If Donald Trump is so awful, then...

[Little_Nemo]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

I often hear that lots of single-issue voters go Republican because “guns” or “abortion”; do you figure they got what they wanted, versus voting for Clinton?

Not really. No President, Democratic or Republican, is going to confiscate guns or ban abortions. They’re just red meat issues to anger up voters.

[igor_frankensteen]

@dav345

…how did he get elected over a seasoned politico who would bring with her a former President as her first hubs? I am not trying to be antagonistic here - I think it’s a valid question. Please don’t waste time with “half the country is racist and/or sexist” arguments - not buying it. These same guys in MI, PA, and WI went for Obama twice, racism arguments are tiring. Was it all Obamacare and jobs? A tiredness with the liberal party worrying about where to pee instead of creating jobs? The email server/Wikileaks? Coneys last minute investigation at election time? Strong dislike of Hillary due to her many reported scandals? Hillarys boring speeches? Tax cuts? Trump projecting as a forceful leader? Pant suits too ugly? Bill’s baggage? A worldwide Brexit fever? I’ll share my opinion after I get some comments. I’ll give you a hint - Obamacare effects on work insurance offerings, tiredness with liberals due to obvious media bias and overdoing their favoritism, and a fear of terrorism!

Could we have a less dishonestly phrased, and lie-infested, propaganda laden version of this question please?

[aldiboronti]

It’s sobering to remember just over 40% of eligible Americans didn’t vote at all. If voting were compulsory would they have voted for Trump or Clinton? Who knows? But it does mean neither Republicans nor Democrats can claim to speak for the country.

[tomndebb]

@igor_frankensteen

Could we have a less dishonestly phrased, and lie-infested, propaganda laden version of this question please?

Accusations of lying or dishonesty may not be leveled against other posters in this forum.

Please refrain from such behavior.

[ /Moderating ]

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

Gerrymandering.

[BobLibDem]

@Little_Nemo

Not really. No President, Democratic or Republican, is going to confiscate guns or ban abortions. They’re just red meat issues to anger up voters.

I don’t think so about abortion. Roe v Wade can only survive if Ginsberg can survive until 2021.

[marshmallow]

@Ravenman

People mostly were tired of having it so good and wanted to try a massive scale social experiment with a maniac in the Oval Office.

Bush: ‘Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over’

[E-DUB]

Gerrymandering doesn’t really play a part in presidential elections…yet. Some Republicans (of course) have made noises about tying the electors to the results within particular Congressional districts mostly (surprise, surprise) in blue states but it hasn’t really caught on. A couple of states do it that way now but it really hasn’t been a factor.

[Little_Nemo]

@BobLibDem

I don’t think so about abortion. Roe v Wade can only survive if Ginsberg can survive until 2021.

I don’t know. Back in 1981 when Reagan took office, maybe. The Roe decision was only eight years old then.

But in 2017? I think that train has left the station. We’ve had an entire generation of women who grew up having the right to choose. Trying to take it back would cause a massive backlash. And I think the Republicans know this; they’re never going to seriously try to overturn Roe because they know it would be suicide for the GOP.

[Velocity]

@Little_Nemo

Trying to take it back would cause a massive backlash. And I think the Republicans know this; they’re never going to seriously try to overturn Roe because they know it would be suicide for the GOP.

Roe’s fate would be decided by 5 SCOTUS justices. Backlash doesn’t really apply.

[nearwildheaven]

@Velocity

People were “sick and tired of being sick and tired.” They were tired of “same old, same old.”
The best analogy I’ve heard to explain the Trump victory is: Suppose you have a choice of two movies to watch at a theater. Movie A is a boring, but decent-quality, movie that you’ve seen many times before already, and you *really *don’t want to have to sit through it again. Movie B is a movie that many people consider awful, really awful, like Sharknado, but at least you’ve never seen before, and so to you it’s fresh and unfamiliar.
When you walk into the theater, which of the two movies would you rather watch?

