I take issue with the “globalist agenda”, and that HRC is somehow salivating at being able to bomb more innocent people into the ground. Also, “ultimately against Russia”? Really? There’s a globalist agenda to wage war against Russia? Neither the Baltimore Sun, nor the Washington Post, nor the NYT (two of which I receive) has any mention of a war with Russia. Which war would that be?
4 Likes
This is just silly. You’re letting 25% of the country decide for you instead of getting a 3rd party over 15% of the vote. That’s complete idiocy.
EDIT
If you are not voting you are only doing harm to the country and to yourself. If the non-voting 50% of the country just showed up and wrote down their own name on the ballot, suddenly Trump and Hillary are bringing in 25% of the vote that the news has to figure out a way to represent that graphic on the fly.
2 Likes
What do you mean jiggering? Ah, because it starts at 52 million vs 0?
It accurately shows the 10 million vote difference from 2008 to today, and how that relates to the difference in votes. Basically it puts a circle around the tip of a longer bag graph, showing the amount of differences in votes, but it doesn’t show as well what percentage of the overall vote it should be. Another person above showed a much longer time scale and the full vote count.
I can see your point, but the important information it is trying to point out is the same. But like I said, I didn’t make it and it isn’t perfect.
Fair point. After normalizing based on population Obama remains on top, followed by Kerry (which was kind of surprising to me) then Clinton. Going back further, LBJ is between Obama and Kerry, then JFK and Carter are ahead of Hillary. She’ll overtake Carter unless she somehow gets less than 20% of the outstanding votes in California, and if she gets the expected 60% she’ll be about level with JFK. I didn’t go back further than that.
I didn’t realize everyone had been boinking quite that much.
1 Like
They haven’t really. The birth rate is 1.88, so we aren’t keeping numbers even now. 100 million was bad estimation on my part. It is more like 83 million. Part of the increase was when we had higher than 2.0 birth rates. The rest is immigration. Legal immigration accounts for ~32 Million. But there are only supposed to be 11 million illegal immigrants, but I imagine that doesn’t include the people who came here and gained amnesty or found other was to become legal. I didn’t quite realize how much we have grown though in about half my life span. Really neat, actually.
2 Likes
The “globalist agenda” is broader than that, a modern-day continuation of the Great Game. There are a small number of people in the world who are vying for absolute control of power and resources, regardless of international treaties, borders, what-have-you. So no, I’m not saying HRC is salivating at the thought of bombing more innocent people, but she is willing to look the other way when there’s some collateral damage as a result of the movers and shakers jockeying for control.
2 Likes
Wisconsin is a fascinating case. From 2012 to 2016, overall turnout was down 125595, 3rd party voting was up 111679.
Trump only got 1501 more votes than Romney, Clinton got 238775 fewer than Obama. Even factoring in that 3rd party swing, it looks like the turnout was mostly the issue. I’ve been trying to get the county breakdown to check, but it looks like most of that voting was in Milwaukee where voter ID laws are estimated to have kept almost 100k from voting. Taking Gary Johnson + apathy + voting ID requirements made the difference, apparently.
Even with the so-called Rust Belt Uprising, I just don’t see the numbers bearing out a groundswell for Trump.
2 Likes
To the “ultimately Russia” maybe, but it’s hard to deny that Yemen and Syria are getting the Libya treatment right now and it’s probably going to work about as well
1 Like
Yea.
As a sometimes data scientist, I think much of the so-called marketing crap, er, marketed to people is bunk. So yea, if she relied too much on that it is a problem.
But it’s a minor problem. The real problem is that the Democrats have absolutely let their core constituency down and the run crappy, crappy candidates. Clinton was a crappy candidate.
Seriously, choosing someone from a crumbling political dynasty? In 2016? They’re surprised at the apathy of younger voters???
3 Likes
Could you name some major “globalists” for me? Like what sectors they work in or names?
