Russia Likely Did Swing Votes For Donald Trump

[_Markk]

Well. California IS extremely wealthy. There's just a wealth disparity. But that's already been addressed.



- Doc

We are in debt, to government workers and the poor, and folks that should not be here that know how to buck the system. And we have maybe the highest taxes around.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well. California IS extremely wealthy. There's just a wealth disparity. But that's already been addressed.



- Doc

We are in debt, to government workers and the poor, and folks that should not be here that know how to buck the system. And we have maybe the highest taxes around.

Right. So going back to your wedge issue statement about Garcetti you're laying at his feet the responsibility of generations of politicians and businessmen who have “F” ed you over for a state of affairs that is unfixable. When you're talking about electing someone to a national office like President, then you need a man who understands the difficulty of working within the framework we have in order to maximize good leadership.

When you bring in someone who is completely clueless, like Mr. Trump is, it's just a crap show of proportions unlike heretofore ever seen. We need, at the federal level, people who can comprehend the vast array of relationships, structures, market pressures, and issues that transcend a person's pet peeve or one-off issue. This is exactly why Hillary Clinton was better suited for the office than DJT.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Immigrants actually raise wages for all but those who lack a high school degree, and the effect even there is relatively modest. I suppose this might be counterintuitive until you realize that more participants in a consumer economy produces economic growth, which leads to wage increases.

If you want to depress wages, cut off immigration.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Immigrants actually raise wages for all but those who lack a high school degree, and the effect even there is relatively modest. I suppose this might be counterintuitive until you realize that more participants in a consumer economy produces economic growth, which leads to wage increases.

If you want to depress wages, cut off immigration.

Excellent point!

[_honorentheos]

The most significant demographic that under performed for Clinton compared to Obama was with men. Whatever influenced them to stay home or vote for Trump, one can't discount that misogyny likely played a role.

nah, one can certainly discount misogyny. Elected females has been trending for quite some time. The Clinton brand is to blame, Hillary Clinton lost because of who she was and what she represented, her gender is a minor point...its like claiming that Obama only won because he was black.

First, to be clear I'm not claiming Clinton lost because she was a woman. I'm make the small point against the anti-Clinton discussion that when one looks at the exit poll data between 2012 and 2016, a meaningful statistic is how many fewer men on a percentage of voters basis turned out for Clinton as opposed to those who turned out for Obama. The bigger idea that voter behavior is influenced by a multitude of factors can't be understated. As much as anything, it includes the factors that lead a person to not show up at the polls which is the real aim of negative campaigning. A person who shows up at the poll and votes for one of the two major party candidates probably did so despite negative campaign messaging. The person who stayed home but has voted in the past is a good person to look at for where negative messaging hit it's target. And men who came out for Obama but not for Clinton are a glowing example of a demographic that is not explained as easily by other demographic information as the women in the same demographics don't show they were voting the same way as their male peers chose to vote or not vote as the case may be.

To borrow a pointed quote from a WP article from after the election: What remains to be explored is why women didn’t rush to support Clinton when more than a year of polling suggested they would. Across age, race and income, their voting patterns stayed relatively consistent as men’s dramatically shifted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 3a9eda5fc1

Specifics like the email scandal that wasn't actually newsworthy become justification for the gut level response some men have to a "bossy woman in a pants suit" telling them what to do.

This feeble attempt at a stereotype is essentially refuted by reality. On the one hand posts like yours claim that mysognists are only members of the Republican party, so a male version of Hillary Clinton would not have gotten any votes any way...so, if Hillary Clinton under-performed among men, it was the men of the Democratic party...it was defectors. The previous 8 years had already motivated Republicans well before Hillary Clinton and the DNC hoodwinked Sanders out of the picture.

Actually, I'm inclined to point to Democrats when I level the claim that misogyny played a meaningful roll in their voting choices as well.

I don't care what some people think about that. Clinton was clearly the most qualified candidate put forward by the democrats in over a decade.

Again, reality contradicts your post's assertion. The Clintons represent the pinnacle of an old politic that is dead now...ergo th lack of a "new solution" by the DNC. Sanders was a victim of this old politic's last stand...but alas, it was still a last stand. Hillary Clinton was more qualified, perhaps in 2000, but not 2016. The Clinton style and method of politic is dead.

Clinton's professional resume pre-politics included volunteer work, working as a profession for the Children's Defense Fund, teaching at university, practicing law, and having made real meaningful impacts when it came to children's rights. Her political career as a Senator compared to some other candidates such as Rubio or Sanders is day-to-night in comparison. She worked across the isle to actually accomplish meaningful legislation. Her time as First Lady was often critiqued for her having a strong vision for pushing meaningful causes. "Billary" was one of the first couple contractions, and used in large part as a way of putting Bill down. As Secretary of State, rebuilding America's reputation through diplomacy after the Bush admin managed to take the global good will after 9/11 and turn it into global concern was largely a success when she stepped down. She's often credited for the Iran sanctions that were used later to get Iran to the bargaining table, and if one looks at US diplomacy over the last 20 years on a graph probably led that effort at it's most recent global high water marks.

If her resume was put down next to any of the competitors from either party with no identifying information on them to tell you who they were, it would stand out without peer. That's not an opinion.

If someone likes marketing over substance, ok, great marketing campaigns that aren't concerned with what someone's done or could do for the job of President might favor someone else. I would grant that. But my argument is that she was so easily better qualified than the competition that it's actually unsettling how American's reacted to that in 2016. And how they respond today when discussing the topic.

[_Markk]

Right. So going back to your wedge issue statement about Garcetti you're laying at his feet the responsibility of generations of politicians and businessmen who have ____ ed you over for a state of affairs that is unfixable. When you're talking about electing someone to a national office like President, then you need a man who understands the difficulty of working within the framework we have in order to maximize good leadership.

