• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Election: 2016

ModlrMike said:
Even a very cursory look at the voting over the last three elections shows what happened. Democrat voters chose to stay at home. The failed to muster almost five million voters over 2012, and nine million over 2008. The Republican numbers stayed mostly flat over the same time period. I'm sure there are a number of reasons why Democrat voters failed to show up at the polls. It would seem they only have themselves to blame.

                    2016     2012   2008

Republicans 60265858 60933504 59948323
Democrats         60839922 65915795 69498516

Voting Rate 56.1           54.9     58.2

While I don't disagree with your basic premise that the Democrats didn't get the vote out (for whatever reason), it strikes me that by limiting your sample to those three elections you may be missing an issue. If you go back three more elections you get the following:

                            2016                2012                2008                2004                2000              1996

Republicans      60,265,858        60,933,504      59,948,323      62,040,610      50,456,002    47,401,185
Democrats       60,839,922        65,915,795      69,498,516      59,028,444      50,999,897    39,197,469
                                                                                                                                            (Ross Perot) 8,085,294
                                                                                             
Voting Rate          56.1                  54.9                  58.2                    55.7                50.3                49.0

Note that there was a turnout uptick in 2004 which added some 10 million votes to each of the Democrats and Republicans and that in 2008 there was again a rise that added another 10 million to the Democrat vote but lost two million Republicans. In 2012 the rate lowered a few points which exclusively hit the Democrats. In 2016 the rate went back up again and, while the final numbers aren't in yet, predictions are that the vote will be 63,400,000 Democrats to 61,200,000 Republicans (assuming anyone believes predictions anymore).

The conclusion that I take from this is that over the last four elections there has developed a core of roughly 60,000,000 each of Democrat and Republican voters but that in 2008/2012 Obama drew a premium of otherwise uncommitted voters who were personally invested in him rather than the Democratic Party in general. Basically, with Obama gone, the uncommitted voters have decided to sit this one out.

Anyway, that's my guess. I'm sure that there will be no shortage of other guesses in the horde of upcoming post mortems.

[cheers]
 
Dimsum said:
Well, that *was* in Portland, Oregon.  ;)

I was expecting it to be a bit more diverse. They mainly look like a bunch of under-achieving white people. I guess all the other demographic groups there are too busy WORKING to protest en masse.

Even more shocking to me - these people actually seem to believe that those like Clinton give a damn about them...
 
FJAG said:
While I don't disagree with your basic premise that the Democrats didn't get the vote out (for whatever reason), it strikes me that by limiting your sample to those three elections you may be missing an issue. If you go back three more elections you get the following:

                            2016                2012                2008                2004                2000              1996

Republicans      60,265,858        60,933,504      59,948,323      62,040,610      50,456,002    47,401,185
Democrats       60,839,922        65,915,795      69,498,516      59,028,444      50,999,897    39,197,469
                                                                                                                                            (Ross Perot) 8,085,294
                                                                                             
Voting Rate          56.1                  54.9                  58.2                    55.7                50.3                49.0

Note that there was a turnout uptick in 2004 which added some 10 million votes to each of the Democrats and Republicans and that in 2008 there was again a rise that added another 10 million to the Democrat vote but lost two million Republicans. In 2012 the rate lowered a few points which exclusively hit the Democrats. In 2016 the rate went back up again and, while the final numbers aren't in yet, predictions are that the vote will be 63,400,000 Democrats to 61,200,000 Republicans (assuming anyone believes predictions anymore).

The conclusion that I take from this is that over the last four elections there has developed a core of roughly 60,000,000 each of Democrat and Republican voters but that in 2008/2012 Obama drew a premium of otherwise uncommitted voters who were personally invested in him rather than the Democratic Party in general. Basically, with Obama gone, the uncommitted voters have decided to sit this one out.

Anyway, that's my guess. I'm sure that there will be no shortage of other guesses in the horde of upcoming post mortems.

[cheers]

That's about my understanding of the numbers, nor in any disagreement, owing the comments are on the ball.. However for days now many are pointing too a White Lash, as many Rural white American especially in the rust belt voted for Trump, not forgetting the white working class...

