Elessar78 Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 Why did Trump win? New research by Democrats offers a worrisome answer. "42 percent of Obama-Trump (voters who voted for Obama, then voted for Trump) voters said congressional Democrats’ economic policies will favor the wealthy, vs. only 21 percent of them who said the same about Trump. (Forty percent say that about congressional Republicans.) A total of 77 percent of Obama-Trump voters said Trump’s policies will favor some mix of all other classes (middle class, poor, all equally), while a total of 58 percent said that about congressional Democrats." https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/05/01/why-did-trump-win-new-research-by-democrats-offers-a-worrisome-answer/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_3_na&utm_term=.f2cb78262c1f Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 people usually do vote with their pocketbook in mind. Of course both O and T promise more than they can deliver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 They should have done some of that extreme vetting on that group to weed out the slackjawed morons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 1 hour ago, LD0506 said: They should have done some of that extreme vetting on that group to weed out the slackjawed morons Yeah, they did vote for Obama after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 I'm pretty ****ing tired of the official Democratic reasons why Donald Trump won. Obama-Trump voters? unless there's about 60+million of them, STFU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins59 Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 Some of it is economic issues, no doubt, but I agree with this paper: http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf Some of the rust belt states may be going the way of West Virginia, in all honesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted May 13, 2017 Author Share Posted May 13, 2017 Just now, Mooka said: I'm pretty ****ing tired of the official Democratic reasons why Donald Trump won. Obama-Trump voters? unless there's about 60+million of them, STFU That's ignorant. In a razor thin margin, you don't want to know why people that supported you didn't come out. Thank God you don't lead the DNC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 that has got to be the single dumbest cross-section in the world. the idjiots that leave belgium to go to Syria to find inner peace with ISIS are dumb ..... but not as dumb as ^^^ that ^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hail2skins Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 No big surprise. Unless the country is either really in the tank like it was under Carter (double-digit inflation and unemployment, hostages held for over a year in Iran) or the sitting president is facing a generational politician in Bill Clinton, the incumbent stands a good chance of winning. And in years where there is no incumbent, it largely becomes a popularity contest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 13 minutes ago, Elessar78 said: That's ignorant. In a razor thin margin, you don't want to know why people that supported you didn't come out. Thank God you don't lead the DNC. So let's ignore 120+million Americans and the other 100+million that don't vote and focus on a handful of dumbasses. Solid leadership right there. Not like that kind of thinking lead us to 2016 or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 I detest Trump, but I will credit him with swinging for the fence. Swing vote means something different nowadays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted May 13, 2017 Author Share Posted May 13, 2017 22 minutes ago, hail2skins said: No big surprise. Unless the country is either really in the tank like it was under Carter (double-digit inflation and unemployment, hostages held for over a year in Iran) or the sitting president is facing a generational politician in Bill Clinton, the incumbent stands a good chance of winning. And in years where there is no incumbent, it largely becomes a popularity contest. No incumbent but coming off relatively good numbers economically. HRC was just a dead fish, to your popularity point, no one likes her. She doesn't make people feel anything. Bill Clinton wasn't great coming in—I don't think people knew how good it was. And here's an important lesson that he learned that HRC didn't: "when you say 3 things you say nothing." Bill Clinton's campaign manager, James Carville, said that. Clinton is a policy wonk. He loved to prove he was the smartest guy in the room. His press staff took his lead too. They were every where, they were for everything. Carville boiled it down: "It's the economy, stupid." BC wisely, albeit reluctantly, accepted that wisdom. He made it about the economy. Contrast with Hillary. What was her theme or campaign slogan? What was her main talking point? What was Trump's? Pretty easy, huh? People will say, "that's dumb". "Ask not . . ." "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?" "Hope (and Change)".and sadly for me "Make America Great Again". These are probably some of the best slogans of the past 30-40 years. It's simple, but people attach their own personal interpretation to it. I think those findings bear out that Income Inequality is hurting the Dems chances and, let's face it, the GOP are the kings of income inequality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 Along the way Trump did more for big government than any Democrat could ever do. There is a reason more and more people are gravitating towards socialized healthcare systems. It ain't just "left" voters. Trump got a **** ton of votes he normally wouldn't have because he promised a bunch of heavy handed government intervention. Of course he looks like a total buffoon now trying to merge his promises with Paul Ryan's wet dreams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 1. because the system is rigged ( "intelligent design") 2. because in three key states about a hundred thousand of the three-four million illegal aliens paid to vote for hillary were lazy thieves (mexicans, what are ya gonna do?) who took the money but stayed home 3. because with careless hillary, national security would ever be at risk, there would be that emotional instability (woman stuff) and lack of (constant frenetic unhinged) energy, pay to play would be big and her whole family would profit financially (and can you imagine them putting little chelsea in charge of some little project?) goldman sachs would be in the cabinet, and on top of all that, she's just such a liar per thinking of the "voted for each" dynamic, i think of how, forgetting all the political ideology and speaking strictly from a scientific perspective, one is an enormous pile of filth, stunning in variety and degree, that should never have been allowed to reproduce, and the other is a very decent person from just about every traditional angle and his offspring don't scream to be deactivated and stored somewhere deep and dark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCSaints_fan Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 With respect to the rust belt states, I think it was a really a referendum on trade and immigration. For your typical blue collar worker who is getting squeezed both by cheaper incoming labor (i.e. Mexico/Latin America), and offshoring (China), Trumps hard stances on those two positions were music to their ears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 Wrong thread. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 Cross section of depressingly low information voters who are easily conned and vote for the charismatic candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 Democrats have to figure out a way to reach these people though. Need a candidate whose strength is uncomplicated communication. Someone with a personal background that's compelling and a natural charisma that wins them over without any sort of real focus on policy. Someone who get through to them that the GoP is ****ing them over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 Good luck finding a democrat that isn't a ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 43 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said: Cross section of depressingly low information voters who are easily conned and vote for the charismatic candidate. Pretty much this. That and a 4th point: HRC is/was EXTREMELY unlikable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsMayne Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 Probably because $Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 The reason Trump or if it isn't Trump in 2020 has a chance to win; the Dems seriously could nominate someone undetectable in a general election. The base of the Democratic party is on the Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wing of the party. That won't win them a national election in 2020. Maybe by 2032 it would, but not now or in 3 years. Hillary lost because she was terrible candidate. The Dems could've easily won this election if someone else was the nominee. IF the GOP has Kasich, Bush or Rubio; they probably would've blown out Hillary. Trump barely won, electoral college withstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsMayne Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 The difference is the republicans let its base choose its nominee, and the democrats have leaders that feel like they are smarter than their voters. Oooops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 34 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said: The difference is the republicans let its base choose its nominee, and the democrats have leaders that feel like they are smarter than their voters. Oooops. It would have been better if the two parties would've flipped here. The GOP did try to stop Trump. By the time they realized he was a threat to win the nomination, it was too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsMayne Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 They changed the rules since the previous election that made it easier for him to win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.