2017 Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

Cool. Yeah I wasn't sure, but the point was - essentially - that he spent a lot more resources in the rust belt than he did in Texas.

 

That is the crazy thing. He really didn't spend a lot of resources anywhere. Hillary outspent him about 2:1. Even in party money and PAC money, Trump got destroyed.

[Jenksismyhero]

That is the crazy thing. He really didn't spend a lot of resources anywhere. Hillary outspent him about 2:1. Even in party money and PAC money, Trump got destroyed.

 

But Comey and Russia and voter suppression.

[StrangeSox]

But Comey and Russia and voter suppression.

 

These were all at least partial factors in a very close election. You can argue that Clinton shouldn't have been as vulnerable to them as she was and that a different candidate would still have beaten Trump, but it seems silly to just dismiss that they played any role at all.

[southsider2k5]

These were all at least partial factors in a very close election. You can argue that Clinton shouldn't have been as vulnerable to them as she was and that a different candidate would still have beaten Trump, but it seems silly to just dismiss that they played any role at all.

 

The problem is the idea that all of the factors that apparently beat the Democrats were unrelated to anything involving their Democrats, their policies or their candidates. The primary factors for their election's results are Hillary CLinton and Donald Trump.

[Balta1701]

What is a non-partisan rationale for voter suppression laws and opposition to them?

 

Is the idea that the requirement to show an ID disproportionately affects the left? I have never put any time into learning this stuff. Perhaps it's more than having an ID and I don't understand it but that seems like not much of an issue. Everyone I know has an ID.

I can give you a personal story here. We just moved to Texas. In order for my spouse to get a voter ID, I had to drive her to the DMV in the next city over. We got there 10 minutes before it opened. We had to get there on a weekday, when normally I'd be working if I had a job that didn't have days where I don't teach. We waited more than an hour in line. She had all the correct documents and it still took them more than 30 minutes to figure things out and process it. It was a 30 minute drive each way.

 

Altogether, while owning a car and counting the wait, getting that ID was a 3 hour trip for me. There is bus service in this city, but it comes once every few hours and to get to that would require 2 buses based on what I've read. So, without owning a car, this is a 5 hour effort on a weekday when people are normally expected to be at work. And that's in a city that has bus service - there are larger cities in this state that have none. Rural communities would have to cross the entire county - maybe they're more likely to have cars, but the trip is even longer.

 

So you've got a selection - people without drivers licenses, people who don't have cars, people who have jobs that they can't call off from, people who have kids they can't just leave behind for 6 hours. All of those hit - poor, elderly, and particularly minorities - hence major democratic dropoff.

 

If they had any interest in actually doing this fairly, the states doing this would bite the billion-dollar cost and make sure everyone has an ID on their own, and they'd be sending people out to find the residents who can't get to those addresses. Otherwise, you've got the 105 year old woman who voted in every election since 1918 who gets denied the vote because she can't spend 6 hours at the DMV. In 2012 there's a Pennsylvania Legislator on tape saying that they did voter ID and it will "Deliver Pennsylvania for Mitt Romney". There's a reason why the Republicans did this.

 

I feel fairly confident in saying that Wisconsin in particular remains in Hillary Clinton's column without that voter ID law. The margin there was only 22,000 votes and there was a dropoff of more than 2x that amount from Milwaukee alone compared to 2012. Whether another of the states would have gone over is the reason I won't say I'm as confident about that swinging the election as I am about Comey where statistically it's undeniable he won that election for Trump.

[Balta1701]

The problem is the idea that all of the factors that apparently beat the Democrats were unrelated to anything involving their Democrats, their policies or their candidates. The primary factors for their election's results are Hillary CLinton and Donald Trump.

Well yeah. Substantially more people voted for the Democratic Candidate. By definition that means that there must be a major factor not involving the candidate.

[Balta1701]

I read this and literally imagine you as Trump complaining about his media coverage. Just a bunch of sour grapes.

There were actual crimes committed to support one Candidate and the government believes those happened due to a foreign power.

 

The FBI director personally intervened in the election on behalf of one candidate with a story that had nothing whatsoever behind it, while having a similar story that he could have leaked about the other candidate and chose not to. There are supposed to be laws against that too.

 

You want to call that sour grapes? You're bloody right. You remove James Comey and Donald Trump does not win that election.

[Jenksismyhero]

These were all at least partial factors in a very close election. You can argue that Clinton shouldn't have been as vulnerable to them as she was and that a different candidate would still have beaten Trump, but it seems silly to just dismiss that they played any role at all.

 

They played A role, I don't think they played a significant one. People try to argue it swung the election and they use pre-election data for support. But that pre-election data was proven wrong on election night.

