Let’s get down to brass tacks ...

[/dev/null]

8 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Hillary Clinton had a few things working against her.  The first is she was Hillary Clinton and was the most insider candidate in an outsider election.  The second was the only candidate from the same party to win the presidency after eight years of that party being in power since FDR was the first Bush (who also was the last one term president).  The economy was relatively strong in 2000 and 2016, but Gore and Hillary had to follow more likable candidates in Bill Clinton and Obama.  There was also a push back against globalization that Trump took advantage of.  The "build the wall" chant and bring the factory jobs back home rhetoric Trump used during the campaign flipped a lot of Obama voters to Trump.  Especially in the rust belt states. Finally, there's something to the fact that people were sick of SJW's and political correctness being shoved down their throat.  Just my two cents.

 

All valid points especially the highlighted

[Juror#8]

11 hours ago, OJABBA said:

 

Loaded questions.

 

Lets discuss these “questions” that you’re referring to. Can you point them out? We can look at “questions” loosely, or you can just point to the squiggly curved line looking thing with the dot under it and we can align around what you’re talking about. 

 

I just see a handful of propositions that I asked if you felt were mostly true or mostly false. Not sure what’s “loaded” about that. 

10 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Hillary Clinton had a few things working against her.  The first is she was Hillary Clinton and was the most insider candidate in an outsider election.  The second was the only candidate from the same party to win the presidency after eight years of that party being in power since FDR was the first Bush (who also was the last one term president).  The economy was relatively strong in 2000 and 2016, but Gore and Hillary had to follow more likable candidates in Bill Clinton and Obama.  There was also a push back against globalization that Trump took advantage of.  The "build the wall" chant and bring the factory jobs back home rhetoric Trump used during the campaign flipped a lot of Obama voters to Trump.  Especially in the rust belt states. Finally, there's something to the fact that people were sick of SJW's and political correctness being shoved down their throat.  Just my two cents.

 

Good post. 

[Tiberius]

14 hours ago, /dev/null said:

Trump was the second worst Presidential candidate of my lifetime but he had the fortune of running against the worst

And if, say, Liz Warren, or any other Democrat, runs against him in 2020, they will be the worst in your life time. 

 

What Democrat would you have voted for over Trump? 

10 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Hillary Clinton had a few things working against her.  The first is she was Hillary Clinton and was the most insider candidate in an outsider election.  The second was the only candidate from the same party to win the presidency after eight years of that party being in power since FDR was the first Bush (who also was the last one term president).  The economy was relatively strong in 2000 and 2016, but Gore and Hillary had to follow more likable candidates in Bill Clinton and Obama.  There was also a push back against globalization that Trump took advantage of.  The "build the wall" chant and bring the factory jobs back home rhetoric Trump used during the campaign flipped a lot of Obama voters to Trump.  Especially in the rust belt states. Finally, there's something to the fact that people were sick of SJW's and political correctness being shoved down their throat.  Just my two cents.

This. 

 

But if Comey had not announced an investigation against her--while not mentioning Trump/Russia thing--she would be the president.  

[Juror#8]

10 hours ago, Paulus said:

That is all kind of poo... I mean, democrats constantly demonizing whitey and accusing normal folks of privilege really gets taxing. "(We) didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left (us)."

 

Among other things, a lot of it had to do with Trump shitting all over the PC garbage. (For me)

 

Not sure that this is that though I can sorta understand your reflexive frustration. 

 

A republican state legislator, over lunch a Clyde’s in Tyson’s Corner on Saturday, in between talking about whether or not Darryl would truly go head-to-head with Rick in the post-apocalyptic thriller that many of us know and love, made the assertion that there is some backlash to what he perceives to be a “blame whitey” and pc explosion over the last decade or so. And there was an element of that sentiment that came to the rescue for Trump. 

 

You can call it poo or crap. But at least don’t say it was some Democratic conspiratorial conversation. And it’s not an unreasonable thesis. 

 

He also directed me to a book which I recently ordered (yesterday): “Strangers in their own land.” 

 

Contrary to popular belief, many of these politicians are interesting well read and thoughtful fellows. 

 

Anyway, in researching that book, I ran across some editorial mentions that I thought were interesting so I spent much of the weekend reading. 

 

This is is a place where some of the erudite on the board come to play so I wanted to solicit thoughts. Not to make assertions but to have some open dialog. 

 

Unfortunately, there is a move to quell ideas that don’t fall in line with conventional orthodoxy and then to demonize it. Some folks don’t even read the content and come to conclusions (Bman). You can do that, sure. But don’t blame the next lib who does the same especially since your stone and your glass house can easily become one in the same. 

Edited May 1, 2018 by Juror#8

[LeviF]

14 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

No, no.....................that's not right.

 

 Straight white male voters were attracted to Trump out of fear that their social significance keeps dwindling...........it's a fact

 

 

 

The OP posited several ideas and asked whether they were mostly true or mostly false.  None of these ideas started with "Trump won the election primarily because..."

 

The three things OP stated could be mostly true and also not be the biggest (or even extremely significant) contributing factors to the Trump win (which is actually my position).

[Gugny]

10 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

The OP posited several ideas and asked whether they were mostly true or mostly false.  None of these ideas started with "Trump won the election primarily because..."

 

The three things OP stated could be mostly true and also not be the biggest (or even extremely significant) contributing factors to the Trump win (which is actually my position).

 

Weird.  I always took for a bottom.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Gugny

[TakeYouToTasker]

So...

 

I've been reading along in this thread, and while I've been doing so I've been sitting here shaking my head.

 

@B-Man @joesixpack @Teddy KGB @OJABBA

 

Repeat after me:

 

"It is OK to have a non-hostile discussion about ideas.  Even ideas that I disagree with.  If I disagree with a particular idea, which has been posited as a point of discussion, I should be able to articulate why I disagree in a sane manner without frothing at the mouth."

 

The OP did not attack you.  He did not even posit that the ideas he was forwarding were factual or accurate, even though it would still be OK if he had, because, again, he didn't attack you.  He advanced some ideas that were political, rather than ideological, and asked you to vet them.

 

And you all shat yourselves and began engaging in scorched Earth posting policy.

 

Had he attacked you, which he didn't, it would be different.  He was trying to have a discussion about ideas, and you all decided it would be better to have a **** slinging contest.

 

Stop being part of the problem.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[3rdnlng]

22 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Weird.  I always look for a bottom.

Fixed.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

49 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

So...

 

I've been reading along in this thread, and while I've been doing so I've been sitting here shaking my head.

 

@B-Man @joesixpack @Teddy KGB @OJABBA

 

Repeat after me:

 

"It is OK to have a non-hostile discussion about ideas.  Even ideas that I disagree with.  If I disagree with a particular idea, which has been posited as a point of discussion, I should be able to articulate why I disagree in a sane manner without frothing at the mouth."

 

The OP did not attack you.  He did not even posit that the ideas he was forwarding were factual or accurate, even though it would still be OK if he had, because, again, he didn't attack you.  He advanced some ideas that were political, rather than ideological, and asked you to vet them.

 

And you all shat yourselves and began engaging in scorched Earth posting policy.

 

Had he attacked you, which he didn't, it would be different.  He was trying to have a discussion about ideas, and you all decided it would be better to have a **** slinging contest.

 

Stop being part of the problem.

 

 

 

 

 

Did you bother to read the entire thread? I de-escalated and engaged him.

 

So, you can feel free to retract.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Did you bother to read the entire thread? I de-escalated and engaged him.

 

So, you can feel free to retract.

 

 

Good on you for doing so.

[Prickly Pete]

2 hours ago, Juror#8 said:

 

Lets discuss these “questions” that you’re referring to. Can you point them out? We can look at “questions” loosely, or you can just point to the squiggly curved line looking thing with the dot under it and we can align around what you’re talking about. 

 

I just see a handful of propositions that I asked if you felt were mostly true or mostly false. Not sure what’s “loaded” about that

" *This is a question about identity politics and not an appraisal of his current economic record. "

 

You referred to your 3 part "proposition" as a question. 

 

[Juror#8]

3 hours ago, OJABBA said:

" *This is a question about identity politics and not an appraisal of his current economic record. "

 

You referred to your 3 part "proposition" as a question. 

 

 

For what it’s worth, that was an idiomatic statement. As in “this is a question about ...” or “this is a question of ...”

 

It wasn’t referencing any of the propositions as “questions.” That’s evidenced by the fact that I used “question” singularly though there were multiple propositions.  

 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2018 by Juror#8

[TakeYouToTasker]

On ‎04‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 9:22 AM, Juror#8 said:

 

1. Straight white male voters were attracted to Trump out of fear that their social significance keeps dwindling.

 

2. The same voters felt that Trump was their best hope to stop other segments/demographics (blacks, women, gay, everyone else) in society from gradually displacing them. 

 

3. Trump understands the perceived suffering and devolution that is happening in the white male community. 

 

I’m not positing anything. There is no thesis here to discern. This is based on a conversation that I recently had with a republican state legislator and an article that I recently read. 

 

Just want to know if you think that of the three points listed above, the preponderance is mostly true or mostly false. 

 

*This is a question about identity politics and not an appraisal of his current economic record. 

 

Juror, a couple of quick questions before I engage:  Do you think it may be fair to ask if impressions inside the Beltway, and likewise impressions of the left leaning coastals, of what motivates voters in flyover country are accurate, or if they operate within the prism of their own biases?

 

And if that is fair, and I personally think it is though I won't presume to answer for you, wouldn't that largely invalidate those impressions?

[snafu]

8 hours ago, Juror#8 said:

 

Not sure that this is that though I can sorta understand your reflexive frustration. 

 

A republican state legislator, over lunch a Clyde’s in Tyson’s Corner on Saturday, in between talking about whether or not Darryl would truly go head-to-head with Rick in the post-apocalyptic thriller that many of us know and love, made the assertion that there is some backlash to what he perceives to be a “blame whitey” and pc explosion over the last decade or so. And there was an element of that sentiment that came to the rescue for Trump. 

 

You can call it poo or crap. But at least don’t say it was some Democratic conspiratorial conversation. And it’s not an unreasonable thesis. 

 

He also directed me to a book which I recently ordered (yesterday): “Strangers in their own land.” 

 

Contrary to popular belief, many of these politicians are interesting well read and thoughtful fellows. 

 

Anyway, in researching that book, I ran across some editorial mentions that I thought were interesting so I spent much of the weekend reading. 

 

This is is a place where some of the erudite on the board come to play so I wanted to solicit thoughts. Not to make assertions but to have some open dialog. 

 

Unfortunately, there is a move to quell ideas that don’t fall in line with conventional orthodoxy and then to demonize it. Some folks don’t even read the content and come to conclusions (Bman). You can do that, sure. But don’t blame the next lib who does the same especially since your stone and your glass house can easily become one in the same. 

 

Good thread, good discussion.

 

While I think that the three assertions from your original post have some very small merit as factors in why some people voted for Trump, I don't think the issue is truly ripe.  These two particular candidates and this particular election was far from ordinary.  As you can see from a lot of responses in this thread, there were many more compelling reasons why Clinton lost to Turnip.

 

If the Democrats continue to practice identity campaigning and aren't at the same time running against someone who can be pegged as a "nativist" and a "xenophobe" and "racist" (rightly or wrongly -- I'm not getting into that), then maybe the question: "are white guys feeling marginalized" will be a valid inquiry.  I think your state senator, and your book author are thinking too deep into tertiary levels of analysis.  I can tell you that as a white guy, this subject never overtly comes up in conversation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2018 by snafu

[Doc Brown]

On 4/30/2018 at 5:58 PM, DC Tom said:

 

I know quite a few whose logic was "I hate Trunp, but I always vote Republican," as well.

 

For all the crying of racism, sexism, Russophilism, Naziism, etc., the election came down to nothing more than voter suppression: in swing states, Hillary and the DNC did a much better job of suppressing Democratic votes than Trump did Republican votes.

I think that SCOTUS seat had a lot to do with Republican turnout as well.  McConnell's stonewalling of the Garland nomination may have helped contribute to Trump's victory.

[/dev/null]

14 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I think that SCOTUS seat had a lot to do with Republican turnout as well.  McConnell's stonewalling of the Garland nomination may have helped contribute to Trump's victory.

 

I knew a few borderline stay at home voters who showed up for Trump for that reason.  Also knew a few Trump voters that pulled the "You don't want Hillary to get a Supreme Court Nominee" argument trying to stop me from riding the Johnson

[3rdnlng]

24 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I think that SCOTUS seat had a lot to do with Republican turnout as well.  McConnell's stonewalling of the Garland nomination may have helped contribute to Trump's victory.

I had this discussion with both my mother and my sister who were torn on who to vote for. First off, I stated to them that It matters what Trump does not what he says, referring to his grabbing the kitty comments. I then asked them who they wanted picking a Supreme Court Justice or three. The looks on their faces told me I didn't need to say anything more.

13 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

I knew a few borderline stay at home voters who showed up for Trump for that reason.  Also knew a few Trump voters that pulled the "You don't want Hillary to get a Supreme Court Nominee" argument trying to stop me from riding the Johnson

Opening the closet door?

[bdutton]

On 4/30/2018 at 9:22 AM, Juror#8 said:

 

1. Straight white male voters were attracted to Trump out of fear that their social significance keeps dwindling.

 

2. The same voters felt that Trump was their best hope to stop other segments/demographics (blacks, women, gay, everyone else) in society from gradually displacing them. 

 

3. Trump understands the perceived suffering and devolution that is happening in the white male community. 

 

I’m not positing anything. There is no thesis here to discern. This is based on a conversation that I recently had with a republican state legislator and an article that I recently read. 

 

Just want to know if you think that of the three points listed above, the preponderance is mostly true or mostly false. 

 

*This is a question about identity politics and not an appraisal of his current economic record. 

bull ****.  A LOT of former democrat and a lot of independent voters from the swing states (i.e. flyover country) had to have opted for Trump.

 

Face it.  Hillary was a WORSE candidate than Trump.  His faults were moral.  Her faults were PROFESSIONAL.

[/dev/null]

34 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Opening the closet door?

 

It was 2 years ago and I was close enough on the campaign slogan

 

 

[DC Tom]

56 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I think that SCOTUS seat had a lot to do with Republican turnout as well.  McConnell's stonewalling of the Garland nomination may have helped contribute to Trump's victory.

 

I tend to disagree with that, on two points.  1) In my experience, most casual voters aren't versed enough in constitutional issues to really worry about SCOTUS nominations, and most of the seriously politically active electorate already have decided who they want nominating Justices...so it just doesn't tend to be a swing issue, because swing voters don't pay it much attention, because if they did they wouldn't be swing voters.  And 2) The general assholiness of everyone involved in filling Scalia's seat (yes, including McConnell - he was well within his Constitutional rights, but it was still a complete dick move) made the issue pretty much a wash to many people.  There was no particular reason to think Trump would make any decent sort of appointment  - remember how many were pleasantly surprised he didn't nominate a complete clown?

 

I could be wrong, though...it's a topic - the role of filling the SCOTUS bench in electoral politics - that none of us here are truly objective on, being that we're all more politically active and aware than average (even if the awareness of some of us is !@#$ed sideways - yes, gatorman, I'm talking about you).  Our anecdotal evidence carries that bias.  And I'm not even sure it's possible to do a truly honest statistical study on the topic, since even poll questions carry an inherent bias (in that even asking someone if they consider Supreme Court nominations in their vote automatically makes them think about Supreme Court nominations and biases their response.)