What will yesterday's drubbing of the GOP mean a year from now?

If true, and you were smart, you'd be keeping quiet about it

 

Nor was it a 'drubbing' -- just another case of counties with the most public housing voting blue.

 

It means Democrats will probably win in blue states.

 

I'm glad to see that you now agree with me. Your referring to them as "poor working class idiots" was uncalled for.

 

Adding to your thesis, 9.2 million Americans who had voted for Obama (who left office with around 58% approval) voted for Trump (currently averaging 37.9% approval.)

I would not undervalue as significant factors the anti-establishment mood in the country in a contest between the ultimate establishment figure vs a reality tv performer, and the Democratic Party's gradual abandonment of the White working class.

 

I vehemently disagree with you. Don't pretend that we have any opinions in common. I think your posts are the most demeaning and insulting of any other person on this forum. My referring to them as "poor working class idiots" was a characterization of how you and liberal elites treat with disdain the American voter, not my opinion of them. I am one of them. Again, your frivolous attempt to turn it back on me is juvenile and despicable.

 

The approval rating when leaving office has nothing to do with President Obama's approval rating when the election occurred of him vs. Romney. On election day 2012 you had President Obama at 53% approval and Romney at 50% favorable. Keep in mind that Clinton had a 38% approval rating vs. Obama's 53% on her election day last year and Trump at 36% favorable. Quite a lot of difference between 2012, both candidates vs. 2016 both candidates in how America as a whole viewed the two major party candidates.

That being said, according to CCES 79% of Obama voters in 2012 voted for Clinton while 11% voted for Trump. The rest was for third party candidates/don't know or refused to answer. since CCES didn't provide numbers, only percentages it is hard to tell how many million voters that was. Compare that to Romney voters in 2012 which 70% voted for Trump, 4 % for Clinton. That leaves a whopping 26% of Romney voters falling into the third party/don't know/refused to answer category.

ANES offers similar numbers, Obama voters in 2012 voted for Clinton 77%, for Trump 13%. Very close to the CCES figures percentage wise. Romney voters who voted for Trump is at 66% according to their study, 4 point lower than CCES while ANES has 4% for Clinton the same as CCES. But that leaves another whopping 30% in Romney voters voting third party/don't know or refused to answer.

Without knowing the number of actual voters, who knows if your 9 million is correct or not. But one thing is sure, there were more Obama to Trump voters than Romney to Clinton. Also keep in mind that 10% of those who voted in 2016 were first time voters and didn't vote in 2012. We also had a rise from 1.5% third party voters from 2012 to 6% in 2016, a four fold increase. I would say due to unpopularity of both major party's candidates.

Regardless, I think the Democrats will do just fine especially in the House races next year. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the current trend in several categories continues as is that if the Democrats don't take back the house. I would almost bet on it at this point in time. But things change. What is today may not be tomorrow.

 

The significance of Obama's completing his two terms with 58% is that Clinton would be the more likely to perpetuate his relatively popular legacy, yet she garnered only 2.9 million more votes than Trump, and in the wrong places.

You may find Sabato's article interesting: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cr...many-obama-2012-trump-2016-voters-were-there/

"estimates of the raw number of such Obama-Trump voters range from about 6.7 million to 9.2 million"

Given that Clinton was almost as disliked as Trump, whatever motivated them to switch Party preference (beyond the anti-establishment mood that won Trump the nomination and then the presidency) makes me wonder where will they go next time?

 

Except that is NOT what is actually happening. Dems are flipping GOP red seats in local elections.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/28/p...lections-annette-tadeo-kari-lerner/index.html

None of the above include the GOP held seats in the red part of VA either. In fact the most ironic flip was turning over the seat of the self confessed Republican "chief homophobe" by a Dem transgender candidate.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/08/politics/danica-roem-virginia-transgender/index.html

 

The GOP LOST a 32 seat majority in the VA General Assembly to DEMS!

The Dems are kicking GOP ass and denial isn't going to alter that reality.

 

So by your asinine and illogical process that would mean that fascists = republicans.

Do you really want to go down that childish path again?

 

I received Sabato's crystal ball report among many others. I don't know where they will go next. I read somewhere, where I'm not sure that most of those 6.7-9.2 million voters that were Obama to Trump were mostly lean Republican voters. I'm not sure how that fits into this or even if relevant. Now the possibility exist that Obama was young, a fresh face, energetic, he had charisma, whereas Clinton didn't and was an old establishment type, Romney to a lesser extent was more like Clinton than Obama.

Overall numbers are a bit interesting in comparing 2012 to 2016. Democratic base voters 92-7-1 listed D-R-I in 2012, 89-8-3 for 2016. Democratic base voters out numbered Republican base voters 38-32 in 2012. Republican base voters in 2012 93-6-1 and in 2016 88-8-4. Democratic base voters still out numbered Republican base voters in 2016 but by a smaller 36-33 margin. From a 6 point advantage for the Dems in 2012 to a 3 point advantage in 2016. Gallup put party identification Nov of 2012 at 35% Democrat to 30% Republican, a 5 point advantage, for 2016 Democrat 30%, Republican 27%, a smaller 3 point advantage. Obama won the popular vote by 5 points, Clinton by 2. The numbers reflect that.