 

Why can't Dems just accept Hillary was a less than stellar candidate, she did a poor job picking key battleground areas and there was a huge movement that she (and others) didn't account for?

[Reddy]

That is the crazy thing. He really didn't spend a lot of resources anywhere. Hillary outspent him about 2:1. Even in party money and PAC money, Trump got destroyed.

Unprecedented free media coverage.

[Balta1701]

They played A role, I don't think they played a significant one. People try to argue it swung the election and they use pre-election data for support. But that pre-election data was proven wrong on election night.

 

Why can't Dems just accept Hillary was a less than stellar candidate, she did a poor job picking key battleground areas and there was a huge movement that she (and others) didn't account for?

The swings in the polling data of several percentage points directly associated with James Comey's announcement are clear as can be, as is the clear lead amongst people who say they made up their mind who to vote for during that weak. It's the equivalent of several percentage points, vote numbers nationally over a million. Donald Trump does not win without that.

[Soxbadger]

Why can't Dems just accept Hillary was a less than stellar candidate, she did a poor job picking key battleground areas and there was a huge movement that she (and others) didn't account for?

 

Some can. And even if some disagree, there were 2 months to get your b****ing/moaning/etc about the election out of the way. The day Trump stepped into office the focus should be on what is going on now, what is going to happen in the future.

 

All of this Hillary junk is providing cover for Trump, because instead of focusing on issues like what are the ramifications of a Mexico US trade war, we are busy arguing about something that none of us can change. Mexico US trade war, we can do something about, we can maybe fix. Hillary beating Trump, we need a time machine or fringe science.

 

(edit)

 

Reddy,

 

Hillary also wasted a lot of her money on her tv ads. This is anecdotal, but almost every Hillary ad I saw had something like "Trump said this" or "Trump will do that", some of them even had Trump speaking. I dont really recall 1 ad where it was Hillary talking or just about why Hillary was great.

 

She completely missed the mark. But again, this its the past.

 

 

Edited January 26, 2017 by Soxbadger

[southsider2k5]

Cool. Yeah I wasn't sure, but the point was - essentially - that he spent a lot more resources in the rust belt than he did in Texas.

 

 

Unprecedented free media coverage.

 

Unless you are saying that Trump allocated his free media coverage better, these two things don't really go together.

[Jenksismyhero]

The swings in the polling data of several percentage points directly associated with James Comey's announcement are clear as can be, as is the clear lead amongst people who say they made up their mind who to vote for during that weak. It's the equivalent of several percentage points, vote numbers nationally over a million. Donald Trump does not win without that.

 

Polling data that was proven to be inaccurate come election night. Significantly so.

 

And exit polling data is notoriously inaccurate, why believe people who say they decided the last week? You know how many people fessed up to voting for Trump? Less than those that actually did!

[southsider2k5]

Do you have empirical evidence for thinking his or are you just picking the state with the slimmest margin to use as an example? Maybe I am misunderstanding your point, but I am reading it as you believe that voter ID held 23,000 people back from voting and they were all democrats? I couldn't get behind that.

 

As far as your story, I see it as reigning example of how a lack of competition brings a horrible service. You wait forever at the DMV and they treat you like garbage when you finally get up there. There's no standard or urgency in performance because there's no alternative. That being said, to act as if a 6 hour trip to get an ID is routine, that's just silly. I got a new ID in July on my lunch break from work. Walked 10 minutes there, waited in line for a half hour and walked back 10 minutes.

 

Why would the bolded affect minorities more than anyone else? Are there really people who can't carve an hour out every five years to renew their license or get one at all? I know a single mother with two kids who works 40 hours a week while finishing up her nursing degree. As far as I know she still has a valid driver's license.

 

That being said, the DMV is an awful, awful place.

 

I get my new ID through the mail after ordering it on line.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Polling data that was proven to be inaccurate come election night. Significantly so.

 

How so? The final national polls had Clinton +3 points. The result was +2.

 

Some individual states were a bit off, but mainly those that didn't have a lot of polling right at end, after Comey's letter.

[southsider2k5]

Wow. Seems like they're making it easier. Wish I knew that months ago.

 

Well, Indiana is a bit different than Illinois to be fair.

[Jenksismyhero]

How so? The final national polls had Clinton +3 points. The result was +2.

 

Some individual states were a bit off, but mainly those that didn't have a lot of polling right at end, after Comey's letter.

 

He won in many places that were not supposed to be close, like Florida. Predictions were that Hillary had a 95% chance, 90% chance, 80% chance to win. Wasn't the lowest in the 70's?

