2016 Democratic Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

Here's an interesting thought.

 

Part of what influenced the election is that wave of fake news that some people fell into. Especially through Facebook and social media.

 

Now go back to 2008 and 2012 - part of the reason Obama won so effectively was the data they had. The revolutionized analyzing election landscapes.

 

So, in a sense, Trump beat the democrats at their own game - technology. And did so by taking the complex, and making it dumb.

 

[caulfield12]

Here's an interesting thought.

 

Part of what influenced the election is that wave of fake news that some people fell into. Especially through Facebook and social media.

 

Now go back to 2008 and 2012 - part of the reason Obama won so effectively was the data they had. The revolutionized analyzing election landscapes.

 

So, in a sense, Trump beat the democrats at their own game - technology. And did so by taking the complex, and making it dumb.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-democrats-20...&soc_trk=tw

50% correct.

 

She thought she could just keep the Obama coalition together.

 

Completely ignoring her husband's much better political instincts, listening to too many inside the Beltway advisors, completely giving up on policy discussions and hiding from the media (ditching the traveling media pool on 9/11 really blew that up),

Completely ignoring the "it's the economy stupid" voters and surrendering all those Rust Belt votes and not trying to secure Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio until it was too late. Ignoring WI. Almost losing Virginia. Trying to take places like North Carolina, Georgia, Utah and Arizona away instead...they were way off on their data and didn't respond until too late, and then you had the Comey letter helping to push final undecideds 2/1 in Trump's favor.

 

All those things said, the Democrats will still end up 1+ million ahead in the popular vote, if not 1.5ish million.

[caulfield12]

This thought is dangerous. It is what Hillary Clinton leveraged and it didn't work. If people believe that is why they got elected, then they are missing the reality of the situation. The election happened because of a combination of things, the bulk of which people wanted serious change. They wanted a change candidate and Trump was who represented the people most in want of change (and even then he got less votes than McCain and Romney). Trump also talked to more people in the rest belt area who have had things get worse over the last 8 years and who wanted a change.

 

Now did those people ignore certain things Donald said / did, absolutely, but to lump in and just assume that everyone who cast there vote for Trump feels the way that you seem to think is just ridiculous and does not solve anything. You saw what good those type of statements did Hillary (calling half of the voting population deplorables doesn't help things). The fact of the matter is everyone lost in this election, but we really lost if the actual politicians don't recognize that the people are fed up and do want change. They want people in the government to work together to come up with things that in general the people want, that will make there lives better. Case closed that a lot of people didn't feel that happened. Bill Clinton himself has been highlighted talking about a lot of these very same things.

 

Just as dangerous as now turning around and retroactively overlooking all the racism, sexism, anti-immigrant, anti-gay fervor and sentiment because the GOP won somehow.

 

Opening up that hornet's nest, Trump is now finding out how hard it actually is to put the genie back in the bottle.

 

Serious change is what they wanted? Do you think all those Rust Belt voters really wanted to privatize Medicare, Social Security, have the age of eligibility pushed further and further back...and essentially falling further behind in government "tax cut handouts"? Were they all climate change deniers? Did environmental policy even come up once in the debates?

 

And the likelihood "medical savings accounts" work for those same lower middle class voters is about the same probability as giving them $10,000 school vouchers to apply towards private schools costing $35-45,000 and them coming up with the money to bridge the gap. The numbers won't add up.

Edited November 17, 2016 by caulfield12

[Soxbadger]

If you want to just go and call half of the country disgusting, go right ahead, but lets see what good that does solving any problems in our country. It makes you no different then the other side. Hillary should have spent more time attacking the issues and talking about how she was going to drive change and make the country better. I didn't vote for Trump, but I'm not going to call everyone who voted for Trump disgusting (misguided, absolutely), but deep down, I hope somehow they weren't so wrong and Trump ends up being a fantastic president.

 

If he doesn't, then people should use their voice and let it be heard so that everyone understands why his policies are wrong and what he is doing is wrong. But for all those people protesting who didn't cast a vote, I hope they all learn a lesson and cast a vote in the future. And when you say they voted for very powerful positions to go to very horrible people, lets not forget that there was a lot of people who didn't think all that highly of Clinton and could even have gone as far as calling her pretty horrible. So in many people's eyes it was picking the less horrible and some people viewed that as being Trump, others saw it as Clinton, others clearly didn't vote.

