Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're side won this round, and you are over dependent on a group of people who are losing voting share with the passage of time.
If Trump keeps getting auto makers to build or expand US plants, and Chinese businessmen to add 50K US jobs, his base will widen. The Rust Belt was the epicenter of Reagan Dems, and this year, they came home, to the GOP.
That region has every right to hate NAFTA forever. The Acela Belt and West Coast cannot reach 270 w/o the Rust Belt. That was what HRC won, just the ACELA Belt plus the West Coast. The former will lose , in all likelihood, 6-10 electoral votes again, the latter will likely stay flat. That leaves the Dems what 46 ECs short of 270.
Face the facts. The Dems MUST win the Rust Belt. They will NEVER win middle America, meaning virtually all non coastal states. (sole exception possible is New Mexico)
Add in the Dems bench for POTUS stinks. You build a bench by winning most Senate and House races, plus governors races, and Dem losses during BHO's Reign have been startling.
Last edited by BobNJ1960; 01-08-2017 at 08:44 PM..
Do you really not see the irony in criticizing the Dems for 'identity politics' and then advising them to run a white male?
White males don't vote for other white males just because they're white males.
At least they haven't until now.
But blacks voted for Obama mostly because he was black.
And the conventional wisdom has been that women would vote for a woman, Latinos for a Latino, a Jew for a Jew, a Catholic for a Catholic, a Muslim for a Muslim, a gay for a gay, a transgender for a transgender, etc., just because they share the same race, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
If white males are now reflexively voting for other white males just because they are white males, it's because Democrats poisoned the well with identity politics a long time ago, and because the "minorities" they voted for have been openly hostile to white males and have repeatedly expressed the determination to take away their power and turn America "brown."
Gleefully saying "you'll die off soon" is not a very good way to get the white male vote!
Last edited by dechatelet; 01-09-2017 at 01:01 AM..
Most of us paid no attention to the way she looked. Many of us didn't care for her that much but we held our noses and voted for her--to stop Trump!!!! The person we ridiculed for looks was Trump--the Big Orange Clown, Clown Car. He's fat, has a double chin, big fat mouth. A liar. No political know how or experience.
We are not obsessed with vanity. You are so wrong about that. Hillary was well educated at Wellesley College, was always interested in politics, and had come up with a decent health plan when Bill was President. Maybe she really wouldn't have been that bad. It would certainly have been an improvement over that thing we are stuck with now.
I don't think it matters what color their skin is, just so they don't follow the same Democratic platform of being a racist kkk white supremist sympathizer like Andrew Jackson turned out to be, nor a denying deflecting shame-blaming liar like pretty much every liberal since, but hey, that's just me.
It may turn out that a white male is the least lying racist in the room, but hey, that sounds totally ironical, but could be totally true at times. I can think of a couple of very recent instances where it's exactly true, like what I see right now.
Hillary wasn't wholesome enough. White women just couldn't get over the fact that a blond woman was so tainted and publicly so. Most hide their skeletons well. The oh I'm pure on my wedding day yet the whole dorm knows that's not true.
They want wholesome. Suburbia whites like the illusion. Need the illusion.
Also, the Bill thing will always be a thorn. Hillary will ALWAYS be perceived as brushing off Bill and Monica for the sake of politics. She wanted to run and needed him so despite that utter embarrassment she stayed with him. Opportunely, it didn't pay off.
I absolutely think they need to run a white man. After Obama it was too much for Hillary to run. If she'd been a perceived pure and fresh woman maybe she would have won. But a woman being so bold is still just too much. Too masculine, not enough skirts, not femininity or lady like enough. Deep, DEEP down these are still issues and all contributed to her loss.
I mean Trump????? Really???? If people are willing to vote for Trump then they would absolutely vote for a man with Hillary's background. If Hillary had been a man she would have won. Corrupt and all. It's the fact that she was a woman *clutches Alex and Ani necklace* being that boldly political and playing dirty.
Trump WAS and IS dirty and he won. But he's a man. Men can do it. Men can sleep around and a manwhore/player is a name but doesn't stop anything. He can still get married to the best of women, get that job, etc A woman though is damaged goods, slutty and tainted and ends up fading into the background.
Analogy but you get my drift. Had she been a man she would have 100% won. People are NOT ready for woman having no shame in dirt. We're to still be seen as wholesome and clean personally and professionally.