Editorial: Rural America and a Silent Majority Powered Trump to a Win by MARIE WHITAKER
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/analysis-rural-america-silent-majority-powered-trump-win-n681221

C.U.
 
 
>Obama drew a premium of otherwise uncommitted voters who were personally invested in him

I've read several analyses that confirm your assessment.  There is a growing cadre of Democrats who agree with the sentiment "Obama was personally popular, but his (to be fair, Democratic - Reid and Pelosi should feature strongly in this) policies were unpopular".  That is a plausible explanation for the apparent paradox of his (current) high favourability ratings compared to the election results.

So four election cycles (2010, '12, '14, '16) have elapsed during which Democratic-held offices all down the ballot have diminished.

I'll stick to my earlier hypothesis: Democrats conceded (2010) that the dream of a permanent Democratic majority was premature, but concluded that demographics and data crunching could keep the presidency in their hands indefinitely.  With the presidency and enough Democrats in Congress to prevent a veto override (and hopefully with enough to sustain Senate filibusters), they could achieve their aims with executive power.

The conclusion/assumption was premature.  The Democratic party is weak at all levels, and much of what was achieved can be rolled back by the pen and phone almost as easily as it was enabled.  Much of the ACA was passed via budget reconciliation and is not protected by minority filibuster rules.
 
I keep seeing the "non college educated white" thing in respect to Trump voters.  Of course they voted Trump, having not been privileged enough to attend a four year+ rightthink indoctrination camp, poor morons.  ::)
 
Well, I was the victim of physical violence this weekend because of the election.

Was in a Toronto bar, listening to some music and chatting with the other folks at the table.  When they said they were up from the States, I asked if they were looking to buy or rent a place to live.  Girlfriend kicked me under the table.

Politics can be painful.  :nod:
 
Journeyman said:
Well, I was the victim of physical violence this weekend because of the election.

Was in a Toronto bar, listening to some music and chatting with the other folks at the table.  When they said they were up from the States, I asked if they were looking to buy or rent a place to live.  Girlfriend kicked me under the table.

Politics can be painful.  :nod:

;D
 
Trump protests are professionally organized and they are not trying to hide it.

http://www.socialistalternative.org/2016/11/11/anti-trump-protests-24-hours-40000-people-answered-call/
 
The issue of women in combat is probably going to get rolled back by the Trump administration.

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/donald-trump-women-combat-obama-military-policy

The Obama administration’s historic decision to open military combat jobs to women, a process well underway for nearly a year, could be reviewed or even reversed as President-elect Donald Trump and his Republican Party take control of Washington in January.

Trump has been a vocal skeptic of the new policy, calling the change “politically correct” and linking it to a rise in reported sexual assaults throughout the ranks. The Republican Party's official platform, drawn up this summer, expressly calls for reversal. And top lawmakers who will control Congress for at least the next two years have voiced clear opposition as well.

The policy affects nearly 300,000 military jobs involved in direct ground combat.

“Those policies have to be rolled back,” said Elaine Donnelly , president of the Center for Military Readiness, an advocacy group opposed to the slate of Obama-era military personnel reforms. “Right now the policy is that women can and will be assigned to ground combat units. That pronouncement can indeed be changed by a future secretary of defense."

Trump’s election comes as the gender-integration effort — once said to be a two-year process — nears key milestones in the Army and Marine Corps, the services most significantly affected. Since January, when implementation began in earnest, hundreds of women have expressed interest in joining the infantry, artillery and armor career fields, and dozens are in the pipeline for assignment to operational units next year.

The process could be stalled in several ways. Trump's administration could simply reverse the policy outright; Congress has passed no laws on this issue. Alternatively, a new defense secretary could grant exceptions to the policy.

Those who support the change are worried. “We have real concerns that this administration will not ensure that the integration continues,” said Kate Germano, a recently retired Marine Corps officer who now works for the Service Women’s Action Network, an advocacy group for military women.

