US Gen. Election Thread FINALE - Votegeddon

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Look at the upper south's vote. 1996 it went Democrat, in 2000 it went Republican, in 2004 it went more Republican, in 2008 More R, 2012 more R, 2016 more R.

I was referring more towards the Latino vote thing. But it's worth noting that 1996 was Bill Clinton's re-election and he was wildly popular at the time.

Your upper echelons and commentators on the left have already started with the blaming. Calling us out on being misogynistic communities and that's why we voted Trump. And another one going on about how Trump wants to erase us a la Andrew Jackson.

Seriously, it's like the top commentators on the left are completely tone deaf and still try to recognize us as a monolithic group.

[Democratic Peoples republic of Kelvinsi]

I wonder what would happen if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton again in 2020...

[Uxupox]

I was referring more towards the Latino vote thing. But it's worth noting that 1996 was Bill Clinton's re-election and he was wildly popular at the time.

Your upper echelons and commentators on the left have already started with the blaming. Calling us out on being misogynistic communities and that's why we voted Trump. And another one going on about how Trump wants to erase us a la Andrew Jackson.

Seriously, it's like the top commentators on the left are completely tone deaf and still try to recognize us as a monolithic group.

Who's calling latino voters misogynistic? What the hell?

[Valrifell]

I was referring more towards the Latino vote thing. But it's worth noting that 1996 was Bill Clinton's re-election and he was wildly popular at the time.

Your upper echelons and commentators on the left have already started with the blaming. Calling us out on being misogynistic communities and that's why we voted Trump. And another one going on about how Trump wants to erase us a la Andrew Jackson.

Seriously, it's like the top commentators on the left are completely tone deaf and still try to recognize us as a monolithic group.

You're complaining about being seen as a monolithic group when:

A) You did that a few posts above this

and

B) You just did the same think to Liberals just now.

[Valrifell]

I wonder what would happen if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton again in 2020...

They won't, I doubt she's going to even try.

[Democratic Peoples republic of Kelvinsi]

I wonder what would happen if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton again in 2020...

They won't, I doubt she's going to even try.

Something in my gut tells me she is going to try it.

[Geilinor]

This Robert F. Kennedy quote explains Trump perfectly:

There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of a comfortable past which, in fact, never existed.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Your upper echelons and commentators on the left have already started with the blaming. Calling us out on being misogynistic communities and that's why we voted Trump. And another one going on about how Trump wants to erase us a la Andrew Jackson.

Seriously, it's like the top commentators on the left are completely tone deaf and still try to recognize us as a monolithic group.

You're complaining about being seen as a monolithic group when:

A) You did that a few posts above this

and

B) You just did the same think to Liberals just now.

You sure I did that? Because I didn't say we're a monolithic group of voters. The vote was pretty split, but many chose Trump. There's a reason why they did it. I am just suggesting that Trump might be able to overturn the vote if he plays his cards right and passes legislation that helps our communities.

And, no, notice I said your top commentators and upper echelons, not all liberals. So perhaps you should read.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Your upper echelons and commentators on the left have already started with the blaming. Calling us out on being misogynistic communities and that's why we voted Trump. And another one going on about how Trump wants to erase us a la Andrew Jackson.

Seriously, it's like the top commentators on the left are completely tone deaf and still try to recognize us as a monolithic group.

Who's calling latino voters misogynistic? What the hell?

It’s also worth noting how, within marginalized groups including Latinos and black people, men were much more likely to vote for Trump than women, even if support for Clinton in those communities ultimately outweighed it. Some 13% of black male voters went for Trump, compared to just 4% of black female voters. We can’t pretend Trump didn’t appeal to some men of color, and that hints at misogyny in our communities.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... l-the-same

Seriously.

[Geilinor]

TFW people swallow a documented con artist's pitch as signs he won't fuck many groups over despite his flip flopping.

I'm actually going by the exit polls, not by whatever the hell Trump has said.

As much as we'd like to deny it, he performed better among Latinos and other minorities than Romney ever did.

That, I hope, weights into the GOP agenda for the next four years.

The exit polls weren't done in every state, only in 28.

[Uxupox]

Who's calling latino voters misogynistic? What the hell?

It’s also worth noting how, within marginalized groups including Latinos and black people, men were much more likely to vote for Trump than women, even if support for Clinton in those communities ultimately outweighed it. Some 13% of black male voters went for Trump, compared to just 4% of black female voters. We can’t pretend Trump didn’t appeal to some men of color, and that hints at misogyny in our communities.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... l-the-same

Seriously.

They gotta go with this really? Are they fucking serious.

[Valrifell]

You're complaining about being seen as a monolithic group when:

A) You did that a few posts above this

and

B) You just did the same think to Liberals just now.

You sure I did that? Because I didn't say we're a monolithic group of voters. The vote was pretty split, but many chose Trump. There's a reason why they did it. I am just suggesting that Trump might be able to overturn the vote if he plays his cards right and passes legislation that helps our communities.

And, no, notice I said your top commentators and upper echelons, not all liberals. So perhaps you should read.

