|
On March 16 2016 22:43 VayneAuthority wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 21:14 nnn_thekushmountains wrote:
Actually Trump is fucked now. He will have a plurality of delegates but not a majority. So the delegates will recast their votes at the convention and favor Kasich.
And all of this is irrelevant anyway, because it's nearly impossible for the democrats to lose in a general election if you look at the numbers. very true, clinton could basically say im a criminal and fuck united states ahahahah!!! and she would still win the election over whatever republican gets elected. The uneducated city populations are basically 99% democrat
That's not true though.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On March 18 2016 04:30 Artanis[Xp] wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 22:43 VayneAuthority wrote:On March 16 2016 21:14 nnn_thekushmountains wrote:
Actually Trump is fucked now. He will have a plurality of delegates but not a majority. So the delegates will recast their votes at the convention and favor Kasich.
And all of this is irrelevant anyway, because it's nearly impossible for the democrats to lose in a general election if you look at the numbers. very true, clinton could basically say im a criminal and fuck united states ahahahah!!! and she would still win the election over whatever republican gets elected. The uneducated city populations are basically 99% democrat That's not true though.
Blacks. VA was taking about the Blacks, Artanis. He just didn't want to say it.
You can tell. because they're the only group that leans that far Democratic, and lots of people say "uneducated urban poor" or something similar to say Blacks because they are afraid.
They are overwhelmingly Democrat-leaning. Not 99% of course, but that's just a bit of exaggeration. Hispanics and Asians also lean Democrat.
|
its dominated by blacks but I meant what I said, whites and hispanics and asians also take welfare. Very problematic in my state Connecticut for example, where we have this guy Dan Malloy who has run our state into the ground so far that huge companies are leaving the state left and right. There's nothing we can do to get rid of him because all the cities vote for him to keep their huge welfare checks. Now he's about to leave office and leave us probably 1 billion in the red with no economy to speak of, good times. We are also taxed one of if not the highest rate in the country.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
Taking a look at the 2012 voting demographics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Voter_demographics
Blacks voted for Obama 93%
Asians 73%
Hispanic 71%
Other 58%
Obama carried lower incomes:
Under 30k/yr voted for Obama 63%
30-50k/yr 57%
50k/yr+ all favored Romney
Obama carried Urban centers by 69% and mid-sized cities by 58%, with suburbs, small towns, and rural going to Romney
Obama carried Non-HS graduates, HS graduates, by modest amounts. He edged out Romney on "Some College" 49-48, and he lost College grads to Romney 47-51. He did, however, win post-grad educated by 55-42.
Takeaways:
So, it is actually true that last election, the urban centers, the poor, and the uneducated voted for Obama. However, the only group that comes close to "99%", or indeed, even goes above 80%, support for Democrats are Blacks. It get what you were talking about VA, and it's fine. We know this: Blacks are not gonna vote for Republicans.
In general, one should expect the poor to vote for Democrats and the rich to vote for Republicans; it's in their respective interests, economically. You can note that Democrats might be bad for the economy in the long run. Perhaps this is true, but this is a less compelling argument than "we're going to expand Medicare" which immediately helps people now, or "we're not going to cut your dad's social security" or whatever.
In general, one should expect people who do not identify as White to vote for Democrats; whether or not it's true, there's a general expectation that Republicans are more racist. I know my wealthy Persian and Korean relatives all WANT to vote for Republicans, because they are all rich and want to be taxed less, but always grudgingly vote for Democrats because of the perceived (real or otherwise) racism of the Republican Party. This is actually a huge problem! There are many people who are receptive to some of the ideas the Republicans have, and it's not like the Republicans ONLY have bad ideas-- the fact that there's basically a voice being cut out of our discourse because non-Whites don't feel like they can vote against Democrats is bad.
Urban populations are basically a proxy for areas filled with young people and people who aren't white, and since young/nonwhite people vote Democrat, Urban populations vote Democrat. Nothing special there, Republicans aren't somehow less appealing to cities, it's just that they're less appealing to people who happen to live there. Same with the college education thing. People without a college education are more likely to be poor, and therefore more likely to vote for Democrats.
If the Republican party wants to have generally better odds at the presidency, they should either try to really get out the vote of their current base or expand their appeal. If all Republican-leaning people actually showed up and voted, they'd win every presidential election in a landslide. Expanding their appeal would mean either presenting a really good case for how their policies help the poor by growing the economy (A rising tide lifts all boats!) or dealing with their optics issue on race. Either would help them a lot. Without doing one of those things, their odds are worse.
Nominating Trump might represent an attempt to "rock the vote" with voter turnout rather than appealing to the poor or people who don't identify as White, assuming you consider a Trump nomination to be a strategic choice by the party and not happenstance.
|
Blazinghand will put an end to your statistical imprecisions.
|
That being said, there's no way Trump was a Republican "strategy." The party hasn't been unified to implement anything like that for a few years now.
|
Trump does bring new people to the republican party though. It's just that all those people are white and mostly male.
I work in the manufacturing sector and I have seen first hand that Trump is right in one thing, China is killing us. Trump says he's going to get Apple to manufacture in the US instead of China. I'd like to know how he plans on doing that exactly. Especially since he's against free trade agreements like the TPP which is supposed to help us compete against China.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
"new people to the republican party" is only vaguely correct. Trump will bring new people out to vote. Voter turnout in 2012 was 57%, down from 62% in 2008. The people who support trump are new not because they find themselves newly conservative (they certainly didn't vote for Obama last election), but because they find themselves newly energized and inspired. They are part of the 38% who did not vote. In theory, Republicans could win easily if they could get non-voters who are conservative to show up to the polls. This is also true for Democrats, which is why they care about voting initiatives and Rock The Vote and things like that. You can win ENTIRELY on turnout.
