It wasn't "The Economy Stupid"

[JohnStOnge]

If pictures help you understand things, it doesn't get any clearer that the economy is what won this election for Trump.






Game, set, match, election.

BTW this sort of thing raises all sorts of red flags in terms of statistical misinformation. If you're going to do that show all the States so we can see whether or not being below the national average growth rate for whatever period it is they're talking about is lower in Trump voting States to a "statistically significant" degree.

This kind of thing is just SO obvious.

[93henfan]

Please, try to muck up something that is crystal clear with another essay. That's your MO. We await your "statistics".

You were the kid in school before tests that the teacher always warned, "don't overthink this" and "don't read into the questions", weren't you?

[JohnStOnge]

The economy issue was the reason more minorities voted Republican this time.

As compared to Republicans running against Obama, a minority candidate.

[JohnStOnge]

Please, try to muck up something that is crystal clear with another essay. That's your MO. We await your "statistics".

You were the kid in school before tests that the teacher always warned, "don't overthink this" and "don't read into the questions", weren't you?

What's crystal clear is that people who said during exit polling that the economy was the most important issue facing the country said they voted for Clinton by 52% to 41%. You really don't need to go any farther than that to see that Trump did not win because of the economy.

You guys keep coming up with all this indirect and anecdotal stuff. The question was directly asked of those who voted.

I'm not the one "overthinking" this.

It wasn't the economy.

[93henfan]

Please, try to muck up something that is crystal clear with another essay. That's your MO. We await your "statistics".

You were the kid in school before tests that the teacher always warned, "don't overthink this" and "don't read into the questions", weren't you?

What's crystal clear is that people who said during exit polling that the economy was the most important issue facing the country said they voted for Clinton by 52% to 41%. You really don't need to go any farther than that to see that Trump did not win because of the economy.

You guys keep coming up with all this indirect and anecdotal stuff. The question was directly asked of those who voted.

I'm not the one "overthinking" this.

It wasn't the economy.

I'll make it even simpler so you can understand. PA and MI went GOP for the first time since 1988.

It was the economy.

[CAA Flagship]

Is he still looking at "exit polling"?

John, stop with the exit polls. You have no information as to where that data was taken from. Do you really think that they got a truly accurate representative sample? You supposedly have a high IQ but you continue to look at exit polls (low IQ data).

[JohnStOnge]

Is he still looking at "exit polling"?

John, stop with the exit polls. You have no information as to where that data was taken from. Do you really think that they got a truly accurate representative sample? You supposedly have a high IQ but you continue to look at exit polls (low IQ data).

Yes I continue to look at exit polls because that's the best data providing insight into why people voted the way they did. And I'm still trying to figure out how to get you guys to understand that the kind of stuff people keep putting up on how jurisdictions voted can be very misleading. I'll try an example.

Exit polling is available for five Southern States: North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Texas.

If you look at the question of income using the "how jurisdictions voted" approach you guys keep putting up in various ways you would conclude, if you looked at those Southern States, that lower income people tended to vote for Trump. That's because all of those States have lower median household incomes than the national average. So the idea is, "Hey, all those Southern States have lower incomes than the national income and they all voted for Trump so therefore people of low income tended to vote for Trump."

But if you look at exit polling you can see that lower income people not only voted majority Clinton nationally but also within each of those States. Nationally the lowest income group defined by exit polling (<$30,000 per year) voted for Clinton by 53% to 40% and the closest Trump came in any of those five Southern States was Clinton by 54% 5o 41%.

That crap of looking at jurisdictions just doesn't work.

For some reason there's this myth out there that the Trump thing was about economic issues blah blah blah. But the exit polling data simply does not support that view. What the exit polling data strongly suggests is that it was stuff like White Evangelical Christians voting overwhelmingly for Trump...and we all know that was probably because of social/cultural issues...and a strong anti-illegal immigration sentiment among a sizable minority of voters.

It wasn't the economy. That was not a major factor.

[CAA Flagship]

Nope. It was the economy that flipped the key counties in the key states, and thus gave the win to Trump.

[93henfan]

Nope. It was the economy that flipped the key counties in the key states, and thus gave the win to Trump.

Exactly. How can you look at what Trump did in the Rustbelt and conclude that this election result wasn't all about the economy? It couldn't be any more clear.

[Gil Dobie]

In reality it wasn't the economy, just trolling JSO. In reality, from the people I know, it was the dislike for Hillary that was the reason they voted for Trump. Despite JSO trying to baffle everyone with his over ANALyzing BS, there was no underlying racism, no bigotry, no sexism, just the strong dislike for Hillary Clinton.

[houndawg]

In reality it wasn't the economy, just trolling JSO. In reality, from the people I know, it was the dislike for Hillary that was the reason they voted for Trump. Despite JSO trying to baffle everyone with his over ANALyzing BS, there was no underlying racism, no bigotry, no sexism, just the strong dislike for Hillary Clinton.

Hillary was indeed the biggest factor out here in the real America. The bolded above suggests you either don't live in the real America or don't have coffee at the local diners much, where HRC is affectionately referred to as "that cvnt" and the current President as "that nigger in the White House".

[Gil Dobie]

In reality it wasn't the economy, just trolling JSO. In reality, from the people I know, it was the dislike for Hillary that was the reason they voted for Trump. Despite JSO trying to baffle everyone with his over ANALyzing BS, there was no underlying racism, no bigotry, no sexism, just the strong dislike for Hillary Clinton.

Hillary was indeed the biggest factor out here in the real America. The bolded above suggests you either don't live in the real America or don't have coffee at the local diners much, where HRC is affectionately referred to as "that cvnt" and the current President as "that n***** in the White House".

No one has ever called the President by the "N" word in my presence, but I've heard Hillary called every other word you can possibly imagine and not affectionately.

[houndawg]

Hillary was indeed the biggest factor out here in the real America. The bolded above suggests you either don't live in the real America or don't have coffee at the local diners much, where HRC is affectionately referred to as "that cvnt" and the current President as "that n***** in the White House".

No one has ever called the President by the "N" word in my presence, but I've heard Hillary called every other word you can possibly imagine and not affectionately.

There is some nuance to how bubba uses the N-word in these parts. Generally it is a pejorative but the further out in the country you get the more likely you are to hear it used as a descriptor, without malice, interchangeable with "black". "Trey Crowders" if you will. (Trey is a funny young fellow on youtube who operates as the "librul redneck")

[kalm]

Is he still looking at "exit polling"?

John, stop with the exit polls. You have no information as to where that data was taken from. Do you really think that they got a truly accurate representative sample? You supposedly have a high IQ but you continue to look at exit polls (low IQ data).

Yes I continue to look at exit polls because that's the best data providing insight into why people voted the way they did. And I'm still trying to figure out how to get you guys to understand that the kind of stuff people keep putting up on how jurisdictions voted can be very misleading. I'll try an example.

Exit polling is available for five Southern States: North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Texas.

If you look at the question of income using the "how jurisdictions voted" approach you guys keep putting up in various ways you would conclude, if you looked at those Southern States, that lower income people tended to vote for Trump. That's because all of those States have lower median household incomes than the national average. So the idea is, "Hey, all those Southern States have lower incomes than the national income and they all voted for Trump so therefore people of low income tended to vote for Trump."

But if you look at exit polling you can see that lower income people not only voted majority Clinton nationally but also within each of those States. Nationally the lowest income group defined by exit polling (<$30,000 per year) voted for Clinton by 53% to 40% and the closest Trump came in any of those five Southern States was Clinton by 54% 5o 41%.

That crap of looking at jurisdictions just doesn't work.

For some reason there's this myth out there that the Trump thing was about economic issues blah blah blah. But the exit polling data simply does not support that view. What the exit polling data strongly suggests is that it was stuff like White Evangelical Christians voting overwhelmingly for Trump...and we all know that was probably because of social/cultural issues...and a strong anti-illegal immigration sentiment among a sizable minority of voters.

So only poor voters vote economically?

An independent middle class voter over the past decade may have lost a house, had to delay their retirement, had their kids move back in with them, etc. They may not be in the poor house, but they sense a rigged game and feel they work hard enough to deserve more. Then they look at Clinton and see an establishment elitist with close ties to Wall Street who refuses to divulge her Goldman Sachs speeches, and once sat on the board of Walmart. Her husband signed Nafta and she's clearly a fan of globalization and nation building. How much effort did Hillary make in reaching out to the Dan Conner's of the world?

Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania...that's where this election was won and lost.

Meanwhile...Trump spoke to doing away with TPP, bringing jobs back, and recognized the corruptive nature of monied access of which Hillary was this cycle's largest beneficiary. He ran as an outsider. His simplistic message of Making America Great Again clearly resonated. He might be full of shit (and his cabinet appointments suggest that) but he was less full of shit than Clinton.

[ASUG8]

Over $2B spent between the two candidates (Clinton 2:1 over Trump) for a job paying $400K. Election cycles are like mini economic stimulus packages. Throw in what the losers raised and it's even more substantial.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... n-finance/

[kalm]

Over $2B spent between the two candidates (Clinton 2:1 over Trump) for a job paying $400K. Election cycles are like mini economic stimulus packages. Throw in what the losers raised and it's even more substantial.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... n-finance/

And there's zero return on that investment.

[93henfan]

Over $2B spent between the two candidates (Clinton 2:1 over Trump) for a job paying $400K. Election cycles are like mini economic stimulus packages. Throw in what the losers raised and it's even more substantial.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... n-finance/

And don't forget the millions raised after the election to fund the Green Party's 2020 bid.

[houndawg]

Over $2B spent between the two candidates (Clinton 2:1 over Trump) for a job paying $400K. Election cycles are like mini economic stimulus packages. Throw in what the losers raised and it's even more substantial.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... n-finance/

$400K is chump change, like the bartenders paycheck. The bartender is there for the tips not the paycheck. Donnie is going to be worth 20 times what he is now when he leaves office. Pence will run the country day to day and Donnie will be out there making money.

[ASUG8]

Over $2B spent between the two candidates (Clinton 2:1 over Trump) for a job paying $400K. Election cycles are like mini economic stimulus packages. Throw in what the losers raised and it's even more substantial.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... n-finance/

And there's zero return on that investment.

You could argue that local printers and hobby shops benefited from making campaign signs, but not much else.

[93henfan]

Over $2B spent between the two candidates (Clinton 2:1 over Trump) for a job paying $400K. Election cycles are like mini economic stimulus packages. Throw in what the losers raised and it's even more substantial.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... n-finance/

$400K is chump change, like the bartenders paycheck. The bartender is there for the tips not the paycheck. Donnie is going to be worth 20 times what he is now when he leaves office. Pence will run the country day to day and Donnie will be out there making money.

I actually agree with this.

Trickle down economics, leading from the front, baby!

[houndawg]

Over $2B spent between the two candidates (Clinton 2:1 over Trump) for a job paying $400K. Election cycles are like mini economic stimulus packages. Throw in what the losers raised and it's even more substantial.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... n-finance/

And don't forget the millions raised after the election to fund the Green Party's 2020 bid.

Careful there, chicken boy, they (including you) didn't take Bernie seriously either and the DNC is still going to be carrying some heavy baggage and bad memories in 2020. The next four years are not going to be all about lets-kiss-and-makeup-because-we're-all-Democrats time for the donks.

[93henfan]

Bernie will be dead by 2020, and Jill Stein will still have hairy armpits.

[CAA Flagship]

And don't forget the millions raised after the election to fund the Green Party's 2020 bid.

Careful there, chicken boy, they (including you) didn't take Bernie seriously either and the DNC is still going to be carrying some heavy baggage and bad memories in 2020. The next four years are not going to be all about lets-kiss-and-makeup-because-we're-all-Democrats time for the donks.

Exhibit A: Nancy Pelosi re-election.

[houndawg]

Bernie will be dead by 2020, and Jill Stein will still have hairy armpits.

That isn't going to do anything for the DNC's cred.

[houndawg]

Careful there, chicken boy, they (including you) didn't take Bernie seriously either and the DNC is still going to be carrying some heavy baggage and bad memories in 2020. The next four years are not going to be all about lets-kiss-and-makeup-because-we're-all-Democrats time for the donks.

Exhibit A: Nancy Pelosi re-election.

They may have to get the message the same way they got it this time. Not my problem.