It's the turnout, stupid

C

Cancel 2020.1

Canceled
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.

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?

Personally, I'd like to see the Democrats reclaim the mantle as the party of the middle class and working people. 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. In fact, the smart strategy is probably more about increasing turnout.
 
The Russians hacked those states for trump. Just enough votes for trump to barely trip over the finish line in all three? Clear bullshit.

We need an end to electronic voting machines that foreign nations can hack.
 
Only the left can make the Democrats a party of workers. Only the left can save the Democrats. Goodbye forever to the neoliberal Clinton dynasty.
 
*meh* we told you long ago Clinton was a fabricated failure (card board cut out) of a candidate.
I would have happily voted for Bernie as POTUS like I did in the primary.

The DNC is corrupt/she was corrupt - time for you guys to clean house and get back to the peoples business -not big donor corps
 
Thing1 said:
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.

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?

Personally, I'd like to see the Democrats reclaim the mantle as the party of the middle class and working people. 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. In fact, the smart strategy is probably more about increasing turnout.
Click to expand...

http://www.electproject.org/2016g

currently with some ballots uncounted the turnout for this election is 58.4%. It will probably go a bit higher but not reach 60%.

turnout in 2012 was 54.9%
turnout in 2008 was 58.2%
turnout in 2004 was 56.7%
turnout in 2000 was 51.2%
turnout in 1996 was 49%
turnout in 1992 was 55.2%
turnout in 1988 was 50.2%

You would have to go back to 1964 to have higher turnout at 60%

What people ignore is that there are 6 million other votes this time ,i.e. never trump and never clinton while last time around there were only 2 million other voters. New voters did come out for trump while the more neocon wing of the GOP went other just as the more progressive dems went other as well.

A good study would be PA and Trump and Toomey. Both GOP both won. There are some counties which Trump won by 36 that toomey won by only 20. While some counties that Trump lost that toomey won by 5-10% (proving vote splitting). Note that none of these evidence are polls but actual ballots cast.
 
Thing1 said:
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.

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?

Personally, I'd like to see the Democrats reclaim the mantle as the party of the middle class and working people. 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. In fact, the smart strategy is probably more about increasing turnout.
Click to expand...

I said it would come down to turnout lol.

But the democrats need to evolve. They can't ignore the working class and get their Blue Wall back. Not gonna happen.
 
Comrade Watermark said:
The Russians hacked those states for trump. Just enough votes for trump to barely trip over the finish line in all three? Clear bullshit.

We need an end to electronic voting machines that foreign nations can hack.
Click to expand...

Gave all the Democrats a virus so they sneezed themselves out of the voting booth before they cast their ballots....
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
I said it would come down to turnout lol.

But the democrats need to evolve. They can't ignore the working class and get their Blue Wall back. Not gonna happen.
Click to expand...

http://www.270towin.com/maps/K2AQR

This is most likely what democrats are looking at right now in strategy meetings. Double down on illegal immigration to bring more of the hispanics to your side to swing the neccessary states and just keep shouting race and bigotry over and over again. It would also be the one they can win while banging the free trade drum to placate their donors.

To counter it I would make sure Virginia gets a higher than normal share of the defense contracts Trump will be giving out and try and make inroads to IL and MN. I would also encourage more retirees in AZ to keep the state red.
 
tsuke said:
http://www.electproject.org/2016g

currently with some ballots uncounted the turnout for this election is 58.4%. It will probably go a bit higher but not reach 60%.

turnout in 2012 was 54.9%
turnout in 2008 was 58.2%
turnout in 2004 was 56.7%
turnout in 2000 was 51.2%
turnout in 1996 was 49%
turnout in 1992 was 55.2%
turnout in 1988 was 50.2%

You would have to go back to 1964 to have higher turnout at 60%

What people ignore is that there are 6 million other votes this time ,i.e. never trump and never clinton while last time around there were only 2 million other voters. New voters did come out for trump while the more neocon wing of the GOP went other just as the more progressive dems went other as well.

