Re: The political hodge podge thread

[WhiteBoyHatcher]

Did you guys talk about this Voter Study Group analysis yet?

Article on a professor who nailed the election results, and the why, and the data that backs it up.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/uw-professor-got-it-right-on-trump-so-why-is-he-being-ignored/

https://www.voterstudygroup.org/reports/2016-elections

[Cameron]

[Guest]

After listening you'll come to the same conclusion I did... that guy is 100% running in 2020

My 1st clue was when he formed Trump2020 months ago.

[NigelUno]

After listening you'll come to the same conclusion I did... that guy is 100% running in 2020

My 1st clue was when he formed Trump2020 months ago.

Are you going to vote for him this time?

[Guest]

My 1st clue was when he formed Trump2020 months ago.

Are you going to vote for him this time?

Nah, I'll be dead before then.

[DWags]

Are you going to vote for him this time?

Nah, I'll be dead before then.

Great, I'll vote for both of us. It's what democrats do evidently. Moo isn't that far to drive.

[tGreenWay]

Nah, I'll be dead before then.

Great, I'll vote for both of us. It's what democrats do evidently. Moo isn't that far to drive.

[Travis of the Cosmos]

Random thought not worthy of its own thread, but liberals should stop using the term "fake news." It's propaganda bullshit that the administration is using to smear just about anything they don't like. Even if you're saying something like "the New York Times is not fake news" you're associating the two together. Like, if I were to say "turtleneck is not a pedophile rapist" well great but I just made you think about those two things together. It does no good. If you want to point out that Fox News is bullshit lies, well, great and I'll do that too, but don't use the term "fake news." It's feeding them. Call it the bullshit lies that it is.

I'll get off my soapbox that only 7 people will see now. Carry on.

[Guest]

An interesting read for a perspective from the other side on voting one's interests.....

Stop Saying Republican Voters Are ‘Voting against Their Interests’

And so we’re left with an odd definition of “interests.” For years the Left has unapologetically waged regulatory and rhetorical war on coal, implementing policies that were most assuredly not in the economic interests of Kentucky’s mining families. But now those same families are going to let bygones be bygones and rally around a second-rate welfare program advanced by the same movement? Some will. But some will quite reasonably look at a bigger picture and distrust the party that helped bring them to penury.

Let’s move beyond Kentucky and its coal. Family dissolution is perhaps America’s foremost driver of poverty and dependency. The rules are simple. Follow the “success sequence” — graduate high school, get a job, get married, and then have kids — and your poverty rate is extremely low. Deviate, and the problems magnify. Now, between the two parties, which one has centered its appeal around married parents with kids and which party has doubled down on single moms? Even worse, the Democrats’ far-left base has intentionally attacked the nuclear family as archaic and patriarchal. It has celebrated sexual autonomy as a cardinal virtue. Then, when faced with the fractured families that result, it says, “Here, let the government help.”

Thus we have the 2012 Obama campaign’s celebrated “Julia,” the single woman who never needed a man. Like nuns marrying Christ, single moms were bound to big government, and to the many bountiful benefits it provides. Yet the fracturing of the family is not in the best economic interests of women. Sure, some of those women will let bygones be bygones and rally around the party that most celebrates the sexual revolution while expanding public assistance. Others, however, will reasonably look at a bigger picture, one that asks whether government dependency helps perpetuate the larger and worse crisis besetting America’s families.

Moreover, since when is a vote a mere economic decision? Should every family sit down at their supper table, open their calculator apps, and do simple math based on each party’s government giveaways? Are you really telling a family that values religious liberty, abhors abortion, seeks a more decisive approach to jihadists, and believes good citizens should be armed citizens that they’re voting “against their interests” if their senator’s policy will increase their insurance premiums?

[DWags]

An interesting read for a perspective from the other side on voting one's interests.....

Stop Saying Republican Voters Are ‘Voting against Their Interests’

And so we’re left with an odd definition of “interests.” For years the Left has unapologetically waged regulatory and rhetorical war on coal, implementing policies that were most assuredly not in the economic interests of Kentucky’s mining families. But now those same families are going to let bygones be bygones and rally around a second-rate welfare program advanced by the same movement? Some will. But some will quite reasonably look at a bigger picture and distrust the party that helped bring them to penury.