 

The problem is that no one wants to hold themselves accountable anymore. A lot of the same people have posted on this board for a long time, almost everyone of them I have argued with about something at some point. It didnt matter if they were Republican/Democrat, what mattered is if "I" thought they were right or wrong. If a Democrat says something that is wrong, out of line, not supported by the evidence, I dont just turn a blind eye.

 

But what is the point if no one else is willing to do it?

 

Now I know its not every Republican, but when someone like Bannon is picked, EVERYONE should be shouting it down. I understand that trying to convince people about free trade, restriction of movement of labor is not that easy and I even understand that there can be a difference of opinion on policy. But there are people on this board who dont even acknowledge that there is a problem with Bannon, and at some point each party needs to start self policing. Because at the end of the day, we are all judged by the company that we keep, and right now for the Republican's that company is Bannon.

 

 

I can only speak for myself, but Bannon is a deal breaker.

 

[southsider2k5]

The problem is that no one wants to hold themselves accountable anymore. A lot of the same people have posted on this board for a long time, almost everyone of them I have argued with about something at some point. It didnt matter if they were Republican/Democrat, what mattered is if "I" thought they were right or wrong. If a Democrat says something that is wrong, out of line, not supported by the evidence, I dont just turn a blind eye.

 

But what is the point if no one else is willing to do it?

 

Now I know its not every Republican, but when someone like Bannon is picked, EVERYONE should be shouting it down. I understand that trying to convince people about free trade, restriction of movement of labor is not that easy and I even understand that there can be a difference of opinion on policy. But there are people on this board who dont even acknowledge that there is a problem with Bannon, and at some point each party needs to start self policing. Because at the end of the day, we are all judged by the company that we keep, and right now for the Republican's that company is Bannon.

 

 

I can only speak for myself, but Bannon is a deal breaker.

 

It is amazing how on election day this literally changed in an instant of who talks about taking responsibility and who makes excuses for people.

 

One minute the question is taking the election results no matter what happens, then five million people less vote, and there are protests in the streets over who won.

 

One day the talk is about Obama getting preached to by radicals, people make excuses, then the right wing gets in office, it is all OK again.

 

It is insane.

[Chisoxfn]

The problem is that no one wants to hold themselves accountable anymore. A lot of the same people have posted on this board for a long time, almost everyone of them I have argued with about something at some point. It didnt matter if they were Republican/Democrat, what mattered is if "I" thought they were right or wrong. If a Democrat says something that is wrong, out of line, not supported by the evidence, I dont just turn a blind eye.

 

But what is the point if no one else is willing to do it?

 

Now I know its not every Republican, but when someone like Bannon is picked, EVERYONE should be shouting it down. I understand that trying to convince people about free trade, restriction of movement of labor is not that easy and I even understand that there can be a difference of opinion on policy. But there are people on this board who dont even acknowledge that there is a problem with Bannon, and at some point each party needs to start self policing. Because at the end of the day, we are all judged by the company that we keep, and right now for the Republican's that company is Bannon.

 

 

I can only speak for myself, but Bannon is a deal breaker.

I agree with everything you said.

[illinilaw08]

It is amazing how on election day this literally changed in an instant of who talks about taking responsibility and who makes excuses for people.

 

One minute the question is taking the election results no matter what happens, then five million people less vote, and there are protests in the streets over who won.

 

One day the talk is about Obama getting preached to by radicals, people make excuses, then the right wing gets in office, it is all OK again.

 

It is insane.

 

Are you seriously comparing Obama's relationship with Wright - who had no place in the Obama administration - to Trump picking Bannon as his Chief Strategist?

 

That, my friend, is insane.

 

* If I'm misreading your post, please explain...

 

** There have been many posts on this board stating that, no matter the disagreement with President Elect Trump, or with the unnecessary and archaic electoral college, Trump won the election, and any attempt to alter that result would be dangerous to our democracy. So I'm fairly certain that's a false equivalency.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

It is amazing how on election day this literally changed in an instant of who talks about taking responsibility and who makes excuses for people.