Polls about Obama being popular must be wrong too since if anything, he is far more responsible for those wars.
1 Like
Popular? All the polls I’ve seen place his approval at about 50% (sometimes less, sometimes more).
I think he’s tolerated by many, but not exactly popular.
2 Likes
He has a 56% approval rating - exactly the same as Ronald Reagan had in November '88. The only President in recent history with a higher approval rating was Clinton. Before that you have to go back to Eisenhower.
5 Likes
I think that Obama was a smart and decent guy who genuinely tried to do what he thought was best. But I disagreed with him sharply on many of his policy decisions, and I think his domestic political judgement was severely misguided.
He was an extremely conservative President, in the small-c risk-averse sense. He was so concerned with leaving a respectable legacy that he failed to achieve much of anything, and now his limited policy legacy is about to be erased. I don’t know that history is going to be kind to his Presidency.
To quote a comment I saw posted elsewhere today (McGrew is just another commenter who this one is replying to):
[quote]Gerald McGrew thinks that Obama represented a major progressive movement.
Well let’s review reality for Mr. McGrew since it seems he’s just yesterday extracted his head out of his own ass.
A huge successful bailout for the largest banks in the world after they destroyed trillions in the wealth of working people and almost plunged the world into depression.
No criminal investigations into said banks much less any attempted prosecutions.
Conversely, a half-hearted failure of a bailout of the homeowners who lost everything due to the banks greed and recklessness.
Letting the war criminals of the Bush Admin off the hook completely after starting a war based on lies that killed several hundred thousand including 4500 of our own while allowing this illegal war to cause us to largely abandon our pursuit of the real targets.
Larry Summers.
Tim Giether.
James Fucking Comey.
Abandon the ACA Public Option without even the hint of a fight.
Abandon the Senate amendment that proposed to break up the largest banks which James Kwak said could have passed if Obama supported it.
The idea that health insurance coverage should be a republican plan ginned up by Newt to counter the Hillary healthcare commission and using a major element first proposed by the fucking Heritage Foundation in 1989, then implemented by Romney in Mass.
No consideration of a universal healthcare plan whatsoever.
Mr. McGrew thinks this represents a major progressive movement. I beg to differ. Obama represented the Rockefeller wing of the old republican party.[/quote]
4 Likes
Right now, but it goes up and down. It probably makes more sense to look at averages, and when you do, that 50% doesn’t look too popular.
But I don’t want to argue with you. If you want to consider him popular, ok.
(from:
)
1 Like
I pretty much agree with all you say (although I have my doubts about him being decent. By the second term I think he’d been pretty tainted by the process).
1 Like
These numbers don’t mean anything by themselves. Eisenhower served eight years, Kennedy only three. The numbers also don’t reflect highs, lows, standard deviations, etc. Bush Jr (not in graphic) had the highest and lowest approval rating of any president, so whatever his average approval rating is, it probably isn’t representative.
1 Like
I’m not sure why would it make more sense to talk about averages when discussing how popular something is now. If war was a major reason why Clinton lost right now, then it is likely his 56% approval rating might be wrong just like our election polling was.
Perhaps more people say they approve of Obama because it is socially acceptable to be.
Either that or people only blame Clinton for Libya and Syria, but not Obama for some reason.
1 Like
They’re not particularly meaningful in an of themselves, but I quoted them to provide some insight on the fact that IMO Obama’s 50%-ish approval isn’t bad, but it isn’t particularly good either (in a big picture kind of way).
It was meant as context to my statement that Obama didn’t seem that popular to me.
I find reactions to Obama very curious because I honestly didn’t know people thought he wasn’t an very cautious establishment candidate in 2008. Of all things surrounding this election this shocked me because I never really pushed people on it.
1 Like
I remember the months shortly after his first term began, when radical left critique of him started to gain steam online.
At the time, I was all “guys, you know that the things you’re screaming about are exactly what he promised he’d do in his book, right?”.
2 Likes