When you bring in someone who is completely clueless, like Mr. Trump is, it's just a ____ show of proportions unlike heretofore ever seen. We need, at the federal level, people who can comprehend the vast array of relationships, structures, market pressures, and issues that transcend a person's pet peeve or one-off issue. This is exactly why Hillary Clinton was better suited for the office than DJT.

- Doc

Then vote for him, I hope he gets the nomination, and that he runs against someone like a John Kasich.

Have you even followed Garcetti, what do you know about him?

Do you know how he is on crime? If so, before you google it, do you agree with his record there?

#Mayor yoga pants

[_Markk]

Immigrants actually raise wages for all but those who lack a high school degree, and the effect even there is relatively modest. I suppose this might be counterintuitive until you realize that more participants in a consumer economy produces economic growth, which leads to wage increases.

If you want to depress wages, cut off immigration.

Have you ever been to LA, Orange County, IE, or San Diego?

[_honorentheos]

I don't care what some people think about that. Clinton was clearly the most qualified candidate put forward by the democrats in over a decade. yeah. If it was a. job interview she was the top ranked candidate hands down.

I'm curious what you're basing this on. What made her the most qualified?

Just because you've spent time in the White House doesn't make you qualified to be president. Otherwise, Drumpf is now qualified (and we know damn well that ain't true). Just because you're deeply connected within your party doesn't make you qualified.

Yes, I heard Obama talking about how much more qualified Hillary was than everyone else, but it became a talking point with not so much to really back it up. Experience does not magically endow someone with qualifications, except for the qualification of experience, and there were plenty of people in the race with experience.

We talked about this during the primaries on the board when I was genuinely curious what drove most Sander's supporters. What struck me then was how his actual record on accomplishments as a Senator didn't matter so much as his rhetoric and unbendable stances on issues generally related to taxes. My personal view of Clinton's qualifications is certainly subjective but it was based on what they both managed to actually accomplish as Senators on top of their other endeavors, both politically and professionally. I see a person in Clinton that was the stereotypical overachiever, top of the class type of person, taking a career path through law that was focused on children's rights and what I think of as a genuine expression of concern for the less privileged combined with a serious work ethic...she was a driven, active First Lady. An accomplished Secretary of State that, granted, benefited from the world genuinely wanting the Obama administration to be better than the Bush administration while still navigating the same world where US troops were in active shooting wars on multiple campaigns, the global economic situation was in free fall, and people wanted change so bad that they didn't need to have it explained clearly as to what that meant for them to believe it was coming.

Don't know, man. I guess I'm pragmatic in that I favor people who I think will get things done in the general right direction because that seems to be the best that we can really expect. And all the high ideal claims and dug-in heel resistance doesn't impress me if it hasn't been proven to lead to results. Personally, I thought Bernie was basically a conservative candidate, appealing to people's nostalgia for a time when the middle class was growing in numbers and economic strength that we could all get back to if we just go back to post WWII levels of taxation on the wealthy. It sounds easy, it sounds appealing, it sounds...like a false promise.

[_Themis]

CFR Please

More would value military experience, then Governor, then public office (House or Senate.

Seriously? You ask for a CFR that senator is one of the most important jobs that prepares one to be qualified to be President to then list senator as one of 3 most important jobs people value as making a person qualified to be President.

Governor is a good one, but military experience not unless the person was high up to learn how government works. Many of histories great leaders did not have military experience, but I understand why many may value it.

Would Michele Obama or Laura Bush just becasue they were first ladies make good presidents? What did Hillary Clinton do as a 1st lady?

They would have learned more then the rest of us how things work, so it would give them something good to put on a resume for President. HC we know was one of the most involved in what was going on in the white house and you even give an example of something HC was very involved with.

What else did she do as first lady...she failed at Hillary care, which would have been her biggest accomplishment by far in all theaters.

The failure was not her fault and it was a good idea. It gave her good experience on how things work.

I never said she was not qualified...I was questioning her being "highly" qualified in context with what she has accomplished...which is not much?

I'm sure many would disagree with what she accomplished as senator and SOS, but I can understand many will not agree with much of what she did. That's more an argument that because she is a democrat she is not qualified.

In context with the discussion...she is just not liked, and I question her being "highly" qualified based on her record. People can train for all their life for a position, but it does not mean the are qualified for the position.

Again she is a democrat so you think that disqualifies her and anything she did as a democratic senator and SOS.

Would you want her to run again in 2020...if not why...after all she is the most qualified...right?

No, but I am not defining qualified by whether I think she would push policies I like. She was leap and bounds better then Trump. Trump is not just ignorant of how things work, but is a train wreck of a person in ways that are very dangerous to the US and world. He is bringing extreme elements into the white-house that will hurt the US in many ways.

[_Some Schmo]

Don't know, man. I guess I'm pragmatic in that I favor people who I think will get things done in the general right direction because that seems to be the best that we can really expect. And all the high ideal claims and dug-in heel resistance doesn't impress me if it hasn't been proven to lead to results. Personally, I thought Bernie was basically a conservative candidate, appealing to people's nostalgia for a time when the middle class was growing in numbers and economic strength that we could all get back to if we just go back to post WWII levels of taxation on the wealthy. It sounds easy, it sounds appealing, it sounds...like a false promise.

I'm not sure I really buy the Clinton would have gotten more done argument. GOP obstructionism would have been the same for any Democrat.

I don't have a fantasy that Bernie would have gotten much done either. But I do think he'd have moved the Overton Window even further to the left, which is something I think the country desperately needs. I actually think he's done a lot of that already.