A good study would be PA and Trump and Toomey. Both GOP both won. There are some counties which Trump won by 36 that toomey won by only 20. While some counties that Trump lost that toomey won by 5-10% (proving vote splitting). Note that none of these evidence are polls but actual ballots cast.
Click to expand...

58.4% in 2016 excellent turnout.....

Like Thingy said...."Democratic dislike for Clinton and lack of enthusiasm for her decided this election. "
If not for the pinheads in California, it would have been even more of a blowout.
Cherry picking MI, WI and PA is misleading at best.....
 
NOVA said:
58.4% in 2016 excellent turnout.....

Like Thingy said...."Democratic dislike for Clinton and lack of enthusiasm for her decided this election. "
If not for the pinheads in California, it would have been even more of a blowout.
Cherry picking MI, WI and PA is misleading at best.....
Click to expand...

If not for Texas, it would've been a blowout for the Democrats in 2004. You can't just subtract parts of the country you don't like until you get the results you want. Like it or not, California is part of America. I'm tired of the right delegitimizing blue states and acting as if it's ok to ignore them. We're part of America too.
 
tsuke said:
http://www.270towin.com/maps/K2AQR

This is most likely what democrats are looking at right now in strategy meetings. Double down on illegal immigration to bring more of the hispanics to your side to swing the neccessary states and just keep shouting race and bigotry over and over again. It would also be the one they can win while banging the free trade drum to placate their donors.

To counter it I would make sure Virginia gets a higher than normal share of the defense contracts Trump will be giving out and try and make inroads to IL and MN. I would also encourage more retirees in AZ to keep the state red.
Click to expand...

We defense contractors in Virginia aren't going to be bought off so really. We'll do great under Trump, we would've done great under Clinton. It's the one thing that never changes.
 
Comrade Watermark said:
If not for Texas, it would've been a blowout for the Democrats in 2004. You can't just subtract parts of the country you don't like until you get the results you want. Like it or not, California is part of America. I'm tired of the right delegitimizing blue states and acting as if it's ok to ignore them. We're part of America too.
Click to expand...

"You can't just subtract parts of the country you don't like until you get the results you want. "

EXACTLY my point.....fool
 
Horrible candidate and a distain for the middle class and a failed administration sunk you.
You have to find some better pols which will be difficult as they all stupidly went lockstelockstep for bo. I'm don't know how you win back the middle.
And you now have problems with minorities.
Lots of challenges but the biggest is accepting what caused this.
 
Celticguy said:
Horrible candidate and a distain for the middle class and a failed administration sunk you.
You have to find some better pols which will be difficult as they all stupidly went lockstelockstep for bo. I'm don't know how you win back the middle.
And you now have problems with minorities.
Lots of challenges but the biggest is accepting what caused this.
Click to expand...

Hillary is a proven liar, it was exposed years ago....and its undeniable
the Poll takers were supporting the left
the news media was in the tank for the left and still is
the news media lied and spun everything they reported on, against Trump and in support of Hillary
some of the minorities even saw it....the question 'what do you have to lose" hit home to a lot of them
The money and play for pay was finally taken seriously
the Iran deal
the invasion of illegals and their nerve to make demands on the US as if they belonged here
sanctuary cities
The list is almost endless
Voters had no where else to turn and they are starting, just starting to pay attention
 
Celticguy said:
Horrible candidate and a distain for the middle class and a failed administration sunk you.
You have to find some better pols which will be difficult as they all stupidly went lockstelockstep for bo. I'm don't know how you win back the middle.
And you now have problems with minorities.
Lots of challenges but the biggest is accepting what caused this.
Click to expand...

You are a distain with disdain for reality
 
The globalists like the commie above want to abolish the electoral college. That would mean that New York and California would dominate and control every general election.

The electoral college was given to us by the founding fathers ( not founders .. they love founders because it's inclusive of women and minorities). The system gives the states with smaller populations the same clout as states with larger populations. This is one reason each state has two senators each.

They whine on in shock. They cannot believe that Trump captured the white middle class blue collar workers in the rust belt AND white college educated voters all over the place.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
I said it would come down to turnout lol.

But the democrats need to evolve. They can't ignore the working class and get their Blue Wall back. Not gonna happen.
Click to expand...

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 must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top