POTUS 2016, part 3

If you wish to raise new topics on News, Current Events & Politics, please do so at Dhamma Wheel Engaged.
Locked

Who would you like to see winning the presidency of the U.S.?

Hillary Clinton - (Dem.)
38
47%
Donald Trump - Mike Pence (Rep.)
21
26%
Gary Johnson - Bill Weld (Libertarian)
8
10%
Jill Stein (Green)
14
17%
 
Total votes: 81

chownah
Posts: 8955
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by chownah »

Mental wrote:
Phena wrote:Trump's whole election campaign was one long dog-whistle (though mostly an obvious and audible one) of racist comments, hate and intolerance to attract the racist, hateful and intolerant ... and it worked.
On the contrary, I think Trump's whole election campaign has been a long fight to convince people that he is not like that despite how democrat media tries to paint him to be.
I think your response does not exacly address what phena is saying. Phena is saying that trump courted the racist, hateful, and intolerant....while you are saying trump was fighting to convince people that he is not racist, hateful, and intolerant. I'm not wanting to express a view as to whether trump is racist etc. nor to express a view as to whether he undertook a long fight to convince people he was not racist etc. but I am wanting to point out that these things do not show what phena is proposing (and me too) that trump courted some racist, hateful, and intolerant sectors of the american population.
chownah
chownah
Posts: 8955
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by chownah »

[quote="pulga]
That's nationwide. In the swing states voter turnout was unchanged from 2012.
[/quote]

I think the important thing to know is not what the overall turnout was but rather what the democrat turnout was compared to 2012....or more simply what was clinton's vote in e.g. wisconsin, n.c., florida compard to obama's vote in the same state.
chownah
pulga
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by pulga »

chownah wrote: I think the important thing to know is not what the overall turnout was but rather what the democrat turnout was compared to 2012....or more simply what was clinton's vote in e.g. wisconsin, n.c., florida compard to obama's vote in the same state.
As the article I provided stated, in the swing states like Wisconsin, N.C., Pennsylvania, Florida, etc. voter turnout was the same as it was in 2012, and Trump won those states. It was in the states with low turnout that Clinton won.
User avatar
rowboat
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:31 am
Location: Brentwood Bay

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by rowboat »

Mkoll wrote:On average. Again, the Democrats would have won handily if they hadn't had such a terrible candidate. If they'd had another person with the charisma level of Obama, it would have been no contest.
Trump won the election with 600,000 fewer votes than Romney had when he lost in 2012. It's worth pointing out that Trump lost the popular vote to Clinton.
Donald Trump wrote:He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012
People might find this interesting: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/inv ... n_20161116

I'm pretty sure Clinton would have won the election had Republican FBI director James Comey not pulled his stunt in the last hour. Hillary Clinton's support started to rebound once Comey's ploy was unmasked but there wasn't sufficient time.
Rain soddens what is covered up,
It does not sodden what is open.
Therefore uncover what is covered
That the rain will not sodden it.
Ud 5.5
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3713
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Mr Man »

Cittasanto wrote:
What is your point, are you trying to say this isn't happening?
My point is that your clip is rubbish right wing propaganda.
chownah
Posts: 8955
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by chownah »

pulga wrote:
chownah wrote: I think the important thing to know is not what the overall turnout was but rather what the democrat turnout was compared to 2012....or more simply what was clinton's vote in e.g. wisconsin, n.c., florida compard to obama's vote in the same state.
As the article I provided stated, in the swing states like Wisconsin, N.C., Pennsylvania, Florida, etc. voter turnout was the same as it was in 2012, and Trump won those states. It was in the states with low turnout that Clinton won.
Yes. The article talks about turnout of ALL voters. I am saying that the more important statistic is how many democrats or how many people voted democrat in 2016 compared to previous elections. In other words did clinton fail to get out the democrat vote.
chownah
no-xit
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 11:25 am
Location: Russia

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by no-xit »

I was absolutely sure that Clinton would win, but was mistaken. Here in Russia Trump's victory was perceived as a piece of luck, sometimes it looked even comical. Russian Trump-like politician Zhirinovsky organized a champagne reception in the parliament on that occasion.
chownah
Posts: 8955
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by chownah »

Mental wrote:
chownah wrote:
Mental wrote:On the contrary, I think Trump's whole election campaign has been a long fight to convince people that he is not like that despite how democrat media tries to paint him to be.
I think your response does not exactly address what phena is saying. Phena is saying that trump courted the racist, hateful, and intolerant....while you are saying trump was fighting to convince people that he is not racist, hateful, and intolerant. I'm not wanting to express a view as to whether trump is racist etc. nor to express a view as to whether he undertook a long fight to convince people he was not racist etc. but I am wanting to point out that these things do not show what phena is proposing (and me too) that trump courted some racist, hateful, and intolerant sectors of the american population.
chownah
Trump courted the racist ? On the contrary, Hillary courted groups such as Black lives matter and other racist and violent organizations. If there are so many white supermacist out there as democrats say, then they must have huge violent and hateful rallies in the middle of the city shouting things similar to black lives matter. Can you show me a video with such groups of people shouting "what do we want ? DEAD BLACK PEOPLE" ? Phena failed to show me such a video.
Last time you failed to address what phena said but instead slipped off into another issue...and it seems you are doing it again I guess. Whether clinton courted some racists has nothing to say about whether trump courted some racists.....and same for whether there were rallies, huge or small, has nothing really to do with whether trump courted some racists or not. Again you have not addressed the issue but slipped off into other issues. You are batting two for two in not replying to issues but instead slipping off into other issues as if you were replying.

