The End is Nigh: US Presidential Election Thread Part XVI

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Bono's shades

Dems need to GOTV hard for 2018. Midterms have been killing them.

It's cyclical though. 8 years of Clinton got republicans riled up. Mixing of the house and senate. 8 years of Bush, same deal. 8 years of Obama, same deal. Typically, those all happened during the first two general elections (mid term and presidential).

It's very red right now. The dem base is going to reorganize and change that in 2 and 4 years, I bet.

[LuckyNumber7]

On a sadder note, the GOP very likely was saved from fraction by this election. Which sucks. We are going to have to wait many more years to see a different kind of thought, where liberal social policy is economic policy-independent.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

The dem base is going to reorganize and change that in 2 and 4 years, I bet.

They better. They've now got an invigorated white supremacy vote to worry about.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Jesus. I get it, you're mad. I'm mad, too. But you do realize what you're doing here, right? I'm talking about making the most of the shit sandwich we were served. You're immediately disqualifying my statement, that's not conducive for success.

To answer your question, it's being hopeful and saying "well shit if you're really going to engage Russia like that, I hope it works." Or, "if tearing up NAFTA is out of our control, I sure fucking hope it works."

I'm not endorsing the idea of doing these things. I'm acknowledging that they're highly likely, given the fact that the Republicans control the entire government now.

I'm actually not that mad, remember I lived through Rob Ford so not only was this not that shocking/surprising but we got accustomed to a certain mentality albeit on a smaller scale. You actually sound angrier in this post, not sure why.

I asked you a genuine question because I could not identify economic/foreign policies which were actually policies at all, just kind of empty rhetoric. And I guess I don't see how tearing up trade agreements and imposing 40% tariffs can EVER work, seemingly so does no reputable economist.

[anitram]

There is basically almost no hope for the 2018 midterms. Not only are midterms frustrating for Democrats but the Senate is up for grabs for the GOP and there is nothing that can really be done about it. Best hope is 2020 presidential election coattails.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

It's cyclical though. 8 years of Clinton got republicans riled up. Mixing of the house and senate. 8 years of Bush, same deal. 8 years of Obama, same deal. Typically, those all happened during the first two general elections (mid term and presidential).

It's very red right now. The dem base is going to reorganize and change that in 2 and 4 years, I bet.

If 8 years of Bush caused a change, why was Obama stuck with a mainly red congress most of the time?

[PhilsFan]

There is a better than 50 percent chance that the Republicans keep the White House in 2020. The Democrats will fuck this up again.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

There is a better than 50 percent chance that the Republicans keep the White House in 2020. The Democrats will fuck this up again.

That all depends on how Trump does in office. And no one, not even his strongest supporters, know what he'll actually be like as President.

[PhilsFan]

Sanders would have won. I'm now convinced. "America was never great" would have resonated a lot more than "America has always been great." There is no person Sanders would have driven to Trump who wasn't already there, but he would have gotten a lot more people to the polls for himself than Clinton did.

There's nothing about Sanders and socialism that could have made him as toxic a candidate as Clinton was.

[Mack_Again]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Sanders would have won. I'm now convinced. "America was never great" would have resonated a lot more than "America has always been great." There is no person Sanders would have driven to Trump who wasn't already there, but he would have gotten a lot more people to the polls for himself than Clinton did.

There's nothing about Sanders and socialism that could have made him as toxic a candidate as Clinton was.

I think Ax may disagree with you, but I think your statement has some truth to it.

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

while we disagree, you are not a troll (like another who comes to mind).



you have to be given credit: you were basically right.

Always good interacting Irvine. Hope you are doing the best you can to cope today. I was depressed for weeks after 2012.

Amazing how we see the future of the electoral map changing yet again. Coastal southeast turning bluer. Liberals retiring to Hilton Head. Business friendly states attracting northeastern voters to relocate.

Rust belt becoming redder as people leave.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by bono_212

If 8 years of Bush caused a change, why was Obama stuck with a mainly red congress most of the time?

This is exactly what I'm saying.

Bush had a red congress coming in and got the opposition motivated. He left with a blue congress. Obama started with a blue congress, did all of his stimulus packages/bailouts and pissed off a bunch of reds. He leaves with a red congress. If history continues to repeat itself, 2018 and 2020 will have the tides turned in congress, even if Trump gets re-election.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Diemen

That all depends on how Trump does in office. And no one, not even his strongest supporters, know what he'll actually be like as President.

That's true, but I think in this day and age, re-election has a neutral bias.

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Sanders would have won. I'm now convinced. "America was never great" would have resonated a lot more than "America has always been great." There is no person Sanders would have driven to Trump who wasn't already there, but he would have gotten a lot more people to the polls for himself than Clinton did.

There's nothing about Sanders and socialism that could have made him as toxic a candidate as Clinton was.

Sanders connected with people. He loved America and it was intangibly apparent in presentation.

Hillary could not replicate that emotional bridge to the voters en masse. Gore had the same issue.

2020 Dems should find a vibrant Sanders like figure. Fight Trumpian populism with progressive populism


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BVS]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Sanders would have won. I'm now convinced. "America was never great" would have resonated a lot more than "America has always been great." There is no person Sanders would have driven to Trump who wasn't already there, but he would have gotten a lot more people to the polls for himself than Clinton did.

There's nothing about Sanders and socialism that could have made him as toxic a candidate as Clinton was.

I would have stayed home. And there are many others like me, add to that those center people that would have been driven to vote against the idea of 'Socialism'. Plus the demographics she fell short on, were the same Sanders failed, so I'm not sure how one can make such a sure statement.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

I live right outside Wilkes-Barre PA. The county was +5 Obama in 2012 and went +20 Trump last night. The biggest flip in a populated county.

I've written multiple times in the forum about the blue collar democrat rejecting the current party trajectory. I was not surprised by the rust belt results.




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Yes, as Irvine said, you deserve credit with this one. The PA thing was shocking, but in hindsight your assessment of that seems less of a bias and more of an accurate description of why what happened did happen.

With that being said, I still emphasize the overall poll thing beforehand. You correctly identified an anomaly that suggested what might (and did) happen. But your suggestion was valid for why the polls were wrong. This is non-partisan: the polls were very wrong. This is why I happily sided with the Silver v HuffPost model. Also why I said were Trump to win, it would be a landslide due to the domino effect / we missed something in the polling. I still very surely thought Clinton would win in her own landslide, but this election was never meant to be close. And though the results are not entirely done, Id qualify this as a Trump landslide given the neutral bias to the Dems. She barely won anything past Dem-neutral.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by BVS

I would have stayed home.

Jesus fucking Christ.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by BVS

I would have stayed home. And there are many others like me, add to that those center people that would have been driven to vote against the idea of 'Socialism'. Plus the demographics she fell short on, were the same Sanders failed, so I'm not sure how one can make such a sure statement.

You're missing Peef's point then. This was a point I made during the primaries, though I should offer some revisions on it. Remember the whole "Trump and Sanders some of the same voters" thing? That was probably a bigger deal than we imagined. Blue collar white middle class America was the non traditional class that came out in flocks for Trump. That's something Sanders wouldn't have suffered so badly with. We saw the polls wrong for Trump in Michigan and we saw them wrong for Sanders in Michigan. Get the vibe: we missed an audience.

[PhilsFan]

I am retiring from Interference.

[namkcuR]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

I am retiring from Interference.

Don't do that, man. We don't want to lose another valued poster.