Somebody explain this to me:
-how did Trump get nearly double the amount of support from Muslims than Romney did in 2012?
-how did Trump increase his support among African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and Latinos compared to Romney in 2012?
2 Likes
Literally hundreds of polling places were closed since SCOTUS gutted the voting rights act. Here’s a chart that breaks it down. I think this is a good example of how much worse things have gotten. Maybe it’s not “big guys with bats threatening voters at the polls” but it amounts to the same thing.
7 Likes
Only slightly fake; he has a history of saying things that are probably just ignorant but smack of anti-semitism, and defending virulent anti-semites. Either way, it can’t be that hard to find a leader with good traditional Democratic values and no taint of antisemitism.
One lesson we should learn from the Clinton loss is, don’t go with the candidate that people on your side already hate, even if the hatred is undeserved; there are plenty of other candidates out there.
1 Like
You have evidence it is “couldn’t” instead of “didn’t want to” or “didn’t bother”?
1 Like
Human brains are basically lumps of easily confused meat?
9 Likes
As good of an explanation as any 
3 Likes
- The conservative Muslim voting population doubled, and there is a single poll that says support of DJT doubled.
- The minority voting population (especially in lower income brackets and urban areas) plummeted.
Slightly fake is still fake. His saying Farrakhan and Stokely Carmichael are not antisemites is not itself antisemitic. These claims are inflated because the Democratic establishment doesn’t like him, and are trying to make people hate and distrust him. Nobody is completely untainted either. There’s skeletons in every closet. This is a nontroversy that nobody should care about, and soon nobody will. It’s just petty politicking.
3 Likes
It’s not even gaining traction thanks to Russia
1 Like
Huh and all this time I’d thought it was HRC who lost HRC the election yay go numbers and things.
4 Likes
I do speak for myself, and myself only. I assumed we all did.
I never said consensus. I said majority, and the two are not the same thing (look it up if you don’t believe me).
And you sound prickly!
Most minority voters are cynical and disenfranchised to begin with – politicians and the whole “American dream” rhetoric/nonsense have never really included them. I think Bernie came along and a lot of people for the first time in their lives became interested, thought maybe there was a chance someone was willing to speak to them and on their behalf. And then, nope, not going to happen: the DNC snuffed that out.
I argue fervently that most of the problems with our political system in the U.S. are a direct result of the failures of the two party system, and I am also sympathetic to the failures of human nature.
Hopefully lessons can be learned, and we ABOLISH THE FUCKING ELECTORAL COLLEGE and switch to some kind of electoral process tolerant of third parties.
I understand that point. I just wish people could magically see the simple fault in how we choose winners in our elections: winner takes all leads to two party rule which leads to corporate hijacking which leads to corruption and complacency and lack of urgency and incentive (and downright disinterest) in how candidates address the needs and desires of their constituency etc. People are angry with Hillary and the Dems and Trump his supporters, but they can’t see all of these for what they are: symptomatic.
We will collectively groan, become hardened, cynical, disgusted, we’ll endure 4 years of… whatever the hell we’re going to call this… and then we’ll enter another election cycle and there will be all new faces and issues and we’ll get caught up once again by the disillusionment, the lack of choices, the sense that no matter what we do, these people don’t speak for us. Ad infinitum.
4 Likes
No, sorry, it is worse than that. He worked for the Nation of Islam for years. He defended anti-semitic statements made by Farrakhan (and others, like Joanne Jackson), and only later claimed to just be defending the people making them. This is well-documented, not fake. His apologies for his earlier activity and writings often take the form of downplaying that activity, the extent of which can be easily verified, eg in the archives of the local newspapers. While these apologies are probably enough for him to continue to represent his district, the lack of unambiguous self-repudiation clearly disqualifies him from leadership of the Party.
Nobody is completely untainted either.
There are plenty of people far less tainted than Ellison who could be effective leaders of the Party. If not, the Party does not deserve to continue.
1 Like
I don’t think that is going to be the non-voters reaction. I think they considered her representation of the status quo untenable. Likely, their non-vote was meant to send a message to the Democrats to stop aligning with the Wall Street and Transnational corporations; TTIP, TTP, and every and any other DLC supported policy guaranteed to never help anyone in a working class job/trade in this country.
Trump, as odious as he is, at least talked/highlighted about how the last 20 to 30 years of policy, highly supported by the corporate Dems, has devastated a large portion of the population.
Hillary was no prize for anyone outside the top 10 to 20 percent of income earners in the U.S.
Calling potential voters deplorables, (Oh-boy a mistake), is akin to Aristocrats sneering upon the lowly burghers and peasants. Shut people out for a generation and you should expect backlash.
3 Likes
Until it absolutely will not work anymore. The 1860 election was like that. F.D.R.'s New Deal was the same. We will probably arrive at the same moment. The entire globe is consumed with rejecting TINA and pro-finance/anti-democratic policy.
1 Like
Well, the experiment has been run and it looks like Clinton couldn’t beat Trump. We will never know for sure if Bernie would have beat him since the primary was fixed by Clinton, the DNC, and the superdelegates. The polls did look good with Bernie’s positive likability along with being consistently 10-15 points over Trump while Clinton was 3 points ahead or even in polls that were probably rejiggered in her favor. The evidence is there if you look. Also, please stop with the purity trolling. People are going to disagree with you. Calling them purists is a cop out that doesn’t get to discussing the issues.
4 Likes
Your interpretation is probably the best summation I’ve read in these comments.
I’m 53, I have a sister who is 65. She has said to me exactly this. She feels she is protected, and anyone a decade to a generation younger is screwed. Her reaction wasn’t to reform the system to help the screwed over, but to be thankful she’s at just the right age.
I think everybody is going to overwhelmed by the deluge, but I’m already tired at 53. She must be exhausted at 65 and just ready to sink into a couch of status quo comfort.
The young, the one’s with energy are, I hope, going to remake this horrific farce into a more humane enterprise. The problem is that in the past, remaking meant both national and global bloodbaths.
Have a nice day!
7 Likes
While vote suppression might not have been a factor (as far as 538 is concerned), voter dilution probably can’t be ruled out. If a GOP controlled state with gerrymandered voting blocs manages to spread their liberal voting majorities across conservative-controlled districts it won’t matter how large the turnout is. (e.g. North Carolina) The GOP will claim each district as theirs which will translate to GOP votes in the electoral college.
3 Likes
Calling half of Trump voters deplorable might have been stupid politically, but was it wrong? Was it wrong that half of Trump voters were racist, sexist, etc. (or believed racist, sexist, etc. things, if those are different)?
According to surveys I saw, her statement was pretty much accurate. Maybe it went a little easy on Trump voters.
These Trump supporters — half of whom she called deplorable: were any of them ever going to vote for her?
1 Like
Yes, it was wrong.
5 Likes
