The Education Factor

[Baldy]

[
No Presidential candidate had a bigger campaign advantage than Hillary. She had a MASSIVE ground game. Full financial support from the DNC. Spent much more money on her campaign than Trump. Had insiders cheating for her. Had the sitting President and First Lady campaign for her. Had pop stars support her. Had the biggest resume than any candidate before and was running against someone with NO public experience. Had a 9 to 1 media advantage. Had the "advantage" of multiple verbal gaffes by her opponent.

Yet.......

.....SHE LOST.

is that because of a lack of education by the voters? Or is it because SHE had more flaws and the voters recognized it?

The fact that she had flaws was a factor. Lack of education was also a factor. Trump's campaign put out a lot of misinformation and people bought it. I think probably there was an association between education and being less likely to buy it.

Just an example near the end: When Comey wrote his letter Trump and his campaign started saying he wouldn't have done that unless they'd seen REAL evidence of wrongdoing. The term "smoking gun" was used. They knew that wasn't true. The letter clearly said they didn't know what the content was and they hadn't even gotten a warrant.

Then when Comey said very late in the game that there was nothing there the line was "it's not possible to go through 600,000 e mails in 9 days." Again, they knew that's not true. But they were spreading misinformation and I'm sure there were people who bought it. And I think there was that association between being more educated and being less likely to be fooled by that.

Of course, if Hillary had never been so foolish as to use a private server as she did that particular misinformation angle would never have been available to the Trump campaign.

And yes if you're going to ask the Trump campaign was WAY worse about using misinformation as a tactic than the Clinton campaign was. Of course you guys just refuse to believe all the reporting on that that's out there. Stuff like him getting 59 "Four Pinocchios" awards from the Washington Post as compared to Clinton's 7 and having 70% of his rated statements tabbed as "Mostly False," "False," or "Pants on Fire" vs. Clinton's 26%. Donald Trump says that's just the lying media and of course what Donald Trump says is true. I think there's an association between education and being less likely to buy that "lying media" crap as well.

Bottom line is that there was the clearest and strongest association between being more educated and being less likely to vote for the Republican that there's ever been. I think there's a reason for that.

You and this god damn "fact checking" bullshit.

This is a lesson I have taught you multiple times, but I'll just let Michael Schulson, the founder of Politifact, tell you this time:

But there is some subjectivity baked into the process, in terms of which claims you check, and where you draw the line between statements of opinion and statements of fact. Objective journalists ( ) are still making subjective choices.

https://psmag.com/an-interview-with-the ... .vuehpturu

So, according to the founder of Politifact, their fact checking is subjective, they get to cherry pick which statements they get to "fact check", they get to decide what is a fact or isn't, and that these "journalists" are objective.

Look at these so-called fact checking "facts":









These are just a fraction of your so-called "pants on fire" and "four Pinocchio" "lies".

Shit like that is why you and your friends in the mainstream media got everything so so wrong. The major mistake you and they made was that you took Trump literally, but didn't take seriously. His supporters didn't take him literally, but instead, took him seriously.

JSO the clown.

[YoUDeeMan]

Baldy for the win!


JSO's fact count is ridiculous...facts aren't always equal.

Hillary lies, people die.

[Baldy]

Baldy for the win!


JSO's fact count is ridiculous...facts aren't always equal.

Hillary lies, people die.

JSO reminds me of BammerFan, or in his case LSUfan. I can see JSO now. Listening to Paul Finebaum and when he says Leonard Fournette is averaging 7 yards per carry, JSO is burning up the phone line yelling at Finebaum LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE, Fournette is averaging 7.1 yards per carry.

JSOLSU

For having such high IQ's (allegedly), you would think that they would know what the definition of a metaphor was.

[93henfan]

[
No Presidential candidate had a bigger campaign advantage than Hillary. She had a MASSIVE ground game. Full financial support from the DNC. Spent much more money on her campaign than Trump. Had insiders cheating for her. Had the sitting President and First Lady campaign for her. Had pop stars support her. Had the biggest resume than any candidate before and was running against someone with NO public experience. Had a 9 to 1 media advantage. Had the "advantage" of multiple verbal gaffes by her opponent.

Yet.......