So, this is what Trump is doing. He's not a run towards the center or an olive branch to the minorities or the poor. Trump, to many of these people, represents something new and exciting. The reason he won primaries wasn't because normal republicans were enraptured by him, but because people turned out in force for him who normally don't vote. This is also what gives him a shot in the general election. Some liberals will tell you Trump has no chance because of his idiosyncrasies. I would argue that it is because of his idiosyncrasies that he has a chance at all.
Trump represents a turnout + energy style campaign. Similar to what Obama's primary campaign in 2008 and a decent amount of his general election campaign in 2008 was. Trump doesn't need to win over the hearts of moderates. He just needs to inspire non-voters to vote for him, and he is doing that. This is one of the ways in which the Republican party can win Presidential elections.
I think Trump is not favored to win, but unlike many I do not dismiss it out of hand. Whatever you say about Trump, he has personality, and even if you don't think his ideals are true, he clearly inspires people.
RE: protectionism, if I hypothetically wanted to encourage American companies to produce things in America, the big thing to do is not agree to agreements like NAFTA and focus on keeping up protective tariffs. If a shirt made in China costs 2 bucks less than the same shirt made in Texas, then charge a 3 dollar import fee on shirts from China or whatever. Obviously, most firms would prefer this not happen, since it drives up their prices, and of course we have signed agreements to not raise import taxes on certain countries. Also, most economists argue that although there are negative economic impacts to free trade, there are ALSO negative economic impacts to tariffs. How you want to balance these things is a matter of opinion and policy. It's definitely true that by lowering our trade barriers with other countries, like China, we have reduced the number of manufacturing jobs in the US. Whether the net impact is good or bad, that's up for discussion of course.
|
That kills our export business. And makes us even less competitive with China globally.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
Technically, only taxing imports, and only taxing imports of finished goods (so it wouldn't impact, say, the cost of copper in the US or something, making our stuff more expensive) would not on its own do anything to our export business. We would only tax things coming into the country.
You are correct though that it would be bad for our export business because our trade partners would feel no need NOT to tax things THEY import. The main reason they don't is because we don't. So the question to ask, is, as I said: is the net impact of free trade good or bad for us?
|
On March 18 2016 08:54 Blazinghand wrote:
RE: protectionism, if I hypothetically wanted to encourage American companies to produce things in America, the big thing to do is not agree to agreements like NAFTA and focus on keeping up protective tariffs. If a shirt made in China costs 2 bucks less than the same shirt made in Texas, then charge a 3 dollar import fee on shirts from China or whatever. Obviously, most firms would prefer this not happen, since it drives up their prices, and of course we have signed agreements to not raise import taxes on certain countries. Also, most economists argue that although there are negative economic impacts to free trade, there are ALSO negative economic impacts to tariffs. How you want to balance these things is a matter of opinion and policy. It's definitely true that by lowering our trade barriers with other countries, like China, we have reduced the number of manufacturing jobs in the US. Whether the net impact is good or bad, that's up for discussion of course.
Protectionism is a weird one.
I am (in my little bubble) an extremely strong supporter of free trade. Iceland has a tiny economy that needs to specialize. We can't produce everything ourselves, we need to produce a limited number of things at high value to export for the goods and services we need. Free trade forces us to be nimble and adaptable, something our small size also helps with. We need to quickly jump on profitable industries and just as quickly abandon those who are no longer viable. This creates a certain stress on the workforce with the constant need for reeducation, but it's the only way you can have a tiny little cold and shitty volcanic rock in the middle of nowhere that has a strong economy.
On the other hand, I completely understand the temptation to flirt with protectionism in the United States (Sanders, Trump). The US consumer base is incredibly valuable. It is by far the strongest consumer base in the world. It may not be a bad idea to monetize access to this unique resource. The situation is completely different from one country to another, and I think US has one of the best cases in the western world to adopt some limited form of protectionism. The political issue, of course, is that it will drive up prices on goods the consumers are currently used to getting very cheaply imported. I have no idea how it would turn out for the US, but I completely understand why so many people in the US support the idea.
|
You know what I have sworn not to do this since the days of the general forums.
|
|
|
TL lovelies, please save me from the idiots that abound on eu west/east. Nothing like getting reported for "pretending to sound like a girl when I'm really not."
</3
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fRKvt9N.png)
Had another match where they spent 30+ minutes debating how I old I was and they wonder why they were getting destroyed...zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Playing dota until ~2200 CET.
(also any Americans around, no problem playing us east) <3
|
|
|
Voice chat with randoms is pure hell.
Why do you think I don't hang out with you nerds on TS/discord anymore
|
do you know/did you ask where they were from? especially with your accent, it's beyond glaringly obvious you are female
|
just keep playing with me hts we never lose
|
On March 20 2016 07:54 NocturneMage wrote:do you know/did you ask where they were from? especially with your accent, it's beyond glaringly obvious you are female
I agree. The fact that Wave keeps on saying he's a guy gets more ridiculous every day.
|
On March 20 2016 10:27 sicklucker wrote:
just keep playing with me hts we never lose
This is true. I don't ever recall a game where I've played with you where we lost now that I think of it.
<3 sicklucker.
On March 20 2016 07:54 NocturneMage wrote:do you know/did you ask where they were from? especially with your accent, it's beyond glaringly obvious you are female
It was me and four other Germans on our team. And yes I asked because I was curious, they had their usual thick German accents. Three of which were from Bavaria (and they were a party) and they were the ones questioning whether I was a girl or not rofl (I've played alongside loads of girls in dota just none from Germany). The fourth said he was from near Hamburg. IDK what it was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