I think last years presidential race was about the candidates, not so much the parties. The dislikes of both. I also think the Democrats will do just fine in 2018. If Gallup is to be believed, party affiliation of of today or stands 31-24 in the Democrats favor. Throw in other things like the generic congressional vote, Trump's approval rating, congressional retirements for Republicans, seats at risk of switching. I would say the Dems are in for a very good year for the midterms.

 

No, I have never "insinuated" any such thing.

Your characterizing the demographic as "poor working class idiots" is repugnant to me.

Trump's strong support from neo-nazis and other white supremacists does not reflect the ideological motivations of many others who supported him.

These are decent Americans whom you malign:

​

Will rural voters who swung to Trump swing back?

 

The elections we're concerned with are national ones, President/Senator/Representative, and on the state level gubernatorial elections. Why? Because they are on a large enough scale to be some indicator. Federal Senator/Representative elections, as far as they can have predictive value, are less predictive than gubernatorial elections, because they're smaller samples. Local elections are further worse predictors, for the same reasons.

Did you bother looking at those? The most surprising, the way it was told, was the NH race, and its a race where the Democratic candidate won 904 votes. 904. -_-
https://ballotpedia.org/Kari_Lerner

Yeah, that's hardly a good indicator. So what we have are Democratic wins in important races that they certainly should have won (VA & NJ gubernatorial), and then some piddly small time wins, like the local Democratic representative in NH who won a grand total of 904 votes. A partisan could certainly see hope in such things, but they are no indicator.

 

Your assessment is, again, spot-on.

I'm particularly interested in whether the blue-collar White voters' shift that was the key to Trump's victory signals an enduring Party realignment such as occurred in the South. The articles below suggest otherwise:

Rural Wisconsin voters swung for Trump and change, but found frustration​

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2017/11/09/din-discord-trump-presidency-plays-out-among-neighbors-southwestern-wisconsin/840626001/

Will rural voters who swung to Trump swing back?​

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/blogs/wisconsin-voter/2017/01/22/rural-voters-who-swung-trump-swing-back/96891354/

​

Any sector of the electorate being "up for grabs" is a good way to prevent politicians taking it for granted, and increases the likelihood that both sides will find it to their advantage to address your needs.

​

​

 

The indicators in the federal elections are there too for those who are willing to be open minded enough to acknowledge them.

The Dems have closed down the GOP winning margins to single digits in deep red districts in red states.

Combine those with the wins in local and gubernatorial elections and what we have is a TREND!

That trend is clear and unequivocal. It shows that across the board the electorate is trending TOWARDS the Dems and AWAY from the GOP.

Furthermore the trend began immediately after the November 2016 and the Dems are awash in candidates for races at all levels.

 

Wishful-thinking partisans upset by Democrats' impressive showing would do better to minimize its impact next year rather than irrationally deny it.

Their only realistic hope is that Republicans considrably up their game in the coming year over their sad performance in the last one.

 

Cavorting down Hyperbole Highway indicates you're in the fast lane on the road to nowhere, readily accessible whenever the need to abscond arises.

​

 

Your posts are racist, racially divisive and insulting. You have posted hundreds of posts on these boards maligning Trump and Trump voters with your attempts to tie them with Neo-Nazi's and white supremacists, and by contributing Trump's win to "less-educated" whites.

No, no, that is your characterization of Trump voters. You know it, and everyone else who reads your posts know it. I am poor white working class Trump voter, why would I insult myself?

Then why do you so often bring this up in your posts? Who says Trump has "strong support from neo-Nazis and other white supremacists" other than you? What proof do you have to support this? Show us a survey. Tell us, what constitutes "strong support"? How many votes did the neo-Nazis and white supremacists cast in the last election? How many of them are there? It's a fraction of a fraction and as far as you know, most of them voted for Hillary, because the demographic of neo-Nazis and white supremacists is so small, perhaps only a few thousand, no body can even do a survey of them. But here you are again maligning Trump voters by insinuating that a good number of them are neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

I'll tell you one demographic that far out numbers neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Felons, child molesters, rapists, drug dealers, ex-cons of every sort. You can bet their numbers far outnumber neo-Nazis and white supremacists. And many liberal states allow them to vote now. You can bet that they are a demographic that voted heavily for Hillary Clinton and the democrats because the democratic party is soft on criminals.

Gee, that writer must have found every Trump voter who is disappointed in Trump because according to the surveys, Trump voters still have strong support for Trump. They are much more supportive of Trump than Hillary voters are supportive of Hillary according to the polls. That idiotic left wing article maligns Trump voters and once again, if you think you can win back Trump voters by insulting them with stupid left wing articles written by snowflake journalists who supported Hillary which insult Trump and his voters, you people are in for a major disappointment.