There is a difference between being a racist and playing a race card. You seem to be more wanting to discuss whether trump is a racist or not while I am discussing if he played a race card....which I think is phena's point as well.
chownah
pulga
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by pulga »

chownah wrote: Yes. The article talks about turnout of ALL voters. I am saying that the more important statistic is how many democrats or how many people voted democrat in 2016 compared to previous elections. In other words did clinton fail to get out the democrat vote.
What I gather from the article is that the Democratic vote did indeed come out, but at least was far as the swing states went they voted Republican.
chownah
Posts: 8955
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by chownah »

Mental wrote:Then show me a video with these racist trump supporters behaving remotely similar to Black lives matter hate group. Or show me some videos with people getting severely beaten up because of voting for Obama. I honestly have not seen anything like that so I don't understand why are violent racist said to be on Trump side.

"To paraphrase Tom Wolfe, the media tells us fascist violence is always descending on the Right, but somehow it always lands on the Left." :mrgreen:
Assuming you are responding to me: I have been talking about trump playing a race card. I am not talking about what supporters do or don't do. I am talking about trump playing a race card....especially in his early campaigning.

I think that perhaps you have forgotten that there are plenty of people who hold racist views who are not violent at all. Playing the right race card can bring those people into your fold.
chownah
Justsit
Posts: 720
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Justsit »

pulga wrote:
chownah wrote: Yes. The article talks about turnout of ALL voters. I am saying that the more important statistic is how many democrats or how many people voted democrat in 2016 compared to previous elections. In other words did clinton fail to get out the democrat vote.
What I gather from the article is that the Democratic vote did indeed come out, but at least was far as the swing states went they voted Republican.
Let's not forget, Hillary won the popular vote.

She lost because of the antiquated electoral college system. So you could say Democrats did not come out to vote in sufficient numbers in swing states. Every election there's a ruckus about changing the electoral college, and every time it gets shunted to the To Do list and never gets done. Remember 2000, Al Gore, and the hanging chads?

Now we pay the price. Again.
chownah
Posts: 8955
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by chownah »

pulga wrote:
chownah wrote: Yes. The article talks about turnout of ALL voters. I am saying that the more important statistic is how many democrats or how many people voted democrat in 2016 compared to previous elections. In other words did clinton fail to get out the democrat vote.
What I gather from the article is that the Democratic vote did indeed come out, but at least was far as the swing states went they voted Republican.
I didn't see them saying that. From something I read I got the impression that clinton just failded to inspire democrats to vote....but unfortunatley I don't remember where I got that impression and when you brought the link I was hoping that it would talk about that....but sadly it seems that it does not.

Also, did you see the article which talked about the republicans challenging voter registrations in heavily black precincts? I don't remember if it was here or on the internet where I saw this. It seems that my voter registration was challenged many elections ago and so I'm not registered. I don't vote as a rule but maintained registration so that if I should happen to be moved to vote I could. I live in thailand so it is a pain to re-register and since I normally don't vote I just haven't done it. I don't know for sure if the republicans did it but it happened the first election where the republicans were shown to be using this tactic.
chownah
chownah
Posts: 8955
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by chownah »

Justsit wrote:
Let's not forget, Hillary won the popular vote.

She lost because of the antiquated electoral college system. So you could say Democrats did not come out to vote in sufficient numbers in swing states. Every election there's a ruckus about changing the electoral college, and every time it gets shunted to the To Do list and never gets done. Remember 2000, Al Gore, and the hanging chads?

Now we pay the price. Again.
Both campaigns took into account the electoral college and channeled their energies in the way they thought would give them the electoral college win. They did not worry about the popular vote. If the election was by popular vote then both campaigns would have channeled their energies differently and it is impossible to know who would have won....it would have been a completely different campaign on both sides.
chownah
User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 3016
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Bundokji »

Not sure if this has been mentioned already, but Trump rallies included thousands of people, seems to me more than Hillary's, and i admit that i don't have number to support this, but just simply by watching TV.

So, it is not just the popular vote that matter, but the level of enthusiasm on both campaigns was not the same and i would give Trump some credit for that.

Also as i remember, most of young people voted for Hillary, but most senior citizens voted for Trump. I know that older does not necessarily mean wiser, but older people have been around for a longer time and witnessed more elections during their life time, and yet decided to vote for Trump.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
pulga
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by pulga »

chownah wrote: Both campaigns took into account the electoral college and channeled their energies in the way they thought would give them the electoral college win. They did not worry about the popular vote. If the election was by popular vote then both campaigns would have channeled their energies differently and it is impossible to know who would have won....it would have been a completely different campaign on both sides.
Good point. America has always been made up of two drastically different cultures: the urban and the rural. The Founding Fathers recognized this and set up the electoral college so as not to disenfranchise the less populated states laying outside the hubs of wealth and power. The U.S. is a federation of states; each state is an entity unto itself.
Locked