 

One minute the question is taking the election results no matter what happens, then five million people less vote, and there are protests in the streets over who won.

 

One day the talk is about Obama getting preached to by radicals, people make excuses, then the right wing gets in office, it is all OK again.

 

It is insane.

 

I dont think the election has changed anything. The discussion about the election results focused on Trump saying he would not accept it. Hillary accepted it, Hillary asked people to move on. Now people have the right to protest, they have the right to be heard. I have personally told many people that protesting on Weds after the election is stupid. The time to be heard was Monday, or anytime in the last year prior to the election.

 

The second line is where the problem is. Who on Obama's staff was "radical." I dont recall Obama appointing anyone close to Bannon, I dont recall Obama appointing anyone who ran a newspaper who gave Obama favorable coverage. Or for that matter, I dont remember Obama not putting his assets in a blind trust, I dont remember Obama not providing his tax returns.

 

So for once, can we just have an actual apples to apples comparison? Or are people just so hell bent in supporting "their" guy, that they dont even care about the truth anymore.

 

Because Im fine in either world, I have no problem sinking down and getting dirty. It really isnt that hard to be the Breitbarts of the world.

[Chisoxfn]

I dont think the election has changed anything. The discussion about the election results focused on Trump saying he would not accept it. Hillary accepted it, Hillary asked people to move on. Now people have the right to protest, they have the right to be heard. I have personally told many people that protesting on Weds after the election is stupid. The time to be heard was Monday, or anytime in the last year prior to the election.

 

The second line is where the problem is. Who on Obama's staff was "radical." I dont recall Obama appointing anyone close to Bannon, I dont recall Obama appointing anyone who ran a newspaper who gave Obama favorable coverage. Or for that matter, I dont remember Obama not putting his assets in a blind trust, I dont remember Obama not providing his tax returns.

 

So for once, can we just have an actual apples to apples comparison? Or are people just so hell bent in supporting "their" guy, that they dont even care about the truth anymore.

 

Because Im fine in either world, I have no problem sinking down and getting dirty. It really isnt that hard to be the Breitbarts of the world.

Don't protest the election, protest the actions. As badger says, if you don't believe in Bannon, get out and have your voice heard...write your representatives, use your voice in a peaceful manner. Get the message out. Protesting the results of the election is a right, but one I don't necessarily agree with because the action happened. Protest what he does and make sure everyone knows what you feel strongly about or what you don't.

 

I don't know if you guys saw it or not, but the day after the election, TNT's NBA crew talked about the game and I thought they did a great job as a whole, especially Ernie Johnson (although I thought they all did a good job). I think it was shared a bit on facebook, although I happened to watch it live and think that they nailed it better then almost any talking head I've seen on CNN / Fox News / etc.

[Soxbadger]

I agree with SS2K's point but in lesser words, if you're going to play partisan politics you're just partaking in voluntary hypocrisy. Simple as that.

 

So to everyone who defended Obama's right to spy on the whole country and world, to attack and imprison whistleblowers to an extent that surpassed all previous presidents combined and dronebomb Arabs off the face of the earth - you all defended it or stayed quiet on it. Come two months from now all of those unfettered powers go in the hands of Trump.

 

I don't speak out for a party, I preach less government. All of the powers Obama was afforded because the left and media enabling are now in the hands of a reality show host. All of those people who loved and trusted the government when Obama was in office are now complicit when Trump' takes advantage of those same powers. They won't hold true to their views on the issues when Trump is in office, but it really underlines the problem with bipartisanship. I truly worry about Trump taking advantage of Obama's precedent when it comes to whistleblowers and spying. It could get ugly with the sheer amount of pettiness Trump displays.

 

TLDR, if you rationalize government overreach because your team is in office you shouldn't be able to complain about it when the other team takes office.

 

Who is doing these things?

 

Who defended the government spying? It certainly wasnt me. Attack and imprison whistleblowers? Again who is doing this?

 

Drone bombing terrorists? This one is a little more complicated, but you can check back to around 9/11 when I was adamantly against invading Iraq. I did believe in assisting in Libya.

 

Youve been on this part of the board for maybe 1 year. You have missed a lot of arguments about those things. I just tend to not rehash arguments I made 10 years ago, because those are the past.