All of that "we", "our community" talk coupled with the line about "increasing turnout" (implying in favor of Trump) tends me to think you believe they will vote that way in large numbers, as a group.

I mean, sure, there's a huge problem with people being lumped into blocs but they really wouldn't be lumped into blocs if there weren't a large overarching trend with these groups. To be entirely honest, I was prepared to delete the post anyway.

[Arlenton]

This Robert F. Kennedy quote explains Trump perfectly:

There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of a comfortable past which, in fact, never existed.

What on earth does that have to do with Trump?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You sure I did that? Because I didn't say we're a monolithic group of voters. The vote was pretty split, but many chose Trump. There's a reason why they did it. I am just suggesting that Trump might be able to overturn the vote if he plays his cards right and passes legislation that helps our communities.

And, no, notice I said your top commentators and upper echelons, not all liberals. So perhaps you should read.

All of that "we", "our community" talk coupled with the line about "increasing turnout" (implying in favor of Trump) tends me to think you believe they will vote that way in large numbers, as a group.

I mean, sure, there's a huge problem with people being lumped into blocs but they really wouldn't be lumped into blocs if there weren't a large overarching trend with these groups. To be entirely honest, I was prepared to delete the post anyway.

No, they won't. Many of them will keep voting Democrat regardless because of the Democratic agenda. However, what I am saying is that Trump can capitalize on Latino communities by passing laws that help us. I mentioned some troubling trends, like criminal illegal immigrants, which sanctuary cities sort of protect when it comes to certain violent crimes as an unintended effect of those laws.

The fact that many Latinos are scared of being deported, or being persecuted, could be assuaged by passing immigration policy that makes some sense, like higher border security and cut a deal with law-obeying illegal immigrants whose only fault is being here.

It wouldn't be enough to turnover many Latinos to Republicans, but Trump's popularity among Latinos would soar if he did that, because those are issues that do affect us, and many are sick and tired of that.

Democrats have promised they would help us, but in my opinion Obama did absolutely nothing to alleviate the concerns of many Latinos. Oh, sure, he got DACA/DAPA as an executive order, but that pretty much was piecemeal.

There's also economic issues which we're concerned about, more so than the issues of deportation and crime, but those are mostly the same concern Americans have when it comes to the economy.

[Cattle Mutilators]

I'm pretty sure randomly kissing girls without their consent qualifies as sexual assault.

Maybe that one detail you forgot to mention? Grabbing women by the pussy?

No, no, no! BRAGGING about sexually assaulting women is perfectly fine. I mean, doesn't every guy do that in order to win the admiration and support of other men?

I mean, it's just like bragging about being a billionaire when you're not, right?

<pause>

No, seriously, what kind of asswipe brags about being a sexual predator, anyway?

[Arlenton]

All of that "we", "our community" talk coupled with the line about "increasing turnout" (implying in favor of Trump) tends me to think you believe they will vote that way in large numbers, as a group.

I mean, sure, there's a huge problem with people being lumped into blocs but they really wouldn't be lumped into blocs if there weren't a large overarching trend with these groups. To be entirely honest, I was prepared to delete the post anyway.

No, they won't. Many of them will keep voting Democrat regardless because of the Democratic agenda. However, what I am saying is that Trump can capitalize on Latino communities by passing laws that help us. I mentioned some troubling trends, like criminal illegal immigrants, which sanctuary cities sort of protect when it comes to certain violent crimes as an unintended effect of those laws.

The fact that many Latinos are scared of being deported, or being persecuted, could be assuaged by passing immigration policy that makes some sense, like higher border security and cut a deal with law-obeying illegal immigrants whose only fault is being here.

It wouldn't be enough to turnover many Latinos to Republicans, but Trump's popularity among Latinos would soar if he did that, because those are issues that do affect us, and many are sick and tired of that.

Remember though, John Cornyn won the Latino vote in Texas, simply by campaigning for it. He is just a normal Republican when it comes to immigration policy. He voted to build a fence along the border, against immigration reform, and supported deporting illegals. Yet just campaigning for the Latino vote proved to be enough in his case. Trump, from what I've seen, didn't do anything to campaign for the Latino vote. He should in 2020, an improvement by a few points will be enough to flip CO and NV.

[Senkaku]

This Robert F. Kennedy quote explains Trump perfectly:

What on earth does that have to do with Trump?

That's basically what he's run his campaign on- reverse change, restore America to the glory and pre-eminence it supposedly once possessed, et cetera.

[Arlenton]

What on earth does that have to do with Trump?

That's basically what he's run his campaign on- reverse change, restore America to the glory and pre-eminence it supposedly once possessed, et cetera.

So RFK thinks the 50s didn't exist?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Remember though, John Cornyn won the Latino vote in Texas, simply by campaigning for it. He is just a normal Republican when it comes to immigration policy. He voted to build a fence along the border, against immigration reform, and supported deporting illegals. Yet just campaigning for the Latino vote proved to be enough in his case. Trump, from what I've seen, didn't do anything to campaign for the Latino vote. He should in 2020, an improvement by a few points will be enough to flip CO and NV.

Yea, I admit, we're kind of weird with our vote as a group.

