It's the turnout, stupid

They didn't just ignore white working class, they started attacking them. Declaring every white person racist, and telling them they had some majic thing called white privilege and that is why their lives are so good.

Never mind they work middle class back breaking jobs and their lives can be bleak.
 
That's the point of the OP; they really don't need to evolve. I hope they do become more inclusive, but they don't need to.

107,000 votes in 3 states, with turnout for Hillary WAY down from what it was for Obama in 2012. They really just need a candidate that the base likes more. And demographics are rapidly changing in their favor, as well.

you are acting as if obama and his turnout was the norm. He wasn't. He was a massive abnormality.
 
They didn't just ignore white working class, they started attacking them. Declaring every white person racist, and telling them they had some majic thing called white privilege and that is why their lives are so good.

Never mind they work middle class back breaking jobs and their lives can be bleak.

The disenfranchised Deplorables.

The irony has been pointed out before: the DD's essentially became a minority bloc not unlike Hispanics or whatever. And they turned some blue states red.

My point to Thing and the democrats is they can't treat this last election like an aberration and go back to electoral business as usual. And that will be especially true if Trump has success with jobs and the economy.

Which is a safe bet because Obama and the democrats set the bar so low. If that happens democrats will continue to bleed minority votes because of the old adage---'it's the economy stupid'.
 
So, the big narrative now is that Trump tapped into the anger of white, working class voters, who turned out in droves to make him our President.

If not for a total of 107,000 votes in 3 states (MI, WI and PA), Hillary wins the election. She woefully underperformed Obama's 2012 #'s in those states, while Trump's increase over Romney's #'s was statistically insignificant.

Democratic dislike for Clinton and lack of enthusiasm for her decided this election.

That isn't the "BIG" narrative. That is a moronic media narrative that is now spending every waking moment trying to trivialize the Trump Presidency because of their massive embarrassment getting caught in the biggest lie of the century and promoting a caustic, corrupt sociopathic lying criminal.

Americans who are sick and tired of the phony leftist media and phony liberal narratives decided this election by handing the reigns of power to anyone who wasn't a Democrat.

Which lays the foundation for what Democrats are debating right now: do they need to expand the message, to appeal to what are now seen as "Trump voters"? Or do they just need to give their own base more reason for enthusiasm, boosting turnout and getting those voters who sat this one out back to the polls?

How about if they stood for something more than being wall street shills and repugnantly insulting a majority of Americans with their phony race hustling narratives that get cops killed?

How about instead of supporting corrupt caustic sociopathic lying criminals they actually stood against them?

How about instead of burying the American people in $20 trillion dollars of unpaid debt, they actually would try to balance a budget and pay down that debt?

How about if they supported giving people back the money they forcefully extract from them letting them do and spend it the way they wish to?

How about if they stopped being divisive petulant dumbfucks?

Personally, I'd like to see the Democrats reclaim the mantle as the party of the middle class and working people.

:rofl2: Democrats have done NOTHING for the middle class other than SHRINK it. Thanks to your hero Obama. You really are historically clueless and a half wit.

I don't want future elections to be minorities against whites, the coasts against the heartland, cities against rural. But Democrats don't really need to change their message that much.

:rofl2: Making elections about minorities versus whites, cities against the heartland and rural areas is what Democrats do; but here you stupidly spout off that they don't need to change their message that much while suggesting they need to. Once again you remove any doubt what a clueless, hyper partisan half wit you really are.

In fact, the smart strategy is probably more about increasing turnout.

Wrong; their strategy should be to not insult half the nation and promote false narratives that drive a deep dark wedge in our society.
 
That's the point of the OP; they really don't need to evolve. I hope they do become more inclusive, but they don't need to.

107,000 votes in 3 states, with turnout for Hillary WAY down from what it was for Obama in 2012. They really just need a candidate that the base likes more. And demographics are rapidly changing in their favor, as well.

Yep; why be inclusive when you can attempt to shove your values down others throats with BLUE states like California and New York and their massive electoral voting block that only actually represents about 40% of their populations, eh? :rofl2:
 
Hillary Clinton won 20 states, hardly "a few".

States like Vermont, DC, Rhode Island and New Hampshire? :rofl2: Yep; that amounts to a LOT! However, if not for the massive electoral votes of deep blue California, Democrats would win just about ...... wait for it ....... NOTHING.

It is sad that states like California will not do proportional electoral voting like Maine or Nebraska; after all, about 40% of their citizens never have a say in these elections.
 
Furthermore, trump only has narrow majority in many of the states he won. The voices of the minority in those states were nullified by the system, the majority was allowed to cast the votes of the minority.

But you're okay with nullifying all the Republican voices of California and New York State right half wit? Moron; you're crying makes you look even more pathetic than the massive amount of disinformation you spew.
 
Man, TD really dumbs these discussions down.

That is one hefty set of blinders you have on, TD. A total inability to see or consider opposing points of view.
 
Man, TD really dumbs these discussions down.

That is one hefty set of blinders you have on, TD. A total inability to see or consider opposing points of view.

the actual numbers are available though and not that hard to interpret. Just getting back your traditional voters is not enough as traditional republican voters also left.
 
the actual numbers are available though and not that hard to interpret. Just getting back your traditional voters is not enough as traditional republican voters also left.

Not in nearly the same #'s.

107,000 votes in 3 states, with demographics changing in their favor w/ each passing year.
 
=___= sigh. I keep giving you the numbers from the actual votes but they dont get thru to you.

No, I've seen them. They're just irrelevant to this particular discussion - they rely on your individual assumptions, and not on what basically every analysis of turnout this election concluded about which side came out, and which didn't.
 
No, I've seen them. They're just irrelevant to this particular discussion - they rely on your individual assumptions, and not on what basically every analysis of turnout this election concluded about which side came out, and which didn't.

DId democrats turnout? They did! They just voted Trump :D (no joke)
 
Back
Top