Can a good person vote for Trump?

Klinker said:

Again, HRC WON the popular (democratic) vote by a landslide but lost the Presidential Contest in the (undemocratic) Electoral College. If there is some pride of place in getting your guy into office inspite of them losing the popular election than tjohn owns that, along with a dozen African tin pot dictators, but that does not make you the winner it just makes you the beneficiary of an inherently undemocratic system.

Reagan v Carter 1980 was a landslide. 2016 not so much. Pathetic

LOST said:

Klinker,

I note your avatar is the State flag of California, "California Republic".

Is it time for the States to re-assert their sovereignty?

I don't know about "states" but, as a Californian, I have long thought it was time for California to leave. California does far more for the US than the US does for California. Taxation without Representation. This will be up for a vote in 2018.

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another"......

That said, this thread is about the US election. As a American, that is what I am discussing here. As a Californian, I would be happy to discuss the CALEXIT initiative somewhere else.

lord_pabulum said:

Klinker said:

Again, HRC WON the popular (democratic) vote by a landslide but lost the Presidential Contest in the (undemocratic) Electoral College. If there is some pride of place in getting your guy into office inspite of them losing the popular election than tjohn owns that, along with a dozen African tin pot dictators, but that does not make you the winner it just makes you the beneficiary of an inherently undemocratic system.

Reagan v Carter 1980 was a landslide. 2016 not so much. Pathetic

Bush won the 2004 popular vote by about the same margin and he went on and on about his stunning mandate.

...and Democrats go on and on about HRC's stunning landslide in this election. Pathetic (again)

Wow, talk about shoe on the other foot. When I point out that there is nothing in the constitution that should have prevented the southern states from leaving the union if they wanted to all the leftists here jump on me.

But now these same leftists see nothing amiss with California leaving.

Personally, if the southern states want to leave the U.S., I say let them go.

ml1 said:

Personally, if the southern states want to leave the U.S., I say let them go.

Been saying that for years.. When some Texans started a petition to leave, most of the signatories were from the Northeast. Let 'em go..Let 'em go!!!

They can call their country Jesusland and all the conservatives from our states can migrate there and the liberals from their states can migrate to our states. Everyone will be satisfied.

librarylady said:

ml1 said:

Personally, if the southern states want to leave the U.S., I say let them go.

Been saying that for years.. When some Texans started a petition to leave, most of the signatories were from the Northeast. Let 'em go..Let 'em go!!!

ice said:

tjohn said:

Those are the rules of the game. Losers blame the rules when they lose.

When I lose, I blame my putter.

As I mentioned with regard to BCC's baseball analogy, I agree there are rules. But I disagree with my loss if someone picks up my ball and throws it into the rough. Or if there are other factors outside the rules that affect the outcome.

No one who believes in the legitimacy of our intelligence services, 17 I believe, that Putin wasn't involved. And reality/history tells us that it is highly irregular if not "unpresidented,"* for the FBI to color the race in its final months.

*yes, my autocorrect tried to change this word to "unprecedented."

A number of electors apparently felt a good person could not vote for their pledged candidate.

Funny that 5 out of 7 of these faithless electors were supposed to vote for Clinton. D'0h!!

as I said way back - the strategy is to not waste time on the brain-dead Trump voters, because there is no rational way to target them. I've asked you many times how the Dem should do so, and I've yet to see your strategy. Because there is none that focuses on them.

The strategy is to go after non-voters. And to become Democrats again, instead of neo-liberals and quasi-Republicans.

The other thing Dems need to do is to come up with a cohesive and consistent and simple messaging strategy that demonizes Republican incompetence and obstructionism and general failure at policy, and to have some simple messages of how to help the average guy economically.

I don't hold out much hope for that too, absent some significantly more talented national leadership.

Liz Warren gets this - she's a natural at it. She's the best message agent the Dems have right now. I hope they use her.

But I see no need whatsoever to target the lost souls who managed to vote for Trump. As I said, liberal policies will help them way more than conservatives, and we'll drag them kicking and screaming into a better world.

tjohn said:

drummerboy said:

dude, we got 2.6 million more votes than Trump. 100k votes in the right places and we'd be having a completely different discussion. That's equivalent to rounding error.

Or are you too innumerate to realize that?

anyway, we arrived at this terrible state of affairs (ie, the anomoly of the electoral college result) by a combination of years of witch hunts against Hillary and James Comey perfidy and an utter failure of the media .

None of this excuses the Trump voter from having made a spectacularly obvious catastrophic decision.

tjohn said:

There is no bigger loser in the world than the person who loses a contest and blames the winners. Winners, on the other hand, reattach their butts after a bad beating and figure out how to win next time.

You, Drummerboy, are a complete loser. Look at Bill Clinton's electoral map from 1996 and look at HRC's map from 2016 and explain to us, without calling Trump voters contemptible, how we arrived at this rather terrible state of affairs.

drummerboy said:

I would just like to state that my contempt for the Trump voter has only grown since the election. It may take decades to recover from what they did. People that stupid should stay home on election day.

**** them.

You are still a loser. When you start coming up with plans to win back political power, we can consider removing that label. Otherwise, you are and will remain a loser.

drummerboy said:

The strategy is to go after non-voters. And to become Democrats again, instead of neo-liberals and quasi-Republicans.

The other thing Dems need to do is to come up with a cohesive and consistent and simple messaging strategy that demonizes Republican incompetence and obstructionism and general failure at policy, and to have some simple messages of how to help the average guy economically.

I don't hold out much hope for that too, absent some significantly more talented national leadership.


Liz Warren gets this - she's a natural at it. She's the best message agent the Dems have right now. I hope they use her.

But I see no need whatsoever to target the lost souls who managed to vote for Trump. As I said, liberal policies will help them way more than conservatives, and we'll drag them kicking and screaming into a better world.

Good plan. Write off all the 2008/2012 Obama voters who went for Trump, and:

- Demonize the opposition

- Throw a bone or two to the average Joe ('simple messages' are preferred, no real actions required)

- Put Elizabeth Warren out in front

- Continue to believe that you can bludgeon people into believing a 'better world' involves more free and subsidized stuff from government, regardless of those people's beliefs about the role of the federal government in their lives.

I hope you've inspected your camping gear recently, because with a plan like that, you and your compatriots will be out in the wilderness for a long time.

I don't think anyone actually has an accurate number of the people who voted for Obama and then voted for Trump. We only know there are counties that flipped, but it's at least as likely (probably more so) that it's because of people who stayed home, not from people who changed from Democrats to Republicans. And even if there are a significant number of them, how do you create a message to reach people who have no coherent ideological foundation. How can someone with any sort of coherent idea of what they want from their government have voted for Obama twice and then Donald Trump?

The key for Democrats is to get the 3% more voters who voted in 2008 but not 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016 to come out again. And they can only do that by addressing the economic concerns of those voters.

ml1 said:

How can someone with any sort of coherent idea of what they want from their government have voted for Obama twice and then Donald Trump?

Maybe they just want positive results and were very disappointed. They got hope without enough change, and the change they did get was underwhelming.

For example, people who had health insurance before Obamacare (and the vast majority did) mostly just wanted to keep it. Many could not despite very explicit promises from the President, and now most are facing skyrocketing premiums as the young healthy's aren't enrolling and carriers are exiting multiple markets. Hooray that some more people got covered, but most folks tend to vote their own pockets, not others'.

I do agree that probably more former Dem voters stayed home or voted 3rd party/others than voted for Trump. I don't think that simply putting an Elizabeth Warren out front and demonizing R's will bring enough of them back, particularly if there is even moderate (say 2.5% or better) economic growth over the next 4 years.

I think he more likely thing to bring the Dems back to the White House will be some major foreign policy blunder (or a series of them). But I thunk only a very petty person would actually be hoping for something like that.

Dems gained in House and Senate. HRC got 3 million more votes than Trump. It ain't as bad as it feels.

Numbers of workers lost to automation vs. immigrants, China, Mexico are detailed in today's paper. One thing we can count on from capitalists: if it's a matter of robots or workers, they'll choose robots every time. So that Trump bullsiht will soon be clear.

If liberals are right, and they certainly are, the tide will change and change quickly. Newt and others have made clear the lies told by DJT during the campaign.

Loads of folks are signing up for ACA, strengthening the need for a national healthcare plan.

ICE's "more free and subsidized stuff from government" go disproportionately to red staters who believed the lies and will - as some already have - realize that Trump has hoodwinked them as he has others throughout his career.

ICE, it's not libs who condescend to working-class people. It's Republicans who continue to peddle lies.

I'm trying to feel sympathy rather than revulsion for the people who fell for DJT's "charms." It ain't easy.

Does it get more condescending than this?

Now, just weeks before taking office, Trump has decided to sideline his pledge to “drain the swamp,” his ally Newt Gingrich said Wednesday.

“I’m told he now just disclaims that,” Gingrich (R-Ga.) the former House speaker, told NPR’s “Morning Edition.” “He now says it was cute, but he doesn’t want to use it anymore.”

The number of people who had insurance they wanted to keep and couldn't and didn't get better coverage at the same or a lower rate is miniscule. Hillary Clinton did not lose the election because of them.

Whatever basis former Obama voters used to vote for Trump could not have been coherent or logical at all. A logical person sitting in rural PA or WI who thinks the Democratic Party left him or her behind wouldn't be voting for a party that wants to privatize Medicare and Social Security, and the party that tried to block the economic stimulus. A logical response would have been to vote for Clinton, and Democratic Senate and House candidates. Or better yet, register as a Democrat last winter and vote for Bernie Sanders.

The sad tragedy for those folks is that the Trump presidency is likely to make their lives worse, not better. And it will be to the benefit of people in places like the NY area who are affluent enough to cash in on stock market gains.

ice said:

ml1 said:

How can someone with any sort of coherent idea of what they want from their government have voted for Obama twice and then Donald Trump?

Maybe they just want positive results and were very disappointed. They got hope without enough change, and the change they did get was underwhelming.

For example, people who had health insurance before Obamacare (and the vast majority did) mostly just wanted to keep it. Many could not despite very explicit promises from the President, and now most are facing skyrocketing premiums as the young healthy's aren't enrolling and carriers are exiting multiple markets. Hooray that some more people got covered, but most folks tend to vote their own pockets, not others'.

I do agree that probably more former Dem voters stayed home or voted 3rd party/others than voted for Trump. I don't think that simply putting an Elizabeth Warren out front and demonizing R's will bring enough of them back, particularly if there is even moderate (say 2.5% or better) economic growth over the next 4 years.

I think he more likely thing to bring the Dems back to the White House will be some major foreign policy blunder (or a series of them). But I thunk only a very petty person would actually be hoping for something like that.

Obamacare Enrollment surges Ahead of Possible ACA Repeal By Congress

SMH

Drain the swamp!

Lock her up!

Fight WS influence!

All lies and he ain't even in office yet.

Joke's on you, Trump voter.

ml1 said:

The number of people who had insurance they wanted to keep and couldn't and didn't get better coverage at the same or a lower rate is miniscule. Hillary Clinton did not lose the election because of them.

Well if you're going to use statistical evidence instead of "feelings", that's not really fair, is it?

the ridiculous ones were the people who "starred" in commercials complaining about Obamacare when it turned out they never even investigated what their new policies would be.

nohero said:

ml1 said:

The number of people who had insurance they wanted to keep and couldn't and didn't get better coverage at the same or a lower rate is miniscule. Hillary Clinton did not lose the election because of them.

Well if you're going to use statistical evidence instead of "feelings", that's not really fair, is it?

yeah, except a good part of my strategy is copying successful Republican strategy, so there's that.

ice said:

drummerboy said:

The strategy is to go after non-voters. And to become Democrats again, instead of neo-liberals and quasi-Republicans.

The other thing Dems need to do is to come up with a cohesive and consistent and simple messaging strategy that demonizes Republican incompetence and obstructionism and general failure at policy, and to have some simple messages of how to help the average guy economically.

I don't hold out much hope for that too, absent some significantly more talented national leadership.


Liz Warren gets this - she's a natural at it. She's the best message agent the Dems have right now. I hope they use her.

But I see no need whatsoever to target the lost souls who managed to vote for Trump. As I said, liberal policies will help them way more than conservatives, and we'll drag them kicking and screaming into a better world.

Good plan. Write off all the 2008/2012 Obama voters who went for Trump, and:

- Demonize the opposition

- Throw a bone or two to the average Joe ('simple messages' are preferred, no real actions required)

- Put Elizabeth Warren out in front

- Continue to believe that you can bludgeon people into believing a 'better world' involves more free and subsidized stuff from government, regardless of those people's beliefs about the role of the federal government in their lives.

I hope you've inspected your camping gear recently, because with a plan like that, you and your compatriots will be out in the wilderness for a long time.

yeah, ice, like, you conveniently forget that Hillary got 3 million more effing votes than Trump.

but yeah, good analysis, as usual , like never.

ice said:

ml1 said:

How can someone with any sort of coherent idea of what they want from their government have voted for Obama twice and then Donald Trump?

Maybe they just want positive results and were very disappointed. They got hope without enough change, and the change they did get was underwhelming.

For example, people who had health insurance before Obamacare (and the vast majority did) mostly just wanted to keep it. Many could not despite very explicit promises from the President, and now most are facing skyrocketing premiums as the young healthy's aren't enrolling and carriers are exiting multiple markets. Hooray that some more people got covered, but most folks tend to vote their own pockets, not others'.

I do agree that probably more former Dem voters stayed home or voted 3rd party/others than voted for Trump. I don't think that simply putting an Elizabeth Warren out front and demonizing R's will bring enough of them back, particularly if there is even moderate (say 2.5% or better) economic growth over the next 4 years.

I think he more likely thing to bring the Dems back to the White House will be some major foreign policy blunder (or a series of them). But I thunk only a very petty person would actually be hoping for something like that.

So you all still think that "facts" and "truth" matter?

In 2020 Trump, if he runs for re-election or whomever is his chosen successor will run on the record of the Trump Administration, proclaiming that they rescued the Country from decline and have made great progress toward "Making America Great Again" despite vicious obstruction by whomever they decide to demonize.

Will the Democrats proclaim that the policies of the Administration have been a disaster, that Trump and his appointees have robbed the Country blind and that America is on the verge of collapse?

It looks like these "good people" have stuck by their man for 8 months through thick and thin, what do y'all think now?

apparently 1/3 of the country hates liberals more than they hate Nazis