Let’s move beyond Kentucky and its coal. Family dissolution is perhaps America’s foremost driver of poverty and dependency. The rules are simple. Follow the “success sequence” — graduate high school, get a job, get married, and then have kids — and your poverty rate is extremely low. Deviate, and the problems magnify. Now, between the two parties, which one has centered its appeal around married parents with kids and which party has doubled down on single moms? Even worse, the Democrats’ far-left base has intentionally attacked the nuclear family as archaic and patriarchal. It has celebrated sexual autonomy as a cardinal virtue. Then, when faced with the fractured families that result, it says, “Here, let the government help.”

Thus we have the 2012 Obama campaign’s celebrated “Julia,” the single woman who never needed a man. Like nuns marrying Christ, single moms were bound to big government, and to the many bountiful benefits it provides. Yet the fracturing of the family is not in the best economic interests of women. Sure, some of those women will let bygones be bygones and rally around the party that most celebrates the sexual revolution while expanding public assistance. Others, however, will reasonably look at a bigger picture, one that asks whether government dependency helps perpetuate the larger and worse crisis besetting America’s families.

Moreover, since when is a vote a mere economic decision? Should every family sit down at their supper table, open their calculator apps, and do simple math based on each party’s government giveaways? Are you really telling a family that values religious liberty, abhors abortion, seeks a more decisive approach to jihadists, and believes good citizens should be armed citizens that they’re voting “against their interests” if their senator’s policy will increase their insurance premiums?

Many of the people who voted for him were very interested in his violent racist talk. And as the article says, they'd give up economic safety to exercise hate. Even if they live in West Virginia or Michigan and a wall wouldn't effect them at all nor would a travel ban. It's the symbol of hate that turned them on.

[DWags]

GOP tried to troll Hilliary regarding their failed health plan. It backfires spectacularly

[Herbie Green]

An interesting read for a perspective from the other side on voting one's interests.....

Stop Saying Republican Voters Are ‘Voting against Their Interests’

Many of the people who voted for him were very interested in his violent racist talk.   And as the article says, they'd give up economic safety to exercise hate. Even if they live in West Virginia or Michigan and a wall wouldn't effect them at all nor would a travel ban. It's the symbol of hate that turned them on.

Lol, I guess the writer of that article never noticed the 3 ton elephant behind him.

[Turtleneck]

[Turtleneck]

[Rocinante]

Rick Perry is expected to declare a "reliability emergency" which he can do without any congressional oversight or authorization from anyone.

Perry is looking for an excuse to override competitive electricity markets and force utilities to buy power from coal and nuclear plants.

He can do that under a little-known law that allows the secretary of energy to declare a national reliability emergency. Perry could force utilities to buy a certain percentage of power at a particular price from coal and nuclear plants, thus guaranteeing work for coal miners and profits for the corporations that own the plants.

[ssssssnnnnniiiiiffffff!!!] AAAAAHHHHH!!! free market capitalism!!

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/columnists/tomlinson/article/Willing-to-pay-extra-to-keep-coal-miners-working-11265962.php

[DWags]

Rick Perry is expected to declare a "reliability emergency" which he can do without any congressional oversight or authorization from anyone.

Perry is looking for an excuse to override competitive electricity markets and force utilities to buy power from coal and nuclear plants.

He can do that under a little-known law that allows the secretary of energy to declare a national reliability emergency. Perry could force utilities to buy a certain percentage of power at a particular price from coal and nuclear plants, thus guaranteeing work for coal miners and profits for the corporations that own the plants.

[ssssssnnnnniiiiiffffff!!!] AAAAAHHHHH!!! free market capitalism!!

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/columnists/tomlinson/article/Willing-to-pay-extra-to-keep-coal-miners-working-11265962.php

We will be told what to do and when. However a pro-life anti women's right Supreme Court justice is more important to some.

Tally ho.

[WhiteBoyHatcher]

An interesting read for a perspective from the other side on voting one's interests.....

Stop Saying Republican Voters Are ‘Voting against Their Interests’

Many of the people who voted for him were very interested in his violent racist talk. And as the article says, they'd give up economic safety to exercise hate. Even if they live in West Virginia or Michigan and a wall wouldn't effect them at all nor would a travel ban. It's the symbol of hate that turned them on.