[Soxbadger]

I am not speaking to this board. There's a lot more important and relevant political discourse happening outside of here. I certainly didn't blame you of anything. I am talking about the people in the media and on TV who went on there and defended these heinous and criminal actions because of their allegiance to one side of the aisle.

 

The media does it for both sides, you need to take your blinders off. Go back and read about the Iraq invasion. How many media members were calling bulls*** on Iraq having "WMD".

 

Regardless, people need to stop caring about what is said on tv/internet. Its for money, they do whatever makes them the most money. Its not some sort of secret plan to take over the world, its some not secret plan to make money.

 

If anything the media reported on Hillary as negatively as Trump. I mean by the end of the campaign no one was even mentioning the fact Trump never disclosed his tax returns. If they are so in the bag for the Democrats that and things like the blind trust would have been top headlines. Instead it was things like the Hillary emails.

 

Both sides complain about the media.

[Brian]

How many more threads can Badger and rabbit argue in?

[Soxbadger]

How many more threads can Badger and rabbit argue in?

 

I want the confession. Can only avoid the Bannon issue for so long, eventually hell either have to respond, or people will see he just completely avoids any topic.

[southsider2k5]

As I said in the other thread, I didn't know who Bannon was until this week. I have done no research on him and I have no interest talking about something I don't know about. So you can follow me around, accuse me of things I didn't do try and "get me" in multiple threads (to many others' displeasure I am sure), but I am not going to partake in something I have nothing to offer to.

 

I know you want to project all of your knowledge on right-wing media guys (I believe that's what he is?) but I am not your dance partner here no matter how many times/threads you try.

 

99.99% of the country didn't know who the guy was until the media told them he was racist.

[StrangeSox]

He became known when he took over Trump's campaign in late August or early September after Manafort stepped down. It's good that the media is accurately reporting on his views and his history now that he's been given a very powerful position in Trump's administration.

[chw42]

99.99% of the country didn't know who the guy was until the media told them he was racist.

 

The guy runs a pretty popular website and was Trump's campaign CEO. If you pay attention to the news, you knew who Steve Bannon was long before this week.

[Brian]

The guy runs a pretty popular website and was Trump's campaign CEO. If you pay attention to the news, you knew who Steve Bannon was long before this week.

 

I was in that .01% and read up on him enough to know he should be nowhere near the White House or government.

[shysocks]

99.99% of the country didn't know who the guy was until the media told them he was racist.

You say this like it's a bad thing that the media informed people about something.

[StrangeSox]

An in-depth look at what happened in Florida.

 

Give any Florida strategist with statewide experience the following data points: by 7:15pm, the Democratic candidate has a 10 point lead in Hillsborough, a 100K vote lead in Orange, a 200K vote lead in both Dade and Broward early voting, and is ahead in Duval, and everyone would think the same thing: that Democratic candidate is going to win. Certainly that is what I thought, and what everyone, R and D, who texted me around that time thought too.

 

Back in October, I had looked at several different models. Most of them played out with a narrow Clinton win, one of them came back a tie (not in percentages - an actual raw vote tie), and in one of them, where I assumed in most counties that Trump would earn the higher of Romney or Bush04 vote share, and in that one, Trump won by a point. I sent it to a few friends on both sides, who generally dismissed it. Going into Election Day, pretty much everything was lining up with one of the models that had her headed to about 1.5-2 point win.

 

I have a plan every Election Night: check Pasco early vote, then hit refresh until Hillsborough, Pinellas, Duval, Orange, Dade and Broward report, followed by a swing through I-4 suburban and exurban counties. Sure the initial Pasco and Pinellas numbers didn't look too good, but they looked survivable, especially considering pretty much everything else was at or above my target. Then I went and looked at Volusia...Hernando...Brevard...Sarasota...Polk...then back to Pasco. The last of my models was more than playing out. I slammed down the rest of my beer, and called a buddy in Brooklyn to report the bad news. It was done. CNN could have called it at 8:00 EST, she wasn't winning Florida. In fact, looking back at my texts, I told a guy at CNN around 8:15 EST that it was done.