.....SHE LOST.

is that because of a lack of education by the voters? Or is it because SHE had more flaws and the voters recognized it?

The fact that she had flaws was a factor. Lack of education was also a factor. Trump's campaign put out a lot of misinformation and people bought it. I think probably there was an association between education and being less likely to buy it.

Just an example near the end: When Comey wrote his letter Trump and his campaign started saying he wouldn't have done that unless they'd seen REAL evidence of wrongdoing. The term "smoking gun" was used. They knew that wasn't true. The letter clearly said they didn't know what the content was and they hadn't even gotten a warrant.

Then when Comey said very late in the game that there was nothing there the line was "it's not possible to go through 600,000 e mails in 9 days." Again, they knew that's not true. But they were spreading misinformation and I'm sure there were people who bought it. And I think there was that association between being more educated and being less likely to be fooled by that.

Of course, if Hillary had never been so foolish as to use a private server as she did that particular misinformation angle would never have been available to the Trump campaign.

And yes if you're going to ask the Trump campaign was WAY worse about using misinformation as a tactic than the Clinton campaign was. Of course you guys just refuse to believe all the reporting on that that's out there. Stuff like him getting 59 "Four Pinocchios" awards from the Washington Post as compared to Clinton's 7 and having 70% of his rated statements tabbed as "Mostly False," "False," or "Pants on Fire" vs. Clinton's 26%. Donald Trump says that's just the lying media and of course what Donald Trump says is true. I think there's an association between education and being less likely to buy that "lying media" crap as well.

Bottom line is that there was the clearest and strongest association between being more educated and being less likely to vote for the Republican that there's ever been. I think there's a reason for that.

You and your girl lost, bruh, and every time you cry a little more, it's just that much sweeter for the rest of us.



Save yourself the blood pressure spikes, and sit back and watch President Trump make America great again.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

This thread is dumb as fu*k

You cannot be educated and vote for a felon like Hillary. Period, end of story, ZIP, ZERO, Notta!!!!!

[JohnStOnge]

Found a Gallup exit polling page at http://www.gallup.com/poll/139880/elect ... roups.aspx that indicates an interesting trend reversal I hadn't known about. The results go back to the 1952 election. In 1952 the Educational Attainment levels specified were "College", "High School", and "Grade School." The breakdowns changed over time to a point where there are X levels specified for 2012; which is the last year reported as of now. But "College" remained a specified level throughout so I just looked at that. And this is what it looks like:



I think you can figure it out but red color indicates negative numbers.

It indicates that more highly educated people used to strongly favor Republicans. But there has been a "statistically significant" trend such that, over time, they've moved to favor the Democrats. The Democrat only won once in 10 elections 1952 - 1988; and that was the LBJ trouncing of Barry Goldwater. 2016 isn't on the Gallup page yet but we know that however "College" is defined the Democrats won that group in 2016. So now Democrats have won among the group 5 times in the past 7 years including the past three in a row.

I also think it's likely that when Gallup reports 2016 it's going to show the largest margin among "College" educated voters to date for the Democrats. I say that because I have access to CNN page exit polling estimates for 2004 through 2016 and on those pages 2016 shows the largest Democrat margin. For instance the CNN polling shows a 6 point margin for the Democrat for "Are You a College Graduate?" in 2008 (when Gallup showed the largest "College" margin for Democrats at 10) and shows a larger margin for that group, at 9 points, for 2016.

[93henfan]

Come to Washington DC (or any big city in the Northeast or the west coast) and I'll show you some of the most politically naive college graduates you've ever met. The word "lemmings" comes to mind. I have far more stimulating and intellectually thoughtful political conversations with retired boat pilots and mechanics at the local diner than I do with bachelors and masters and doctoral degree holders in DC.

[CID1990]

[
No Presidential candidate had a bigger campaign advantage than Hillary. She had a MASSIVE ground game. Full financial support from the DNC. Spent much more money on her campaign than Trump. Had insiders cheating for her. Had the sitting President and First Lady campaign for her. Had pop stars support her. Had the biggest resume than any candidate before and was running against someone with NO public experience. Had a 9 to 1 media advantage. Had the "advantage" of multiple verbal gaffes by her opponent.

Yet.......