Did you read the seattle times article I posted above? Did anyone read it?

[Rocinante]

I read it WBH. I hate looking at it because it basically says no matter how practical you are, you'll never win people over and basically you have to fuck them up to end racism. I don't want to believe it.

[WhiteBoyHatcher]

Well yes, if you want to extrapolate. But I was more interested in the data from this poll, which apparently is a pretty comprehensive polling mechanism. I was interested to see if anyone could offer any unbiased reviews of this study. I don't follow the game enough to know if this study is legit, or biased, or if the conclusion is flawed, or what. I am inclined to believe it, because it supports my observations but I would like to be objective.

The story we’ve told ourselves — that working-class whites flocked to Trump due to job worries or free trade or economic populism — is basically wrong, the research papers released this week suggest.

They did flock to Trump. But the reason they did so in enough numbers for Trump to win wasn’t anxiety about the economy. It was anxiety about Mexicans, Muslims and blacks.

Here’s how they put it in academese: “What stands out most, however, is the attitudes that became more strongly related to the vote in 2016: attitudes about immigration, feelings toward black people, and feelings toward Muslims,” writes George Washington University professor John Sides. He notes that the media focused on less-educated whites, but negative racial attitudes fueled by Trump were a big motivator for college-educated whites, too.

A substantial share of Trump voters “appeared to embrace a conception of American identity predicated on birthplace and especially Christian faith,” Sides found.

[DWags]

Well yes, if you want to extrapolate. But I was more interested in the data from this poll, which apparently is a pretty comprehensive polling mechanism. I was interested to see if anyone could offer any unbiased reviews of this study. I don't follow the game enough to know if this study is legit, or biased, or if the conclusion is flawed, or what. I am inclined to believe it, because it supports my observations but I would like to be objective.

The story we’ve told ourselves — that working-class whites flocked to Trump due to job worries or free trade or economic populism — is basically wrong, the research papers released this week suggest.

They did flock to Trump. But the reason they did so in enough numbers for Trump to win wasn’t anxiety about the economy. It was anxiety about Mexicans, Muslims and blacks.

Here’s how they put it in academese: “What stands out most, however, is the attitudes that became more strongly related to the vote in 2016: attitudes about immigration, feelings toward black people, and feelings toward Muslims,” writes George Washington University professor John Sides. He notes that the media focused on less-educated whites, but negative racial attitudes fueled by Trump were a big motivator for college-educated whites, too.

A substantial share of Trump voters “appeared to embrace a conception of American identity predicated on birthplace and especially Christian faith,” Sides found.

Absolutely agree. Many of us have opined that in various. Why would somebody vote against self interest? Had to be some reason.

There is also a very poignant part of his article that points out the fact that you make gains in society you then lose ground. I think of giving us Nixon after johnsons great society. Or very conservative governments in the states and cities in the 1920's after the turn of the century progressives.

Sucks but it's what people do.

[Guest]

Many of the people who voted for him were very interested in his violent racist talk. And as the article says, they'd give up economic safety to exercise hate. Even if they live in West Virginia or Michigan and a wall wouldn't effect them at all nor would a travel ban. It's the symbol of hate that turned them on.

Did you read the seattle times article I posted above? Did anyone read it?

I read it and didn't want to get into an argument over it. I won't disagree that he called Trump winning, I will disagree with his "why".

People that come in to observe the locals find racism in every corner. I won't deny there is racism left in America, I will assert that it is in no way limited to Rs or Conservatives. At the risk of lighting some people up I 'll offer to link some articles regarding wealthy urban Progressives isolating themselves from other races while chattering about the racism of the rural poors.

I've spent the majority of my life in rural settings and I just don't see/hear the racism these interlopers always claim to find. There is a general disparagement of those that refuse to take care of themselves etc but that's not racist on it's own. Every large dairy farm in America has Hispanic workers, many of them are treated as extended members of the family. I can cite a lot of instances where they became just that through marriage.

We've usually had a few black families, in the area and again I've seen their kids in school etc and never have seen any overt racism. Maybe it's right there in front of my face and I'm missing it, but I'm convinced that in many instances this is a case of outsiders coming in and looking for something and guess what? They find it.

