Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
I do. You don't how many Hillary voters wouldn't vote for Bernie. Bernie did lousy with black and Latino voters, for example. For some reason, he got no resonance there.

My wife's Latino hairdresser and her whole family basically voted for Trump, for example. She volunteered that some weeks ago. It was about law and order issues, afaik. This is a different kind of place, like I said.

The key loss though appears to be the old Rustbelt states. Trump was clever enough to target them when conventional opinion told him to focus on Nevada, Florida etc but he probably recognised the need to pull off a couple of shocks. Likewise I think he recognised the softening of support amongst middle income white people who have seen earnings hit over the last 30 years.

Anyway how does this relate to Sanders? Well I suspect being the candidate for change not continuation would have insulated him from the hollowing out of this vote far more. Yes he didn't do so well amongst Blacks and Latino's but that was mainly gaged against Obama support not Clinton. I can accept not much would have changed there, and maybe some wealthy whites would have switched back to Republicans in the Southern states, but I think he'd have been far more competitive in key states.

Clinton basically banked increases in support in areas that were not important. Holding Michigan and Wisconsin would have made the race far closer. There's every chance Ohio would have stayed blue too which would have given him enough to hold onto the presidency. More importantly though I think Trump's logic of winning rustbelt states would have been a lot harder and he may have adopted a differing strategy?

The massive swing of poor voters towards Republican would have been lessened with Sanders, even if some wealthier Americans switched back to republicans.
 
I certainly think that if Sanders had won the nomination, he would have been subjected to an unprecedented campaign of vilification and character assassination, that would have made what Clinton had to face very tame and meek in comparison.

You could certainly argue that Clinton had the mainstream media totally favourable to her and her agenda, whatever that was, this would not have been the case with Sanders, and in addition, he would have had to face the sort of opposition internally that Trump had with Republicans.

It's one thing being morally repugnant to vast numbers of people (Trump), another thing completely being seen as an anti-capitalist / anti-American Dream candidate. Sanders would have been destroyed.

His polling numbers were very strong though mate. What is true though is the campaigns would have taken a very different route. For the Establishment it would have been a nightmare, but I do think they'd have swung more behind Trump in exchange for him moderating his message. How that would have played out, and whether he could he kept his authenticity as a candidate of change alongside that process would have been the interesting question.
 
admittedly that is over my head i think. what does that mean?

Latinos are courted as a block vote by Democrats, as are African-Americans, gay voters, you can work your way through the constituency groups.

They do see themselves as a vote in tribal terms and go for one candidate (almost always a Democrat) by overwhelming proportions, still true in 2016. Note that Obama got well over 90% of a very large turnout black vote twice as compared to the turnout in 2016. His GOTV crew was the key to his election.

Solidarity is a big issue if you are a minority group within a culture. The Democrats have demonized the GOP as racist for so long (40 years sounds about right) that the native white vote has begun to vote in much the same way as a protective mechanism. This is a big part of what has been labeled racist in the media, and frankly, on this forum.

JPod (a GOP deep never-Trumper, and heir to the neo-con publishing empire started by his Dad) knows that when he was a kid, the first question in his neighborhood was "is this good for the Jews?" He understands tribal voting to his toenails. White, non-progressive America voted as a tribe.

I can see how that would scare people.
 
The key loss though appears to be the old Rustbelt states. Trump was clever enough to target them when conventional opinion told him to focus on Nevada, Florida etc but he probably recognised the need to pull off a couple of shocks. Likewise I think he recognised the softening of support amongst middle income white people who have seen earnings hit over the last 30 years.

Anyway how does this relate to Sanders? Well I suspect being the candidate for change not continuation would have insulated him from the hollowing out of this vote far more. Yes he didn't do so well amongst Blacks and Latino's but that was mainly gaged against Obama support not Clinton. I can accept not much would have changed there, and maybe some wealthy whites would have switched back to Republicans in the Southern states, but I think he'd have been far more competitive in key states.

Clinton basically banked increases in support in areas that were not important. Holding Michigan and Wisconsin would have made the race far closer. There's every chance Ohio would have stayed blue too which would have given him enough to hold onto the presidency. More importantly though I think Trump's logic of winning rustbelt states would have been a lot harder and he may have adopted a differing strategy?

The massive swing of poor voters towards Republican would have been lessened with Sanders, even if some wealthier Americans switched back to republicans.

Hillary was the victim of her own feedback in those states. She never knew what hit her. Confidence without competence will do that to you.
 
True fact for you, Trumps running mate Pence has very close connections to the tobacco industry.

Watch him when he becomes Vice President push through legislation to punish the vaping industry to keep the tobacco companies happy.
Read the news......

They have already done that lol Something in california i think, proposition 51 i think it was. Either way the tobacco industry has already gone for the throat over there, whereas they just kicked europe between the legs ;)
 
Completely irrelevant!!! He was voted for by all colours and religion to get the presidency.

It is relevant though for both parties. Break down the demographics and find out how the election was won and lost and see what can be done to win that segment of vote for the next election.
 
The Democrats have demonized the GOP as racist for so long (40 years sounds about right)

or they could just be directly quoting Kevin Phillips, Lee Atwater, et al...

For those who don't know: "You start out in 1954 by saying, “N*****, n*****, n*****.” By 1968 you can't say “n*****” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N*****, n*****.”
 
Read the news......

They have already done that lol Something in california i think, proposition 51 i think it was. Either way the tobacco industry has already gone for the throat over there, whereas they just kicked europe between the legs ;)

That's before Pence is in power, we will follow America with the legislation now that we will be coming out of the EU.
 
Hillary was the victim of her own feedback in those states. She never knew what hit her. Confidence without competence will do that to you.

I think on both sides of the "pond" there are severe difficulties with polling companies mate. As with most mathematical models they often move slowly when seismic events start occurring. A growing number of people from untraditional voting backgrounds (ie poorer) are starting to vote when candidates energise them.

You are right though, Clinton took those votes for granted in a way that I don't think Sanders would have. Clinton, like much of the moderate wing of Labour want to fight an election along the triangulation thesis of her husband developed in the 90's. Pander your message to the elites, get favourable press coverage and stress competency over the economy. Against a message that makes any effort to tailor itself to ordinary people that is now finding difficulty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top