.....SHE LOST.

is that because of a lack of education by the voters? Or is it because SHE had more flaws and the voters recognized it?

The fact that she had flaws was a factor. Lack of education was also a factor. Trump's campaign put out a lot of misinformation and people bought it. I think probably there was an association between education and being less likely to buy it.

Just an example near the end: When Comey wrote his letter Trump and his campaign started saying he wouldn't have done that unless they'd seen REAL evidence of wrongdoing. The term "smoking gun" was used. They knew that wasn't true. The letter clearly said they didn't know what the content was and they hadn't even gotten a warrant.

Then when Comey said very late in the game that there was nothing there the line was "it's not possible to go through 600,000 e mails in 9 days." Again, they knew that's not true. But they were spreading misinformation and I'm sure there were people who bought it. And I think there was that association between being more educated and being less likely to be fooled by that.

Of course, if Hillary had never been so foolish as to use a private server as she did that particular misinformation angle would never have been available to the Trump campaign.

And yes if you're going to ask the Trump campaign was WAY worse about using misinformation as a tactic than the Clinton campaign was. Of course you guys just refuse to believe all the reporting on that that's out there. Stuff like him getting 59 "Four Pinocchios" awards from the Washington Post as compared to Clinton's 7 and having 70% of his rated statements tabbed as "Mostly False," "False," or "Pants on Fire" vs. Clinton's 26%. Donald Trump says that's just the lying media and of course what Donald Trump says is true. I think there's an association between education and being less likely to buy that "lying media" crap as well.

Bottom line is that there was the clearest and strongest association between being more educated and being less likely to vote for the Republican that there's ever been. I think there's a reason for that.

Saying Hillary has flaws is like saying Louisiana has a couple rednecks. And it was the #2 factor.

It was the economy, stupid.

Even non college educated people can see that because they are the ones feeling it the most. It is no secret that our trade deals benefit corporations without compelling them to manufacture their products in the US.

You don't need a degree in truck driving from McNeese State to see that.

[kalm]

The fact that she had flaws was a factor. Lack of education was also a factor. Trump's campaign put out a lot of misinformation and people bought it. I think probably there was an association between education and being less likely to buy it.

Just an example near the end: When Comey wrote his letter Trump and his campaign started saying he wouldn't have done that unless they'd seen REAL evidence of wrongdoing. The term "smoking gun" was used. They knew that wasn't true. The letter clearly said they didn't know what the content was and they hadn't even gotten a warrant.

Then when Comey said very late in the game that there was nothing there the line was "it's not possible to go through 600,000 e mails in 9 days." Again, they knew that's not true. But they were spreading misinformation and I'm sure there were people who bought it. And I think there was that association between being more educated and being less likely to be fooled by that.

Of course, if Hillary had never been so foolish as to use a private server as she did that particular misinformation angle would never have been available to the Trump campaign.

And yes if you're going to ask the Trump campaign was WAY worse about using misinformation as a tactic than the Clinton campaign was. Of course you guys just refuse to believe all the reporting on that that's out there. Stuff like him getting 59 "Four Pinocchios" awards from the Washington Post as compared to Clinton's 7 and having 70% of his rated statements tabbed as "Mostly False," "False," or "Pants on Fire" vs. Clinton's 26%. Donald Trump says that's just the lying media and of course what Donald Trump says is true. I think there's an association between education and being less likely to buy that "lying media" crap as well.

Bottom line is that there was the clearest and strongest association between being more educated and being less likely to vote for the Republican that there's ever been. I think there's a reason for that.

Saying Hillary has flaws is like saying Louisiana has a couple rednecks. And it was the #2 factor.

It was the economy, stupid.

Even non college educated people can see that because they are the ones feeling it the most. It is no secret that our trade deals benefit corporations without compelling them to manufacture their products in the US.

You don't need a degree in truck driving from McNeese State to see that.

Here's another interesting read on the Democratic Party's miscalculations. They've strategically figured that they don't need to convince independents they can just rely on databases and turning out the base to win. Looking ahead...those demographics may not work 100% in their favor either.

I go back to August, when nothing much was happening in Clinton’s campaign, and I asked her to talk with me only about what her website said was her signature plan — a $270 billion proposal for infrastructure spending. Word came back that she wasn’t going to discuss it in any detail. To my knowledge, she never did.

It must be quite a relief, a warming feeling all over, to think you can win political campaigns without ever having to wrestle with complex subjects or talk to anyone who doesn’t already think you’re right....

The bottom line for Democrats ought to be this: You can’t really count on winning elections without persuading anybody of anything they don’t already believe. You can’t be a truly national party if you need 90 percent of a single minority’s votes just to be competitive (any more than you can be a national party relying only on white voters).

And you’re not going to put yourself back in the majority if your first reaction to Trump’s victory is to lash out at rural America as “rubes” or “deplorables.” That’s pretty much the opposite of solving your problem.

Democrats should find a new story in the months ahead. Because demography by itself isn’t actually destiny, and disdain isn’t much of a strategy, either.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-democrat ... 53074.html

[GannonFan]

Saying Hillary has flaws is like saying Louisiana has a couple rednecks. And it was the #2 factor.

It was the economy, stupid.

Even non college educated people can see that because they are the ones feeling it the most. It is no secret that our trade deals benefit corporations without compelling them to manufacture their products in the US.

You don't need a degree in truck driving from McNeese State to see that.

Here's another interesting read on the Democratic Party's miscalculations. They've strategically figured that they don't need to convince independents they can just rely on databases and turning out the base to win. Looking ahead...those demographics may not work 100% in their favor either.

I go back to August, when nothing much was happening in Clinton’s campaign, and I asked her to talk with me only about what her website said was her signature plan — a $270 billion proposal for infrastructure spending. Word came back that she wasn’t going to discuss it in any detail. To my knowledge, she never did.

It must be quite a relief, a warming feeling all over, to think you can win political campaigns without ever having to wrestle with complex subjects or talk to anyone who doesn’t already think you’re right....

The bottom line for Democrats ought to be this: You can’t really count on winning elections without persuading anybody of anything they don’t already believe. You can’t be a truly national party if you need 90 percent of a single minority’s votes just to be competitive (any more than you can be a national party relying only on white voters).

And you’re not going to put yourself back in the majority if your first reaction to Trump’s victory is to lash out at rural America as “rubes” or “deplorables.” That’s pretty much the opposite of solving your problem.

Democrats should find a new story in the months ahead. Because demography by itself isn’t actually destiny, and disdain isn’t much of a strategy, either.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-democrat ... 53074.html

I agree with kalm on this one. The current Democratic party, especially the one that Hillary was leading during the campaign, is just devoid of ideas. What do they stand for, what do they plan on doing? Free college for all and a promise of inclusion for everyone just isn't a winning strategy for the very reasons the article brings up - because they aren't really ideas and policies. They should just change the campaign slogan to "vote for me, just because" or "hey, I'm a Democrat, vote for me". I don't think going full progressive is going to win anything (winning the Presidency is all about the candidate - either party can win it if they have the right candidate - positions are irrelevant), but at least it would be something more than what they have now.

[CID1990]

Here's another interesting read on the Democratic Party's miscalculations. They've strategically figured that they don't need to convince independents they can just rely on databases and turning out the base to win. Looking ahead...those demographics may not work 100% in their favor either.




https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-democrat ... 53074.html

I agree with kalm on this one. The current Democratic party, especially the one that Hillary was leading during the campaign, is just devoid of ideas. What do they stand for, what do they plan on doing? Free college for all and a promise of inclusion for everyone just isn't a winning strategy for the very reasons the article brings up - because they aren't really ideas and policies. They should just change the campaign slogan to "vote for me, just because" or "hey, I'm a Democrat, vote for me". I don't think going full progressive is going to win anything (winning the Presidency is all about the candidate - either party can win it if they have the right candidate - positions are irrelevant), but at least it would be something more than what they have now.

Oh they have PLENTY of ideas

they just dont include the working class (of any color)

Bernie gets it a little bit, but his campaign message spoke mostly to milennials (free kawlidge) - he mostly shied away from his protectionist beliefs because he'd have been accused of dovetailing with Trump


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[YoUDeeMan]

Oh they have PLENTY of ideas

they just dont include the working class (of any color)

Bernie gets it a little bit, but his campaign message spoke mostly to milennials (free kawlidge) - he mostly shied away from his protectionist beliefs because he'd have been accused of dovetailing with Trump


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bernie and Trump had a lot more in common than both camps would want to admit.

[Ivytalk]

Oh they have PLENTY of ideas

they just dont include the working class (of any color)

Bernie gets it a little bit, but his campaign message spoke mostly to milennials (free kawlidge) - he mostly shied away from his protectionist beliefs because he'd have been accused of dovetailing with Trump


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bernie and Trump had a lot more in common than both camps would want to admit.

But the difference is, the Trump fans bathe regularly!

[JohnStOnge]

Saying Hillary has flaws is like saying Louisiana has a couple rednecks. And it was the #2 factor.

It was the economy, stupid.

Do you seriously believe that? Do you seriously think Trump would've won if HIllary had never decided to do the private e mail server thing so that he didn't have that to demagogue about?

Yes I know "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts..."

But there's no way Trump would've beaten her if she hadn't had that issue.

Again: He was running against a candidate who was under FBI investigation for half the campaign, had the FBI director publicly scold her in the middle of it, then had the FBI director raise doubts about her again 11 days before the election. And he lost the popular vote.

To believe the economy was the primary factor you'd have to believe that he'd have beaten Obama if Obama could've run for a third term. You'd have to believe that people are dissatisfied enough to cause Trump to be capable of beating Obama in such a matchup. And I know you can't keep a straight face and say you believe that.

[CAA Flagship]

Saying Hillary has flaws is like saying Louisiana has a couple rednecks. And it was the #2 factor.

It was the economy, stupid.

Do you seriously believe that? Do you seriously think Trump would've won if HIllary had never decided to do the private e mail server thing so that he didn't have that to demagogue about?

Yes I know "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts..."

But there's no way Trump would've beaten her if she hadn't had that issue.

Again: He was running against a candidate who was under FBI investigation for half the campaign, had the FBI director publicly scold her in the middle of it, then had the FBI director raise doubts about her again 11 days before the election. And he lost the popular vote.

To believe the economy was the primary factor you'd have to believe that he'd have beaten Obama if Obama could've run for a third term. You'd have to believe that people are dissatisfied enough to cause Trump to be capable of beating Obama in such a matchup. And I know you can't keep a straight face and say you believe that.

That right there. Trump won because of specific states.
Do you think Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania voters care about the email server?
It's the economy. Stop reading the stupid polls and use your head.
She refused to say she would take the country in a new direction. She said she would continue with the Obama policies and tweak it. That won't create the jobs the voters are looking for.

[kalm]

Saying Hillary has flaws is like saying Louisiana has a couple rednecks. And it was the #2 factor.

It was the economy, stupid.

Do you seriously believe that? Do you seriously think Trump would've won if HIllary had never decided to do the private e mail server thing so that he didn't have that to demagogue about?

Yes I know "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts..."

But there's no way Trump would've beaten her if she hadn't had that issue.

Again: He was running against a candidate who was under FBI investigation for half the campaign, had the FBI director publicly scold her in the middle of it, then had the FBI director raise doubts about her again 11 days before the election. And he lost the popular vote.

To believe the economy was the primary factor you'd have to believe that he'd have beaten Obama if Obama could've run for a third term. You'd have to believe that people are dissatisfied enough to cause Trump to be capable of beating Obama in such a matchup. And I know you can't keep a straight face and say you believe that.

It was mostly the fact that Clinton is a highly unlikeable and unbelievable person.

And before you start typing, JSO, there's a difference between someone who is full of shit and the kind of dishonesty Clinton exudes.

[CID1990]

Saying Hillary has flaws is like saying Louisiana has a couple rednecks. And it was the #2 factor.

It was the economy, stupid.

Do you seriously believe that? Do you seriously think Trump would've won if HIllary had never decided to do the private e mail server thing so that he didn't have that to demagogue about?

Yes I know "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts..."

But there's no way Trump would've beaten her if she hadn't had that issue.

Again: He was running against a candidate who was under FBI investigation for half the campaign, had the FBI director publicly scold her in the middle of it, then had the FBI director raise doubts about her again 11 days before the election. And he lost the popular vote.

To believe the economy was the primary factor you'd have to believe that he'd have beaten Obama if Obama could've run for a third term. You'd have to believe that people are dissatisfied enough to cause Trump to be capable of beating Obama in such a matchup. And I know you can't keep a straight face and say you believe that.

Yes.

Hillary ignored the middle class and the economy in favor of doubling down on the identity politics of the last eight years. The fact that she is universally seen as ethically challenged predates her decision to break the law by intentionally avoiding federal records laws. Even the lefty newsies who take enough time to stop crying in their coffee are acknowledging that she did not address the economic concerns of the Rust Belt. If she had done that, she'd be assembling a cabinet right now. When the postmortem on this election is finally written by cooler heads, it is going to come down to the fact that she lost the union vote in the middle of the country and that is purely her campaign's fault.

She is also the first Democrat in modern times to NOT run on the economy. Ironic that it was her husband's campaign that coined the term "it's the economy, stupid".... (wonder if Bill has screwed up the courage to say that to her yet)

You can't sell an idea of fixing child poverty, immigration, unisex bathrooms and free collidge(!) and faux wage gaps between women and men to people who don't have jobs that allow them to live like Americans did just 30 years ago.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

As of now Trump has 47.1 percent of the popular vote that's been counted. He said Romney choked in 2012 because Romney lost to a far more formidable candidate than he had to face. Do you know what Romney got during the 2012 election? He got 47.2 percent.

BTW Trump has now slightly passed Romney in absolute terms in popular vote. He's at 61,000,837 while Romney finished at 60,933,504. But to get to where Romney got relative to the size of the population...which of course is constantly growing and is bigger now than it was in 2012...he needs to get to 62,726,460.

Basically he's going to end up having done about as well as Romney did in terms of people voting for him. There was no big surge in popularity for the Republican candidate this time. The big difference was a drop in enthusiasm for what the Democrats had on THEIR side.

It's still sad that as many people voted for Trump that did considering that he's such a vile and unstable individual. But he wasn't riding some big wave of unprecedented popularity.

[93henfan]

Do you seriously believe that? Do you seriously think Trump would've won if HIllary had never decided to do the private e mail server thing so that he didn't have that to demagogue about?

Yes I know "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts..."

But there's no way Trump would've beaten her if she hadn't had that issue.

Again: He was running against a candidate who was under FBI investigation for half the campaign, had the FBI director publicly scold her in the middle of it, then had the FBI director raise doubts about her again 11 days before the election. And he lost the popular vote.

To believe the economy was the primary factor you'd have to believe that he'd have beaten Obama if Obama could've run for a third term. You'd have to believe that people are dissatisfied enough to cause Trump to be capable of beating Obama in such a matchup. And I know you can't keep a straight face and say you believe that.

Yes.

Hillary ignored the middle class and the economy in favor of doubling down on the identity politics of the last eight years. The fact that she is universally seen as ethically challenged predates her decision to break the law by intentionally avoiding federal records laws. Even the lefty newsies who take enough time to stop crying in their coffee are acknowledging that she did not address the economic concerns of the Rust Belt. If she had done that, she'd be assembling a cabinet right now. When the postmortem on this election is finally written by cooler heads, it is going to come down to the fact that she lost the union vote in the middle of the country and that is purely her campaign's fault.

She is also the first Democrat in modern times to NOT run on the economy. Ironic that it was her husband's campaign that coined the term "it's the economy, stupid".... (wonder if Bill has screwed up the courage to say that to her yet)

You can't sell an idea of fixing child poverty, immigration, unisex bathrooms and free collidge(!) and faux wage gaps between women and men to people who don't have jobs that allow them to live like Americans did just 30 years ago.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ahem. People never want to listen to me though.

http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/ ... 5#p1052348

[93henfan]

As of now Trump has 47.1 percent of the popular vote that's been counted. He said Romney choked in 2012 because Romney lost to a far more formidable candidate than he had to face. Do you know what Romney got during the 2012 election? He got 47.2 percent.

BTW Trump has now slightly passed Romney in absolute terms in popular vote. He's at 61,000,837 while Romney finished at 60,933,504. But to get to where Romney got relative to the size of the population...which of course is constantly growing and is bigger now than it was in 2012...he needs to get to 62,726,460.

Basically he's going to end up having done about as well as Romney did in terms of people voting for him. There was no big surge in popularity for the Republican candidate this time. The big difference was a drop in enthusiasm for what the Democrats had on THEIR side.

It's still sad that as many people voted for Trump that did considering that he's such a vile and unstable individual. But he wasn't riding some big wave of unprecedented popularity.

U still mad, bro?

[JohnStOnge]

You can't sell an idea of fixing child poverty, immigration, unisex bathrooms and free collidge(!) and faux wage gaps between women and men to people who don't have jobs that allow them to live like Americans did just 30 years ago.

You're being intentionally obtuse. Most people have jobs. Most people are doing fine.

And, while I realize most people don't understand this, the typical American now is better off than the typical American was 30 years ago. The typical American has a higher income and more conveniences. They've got access to all sorts of things in terms of leisure and entertainment that the typical American did 30 years (which would be 1986) did not have access to.

It's swerving into a different subject again but this crap where people think people were better off 30, 40, 50 years ago is just that: crap.

The latest CBO report that breaks things down sufficiently for me to look in detail was published in 2013 and only goes through 2010. But in 2010 the bottom 20% of the population (first quintile) had average inflation adjusted household incomes 52% higher than they were in 1986, the second quintile's (20th through 40th percentile) average inflation adjusted income was 41% higher, the third quintile's (40th through 60th) was 32% higher, the fourth quintile's (60th through 80th) was 34% higher, and the top quintile's (top 20%) was 43% higher. Yes the peak was in 2007 and there's been a decline since then but there's no way inflation adjusted incomes have gotten even close to back down to what they were in 1986.

Meanwhile there are smart phones and other devices all over the place, the internet is way more advanced than it was then, health care technology is way better, on and on and on.

This crap where people romanticize what life was like decades ago and cling to this myth about it being materially better is just nonsense.

Not saying there aren't people that BELIEVE that and that the belief may influence how they vote. But it's a bunch of crap.

[93henfan]

You can't sell an idea of fixing child poverty, immigration, unisex bathrooms and free collidge(!) and faux wage gaps between women and men to people who don't have jobs that allow them to live like Americans did just 30 years ago.

You're being intentionally obtuse. Most people have jobs. Most people are doing fine.

And, while I realize most people don't understand this, the typical American now is better off than the typical American was 30 years ago. The typical American has a higher income and more conveniences. They've got access to all sorts of things in terms of leisure and entertainment that the typical American did 30 years (which would be 1986) did not have access to.

It's swerving into a different subject again but this crap where people think people were better off 30, 40, 50 years ago is just that: crap.

The latest CBO report that breaks things down sufficiently for me to look in detail was published in 2013 and only goes through 2010. But in 2010 the bottom 20% of the population (first quintile) had average inflation adjusted household incomes 52% higher than they were in 1986, the second quintile's (20th through 40th percentile) average inflation adjusted income was 41% higher, the third quintile's (40th through 60th) was 32% higher, the fourth quintile's (60th through 80th) was 34% higher, and the top quintile's (top 20%) was 43% higher. Yes the peak was in 2007 and there's been a decline since then but there's no way inflation adjusted incomes have gotten even close to back down to what they were in 1986.

Meanwhile there are smart phones and other devices all over the place, the internet is way more advanced than it was then, health care technology is way better, on and on and on.

This crap where people romanticize what life was like decades ago and cling to this myth about it being materially better is just nonsense.

Not saying there aren't people that BELIEVE that and that the belief may influence how they vote. But it's a bunch of crap.

[kalm]

You can't sell an idea of fixing child poverty, immigration, unisex bathrooms and free collidge(!) and faux wage gaps between women and men to people who don't have jobs that allow them to live like Americans did just 30 years ago.

You're being intentionally obtuse. Most people have jobs. Most people are doing fine.

And, while I realize most people don't understand this, the typical American now is better off than the typical American was 30 years ago. The typical American has a higher income and more conveniences. They've got access to all sorts of things in terms of leisure and entertainment that the typical American did 30 years (which would be 1986) did not have access to.

It's swerving into a different subject again but this crap where people think people were better off 30, 40, 50 years ago is just that: crap.

The latest CBO report that breaks things down sufficiently for me to look in detail was published in 2013 and only goes through 2010. But in 2010 the bottom 20% of the population (first quintile) had average inflation adjusted household incomes 52% higher than they were in 1986, the second quintile's (20th through 40th percentile) average inflation adjusted income was 41% higher, the third quintile's (40th through 60th) was 32% higher, the fourth quintile's (60th through 80th) was 34% higher, and the top quintile's (top 20%) was 43% higher. Yes the peak was in 2007 and there's been a decline since then but there's no way inflation adjusted incomes have gotten even close to back down to what they were in 1986.

Meanwhile there are smart phones and other devices all over the place, the internet is way more advanced than it was then, health care technology is way better, on and on and on.

This crap where people romanticize what life was like decades ago and cling to this myth about it being materially better is just nonsense.

Not saying there aren't people that BELIEVE that and that the belief may influence how they vote. But it's a bunch of crap.

Maybe people are starting to devalue materialism?

[CID1990]

You can't sell an idea of fixing child poverty, immigration, unisex bathrooms and free collidge(!) and faux wage gaps between women and men to people who don't have jobs that allow them to live like Americans did just 30 years ago.

You're being intentionally obtuse. Most people have jobs. Most people are doing fine.

And, while I realize most people don't understand this, the typical American now is better off than the typical American was 30 years ago. The typical American has a higher income and more conveniences. They've got access to all sorts of things in terms of leisure and entertainment that the typical American did 30 years (which would be 1986) did not have access to.

It's swerving into a different subject again but this crap where people think people were better off 30, 40, 50 years ago is just that: crap.

The latest CBO report that breaks things down sufficiently for me to look in detail was published in 2013 and only goes through 2010. But in 2010 the bottom 20% of the population (first quintile) had average inflation adjusted household incomes 52% higher than they were in 1986, the second quintile's (20th through 40th percentile) average inflation adjusted income was 41% higher, the third quintile's (40th through 60th) was 32% higher, the fourth quintile's (60th through 80th) was 34% higher, and the top quintile's (top 20%) was 43% higher. Yes the peak was in 2007 and there's been a decline since then but there's no way inflation adjusted incomes have gotten even close to back down to what they were in 1986.

Meanwhile there are smart phones and other devices all over the place, the internet is way more advanced than it was then, health care technology is way better, on and on and on.

This crap where people romanticize what life was like decades ago and cling to this myth about it being materially better is just nonsense.

Not saying there aren't people that BELIEVE that and that the belief may influence how they vote. But it's a bunch of crap.

You're entitled to your own opinion, as well as the right to continue crying in your coffee


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Come to Washington DC (or any big city in the Northeast or the west coast) and I'll show you some of the most politically naive college graduates you've ever met. The word "lemmings" comes to mind. I have far more stimulating and intellectually thoughtful political conversations with retired boat pilots and mechanics at the local diner than I do with bachelors and masters and doctoral degree holders in DC.

I was going to use the "lemmings" metaphor during the Republican primaries to describe Trump supporters. But then I learned that the thing about lemmings blindly following one another over a cliff is a myth.

Otherwise, you are kidding yourself if you don't think there is an association such that people who know what the hell is going on were more likely to vote for Clinton than Trump. I know there is a temptation to say stuff like you said above. I've felt that way myself when I was pulling for the Republican candidate and saw how post grads voted against him.

But at least then I could say that the overall trend was one in which people were more likely to vote Republican as educational attainment level went up until you GOT to post grads. There was at least SOMETHING I could point to.

Not this time. It's just a very clear strong association such that likelihood of voting for Trump went down as education level went up.

I'll give you this: It's probably true that the majority of those in the lowest 15% of IQ voted for the Democrat as is always the case. But this time I think is different in that I think it's likely that the majority of those in the lower HALF of the IQ distribution voted for Trump while the majority of those in the upper half voted for Clinton. In this case it seems pretty clear that the people who voted for Clinton were smarter, on average, than those that voted for Trump were.

Sorry, but it is what it is. And actually it makes sense because voting for Trump was a really stupid thing to do.