And as far as R's, Cons and Tea Party members being racist, I'll repeat an old question of mine. How many Blacks have Dems elected to office from Non Minority Majority districts? If Rs are such flaming racists how do you explain Tim Scott from South Carolina? Nikki Haley? Mia Love? Allen West? Ben Carson? Thomas Sowell? Herman Cain? Will Hurd? How do these people get votes in R areas?

[Herbie Green]

Did you read the seattle times article I posted above? Did anyone read it?

I read it and didn't want to get into an argument over it.   I won't disagree that he called Trump winning, I will disagree with his "why".

People that come in to observe the locals find racism in every corner.  I won't deny there is racism left in America, I will assert that it is in no way limited to Rs or Conservatives.  At the risk of lighting some people up I 'll offer to link some articles regarding wealthy urban Progressives isolating themselves from other races while chattering about the racism of the rural poors.

I've spent the majority of my life in rural settings and I just don't see/hear the racism these interlopers always claim to find.  There is a general disparagement of those that refuse to take care of themselves etc but that's not racist on it's own.   Every large dairy farm in America has Hispanic workers, many of them are treated as extended members of the family.   I can cite a lot of instances where they became just that through marriage.  

We've usually had a few black families, in the area and again I've seen their kids in school etc and never have seen any overt racism.  Maybe it's right there in front of my face and I'm missing it, but I'm convinced that in many instances this is a case of outsiders coming in and looking for something and guess what?  They find it.

And as far as R's, Cons and Tea Party members being racist, I'll repeat an old question of mine.   How many Blacks have Dems elected to office from Non Minority Majority districts?  If Rs are such flaming racists how do you explain Tim Scott from South Carolina?  Nikki Haley?   Mia Love?   Allen West?   Ben Carson?  Thomas Sowell?   Herman Cain?  Will Hurd?  How do these people get votes in R areas?

In a room full of Trump supporters is anyone a racist?

[NigelUno]

Did you read the seattle times article I posted above? Did anyone read it?

I read it and didn't want to get into an argument over it. I won't disagree that he called Trump winning, I will disagree with his "why".

People that come in to observe the locals find racism in every corner. I won't deny there is racism left in America, I will assert that it is in no way limited to Rs or Conservatives. At the risk of lighting some people up I 'll offer to link some articles regarding wealthy urban Progressives isolating themselves from other races while chattering about the racism of the rural poors.

I've spent the majority of my life in rural settings and I just don't see/hear the racism these interlopers always claim to find. There is a general disparagement of those that refuse to take care of themselves etc but that's not racist on it's own. Every large dairy farm in America has Hispanic workers, many of them are treated as extended members of the family. I can cite a lot of instances where they became just that through marriage.

We've usually had a few black families, in the area and again I've seen their kids in school etc and never have seen any overt racism. Maybe it's right there in front of my face and I'm missing it, but I'm convinced that in many instances this is a case of outsiders coming in and looking for something and guess what? They find it.

And as far as R's, Cons and Tea Party members being racist, I'll repeat an old question of mine. How many Blacks have Dems elected to office from Non Minority Majority districts? If Rs are such flaming racists how do you explain Tim Scott from South Carolina? Nikki Haley? Mia Love? Allen West? Ben Carson? Thomas Sowell? Herman Cain? Will Hurd? How do these people get votes in R areas?

I would ask you to cite "a lot" of instances where Mexican workers married into farming families, but I think that would be silly.

You don't think Trump appealed to a segment of the population with his talk about Mexicans and Muslims? And you don't think that's why some people voted for him?

[GRR Spartan]

Some posters think all that matters is making abortion illegal.

The rest is all Fake News.

[WhiteBoyHatcher]

Did you read the seattle times article I posted above? Did anyone read it?

I read it and didn't want to get into an argument over it. I won't disagree that he called Trump winning, I will disagree with his "why".

People that come in to observe the locals find racism in every corner. I won't deny there is racism left in America, I will assert that it is in no way limited to Rs or Conservatives. At the risk of lighting some people up I 'll offer to link some articles regarding wealthy urban Progressives isolating themselves from other races while chattering about the racism of the rural poors.

