The End is Nigh: US Presidential Election Thread Part XVI

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
There is a better than 50 percent chance that the Republicans keep the White House in 2020. The Democrats will fuck this up again.
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

How am I missing his point?! How do we know "that's something Sanders wouldn't have suffered so badly with"? They're going to be divided on Socialism like any other demographic over 35. Just because of the off chance he "may have not suffered so badly with" how would he have done with the rest of the demographics? You know the ones he failed with miserably during the primaries.
 
Sanders did next to nothing with minority vote. Clinton destroyed him in that area.

To think he would have out performed her on a national stage is unlikely.

There's dispute on how he'd do against trump in rural parts of these battleground states.

One concession is I think he would have done better with the youth vote and we'd see less of a 3rd party impact.

But these same people who came out for Trump because establishment, would have done so to fight socialism.

He also had no actual plans and policy, but that being said I would have voted for him versus trump


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
i post things here that i don't post/say in real life because i'm pleasant and nice in real life.


In Florida, Hillary Clinton lost by about 1.4% of the vote – but if Jill Stein’s supporters and half of Gary Johnson’s backers had voted Democratic, Trump would have lost the state.

Similarly, in Pennsylvania, Clinton lost by about 1.1% of the vote – but if Jill Stein’s supporters and half of Gary Johnson’s backers had voted Democratic, Trump would have lost the state.

In Wisconsin, Clinton lost by about 1% of the vote – but if Stein’s supporters had voted Democratic, Trump would have lost the state.

In Michigan, Clinton appears to be on track to lose by about 0.3% of the vote – but if half of Stein’s supporters had voted Democratic, Trump would have lost the state.

Third-party voters played a key role in election results | MSNBC
 
How am I missing his point?! How do we know "that's something Sanders wouldn't have suffered so badly with"? They're going to be divided on Socialism like any other demographic over 35. Just because of the off chance he "may have not suffered so badly with" how would he have done with the rest of the demographics? You know the ones he failed with miserably during the primaries.


Dude I'm not getting into a long drawn out argument with you. I made an example out of an open primary state portraying how an unaccounted for gap made a huge difference was both relatable to Trump and to Sanders.

Clearly this is bigger than all of those demographics. I'm sure being the liberal candidate, he would've stood a chance with those demographics. But they obviously didn't make her win. Non traditional voters were the key factor in this one. Trump was never going to win any of those demographics. But he could've potentially also not done as well against his target demographic had Sanders been the nominee.

Im not trying to be the buyer's remorse guy. I'm looking forward, not backward. But damn dude, you have to stop with the whole demonization of someone who uses the word "Sanders." There's valid points to be made here.
 
i post things here that i don't post/say in real life because i'm pleasant and nice in real life.


Re: the article

If half of Jill Stein's voters didn't vote, and a third of Johnson voters didn't vote, and two thirds of the remaining Gary Johnson voters voted for Trump, she would've still lost Florida.

This is such a weak argument based upon black-and-white assumption. It holds more weight in 2000 I suppose, but this is such a stretch.
 
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.
I'd have voted for Sanders only because of his opponent.

Many others would have stayed home, much like you stated.

We'll never know, cause it never happened.

This was a steam train barreling towards us. The last ditch desperation of rural and older white America, trying to hold on to the "good ole days."
 
Last edited:
N H Senate at .01 per cent probably deserves a recount
So it looks like Trump won by just 2 states, FL and 1 more and lost the popular vote.
 
I'd have voted for Sanders only because of his opponent.

Many others would have stayed home, much like you stated.

We'll never know, cause it never happened.

This was a steam train barreling towards us. The last ditch desperation of rural and older white America, trying to hold on to the "good ole days."



i agree. i can accept the theory that Sanders may have done better, because he felt more like a movement, albeit a movement amongst notoriously unreliable voters.

however, i actually thought, and still think, that HRC would actually have made a better president than Bernie Sanders. for a lot of reasons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom