What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The States: Why does Minnesota wanna be Kansas?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The States: Why does Minnesota wanna be Kansas?

5mn_Major said:
Ok, let's kick the tires on that.

The Center for Politics studied the matter extensively and this was their conclusion:

"Using these percentages (not rounded) and Trump’s overall 2016 vote total, estimates of the raw number of such switching Obama-Trump voters range from about 6.7 million to 9.2 million."

"These surveys offer additional evidence about a critical part of the 2016 equation: the millions of voters who switched from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016. Given the extremely close margins in some states, particularly the Rust Belt trio of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, these voters played a crucial role in handing over the White House to the GOP."

Switching votes gave Trump the white house.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cr...many-obama-2012-trump-2016-voters-were-there/
Click to expand...

Something's really not adding up here. A range of 6.7M to 9.2M voters going from Obama to Trump (call it 8M voters)???

If that's truly the case, then Trump would have reaped some 69M votes in 2016 all things being equal. the 61M who voted Romney + another 8M who voted Obama but switched. Meanwhile Clinton should have ended up at 58M. The 66M who voted Obama - 8M who switched to Trump. In short, he would have won the election by a whopping 11M votes???

The actual vote totals were 66M Clinton (almost identical to Obama's #'s - I think she was 100K off) while Trump won 63M, almost 2M more than Romney.
 
Re: The States: Why does Minnesota wanna be Kansas?

Bernie would have beat Trump and him not beating Hillary is not a counter-argument to that observation. There's plenty out there to support that if you take the time to look.
 
Re: The States: Why does Minnesota wanna be Kansas?

I obviously agree, though I've beaten that point to death and don't want to bore everyone else with another back and forth :p
 
Re: The States: Why does Minnesota wanna be Kansas?

Handyman said:
So your argument to prove your point is that a guy who you hate, who wasnt part of the party, who couldnt beat Clinton proves your point? Go on with your bad self.

BTW that doesnt make what you said to Brent correct. He still wasnt saying what you pretended he said. Nice straw man though. Brent said one thing, you attacked him for saying something he didnt say and I argued with you.
Click to expand...

No. This is the exchange I had a problem with and I vehemently disagree with.

Brenthoven said:
bronconick said:
The Anti-Hill's come off as identical to the Trumpers. Therefore it's not worth spending one's time and money to sift through and convince them. You concentrate on boosting your own support. If the Anti-Hill's come along now great, but you can't rely on them.
Click to expand...
No. This is incorrect, despite what the ultra-liberals think.
Click to expand...
 
Re: The States: Why does Minnesota wanna be Kansas?

joecct said:
Rover

How do you propose to wipe out the GOP?

Reeducation camps?
Forced labor?
Shallow graves?
Midnight knocks on the door?
Click to expand...

Goopers have an age problem. The party as you and I have known it for 25+ years, is already dying from within. Trump is just the last gasp of the Worst Generation as you ride off into a retirement of whining about the kids and grandkids being lazy and not working enough to pay for your entitlements.
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Goopers have an age problem. The party as you and I have known it for 25+ years, is already dying from within. Trump is just the last gasp of the Worst Generation as you ride off into a retirement of whining about the kids and grandkids being lazy and not working enough to pay for your entitlements.
Click to expand...

GET OFF MY LAWN :p
 
Re: The States: Why does Minnesota wanna be Kansas?

Slap Shot said:
Bernie would have beat Trump and him not beating Hillary is not a counter-argument to that observation. There's plenty out there to support that if you take the time to look.
Click to expand...

I have taken plenty of time to look and the only thing people ever cite is poll numbers after the fact which mean dick. His issues with any minority over 30 werent just going to go away no matter how much people pretend they would (and it wasnt like he dominated the under 30 minorities which he would need to offset it) and his inability to actually pay for anything he suggested was going to bite him in the butt. (as would his calling himself a Socialist) He would have also split the Establishment Dems because plenty of them didnt like him.

I have no reason to say this, I was a supporter of his going back to 2012. I see no real evidence he would win though outside of supposition. The same is true for people who say Biden would have won, ignoring the fact that often Biden was his own worst enemy. It is Monday Morning QBing and just as worthless since we can never know the truth.
 
Re: The States: Why does Minnesota wanna be Kansas?

Well obviously he was going to raise taxed but even if the taxes weren't enough to balance everything, he could pay for it the same way we paid for 1.5 trillion in tax cuts, 750 billion for the military budget, and everything else we rack up debt on...

The Dems need to stop pretending like balancing the budget is some huge priority. The Republicans clearly don't and only use it to bludgeon the other side and further demonize poor people.
 
Last edited:
Re: The States: Why does Minnesota wanna be Kansas?

I say for the sake of this thread we just keep the Bernie talk in threads that are relevant. He isnt really a states issue right now outside of campaigning in them right now ;)
 
Re: The States: Why does Minnesota wanna be Kansas?

Isn't Vermont now paying people to move and work there?

That's kinda a state thingy :)
 
Re: The States: Why does Minnesota wanna be Kansas?

Rover said:
Something's really not adding up here. A range of 6.7M to 9.2M voters going from Obama to Trump (call it 8M voters)???

If that's truly the case, then Trump would have reaped some 69M votes in 2016 all things being equal. the 61M who voted Romney + another 8M who voted Obama but switched. Meanwhile Clinton should have ended up at 58M. The 66M who voted Obama - 8M who switched to Trump. In short, he would have won the election by a whopping 11M votes???

The actual vote totals were 66M Clinton (almost identical to Obama's #'s - I think she was 100K off) while Trump won 63M, almost 2M more than Romney.
Click to expand...

You can't do that math. You can't assume that Trump would have the exact same number of voters as Romney (before you add switching votes)...and you can't assume that Clinton had the exact same as Obama. There were individual characteristics like Clinton not have the same AA turnout as Obama and broader election phenomena like 2016 having lowest turnout in 20 years.
 
5mn_Major said:
You can't do that math. You can't assume that Trump would have the exact same number of voters as Romney (before you add switching votes)...and you can't assume that Clinton had the exact same as Obama. There were individual characteristics like Clinton not have the same AA turnout as Obama and broader election phenomena like 2016 having lowest turnout in 20 years.
Click to expand...

Don’t you get up in rover’s grill!! Rover will not be backed into a corner!!


:p
 
Re: The States: Why does Minnesota wanna be Kansas?

Rover:

I can defend myself. I happened to be in a remote part of the UP of MI with no internet for the last couple of days. There were people who voted for Obama simply because he was different, and not the same old same old. When the Dems put up Hillary, many of those same people voted for Trump because he wasn't the same old same old.

And thinking I'm a Trump apologist, you are a flat-out idiot if you really believe that.
 
Re: The States: Why does Minnesota wanna be Kansas?

So last night a GOP rep from Alabama made quite an appearance on Who Is America. Yelling the n word and pulling his pants down.
You don’t need to trick these people - they are that stupid
 
Re: The States: Why does Minnesota wanna be Kansas?

5mn_Major said:
You can't do that math. You can't assume that Trump would have the exact same number of voters as Romney (before you add switching votes)...and you can't assume that Clinton had the exact same as Obama. There were individual characteristics like Clinton not have the same AA turnout as Obama and broader election phenomena like 2016 having lowest turnout in 20 years.
Click to expand...

Correct, but this is taking that to the extreme. If in indeed 8M voters switched from Obama to Trump, that means Hillary found 8M new voters out there to vote for her. If that is indeed the case, most new voters are either young'uns or non-whites - the very people we've been told didn't come out for her!!! So that would mean we need a candidate in 2020 that appeals to Conservadem vote switchers, not young progressives who apparently did vote for her after all.

You've got to pick your theory and stick with it, because the one you posted and the "Hillary wasn't left wing enough" memes are in conflict with each other. Somebody voted for her, as she got within less than 100K of Obama's 2012 totals. I'm curious how you'd reconcile that.
 
Re: The States: Why does Minnesota wanna be Kansas?

Rover said:
Correct, but this is taking that to the extreme. If in indeed 8M voters switched from Obama to Trump, that means Hillary found 8M new voters out there to vote for her. If that is indeed the case, most new voters are either young'uns or non-whites - the very people we've been told didn't come out for her!!!
So that would mean we need a candidate in 2020 that appeals to Conservadem vote switchers, not young progressives who apparently did vote for her after all.

You've got to pick your theory and stick with it, because the one you posted and the "Hillary wasn't left wing enough" memes are in conflict with each other. Somebody voted for her, as she got within less than 100K of Obama's 2012 totals. I'm curious how you'd reconcile that.
Click to expand...

First, u got the wrong poster. My position all along is that we need policy moderation rather than that of the D left wing, swing states are the votes that matter, that stopping independents from switching parties is more productive than working on those leftists who don't vote, and that Hillary's policies were not the problem...and getting flamed for it. Win through keeping the big tent and staying out of the way of Trump embarrassments.

Without tightly following the numbers...Hillary did come up with additional votes and not so much youth or minorities. But rather women, inner suburbs and west of the rockies. The election solidified the rural/urban split - but demographics? Women.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top