American Politics the 2016 edition

This forum is a minority, micky.  And a small, dwindling one as the rate of forum participation shows. And it's not only this forum but these sorts of forums that attract less participation.  Why?  Because no protection from a nasty disagreement from somebody who has a different opinion, you see.  Social media is way more comforting.  And though I am much younger than you, we share a similar ethos in the sense that we both knew a world before internet and of course well before social media where to have a heated debate was a pleasurable experience and you could always shake hands and stay friends after the event.  I am not sure the social media generation really finds that to be such a great idea.  From what I see, today's teens don't interact much per se (face to face, I mean)...not out of shyness but out of sheer insolence.  They just don't feel the need.

One of the biggest mistakes a lot of people made was trying to see this election cycle the same way they saw previous election cycles. Early on here the point was brought up that you may as well throw the election playbook out the window because this election was not going to be like any that had come before.

micky wrote: well said... and yeah... I put myself on Facebook hiatus purposely before the election. As Raff, and my internet met turned real life friends know well,  internet Micky and real life Michael are two VERY different creatures in terms of how I express myself.  There is a civility and respect in real life than is easy to lose sight of when half drunk and posting on the internet hahahha.  Facebook in particular always brought out the worst in me in terms of what I think of the intelligence of the other side so I backed away from it big time

SteveG wrote: No sh*t, but at the cost of over 600,000 lives. It was not movement that quickly fragmented and dissipated in just a few days.

That was a comment on your amusing misspelling of secede. The only thing the South succeeds at is oppressing black people! no, really, don't take that seriously either. clearly, they also failed at that.

micky wrote: ( the genesis of the 2016 polls are rigged mantra was that.polls were wrong in 2012).

Worth noting that FiveThirtyEight hit every one in 2012. They missed all the important ones in 2016 (FL, NC, PA, WI). Nate Silver also called out the polls for potential herding effects just before the election.

micky wrote: it is actually a bit surprising that it took this long to have a 2016 blown election with regards to polling. They've been off inaccuate before... but never like this... that was a 306-232 Clinton win by the polling... missed by 360 degrees

When the dust clears and all votes are counted, it appears that Hillary will win the popular vote by around 1.5 points, within the margin of error for most national polls, but Trump has an unexpected lock on the Electoral College. Turns out, state polls matter a lot, and they're often pretty inaccurate.

timothy leary wrote: Someone said the Republican party is dead.

 
If there's need for yet another postmortem, here's FiveThirtyEight's. With actual voter data, it seems Trump voters are indeed

Old
White
Uneducated
Men

and each of these groups will enjoy considerable attrition in the future. Also, the WSJ found data suggesting Trump would overperform where there was an influx of nonwhites into a predominantly white area. That's not to scream "racism!"; I would rather say that most of these angry old white men are just trying to hold onto that dead past they call home.

Republicans can hold onto this vote only as long as they attract new voters or further polarize a (literally) dying base. Doing the latter risks a backlash from other groups, so staking out a political race war it may not be a sustainable position. The party must change, and it will change. The question is what it will be when the dust clears. Donald Trump didn't just take a demographic to a hard right, he took the Republican party off its ideological base. He introduced trillions in infrastructure spending that has irked the party leadership. He has been alternately pro-choice, favorable toward single-payer systems, hated the electoral college, and many other crazy moves compared to GOP orthodoxy. I don't think we're necessarily just viewing the polarization of our country, though it may turn out that way if the Republican establishment can pin Trump down. This could be the policy crack that brings the GOP, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.


Edited by Gamemako - November 12 2016 at 09:49

Well, the first of what will be many pivots has occurred. 

Votes of those under 35 (born since 1980)



Edited by Sean Trane - November 12 2016 at 10:47

Gamemako wrote: timothy leary wrote: Someone said the Republican party is dead.   If there's need for yet another postmortem, here's FiveThirtyEight's. With actual voter data, it seems Trump voters are indeed Old White Uneducated Men and each of these groups will enjoy considerable attrition in the future. Also, the WSJ found data suggesting Trump would overperform where there was an influx of nonwhites into a predominantly white area. That's not to scream "racism!"; I would rather say that most of these angry old white men are just trying to hold onto that dead past they call home. Republicans can hold onto this vote only as long as they attract new voters or further polarize a (literally) dying base. Doing the latter risks a backlash from other groups, so staking out a political race war it may not be a sustainable position. The party must change, and it will change. The question is what it will be when the dust clears. Donald Trump didn't just take a demographic to a hard right, he took the Republican party off its ideological base. He introduced trillions in infrastructure spending that has irked the party leadership. He has been alternately pro-choice, favorable toward single-payer systems, hated the electoral college, and many other crazy moves compared to GOP orthodoxy. I don't think we're necessarily just viewing the polarization of our country, though it may turn out that way if the Republican establishment can pin Trump down. This could be the policy crack that brings the GOP, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.

indeed.... this could be facinating from a purely intellectual/political junkie standpoint.

he did spend as much time fighting his own party as he did HRC.  It is his party now..  those fools in Congress are only still in power because of Trump.  I'd be surprised if he doesn't remind them of that.