Have you actually seen any of the “Sharknado” movies (believe it or not, there are FOUR of them! :eek: )? They’re stupid and full of fake graphic violence - and very funny and entertaining.

This, however, is not funny and not entertaining.

My opinion about the whole thing? Name recognition.

[Velocity]

@nearwildheaven

My opinion about the whole thing? Name recognition.

?

Hillary Clinton was just as well known as Trump, in fact probably significantly more so.

[BobLibDem]

@Little_Nemo

I don’t know. Back in 1981 when Reagan took office, maybe. The Roe decision was only eight years old then.

But in 2017? I think that train has left the station. We’ve had an entire generation of women who grew up having the right to choose. Trying to take it back would cause a massive backlash. And I think the Republicans know this; they’re never going to seriously try to overturn Roe because they know it would be suicide for the GOP.

They all promise to nominate Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe, and they probably have 4 solid votes to do just that. Ginsburg dies, so does Roe.

[QuickSilver]

@dav345

…I’ll share my opinion after I get some comments…

Go on then. We’re all waiting with great anticipation.

[Mdcastle]

@FlikTheBlue

If this is what really happened, the last group of voters must not be thinking about things clearly. It would be the equivalent of chopping down a fruit tree that is just short of maturity that hasn’t yielded any fruit on the theory that “this tree must be no good, let’s chop it down and plant a different one.” It makes no sense.

Hillary wasn’t bothering to promise any fruit. All she was saying was “look at that horrible tree over there”.

Trump might have been a horrible tree, but he was promising fruit. A promise that’s suspect is better than not even bothering to promise.

[Mdcastle]

You have three candidates.

Sanders: I know the Working and Middle Classes have been devastated by Reagonomics and Clintonomics. I’m going to to do something about it by making it so everyone is comfortable, just like the Nordic countries did when they faced the same situation

Trump: I know the Working and Middle Classes have been devastated by Reagonomics and Clintonomics. I’m going to to do something about it by deporting illegal aliens that are taking our jobs and get our jobs back from the Chinese.

Clinton: Vote for me, It’s my turn and I’m not candidate Trump

With Sanders vs Trump it probably would have gone to Sanders, but that’s not who we had to pick from. Sanders would have taken a significant part of the populist vote as well as being someone exciting to entice Democrats to get out and vote, and either one of these alone probably could have tipped the election.

[Czarcasm]

Mdcastle, you have no idea what an election between Sanders and Trump would have been like, because you cannot know what percentage of Democrats would have jumped on board with him after the Primaries, and you are acting on the assumption that the Republicans wouldn’t have played just as dirty with him as they did with Clinton…if not more.

[Ravenman]

Yeah, I’m not sure Sanders would have been the energizing force some portray him to be. For many young people, absolutely, he would have been more exciting. For me, I look at him and think, “You have accomplished pretty much the same amount in government as your Republican opponent. His awfulness is my motivation.”

[Bone]

@Little_Nemo

The problem is a lot of voters are dumb and they made the wrong choice.

I don’t care if they think they had good reasons. They still voted for the wrong candidate.

If you wanted a better job, you shouldn’t have voted for Trump. If you wanted better health care, you shouldn’t have voted for Trump. If you wanted a safer world, you shouldn’t have voted for Trump. If you wanted a better life for your children, you shouldn’t have voted for Trump.

Voting for Trump is like refusing to get your kids vaccinated. There was no good reason to do it.

I wanted more conservative SCOTUS nominations and more conservative appellate court nominations. And while I did not vote for Trump, he would be the correct choice under that rubric.

[iiandyiiii]

@Bone

I wanted more conservative SCOTUS nominations and more conservative appellate court nominations. And while I did not vote for Trump, he would be the correct choice under that rubric.

How important is this to you? If a consequence of Trump’s election is significantly more and more white supremacist and neo-Nazi incidents of violence and vandalism (which may already be occurring), would a single term’s worth of conservative justice nominations be worth it, all other things being equal?