 

Base turnout: Both Broward and Dade county had higher turnout rates, and the Miami media market had a higher margin for Clinton than Obama. And even with Palm Beach coming in a little short, she won her two base markets by about 75K more votes than Obama 2012, and won a slighly higher share of the vote. Broward and Dade alone combines for a 580K vote margin, and honestly, I think around 600K is pretty close to maxing out.

 

The Panhandle: True, Trump did win the “I-10 corridor” by more votes than Romney, but it wasn’t significant. His 345K vote margin as slighly better than Romney’s 308K, and pretty much in line with Bush 04’s 338K North Florida vote majority. And frankly, Clinton succeeded in the major North Florida objective: keep #Duuuval County close. Trump’s 6,000 vote plurality in Duval County was the best Democratic performance in a Presidential election since Carter won Duval in 1976.

 

Hispanics: It is true that Hispanics under-performed out west, but here in Florida, she did considerably better than Obama in the exit polls — polls that are reflective in the record margins she posted in the heavily Hispanic areas of Miami-Dade, Broward, Orange, and Osceola.

 

SW Florida: This was the GOP talking point during early vote: SW Florida was blowing up for Trump. And they were right, it did. But SW Florida typically has exceptionally high turnout, and high GOP margins, and in the end, Trump’s total was only about 40K votes bigger than Romney.

 

It was rural Florida: Trump did very well in rural Florida, but so did Romney. If you take all the counties with less than 250,000 residents, he increased Romney’s vote share by 125,000 votes — enough to make up the Obama 2012 margin — except, Clinton increased Obama’s margin in the counties with more than 750,000 residents by over 100,000 votes. In other words, rural and suburban cancel eachother out. What doesn’t cancel out — midsize suburban/exurban counties, places with 250,000-750,000 residents — Trump won them by 200,000 more votes than Romney.

 

[…]

 

So, where did he beat her? Simple: I-4, and more specifically, the 15 counties that make up suburban and exurban I-4.

 

Quick recap: The I-4 corridor is roughly defined as the Tampa and Orlando media markets. If you are a Democrat, win here, and you win. If you are a Republican, win big here, and you win. Given that the rest of the state in 2016 generally looked like 2012, Trump needed to win big here.

 

 

 

 

 

[caulfield12]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/michael-flynn-ke...-004512931.html

More on the Lt. General Michael Flynn scandal

Edited November 18, 2016 by caulfield12

[NorthSideSox72]

99.99% of the country didn't know who the guy was until the media told them he was racist.

 

Because...

 

You say this like it's a bad thing that the media informed people about something.

 

I mean, I happened to know who he was even before he joined TrumpCo, but I didn't know a lot. Reporting the information that Bannon has said and done things that suggest he's racist, anti-semite and POSSIBLY a wife beater are kinda important. This is not a bad thing.

 

I agree with Soxbadger. I don't expect Republicans to self-criticize, but I do expect that sane heads stands up and say "hey, ya know, maybe not the white supremecist for a major policy role?" instead of just staying silent. That's what I'd like to see.

 

And I don't recall Obama OR Bush nominating or naming anyone to a major role showing hate left and right. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[caulfield12]

http://wonkette.com/416347/vile-racist-scu...is-day-to-shine

 

The Cabinet is heading for an unapologetically racist/white supremacy All-Star team.

Thurgood Marshall must be turning over in his grave with this announcement.

 

 

Bannon, Trading on Classified Information Lobbyist Lt. Major Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner (nepotism, but at least seems like a the most normal so far) and now Sessions. Off to a roaring start.

Edited November 18, 2016 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/michael-flynn-ke...-004512931.html

More on the Lt. General Michael Flynn scandal

 

Flynn has also argued that it's rational to fear Muslims.

 

The administration is going full bore with hate and bigotry which should surprise no one.

[lostfan]

99.99% of the country didn't know who the guy was until the media told them he was racist.

I f***ing despise Breitbart and anyone associated with it. Just reading the headlines is enough. Reading the comments makes me want to fight people, literally.

[Balta1701]

99.99% of the country didn't know who the guy was until the media told them he was racist.

If they actually put forwards a plan to require muslims to register or require people to present their papers to verify they're legally here, will you stand against it?