I've spent the majority of my life in rural settings and I just don't see/hear the racism these interlopers always claim to find. There is a general disparagement of those that refuse to take care of themselves etc but that's not racist on it's own. Every large dairy farm in America has Hispanic workers, many of them are treated as extended members of the family. I can cite a lot of instances where they became just that through marriage.

We've usually had a few black families, in the area and again I've seen their kids in school etc and never have seen any overt racism. Maybe it's right there in front of my face and I'm missing it, but I'm convinced that in many instances this is a case of outsiders coming in and looking for something and guess what? They find it.

And as far as R's, Cons and Tea Party members being racist, I'll repeat an old question of mine. How many Blacks have Dems elected to office from Non Minority Majority districts? If Rs are such flaming racists how do you explain Tim Scott from South Carolina? Nikki Haley? Mia Love? Allen West? Ben Carson? Thomas Sowell? Herman Cain? Will Hurd? How do these people get votes in R areas?

That's fine, and I think it's silly for anyone to paint an entire political party and all of its members as racist and I don't believe that most reasonable people would, or are, trying to do so. However you are citing a lot of anecdotal observations to argue against a point I don't believe anyone was trying to make.

The data seems to indicate that negative feelings about people of color among not only working class white people but college educated white people swung those voters to Trump and made the difference.

I mean I thought it was interesting that the professor guy called the election correctly but I think the real story is the data from the study, assuming it is legitimate.

[Travis of the Cosmos]

I honestly think that trump won because of how incredibly stupid Americans are. And, yeah, stupid people are often racists, but the overriding theme is that they're stupid. I don't think they went to the booth and thought to themselves "I hate black people and Mexicans so I'm gonna vote for trump!" I think they went in there and thought "Killary murdered people! And Benghazi! I'm not gonna vote for her! (Also I super approve of trumps anti brown people policy)"

This is just based off of actual real world conversations with people about politics. Usually you come away realizing there is no point in arguing with them since they truly believe simply incorrect facts about how things work. Not even Hillary killing people style of stuff, but just basic facts that they have totally wrong. My personal favorite (amongst many I promise) was when someone said to me "they should just come up with a rule saying that people are allowed to have guns and be done with it."

Me upon hearing that --->

[WhiteBoyHatcher]

There are stupid people on both sides though, Travis.

[Travis of the Cosmos]

There are stupid people on both sides though, Travis.

There are. But I really truly don't think it's an even 50/50 split anymore of stupid people. I'd go as far as saying 80/20. And yeah, the democrats have to do something to appeal to stupid people. (And then find a way to sneakily get them educated like the sneaky politicians they are.)

[DWags]

There are stupid people on both sides though, Travis.

Only one party is trying to make the field of education unappealing to go into. It's systematic and has a purpose. They're making education way harder to get if you're not born fortunate

[GRR Spartan]

There are stupid people on both sides though, Travis.

Only one party is trying to make the field of education unappealing to go into. It's systematic and has a purpose. They're making education way harder to get if you're not born fortunate

The worst thing the top quintile ever saw was what happened to their children's opportunities after WW2 and Korean War vets hit the books at universities like MSU with their GI Bill benefits. Suddenly you could be a doctor, lawyer or engineer without family connections.

Betsy DeVos wants to privatize US education. She and the rest of the oligarchs Trump has surrounded himself see making profits from government education funds. The improvements she seeks are to the bottom lines of investor portfolios.

If education is expensive enough that qualified students don't apply it culls the herd. Culling the herd gives more opportunities to RDK's. (Rich Dumb Kids)

[Guest]

Jimmy Rushmore‏ @JimmyRushmore Jul 7
More
That feeling when you're overthrowing capitalism but just can't resist taking a selfie on your iPhone 7

[Guest]

I honestly think that trump won because of how incredibly stupid Americans are. And, yeah, stupid people are often racists, but the overriding theme is that they're stupid. I don't think they went to the booth and thought to themselves "I hate black people and Mexicans so I'm gonna vote for trump!" I think they went in there and thought "Killary murdered people! And Benghazi! I'm not gonna vote for her! (Also I super approve of trumps anti brown people policy)"

This is just based off of actual real world conversations with people about politics. Usually you come away realizing there is no point in arguing with them since they truly believe simply incorrect facts about how things work. Not even Hillary killing people style of stuff, but just basic facts that they have totally wrong. My personal favorite (amongst many I promise) was when someone said to me "they should just come up with a rule saying that people are allowed to have guns and be done with it."