 

I'm just saying, a lot of the polling data was wrong. A lot of the models were wrong. Why rely on them to show the uptick after Comey's comments, or use worse data in exit polls to show that people decided the last week of the campaign.

 

At best, that data is suspect and calls into question a conclusion based on them. It's not a slam dunk confirmation that the Comey letter or the DNC email leaks won him the election. There are other, bigger factors at play, most notably the candidate herself.

 

edit: looking at Silver's analysis, which was one of the more "fair" ones for Trump's chances (28.6%), Wisconsin was 83.5%, Michigan was 78.9% and Penn was 77% in favor of Hillary winning. Florida was 55%, so more of a toss-up.

Edited January 26, 2017 by JenksIsMyHero

[CrimsonWeltall]

He won in many places that were not supposed to be close, like Florida. Predictions were that Hillary had a 95% chance, 90% chance, 80% chance to win. Wasn't the lowest in the 70's?

 

No one predicted Florida to not be close. RCP's polling averages had him favored to win. It was a tossup for sure.

 

I'm just saying, a lot of the polling data was wrong. A lot of the models were wrong. Why rely on them to show the uptick after Comey's comments, or use worse data in exit polls to show that people decided the last week of the campaign.

 

I think you're exaggerating the degree by which the polling was off. As I mentioned before, the national polls had Clinton +3 and she finished +2. Yes, some state polls (like the rust belt) were off, and there are multiple factors that explain that.

 

If WI, MI, and PA go to Clinton (which they barely didn't), then she wins handily and the polling looks great. I think the bad response to polling is largely due to media and pundits that were making those "99% chance to win" stories.

[Reddy]

Unless you are saying that Trump allocated his free media coverage better, these two things don't really go together.

Good point. Lemme think about it. Haha

[LittleHurt05]

Reading more into it today, the whole " GOP gives back guns to all mentally ill" was actually one regulation regarding the SSA deeming people incapable of managing their money, and their ability to purchase guns. The ACLU actually supports repealing the regulation.

 

It's a debatable issue because if at that age you aren't stable enough to mange your money, what are you gonna do with a gun? But it's a heck of a lot different than the headlines I was reading yesterday.

[Middle Buffalo]

As far as your story, I see it as reigning example of how a lack of competition brings a horrible service.

 

That being said, the DMV is an awful, awful place.

I've been to the DMV in Arizona four or five times in the last year (I moved, kid got permit, took test, got license, etc). People working there were all pleasant and efficient. It was never fast, but four or five people taking care of forty people (with various levels of intelligence and ability to properly fill out forms and follow instructions), I don't know that it would be much better if there was competition. In fact, the more we downsize some government services, the worse service is going to get.

 

I don't see how the DMV is really any different than a line at an airport, the grocery store, the bank, a fast food restaurant at lunchtime, or a line at the doctors office. Part of the problem is that people have to expect to wait. If you're rude or frustrated when you get to the counter, expect a less than friendly reception. If you're a jerk. They might go slower. Government worker or private sector employee - they're all just people.

 

I don't really see a lot of hustle from customer service people anywhere I go.

[caulfield12]

Competition?

 

Education...mixed results at best for charter schools, proliferation of for-profit and online universities, bottom 60% of students suffer as public schools worsen

Prisons...privatization has been a disaster

Military...Blackwater

Banking services...unscrupulous lenders, lack of oversight and regulations, bailouts

Pharma...FDA deregulation will lead to more profits and also potentially dangerous drugs on the market

Edited February 4, 2017 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

Competition?

 

Education...mixed results at best for charter schools, proliferation of for-profit and online universities, bottom 60% of students suffer as public schools worse

Prisons...privatization has been a disaster

Military...Blackwater

Banking services...unscrupulous lenders, lack of oversight and regulations, bailouts

Pharma...FDA deregulation will lead to more profits and potentially dangerous drugs on the market

 

[caulfield12]

Speaking of Hardee's and Carl's Jr

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la...0123-story.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/us/polit...tary-trump.html

 

 

Maybe encouraging employees to take ownership stakes is even more impt than competition. Compare to the attitude of the typical Wal-Mart worker who's raising a family on that salary.

http://www.forbes.com/companies/hy-vee/

 

 

 

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I feel like a lot of liberals (and conservatives) can benefit from this very reasonable position on Islam and the problems posed by it.

 

 

 

(1) Not every concern over Muslims is inherently racist.

 

(2) Not ever Muslim is a terrorist.

 

If we could get the people in this country to agree to those basic principles, we'd go a long, long way to addressing the problem.

Edited February 5, 2017 by JenksIsMyHero