Lady Liberty Is a Black Woman...

xsanguine wrote:What a boring conversation.

LooseGoose wrote:
I'm fine with experts that freely publish their data and explain how they arrive at conclusions. Although most of the time I do not understand how they arrive at conclusions. It's usually way too complex. Anyway, if I do not like the conclusions and they do not support my points, the expert and their research should not be taken seriously. However, when their research does support my points, I laugh at the idea of somebody challenging their work. That allows people to draw their own conclusions about whether they agree or not.

LooseGoose wrote:Part 4 of the Trende/Byler analysis. How Trump Won: The Midwest

A massive new study debunks a widespread theory for Donald Trump’s success
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/12/a-massive-new-study-debunks-a-widespread-theory-for-donald-trumps-success/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.0529971a0dd0

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:
I'm fine with experts that freely publish their data and explain how they arrive at conclusions. Although most of the time I do not understand how they arrive at conclusions. It's usually way too complex. Anyway, if I do not like the conclusions and they do not support my points, the expert and their research should not be taken seriously. However, when their research does support my points, I laugh at the idea of somebody challenging their work. That allows people to draw their own conclusions about whether they agree or not.

I fixed it up for you, Loose.

LooseGoose wrote:Part 4 of the Trende/Byler analysis. How Trump Won: The Midwest

You keep posting those links like I am arguing with you about the content. I posed this back in August, and multiple times since.

A massive new study debunks a widespread theory for Donald Trump’s success
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/12/a-massive-new-study-debunks-a-widespread-theory-for-donald-trumps-success/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.0529971a0dd0

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:What a boring conversation.

I agree. The fact that people refuse to admit that there was a concerted effort to gain white votes by the R party by appealing to racism back in the day (and still now) is so tired.

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:What a boring conversation.

I agree. The fact that people refuse to admit that there was a concerted effort to gain white votes by the R party by appealing to racism back in the day (and still now) is so tired.

xsanguine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

I agree. The fact that people refuse to admit that there was a concerted effort to gain white votes by the R party by appealing to racism back in the day (and still now) is so tired.

Maybe, I'm not in the GOP so I'm not privy to their strategies. If they're trying to appeal to racism that seems like a bad strategy as that pool of voters is extremely small.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

According to Dems the only reason anyone would ever vote for a Republican is that they're racists. They feel the pool is very large and growing.

from my view, this is actually a very accurate statement.

LooseGoose wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Maybe, I'm not in the GOP so I'm not privy to their strategies. If they're trying to appeal to racism that seems like a bad strategy as that pool of voters is extremely small.

According to Dems the only reason anyone would ever vote for a Republican is that they're racists.   They feel the pool is very large and growing.

Finally, we come to our overall conclusion for the series: These demographic changes are meaningless without a geographic filter. The reason is simple. Our nation’s politics, at every level, have a geographic basis. Presidents are elected via the Electoral College, not the popular vote. Senators are elected by state. Representatives are elected through geographic districts. Statehouses choose their members in the same manner. There are good normative arguments for and against this, but we place these to the side and simply take the facts as they are, not as they perhaps ought to be.

As the lead author noted two years ago in his chapter for Larry Sabato’s “The Surge,” Hispanics exceed their national share of the population in just nine states, only three of which are swing states (Colorado, Florida and Nevada). Likewise, African-Americans exceed their national share of the population (14 percent) in just 16 states, only a handful of which (Florida, Michigan, North Carolina and Virginia) are swing states.

In other words, the Democrats’ coalition of the ascendant is very inefficiently distributed. We therefore opted to utilize a demographic (urbanicity) that is easily filtered through a geographic component (CBSAs) and that people intuitively think of in geographic terms. What we discovered is a different dimension to the Democrats’ demographic inefficiency problem: They are becoming far too clustered in urban centers to be effective, even when they win the popular vote.

Today, we look at this from a national perspective. We begin with a map:

The large metropolitan areas stick out, and there are some interesting oddities: Teton County, Wyoming, is the home of Jackson Hole, and it is a blue island in a sea of red; the blue counties in southeastern Kansas are home to a number of meat-packing plants, where the Hispanic population has turned once lily-white counties into majority-minority areas.

The general trend here, though, is that most of the land area is red. Land area doesn’t vote, but rural and small-town America casts tens of millions of votes. Shifts of this magnitude add up. The one big exception is California, which has shifted almost uniformly toward Democrats. But this is inefficient; California was already quite blue by 1996; all of these votes are “wasted.” On the other hand, the dark red areas – West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana – are all places where Democrats performed well in 1996, but no longer do.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:How do you get from any conversation ever to "How Trump Won" in one easy step? Let Goose post in your thread.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:so has Trump paid Lady Liberty to pee on him yet??

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:so has Trump paid Lady Liberty to pee on him yet??

So begins Bob's 8 years in the Wilderness.

LooseGoose wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:How do you get from any conversation ever to "How Trump Won" in one easy step? Let Goose post in your thread.

I'm glad now that you have DJ Trump as your President you don't need a safe space.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

So begins Bob's 8 years in the Wilderness.

I'm sorry that you need a safe space to protect you from free speech.

it's gonna be a long 4 years for the snowflakes..