Thank you for posting that! Makes it much easier to come to terms with how this happened. DEMOCRATS! shakes fist
Yes, thank you Ramira. And in looking at that graph, the Democrats doesn’t really need the “deplorables” - they need to really make sure their base can and does turn out - which means in the next non-Presidential election, get rid of those gerrymandering SOBs, protect voting rights, and reach out more to progressives (but don’t go balls to the walls crazy on that - push comes to shove, most people did NOT vote for Bernie - I certainly didn’t and the majority of people I know thought he was interesting but not interesting enough to vote for. I would have voted for him over Trump but I don’t think my mother or aunts or uncles would have. We don’t know.) We do need to reach out to those who feel unheard but they **don’t **get to kick other people under the bus. Period.
That graph is all the more remarkable when you consider that the population of the U.S. has increased by 20 million since 2008, and the largest generation in history has fully come of voting age during that time. But voting turnout has waxed and waned more throughout the US history than one might expect. The all-time greatest level, albeit of just white males at that time, was the late 19th century. They loved to vote, significantly more than at any time before or since.
The problem of course is when it is your voters that wane dramatically while the other side stays steady. Or actually, as a percentage of the population, they are waning as well, but just not as steeply.
NB: As of Friday, Nov. 11, 2016 at 11:59 p.m. CST, I’m unsubscribing from all political threads and will no longer participate in discussions in the Elections board, nor in political discussions in the Pit or MPSIMS. If you reply to a political post of mine after that point, I will not see it; please do not PM me to try to pull me back in to the debate. Thanks!
That is easy , they let Clinton run again! People didn’t want her the first time and she didn’t have the emails mess so what made the Democrats think people would want her with all her baggage ??
This on a post dated today?
I’m wondering if the Time change is included 
One thing to keep in mind is that just because the electorate may change demographically, it doesn’t mean the greater number of minorities will automatically vote for the Democrats. It depends on what the Republicans do to try to capture them. There are a lot of conservative minorities out there already who are small government types and if the GOP can manage to appeal better to minorities while still remaining a small government party, then they can win more minorities. At this point in my life, I personally don’t care which party appeals to who for what as long as I find something that appeals to me. Right now, I’m a disaffected Republican (due to the party’s shift to the far right) who has voted for the Democrats in the last couple of elections. But I’m not a Democrat or a liberal and if the Democratic party moves further leftward, I’m not comfortable with that. I guess I’ve become more of an Independent these days though I haven’t changed my voting affiliation. If the GOP managed to move back more towards the center and eliminated their racist baggage, I’d probably be comfortable voting for them again, at least on the Presidential level. The Democratic Party shouldn’t be too smug about believing if they just wait for the electorate to get less white, they can capture all those voters and still win.
Voters shouldn’t get too rigid as to which party is “theirs” or that makes up part of their identity, as parties can change their identity over time and have and voters can change over their lives as well. Individuals should probably re-consider regularly which party they should vote for and possibly even work for, depending on what the parties are offering up at the time
And before 11:59 PM. We’ll see how long he lasts. Lol.
Yep.
Lincoln wasn’t a donkey fan.
Honestly?I think “basket of deplorables” will go down in history as the most damaging comment in the history of campaigning. Which is pathetic, but when Trump made far worse comments soon afterwards, it left them no way to switch without losing face. She made it impossible for them to admit they’d been wrong, so thye just doubled down again and again.
She also failed to make it clear that she understood the depth of their problems. Trump didn’t offer any solutions, but they agreed with his complaints. whatever else he was, he could see them. The rest of the Washington establishment treated them like ghosts. Trump was all “I can see poor people” and so they gathered around him trying to get help with their problems.r
Is that based on some PolitiFact tally? She certainly had worse “honest and trustworthy” polling numbers than most.
That’s even scarier.
In this election, I would have voted for Clinton. I don’t see her as being much more corrupt than average. I see Trump as less trustworthy given his taxes, history, inconsistency on issues and baiting. But he is a very astute salesman, and very shrewd.
The media and Democrats were pretty smug. Given Trump’s aggrandizement, they thought average people would value book smarts and political experience over other skills (when have Democrats reached out to the “poorly educated”?). They lost to rural vote by not making a strong case for trade and globalism, lost many white women who clearly were not unaminously mortified by Trump, did not sufficently mollify the worries of unions or evangelicals. Clinton has some charisma, but advertised poorly and believed flawed polls. She did not do a good job of deflecting email concerns and allowed a small issue to bedevil her. Trump’s Republican rivals also believed in the power of Conservative purity tests and traditional paths to the Presidency. Not many people seemed to think Clinton would lose. I am amazed she did not do better with women or minorities, but she did not inspire many of them, did not get voters out in rural areas, did not go to Wisconsin.
