, losing their base of the union heavy midwest states, chasing after shadows in Georgia, North Carolina, and Iowa in the final weeks, letting a billionaire of all people to empathize with the working class. What a disaster of a campaign.
The long term demographics are still on the Democrats side. Hopefully someone more prudent and positive runs the campaign for them next cycle.
And yes, Clinton supporters were her own worst enemy. Needs a lot of self reflection before pointing the fingers outward.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 15 2016 11:07 TanGeng wrote:
Democrats were their own worst enemy this election cycle. Between generating a poison pill third party vote, losing their base of the union heavy midwest states, chasing after shadows in Georgia, North Carolina, and Iowa in the final weeks, letting a billionaire of all people to empathize with the working class. What a disaster of a campaign.
The long term demographics are still on the Democrats side. Hopefully someone more prudent and positive runs the campaign for them next cycle.
And yes, Clinton supporters were her own worst enemy. Needs a lot of self reflection before pointing the fingers outward.
At this point they're at about the "blame Bernie Sanders supporters and James Comey" phase. Next I think we'll see the Russians be blamed for leaking real emails that paint her in a really unfavorable light, and then Henry Kissinger will be blamed for not endorsing her. If only Kissinger endorsed there is no way she could've lost.
|
On November 15 2016 11:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 11:07 TanGeng wrote:
Democrats were their own worst enemy this election cycle. Between generating a poison pill third party vote, losing their base of the union heavy midwest states, chasing after shadows in Georgia, North Carolina, and Iowa in the final weeks, letting a billionaire of all people to empathize with the working class. What a disaster of a campaign.
The long term demographics are still on the Democrats side. Hopefully someone more prudent and positive runs the campaign for them next cycle.
And yes, Clinton supporters were her own worst enemy. Needs a lot of self reflection before pointing the fingers outward. At this point they're at about the "blame Bernie Sanders supporters and James Comey" phase. Next I think we'll see the Russians be blamed for leaking real emails that paint her in a really unfavorable light, and then Henry Kissinger will be blamed for not endorsing her. If only Kissinger endorsed there is no way she could've lost.
The Bernie supporters who didn't vote, Comey who lost complete control of the FBI and made a announcement that turned into nothing, the Russians fucking with the American presidential election by sabotaging a candidate? Are you pretending all of those things didn't have a hand in the over all outcome?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