 

From all accounts the majority of white supremacists are felons who were dealing in drugs, raping and committing sundry other crimes. In fact the largest growing criminal gangs in the nation are all white supremacists of one kind or another.

https://www.adl.org/education/resou...hite-supremacy#white-supremacist-prison-gangs

So the odds are that since whites make up about 40% of the prison population they are affiliated with white supremacists in one way or another.

Your BLOTUS was wrong, they are NOT "good people" at all.

 

Obviously, giving ex-Felons the right to vote increases Trump's base.

Trump's wheelhouse (neo-Nazis, Aryan Brotherhood, etc.) is full of ex-Felons.

 

I tend to agree with that. Which means in my opinion we are back to candidates matter. One must remember In Wisconsin Trump made 5 campaign/visits to Clinton's zero, none. Also Trump addressed the working classes fears and worries while Hillary was going around promising to be Obama's third term. That made the rural and working class voters take notice. For the longest time the Democratic Party was the party of the working class, the Republican Party of big business.Trump changed that, the candidate, not the party.

Look at a couple of comparisons, again 2012 vs. 2016. Union household vote, 2012 58-40-2 again D-R-I for Obama. 2016 51-42-7 for Clinton. It's wasn't the 2 point climb for Trump over Romney, it was the 7 point drop for Hillary from Obama. Union households didn't flock to Trump, but deserted Hillary for third party candidates.

Did the middle class desert the Democrats in 2016? The numbers say no if one looks at income between 50,000-90,000. 2012 again based on the D-R-I shows 46-52-2 Romney. 2016 46-49-5 Trump. Nationwide, Hillary matched Obama's total while Trump fell 3 points from Romney's. But nationwide isn't the rust belt and isn't Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania where Trump hit the Campaign trail address the middle class worries and fears to Hillary's third Obama term.

Apparently the middle class had deserted the democrats prior to 2012. Going back McCain although he lost by 8 points to Obama, won the middle class vote 49-48. Bush won the middle class vote 55-45 over Kerry, Bush again 51-46 over Gore. Dole 49-47 over Bill Clinton, Bush the elder 41-40 over Bill Clinton, Bush the elder over Dukakis 61-39 etc.

The union household vote went heavily for each Democratic candidate listed above. So the question is, is the Democratic Party representing the middle class, the working class folks a myth? Or is the middle class more Republican while only union households are Democratic? My source only goes back to 1976.

 

While personalities and parties are always a factor, I don't underestimate the anti-establishment Zeitgeist in the presidential primaries and election of 2016. Bernie Sanders was not a typical Democratic nominee, but he was an experienced politician. He feel short, but surprised many by the strength of his showing.

Trump was the ultimate anti-establishment figure, a vulgarian with no political experience whatsoever that easily vanquished a number of qualified Republicans as well as the veteran Democratic nominee.

Looking forward,

 

There is not doubt that the power of the propaganda of international and corporate owned media and press, which is the only media and press that remains in the USA, is massive.

So there is no predicting the future. Only the older generations remember a day when there was such a thing as a free and independent press and media in the USA. They are not totally addicted to non-stop looking a TV and computer screens, so actually more live in reality. But the generations that live in reality, not virtual reality, is shrinking.

I do not discount that increasingly voters will not just be fully controlled and manipulated cattle by the propaganda outlets of the global super rich and international corporations who do not care one iota about the USA or Americans - only about their money, sucking every debt-dollar out of the USA they can, and assuring an endless supply of cheap immigrant laborers in the USA and cheaper labor in foreign child-labor sweatshops.

When was the last time you read or heard ANYONE in the MSM or press criticize foreign child-labor sweatshops or mistreatment of illegal immigrants in the USA? You never will from those corporate PR agencies pretending to be "the press" and "reporters."

The lose of a free and independent news media and press may well have doomed the United States. Since the Democratic Party furiously embraces and demands endlessly more cheap imported labor and foreign child-labor sweatshop products, the MSM propaganda outlets will say anything, tell any lie, cover up anything, to promote the Democratic Party for the purpose of profits and power. For this reason, even regardless of party affiliation, I do not see a good future for the USA. Rather, to see the super rich and mega corporations just get richer and richer, more powerful and more powerful - as the state of the lives of ordinary Americans slowly sink to 3rd world status over the next few decades. The post WW2 glory years and wealth of the USA is vanishing.

President Trump was, in my opinion, the last chance to reverse this. But he has been totally crippled. I suspect electing him was too late to turn it around. The corporate propaganda machinery of the MSM is just too great.

 

You'd have to be an idiot to believe that President Trump said that white supremacists are good people. Nevertheless, I don't believe most white felons are white supremacists, but you can bet most felons who vote legally or illegally, vote for the party that is soft on crime, the Democratic Party.