American politics has devolved into separate echo chambers, I guess. Trump used simple words, vague policies, repetition and ritual. His rallies were an event, everyone was curious what he would say next, since it was often novel. The media sought “balance” but this is not Trump’s forte. Does politics really just boil down to charisma, column inches and water cooler discussions? I know many well educated Canadians (often minorities themselves) who liked Trump for raising certain topics or “having the guts to tell it like it is”. With all the obstruction, reforms were needed. Time will tell if this particular reform will have some benefits.
If these were normal times, perhaps the better prepared and more normal candidate would have won, and charisma does tend to win the day. But after the 2008 economic meltdown that scared the hell out of everyone and which took years to come back from, people didn’t want normal. Similar to Brexit, a good number of people wanted to send a message to the elite to pay attention to their needs and the problems left festering and, in the US’s case, that they didn’t like that not enough people were punished for the 2008 meltdown, among other things. It was a cry to overturn things or at least rough up the system to pay attention and not enough elites and folks in charge were paying attention to the rebel yell, even after Brexit
I understand that he was a Whig and was in on the beginning of the Republican party.
Indeed we will. The one other time I did something like this, in November 2004, I managed to go nine months without hearing Dubya’s voice or seeing his smirking, punchable face. But then I heard through the grapevine after Katrina that his popularity was plummeting, and I got back into the game to watch the GOP’s downfall, which played out over the next year and was sweet indeed. This time, though, the election result is not just maddening and frustrating and enraging, it’s absurd and criminally irresponsible on the part of the voters. Hard to forgive that one. (I mean, I said well before the election that if Hillary won by less than ten points, I was going to seriously side-eye all the Republican voters.)
I just can’t accept this kind of normalization of this election, as though it were a relatively ordinary (D) vs. (R) battle. Hillary should have been able to run a “Rose Garden campaign”, not even doing anything, and won by a landslide. Not because she’s so awesome (although I like her quite well), but because Trump is so manifestly unfit for the office and she’s not. I think we get numbed to the usual litany, so let’s mix it up a bit and mention just one of his outrages that quickly got passed by: this is a guy who bragged to Howard Stern that he used his status as owner of beauty pageants to play Peeping Tom. And teenage girls as young as 15 confirmed this:
You could leave out every single one of the scores, or hundreds, of outrages he is guilty of, and this alone should be utterly disqualifying. Beyond disqualifying. But pretty much the entire group of voters who backed Romney four years ago shrugged and voted for him anyway. Except, that is, Romney himself–and many other Mormons, who as Bill Maher noted turned out to be the only members of the Religious Right to have any integrity.
NB: As of Friday, Nov. 11, 2016 at 11:59 p.m. CST, I’m unsubscribing from all political threads and will no longer participate in discussions in the Elections board, nor in political discussions in the Pit or MPSIMS. If you reply to a political post of mine after that point, I will not see it; please do not PM me to try to pull me back in to the debate. Thanks!
Some Democrats still don’t really understand why the white working class doesn’t like them. Ed Kilgore explains:
I do not know if these numbers are “your base” from the perspective of the political party or ideology - that is making assumptions that may or may not be true. What is clear is that unlike under the two Obama campaigns, despite his blackness and funny name, your party attracted many millions more voters. Many millions more.
This does not say “base” to me in a rational analysis, but it says “variable voters” who can be attracted by some good charismatic candidate and a good charismatic campaign as Mr Obama clearly did very well with, he was always clearly nice and likable and clean.
From the Oxford University paper, a reflection that is interesting, useful I think as not American; Was tuesday night really an upset
and
and
Ramira, you have a point - I probably am biased in the fact that I want to think that the Democratic base normally includes those “variable voters” that like charisma in a good person - that the “good” part is the primary trigger since they didn’t turn out to vote for a bad charismatic.
And off on something of a tangent, I have to admit to feeling a bit of hypocrisy from the Trump supporters, who are watching protesters that hate them and their candidate in the street, because of “feels” rather than “facts”. It was fine for the Trump people to go “I don’t care about facts, I like the lies or shit that hasn’t yet better because they feeeeeeeel right.” You all showed these idiots that truth doesn’t matter; you claimed questioning the process was your right; well, look what you accomplished - you’ve managed to get the Democrats their own version of the Tea Party.