Me upon hearing that --->

That's fine, and I think it's silly for anyone to paint an entire political party and all of its members as racist and I don't believe that most reasonable people would, or are, trying to do so. However you are citing a lot of anecdotal observations to argue against a point I don't believe anyone was trying to make.

The data seems to indicate that negative feelings about people of color among not only working class white people but college educated white people swung those voters to Trump and made the difference.

I mean I thought it was interesting that the professor guy called the election correctly but I think the real story is the data from the study, assuming it is legitimate.

All legitimate observations with truths that apply to some. I sincerely believe the distribution of racism is more broad than most people believe, I think there's very little correlation with education.

The thing I've heard over and over is that they like that Trump says what's on his mind - the very thing that drives the chattering classes mad. Any of us know that as we listen to the common politician talk roughly 65% of what we're hearing is pure bullshit. People are tired of that, I'll agree that Trump isn't the best solution to that but I'll also argue that Hills or most of the other R contenders weren't the solution either.

[kingstonlake]

I honestly think that trump won because of how incredibly stupid Americans are. And, yeah, stupid people are often racists, but the overriding theme is that they're stupid. I don't think they went to the booth and thought to themselves "I hate black people and Mexicans so I'm gonna vote for trump!" I think they went in there and thought "Killary murdered people! And Benghazi! I'm not gonna vote for her! (Also I super approve of trumps anti brown people policy)"

This is just based off of actual real world conversations with people about politics. Usually you come away realizing there is no point in arguing with them since they truly believe simply incorrect facts about how things work. Not even Hillary killing people style of stuff, but just basic facts that they have totally wrong. My personal favorite (amongst many I promise) was when someone said to me "they should just come up with a rule saying that people are allowed to have guns and be done with it."

Me upon hearing that --->

That's fine, and I think it's silly for anyone to paint an entire political party and all of its members as racist and I don't believe that most reasonable people would, or are, trying to do so. However you are citing a lot of anecdotal observations to argue against a point I don't believe anyone was trying to make.

The data seems to indicate that negative feelings about people of color among not only working class white people but college educated white people swung those voters to Trump and made the difference.

I mean I thought it was interesting that the professor guy called the election correctly but I think the real story is the data from the study, assuming it is legitimate.

All legitimate observations with truths that apply to some. I sincerely believe the distribution of racism is more broad than most people believe, I think there's very little correlation with education.

The thing I've heard over and over is that they like that Trump says what's on his mind - the very thing that drives the chattering classes mad. Any of us know that as we listen to the common politician talk roughly 65% of what we're hearing is pure bullshit. People are tired of that, I'll agree that Trump isn't the best solution to that but I'll also argue that Hills or most of the other R contenders weren't the solution either.

So Trump is somehow legitimate because he's full of bullshit but honest about it?

[kingstonlake]

I honestly think that trump won because of how incredibly stupid Americans are. And, yeah, stupid people are often racists, but the overriding theme is that they're stupid. I don't think they went to the booth and thought to themselves "I hate black people and Mexicans so I'm gonna vote for trump!" I think they went in there and thought "Killary murdered people! And Benghazi! I'm not gonna vote for her! (Also I super approve of trumps anti brown people policy)"

This is just based off of actual real world conversations with people about politics. Usually you come away realizing there is no point in arguing with them since they truly believe simply incorrect facts about how things work. Not even Hillary killing people style of stuff, but just basic facts that they have totally wrong. My personal favorite (amongst many I promise) was when someone said to me "they should just come up with a rule saying that people are allowed to have guns and be done with it."

Me upon hearing that --->

Spot on. Good analysis. Anyone who actually thought a 30ft, 2000 mile wall was going to be built should never be allowed to vote again.

[Guest]

What If Trump Had Won As a Democrat?

Not long ago, the writer Peter Beinart offered an interesting idea about our 45th president: “Someone should write a novel in which he runs and wins as a Democrat.” Underpinning this suggestion, of course, is the highly probable possibility that at one point or another the ideologically ambidextrous Donald Trump contemplated just such a scenario.