Hillary wasn't wholesome enough. White women just couldn't get over the fact that a blond woman was so tainted and publicly so. Most hide their skeletons well. The oh I'm pure on my wedding day yet the whole dorm knows that's not true.
They want wholesome. Suburbia whites like the illusion. Need the illusion.
Also, the Bill thing will always be a thorn. Hillary will ALWAYS be perceived as brushing off Bill and Monica for the sake of politics. She wanted to run and needed him so despite that utter embarrassment she stayed with him. Opportunely, it didn't pay off.
I absolutely think they need to run a white man. After Obama it was too much for Hillary to run. If she'd been a perceived pure and fresh woman maybe she would have won. But a woman being so bold is still just too much. Too masculine, not enough skirts, not femininity or lady like enough. Deep, DEEP down these are still issues and all contributed to her loss.
I mean Trump????? Really???? If people are willing to vote for Trump then they would absolutely vote for a man with Hillary's background. If Hillary had been a man she would have won. Corrupt and all. It's the fact that she was a woman *clutches Alex and Ani necklace* being that boldly political and playing dirty.
Trump WAS and IS dirty and he won. But he's a man. Men can do it. Men can sleep around and a manwhore/player is a name but doesn't stop anything. He can still get married to the best of women, get that job, etc A woman though is damaged goods, slutty and tainted and ends up fading into the background.
Analogy but you get my drift. Had she been a man she would have 100% won. People are NOT ready for woman having no shame in dirt. We're to still be seen as wholesome and clean personally and professionally.
Thus why Hillary lost.
Wrong on almost everything.
If Tim Kaine had been the nominee instead of Hillary, Trump would have won by BIGGER margins.
This was an anti-establishment year. Trump gave the media the middle finger, went around them and appealed directly to Middle Class America. Trump may or may not be a great president, that remains to be seen. But in this election year he was the right guy in the right place, and against the right opponent -- crooked, lying, and a huge number of questionable decisions in her past. Game, set, match: TRUMP
Hillary wasn't wholesome enough. White women just couldn't get over the fact that a blond woman was so tainted and publicly so. Most hide their skeletons well. The oh I'm pure on my wedding day yet the whole dorm knows that's not true.
They want wholesome. Suburbia whites like the illusion. Need the illusion.
Also, the Bill thing will always be a thorn. Hillary will ALWAYS be perceived as brushing off Bill and Monica for the sake of politics. She wanted to run and needed him so despite that utter embarrassment she stayed with him. Opportunely, it didn't pay off.
I absolutely think they need to run a white man. After Obama it was too much for Hillary to run. If she'd been a perceived pure and fresh woman maybe she would have won. But a woman being so bold is still just too much. Too masculine, not enough skirts, not femininity or lady like enough. Deep, DEEP down these are still issues and all contributed to her loss.
I mean Trump????? Really???? If people are willing to vote for Trump then they would absolutely vote for a man with Hillary's background. If Hillary had been a man she would have won. Corrupt and all. It's the fact that she was a woman *clutches Alex and Ani necklace* being that boldly political and playing dirty.
Trump WAS and IS dirty and he won. But he's a man. Men can do it. Men can sleep around and a manwhore/player is a name but doesn't stop anything. He can still get married to the best of women, get that job, etc A woman though is damaged goods, slutty and tainted and ends up fading into the background.
Analogy but you get my drift. Had she been a man she would have 100% won. People are NOT ready for woman having no shame in dirt. We're to still be seen as wholesome and clean personally and professionally.
Thus why Hillary lost.
Well, if the above makes you feel better about why she lost go for it.
However, if the Dem leadership refuses to honestly look at why they have been doing poorly in recent elections they'll continue to have trouble.
With regards to Clinton: Few candidates have ever run a worse campaign than Hillary. She had unlimited funds and ran against an opponent the MSM openly despised. Yet, still couldn't close the deal.
This supposed differentiation between college educated folks and blue collar folks speaks to one aspect of why the left is so out of touch with a wide swath of the country. "Blue collar" is both a descriptive of educational/career level and a descriptive of culture and roots. Too many on the left see it only as educational/career level.