It's hard to point out where the real cause of the divide though.

One article by the Houston Chronicle (a reputable newspaper in Houston), points out conservatism and the disenchantment with the Obama's administration failure to pass immigration reform and many other promises given to Latinos in the campaign trail might have been the cause, based on the polls back in 2014:

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/ho ... 876952.php

[Genivaria]

I wonder what would happen if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton again in 2020...

No, absolutely not.

[Galloism]

Remember though, John Cornyn won the Latino vote in Texas, simply by campaigning for it. He is just a normal Republican when it comes to immigration policy. He voted to build a fence along the border, against immigration reform, and supported deporting illegals. Yet just campaigning for the Latino vote proved to be enough in his case. Trump, from what I've seen, didn't do anything to campaign for the Latino vote. He should in 2020, an improvement by a few points will be enough to flip CO and NV.

Yea, I admit, we're kind of weird with our vote as a group.

It's hard to point out where the real cause of the divide though.

One article by the Houston Chronicle (a reputable newspaper in Houston), points out conservatism and the disenchantment with the Obama's administration failure to pass immigration reform and many other promises given to Latinos in the campaign trail might have been the cause, based on the polls back in 2014:

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/ho ... 876952.php

Hilariously, the republicans in the house cockblock immigration reform and then voted back in by those who want immigration reform.

Folks, I do believe we have been outmaneuvered.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Hilariously, the republicans in the house cockblock immigration reform and then voted back in by those who want immigration reform.

Folks, I do believe we have been outmaneuvered.

To be honest, it is not all Obama's fault. I recognize the effect Congress had on this, too. And independent leaders kinda didn't help you on the Latino turnout this year either.

Independents have gained hold of many new immigration reform groups that have sprang over the last 3 years since 2013. Many of whom have been spouting the same shit about how Democrats won't help immigration reform because they only care about the status quo, how Obama is the deporter in chief, and shit like that, which affected the perception of many towards Democrats, too.

So leaders of these groups also shot themselves in the foot with that.

[Senkaku]

That's basically what he's run his campaign on- reverse change, restore America to the glory and pre-eminence it supposedly once possessed, et cetera.

So RFK thinks the 50s didn't exist?

The 50s- when women were expected to stay in the kitchen, black people couldn't vote, gay people and (suspected) Communists were arrested, and the specter of nuclear annihilation loomed over daily life, while most of the rest of the world rebuilt from the rubble of the greatest war in human history or continued to be wracked by war and instability (sometimes involving American soldiers or spies).

Yes, what a lovely time. But if you were a white man, you could get a job really easily and just sit on the assembly line for eight hours and make a decent living, so yeah, it was great!

Nostalgia, upon closer inspection, usually turns out to be a steaming pile of crap that's been painted over.

This is proven wrong by reality. We just watched - again - the swing areas getting a disproportionate say over everyone.

Even if you hand waive away the swing state problem, which you shouldn't, we just watched rural areas get a disproportionate say over urban areas. Any time you have a severe urban/rural split, in a binary choice, one will get a say over the other.

If you abolish the EC, it would be proportionate. More voters override less.

If you leave the EC, its disproportionate. Less voters have a disproportionate say over what happens in urban areas.

I think the increasing divide between urban and rural is part of the blame for the polarization we're seeing. The federal government keeps pushing national legislation which only one or the other agrees with.

Gun control is one issue. In rural areas gun crime is low; crime in general is low because the population density is low. Rural voters don't see what the big deal is when urban voters voice concerns over gun crime because they are so far removed from them. They think they're being punished for something they haven't done, while not knowing what victims of gun crime have gone through.

Minority rights is another thing. Urban areas have more diversity by virtue of simply being densely populated economic hubs. Urban voters are more likely to get to know black, Latino, LGBT, etc. people, so they know they're just people. Rural areas have less diversity. There's a good chance they only know about minorities from what they see through the media. Our media is sensationalist; the loudest craziest voices get he most airtime.

Wanted to circle back to this- why should rural voters be able to push urban voters around on issues like minority rights and gun control? Those are issues that have serious impact in cities in particular, but because of a paranoid fear of mob rule, we've just got to let rural voters who feel afraid or angry about people taking their guns away or brown/gay people being different-looking push us around? The whole one region pushing another around, if you see it that way, is a fucking two way street.

[Bakery Hill]

So RFK thinks the 50s didn't exist?

The 50s- when women were expected to stay in the kitchen, black people couldn't vote, gay people and (suspected) Communists were arrested, and the specter of nuclear annihilation loomed over daily life, while most of the rest of the world rebuilt from the rubble of the greatest war in human history or continued to be wracked by war and instability (sometimes involving American soldiers or spies).

Yes, what a lovely time. But if you were a white man, you could get a job really easily and just sit on the assembly line for eight hours and make a decent living, so yeah, it was great!

Even that is pretty deluded.

[Gauthier]

That's basically what he's run his campaign on- reverse change, restore America to the glory and pre-eminence it supposedly once possessed, et cetera.

So RFK thinks the 50s didn't exist?

Not the Leave It To Beaver 1950s people were pining for at the time, no.