It’s a fascinating thought experiment: Could Trump have done to the Democrats in 2016 what he did to the Republicans? Why not? There, too, he would have challenged an overconfident, message-challenged establishment candidate (Hillary Clinton instead of Jeb Bush) and with an even smaller number of other competitors to dispatch. One could easily see him doing as well or better than Bernie Sanders—surprising Clinton in the Iowa caucuses, winning the New Hampshire primaries, and on and on. More to the point, many of Trump’s views—skepticism on trade, sympathetic to Planned Parenthood, opposition to the Iraq war, a focus on blue-collar workers in Rust Belt America—seemed to gel as well, if not better, with blue-state America than red. Think the Democrats wouldn’t tolerate misogynist rhetoric and boorish behavior from their leaders? Well, then you’ve forgotten about Woodrow Wilson and John F. Kennedy and LBJ and the last President Clinton.

There are, as with every what-if scenario, some flaws. Democrats would have deeply resented Trump’s ‘birther’ questioning of Barack Obama’s origins, and would have been highly skeptical of the former reality TV star’s political bona fides even if he hadn’t made a sharp turn to the right as he explored a presidential bid in the run up to the 2012 election. His comments on women and minorities would have exposed him to withering scrutiny among the left’s army of advocacy groups. Liberal donors would likely have banded together to strangle his candidacy in its cradle—if they weren’t laughing him off. But Republican elites tried both of these strategies in 2015, as well, and it manifestly didn’t work. What’s more, Trump did once hold a passel of progressive stances—and he had friendships all over the political map. As Bloomberg’s Josh Green notes, in his Apprentice days, Trump was even wildly popular among minorities. It’s not entirely crazy to imagine him outflanking a coronation-minded Hillary Clinton on the left and blitzing a weak Democratic field like General Sherman marching through Georgia. And besides, it’s fun to think about.

[WhiteBoyHatcher]

I honestly think that trump won because of how incredibly stupid Americans are. And, yeah, stupid people are often racists, but the overriding theme is that they're stupid. I don't think they went to the booth and thought to themselves "I hate black people and Mexicans so I'm gonna vote for trump!" I think they went in there and thought "Killary murdered people! And Benghazi! I'm not gonna vote for her! (Also I super approve of trumps anti brown people policy)"

This is just based off of actual real world conversations with people about politics. Usually you come away realizing there is no point in arguing with them since they truly believe simply incorrect facts about how things work. Not even Hillary killing people style of stuff, but just basic facts that they have totally wrong. My personal favorite (amongst many I promise) was when someone said to me "they should just come up with a rule saying that people are allowed to have guns and be done with it."

Me upon hearing that --->

That's fine, and I think it's silly for anyone to paint an entire political party and all of its members as racist and I don't believe that most reasonable people would, or are, trying to do so. However you are citing a lot of anecdotal observations to argue against a point I don't believe anyone was trying to make.

The data seems to indicate that negative feelings about people of color among not only working class white people but college educated white people swung those voters to Trump and made the difference.

I mean I thought it was interesting that the professor guy called the election correctly but I think the real story is the data from the study, assuming it is legitimate.

All legitimate observations with truths that apply to some. I sincerely believe the distribution of racism is more broad than most people believe, I think there's very little correlation with education.

The thing I've heard over and over is that they like that Trump says what's on his mind - the very thing that drives the chattering classes mad. Any of us know that as we listen to the common politician talk roughly 65% of what we're hearing is pure bullshit. People are tired of that, I'll agree that Trump isn't the best solution to that but I'll also argue that Hills or most of the other R contenders weren't the solution either.

See now we are getting somewhere. I will back that, point, too. Well multiple points really.

I think there is a HUGE contingent of Rs (hell most of the ones I see on social media) who, if I could pinpoint the #1 thing they like about Trump, it's that the way he conducts himself infuriates the Left. And that's really all they care about. THEY HATE THE LEFT WITH SUCH PASSION that Trump could shoot someone in Times Square (or whatever he said) and they would still love him.

Why do they hate the left so much? I've asked this before. I don't know. My unedumacated guesses would be it has a lot to do with what they perceive as over-political correctness. (and I have a personal theory on this but I don't want to derail). I definitely think there is a legitimate argument to be made that having a black President for 8 years fueled this mentality amongst white people that 'I am being marginilized' and that plays into it, as well.