I have an MBA and have had a high level and lucrative career, and I see myself as a culturally blue collar person. My Dad worked in a factory as did most of the men I knew growing up. Though I have lived a very different life than them, I held onto the values I grew up with. And I know plenty of similarly successful "blue collar" people.
For the past 8 years, Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party at best ignored us blue collar types, and at worst denigrated us. And there are a whole lot more "blue collar" folks out there than they realize. Snobbery and elitism are attributes that just do not play well with us.
How did Hillary and Obama denigrate you for the past 8 years? I would like to know.
With regard to 'elitism' - Donald Trump is the elite of the elite. Tired of hearing about it.
There are middle class workers in urban centers too, ya know? And they did not fall for the racist demagogue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by itshim
Democrats should get out of the "demographics" business, and start running on tangible ideas, and not these "everything should be a free give away" nonsense that they always offer.
They've played that card to the point that they're playing poker with the cards facing the table.
Donald Trump's entire campaign was based on race. So, pardon us if we don't take your advice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DejaBlue
Hillary wasn't wholesome enough. White women just couldn't get over the fact that a blond woman was so tainted and publicly so. Most hide their skeletons well. The oh I'm pure on my wedding day yet the whole dorm knows that's not true.
They want wholesome. Suburbia whites like the illusion. Need the illusion.
Also, the Bill thing will always be a thorn. Hillary will ALWAYS be perceived as brushing off Bill and Monica for the sake of politics. She wanted to run and needed him so despite that utter embarrassment she stayed with him. Opportunely, it didn't pay off.
I absolutely think they need to run a white man. After Obama it was too much for Hillary to run. If she'd been a perceived pure and fresh woman maybe she would have won. But a woman being so bold is still just too much. Too masculine, not enough skirts, not femininity or lady like enough. Deep, DEEP down these are still issues and all contributed to her loss.
I mean Trump????? Really???? If people are willing to vote for Trump then they would absolutely vote for a man with Hillary's background. If Hillary had been a man she would have won. Corrupt and all. It's the fact that she was a woman *clutches Alex and Ani necklace* being that boldly political and playing dirty.
Trump WAS and IS dirty and he won. But he's a man. Men can do it. Men can sleep around and a manwhore/player is a name but doesn't stop anything. He can still get married to the best of women, get that job, etc A woman though is damaged goods, slutty and tainted and ends up fading into the background.
Analogy but you get my drift. Had she been a man she would have 100% won. People are NOT ready for woman having no shame in dirt. We're to still be seen as wholesome and clean personally and professionally.
Well, if the above makes you feel better about why she lost go for it.
However, if the Dem leadership refuses to honestly look at why they have been doing poorly in recent elections they'll continue to have trouble.
With regards to Clinton: Few candidates have ever run a worse campaign than Hillary. She had unlimited funds and ran against an opponent the MSM openly despised. Yet, still couldn't close the deal.
Or perhaps you should not mention 2008 and 2012 in the minority voter participation trendline as it was an anomaly driven by a personable, 1st ever mixed race POTUS. To be frank, the 2nd, were he just like BO in every way, would likely underperform BO in the same demographic groups he spiked.
Dems love identity politics, but it is a one trick pony IMO. The 2nd one is not as "thrilling".
As for 2020, first reflect on 2016. I have no doubt Joe Biden would have won at least 1, maybe 2 , of Pa, Mi, and Wi. W/O losing states HRC won.
But the Dems artificially produced a first again, using super delegates to override Sanders. If Dems used GOP % of non-vote driven delegates, Sanders catches fire earlier and wins the nomination.
So the 1st thing Dems should do IMO is give the decision back to the voters, and fully eliminate super delegates.
The decline in the white vote precedes Barack Obama by 28 years. The white percentage is dropping because of a lack of replacement of dying white voters, not because of a momentary spike in black turnout caused by Barack Obama.
In 36 years % of voters that were white non-college has halved
GOP though still depends disproportionately on that vote
Now POTUS elections are decided state by state, but unless voting patterns radically change, they are likely to continue to break down by demographic group.
This thread was started by someone who seems to be under the illusion that demographically this is still 1980. It's not. We are a different country and with the passage of time the combined influence of white non-college voters is going to continue to fall. That cake has already been baked. The R's may well prevail in the future, but they're going to have to get more votes from white college and minority voters.
You can't depend on getting a majority of your votes from the one segment that is fading fast and expect long term success.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