I see Obamacare is the first note... will the Supreme Court be next...

the thing that can NOT be underestimated about him though.. he is not a politician. Not a professional one... the rules may not apply to him.  He may be forced to play nice with Congress.. but it isn't like he was some establishment clown elected FROM them. 

As I said before...  he campaigned on the theme of change.. not merely being a GOP rubberstamp for ll the instanity out of the House.  If he want to affecdt change.. he'll have to fight his own party. Those fools in Congress are as much responsible as anyone for the problems he campaigned upon to fix.

A great many of my posts regarding the future (and lack of it) of the Republican Party were based on the inability (career suicide) to force evolution on the party.  Trump is a potential wildcard...  his independence from the party may the best thing that Party could have hoped for in terms of surviving a coming minority-majority America. 

and lets be honest... America would be far better of if he does bring the GOP to heel... so yeah. I'll say it.. I'm rooting for the guy if he conintues the path he hints at now. He vanquished the corrupt Democratic establishment... is the ideologically corrupt and out of date Republican establishment next?

we shall see... but watching very closely


Edited by micky - November 12 2016 at 10:35

SteveG wrote: But on to old white uneducated men. I think this was their last hurrah. How many do you think will be around or actually able to vote 2020?

Baby boomers are presently 52-70 years old. By 2020, they will be 56-74. Attrition increases sharply from there, but they're still just reaching that end of life period. Death rates for 55-65 are 0.8% per year; death rates for 65-75 are 2.0% per year. Boomers will be in the middle, losing just 5-6% of their numbers in 4 years. Even as many minority voters come of age, the Boomers will continue to be a political force. As they retire, they might also look forward to voting, and increase their turnout compared to present conditions, even possibly counteracting some of the attrition. We've not seen the last of the Trump voting bloc. However, as I remarked earlier, Clinton appears to have won the popular vote by a fairly strong margin*. Despite that the Boomers are likely to continue being an important sector of the electorate, their vote will still be diluted ever more, and the margin a 2020 Democratic candidate needs to gain in order to win is not large. Also interesting that a Republican candidate has won the popular vote only once since 1992; this is the only voting reality most post-Boomer folks know.

By 2040, the Boomer generation will be 76-94, where the majority will have passed and those remaining will know their stark decline in influence. For that time period, the die is cast, and the Trump voters of today have lost in an unprecedented landslide. The impact of automation will also be clear by that period, and none will be able to sustain the illusion that government forces determined the fate of their industries. The Republican party of today, especially the Trump party, is hopelessly doomed. This is why I say they must (and will) change.

*Clinton likely won the popular vote by a strong margin, albeit not totally unprecedented among those who won popular vote and lost electoral vote. Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 won with a -3% margin. John Quincy Adams won in 1824 won with a whopping -10.5% in the only election to go to the House (the famed Corrupt Bargain), plus which resulted in Andrew Jackson forming the Democratic Party and whipping JQA by an even larger margin in 1828. Also worth noting that only one president has ever gone two terms after losing the popular vote, and that is GWB, who also lost by the narrowest margin of -0.5%. If the predictions of California's mail-in ballots turn out as expected, Hillary will be the middle ground at +1.5%, above Benjamin Harrison's defeat of Grover Cleveland at -0.8%. In that case, Cleveland was actually the incumbent and lost to Harrison, then defeated Harrison 4 years later to become the only president to serve nonconsecutive terms. American politics are pretty crazy sometimes.


Edited by Gamemako - November 12 2016 at 11:28

afterall... we are Americans first...  I don't expect much from him.. but will give him any credit due if makes anything better ..

not that I'll likely still vote for him in 2020 unless he goes full blown 'Liz Warren... and that isn't likely to happen.

the economics? yeah.. I can see pivots... what I am curious about... the social sh*t man. That is what I really care about. All the hate, anger and bigotry he pandered to in his hating angry and bigoted voters....

was that a f**k you to the voter.. or does he really believe it.   That more than anything is what needs to be cleaned out of the Republican Party and America...moving forward..

car collisions... train wrecks... airplane crashes.... 

you cant turn away from those...  taking the numbers from what they are worth.. regardless of who showed up at his rallies to see what he might say.. or what brownshirted Trumpian thug might do...

the voters seemed loud and clear that the minorities.. educated whites.. and the youth overwhelmingly were NOT Trump supporters.i.

and Trump lost women decisively worse than any Republican candidate in years.. if ever.. and Republicans do not normally do notthat. 

His core support was angry old uneducated white guy.. such as was thought.. such as they voted this week.. seems a very fair point to make in these discussions Gary.


Edited by micky - November 12 2016 at 12:02