This is the what really concerns me and interests me about the entire thing. There is such a deep and growing rift in our country and I do not see how it is going to repair itself.

Also agree that the candidate pool was very weak.

[GRR Spartan]

Why are convenient conservatives such dogs in the manger types always whining about fairness.

No such concerns when their minions packed ACA meetings 7-8 years ago shouting down anyone who favored the legislation.

Guess the GOP and many of their "conservative" supporters are social wimps who love to dish it out and can't handle any discouraging words.

Trump sought and won the highest elective office in the land and everyone who has held that office is criticized daily. But it doesn't apply in 2017?

[kingstonlake]

Why are convenient conservatives such dogs in the manger types always whining about fairness.

No such concerns when their minions packed ACA meetings 7-8 years ago shouting down anyone who favored the legislation.

Guess the GOP and many of their "conservative" supporters are social wimps who love to dish it out and can't handle any discouraging words.

Trump sought and won the highest elective office in the land and everyone who has held that office is criticized daily. But it doesn't apply in 2017?

It boggles my mind that people have selective memories on how Trump conducted himself during the primaries and general. Then morph into delicate flowers when their boy is criticized now. Hell, I'm not even a Republican and I thought it was disgraceful how he spoke to the other candidates during the primaries. But they still voted for him. I've never seen a nation so willfully duped in my lifetime. This country has become a joke politically. But we are to blame honestly because we let it happen. You really thought this guy with moral character that would make Bill Clinton blush was gonna heal a country? A guy who regularly stiffed people he hired and is now doing it to other countries? This is gonna take a lot of repairing when he is done. I think I legitimate R will oppose him and win in 2020 for the R nod on the ticket.

[DWags]

Why are convenient conservatives such dogs in the manger types always whining about fairness.

No such concerns when their minions packed ACA meetings 7-8 years ago shouting down anyone who favored the legislation.

Guess the GOP and many of their "conservative" supporters are social wimps who love to dish it out and can't handle any discouraging words.

Trump sought and won the highest elective office in the land and everyone who has held that office is criticized daily. But it doesn't apply in 2017?

It boggles my mind that people have selective memories on how Trump conducted himself during the primaries and general. Then morph into delicate flowers when their boy is criticized now. Hell, I'm not even a Republican and I thought it was disgraceful how he spoke to the other candidates during the primaries. But they still voted for him. I've never seen a nation so willfully duped in my lifetime. This country has become a joke politically. But we are to blame honestly because we let it happen. You really thought this guy with moral character that would make Bill Clinton blush was gonna heal a country? A guy who regularly stiffed people he hired and is now doing it to other countries? This is gonna take a lot of repairing when he is done. I think I legitimate R will oppose him and win in 2020 for the R nod on the ticket.

Putin said "he's not the man you see on tv" to the Russian press. I don't get why more wasn't made of that. It implies he's a fucking Baffoon because he followed up with "he's well thought out and informed".

We're a world wide joke.

[kingstonlake]

It boggles my mind that people have selective memories on how Trump conducted himself during the primaries and general. Then morph into delicate flowers when their boy is criticized now. Hell, I'm not even a Republican and I thought it was disgraceful how he spoke to the other candidates during the primaries. But they still voted for him. I've never seen a nation so willfully duped in my lifetime. This country has become a joke politically. But we are to blame honestly because we let it happen. You really thought this guy with moral character that would make Bill Clinton blush was gonna heal a country? A guy who regularly stiffed people he hired and is now doing it to other countries? This is gonna take a lot of repairing when he is done. I think I legitimate R will oppose him and win in 2020 for the R nod on the ticket.

Putin said "he's not the man you see on tv" to the Russian press. I don't get why more wasn't made of that. It implies he's a fucking Baffoon because he followed up with "he's well thought out and informed".

We're a world wide joke.

If we're all honest here we know we take anything positive Putin has to say about Trump with a heavy dose of skepticism. If not and take him at his word we have to admit that Trump is intentionally dumb publicly to attract enough supporters to win the national election. LOL. Now thats scary.

[Sponsored content]