Trump has not indicated whom he will appoint to be the defense secretary. His top uniformed adviser, Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, opposed women serving in combat units. As the Marines' top general in 2015, Dunford voiced concerns about potential impacts on combat readiness, and he filed a formal request to exempt his service from having to comply. His civilian superiors rejected that request.

A more subtle option for the next defense secretary would be to allow the policy to remain in place while exerting no substantial pressure on the military leaders charged with implementing it, thus allowing the transition to slow or stall.

“Let’s be honest,"Germano said. "Not all of the services have embraced the change. We’re already seeing it slow-rolled to a certain degree, and the next administration would just enable that type of behavior.”

WHERE THE SERVICES STAND

The Army and the Marine Corps have responded very differently. While the former started early and has moved quickly to implement the new policy, the latter initially opposed the change and has made less progress toward placing women in combat units.

Army leaders began sending women to the prestigious Ranger School last year, before the Pentagon's decision was final. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said at the time: “Women are in combat. I don’t know what the debate is, actually, frankly, on women in combat. Because women have been fighting in combat for quite some time.”

There is one female Army officer, a captain, who has been assigned to an operational unit in the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division. Another 10 women have successfully completed the Infantry Basic Officer Leaders Course, which takes freshly commissioned lieutenants and, over 17 weeks, prepares them for assignment to an infantry unit.

On the enlisted side, the Army says about 245 female soldiers and recruits are in the training pipeline for combat arms jobs in 2017.

As the only service to seek an exemption to gender integration, the Marines pointed to their own internal study that found male Marines far outperformed women in a variety of ground-combat tasks. Women were slower, fired their weapons with less accuracy and were more susceptible to injury, the Marine Corps' data showed. And a survey conducted in 2012 found that two out of three male Marines was opposed to gender-integrated combat units. 

The service's current commandant, Gen. Robert Neller, has promised to carry out orders and integrate combat units. Three enlisted women have been approved to join East Coast infantry units in the coming months, including one rifleman, one machine gunner and one mortar Marine, officials say. And two junior officers have become the Marine Corps’ first female artillery officers.

But so far, no female Marines have passed the famously rigorous Infantry Officer Course, even though dozens have tried. And while one female corporal met the minimum requirements to pass the first phase of special operations training, she did not score high enough to continue.

The Navy has offered to open its special operations units, but so far no female sailors have volunteered for Navy SEAL training.

In the Air Force's special operations community, the first woman to enter training to become a tactical air control party airman left shortly after starting due to an injury. There are no women currently in the pipeline at the TACP Preparatory Course at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, Texas.

'THERE IS NO TURNING BACK'

Obama's defense secretary, Ash Carter, has said the Pentagon needs to eliminate barriers that prevent people from serving in the military, and that doing so will help recruit and retain the most talented force. Supporters of gender integration say opening combat career fields to women will improve their promotion rates, helping to push them into the services' highest ranks, which are dominated by officers from the combat arms career fields. Any attempt by the Trump administration to reverse or slow the policy could face a challenge in court.

The change in Pentagon policy was partly influenced by a 2012 lawsuit from four female service members. They claimed the combat-exclusion rule for women violated their constitutional rights against gender discrimination. The suit is pending. While the Defense Department sought to have it thrown out earlier this year, saying Obama’s policy rendered the issue moot, the federal judge in northern California said the issue and lawsuit remain active.

Attorneys have argued whether the Defense Department’s integration plan is sufficient and moving quickly enough. And in October, there was a warning that the case’s underlying issue would be revived if Trump won the election. “If we have a Republican president, we may well be in the same position we were when we filed this complaint, a categorical exclusion of all women from combat units,” Steven Perry, who represents the four women, told a judge in the federal court. The judge agreed and set a followup court date for January.

Federal courts have the power to overturn Defense Department policy, which can result in immediate changes. Military officials fear that would be disruptive and at odds with the Pentagon’s traditional bureaucratic process for implementing new policies.

“The judge put off any further discussion of what direction the case will go in after the election,” said Gillian Thomas, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which also is involved in the lawsuit. Thomas said any effort to scale back women’s opportunities in the military will meet stiff resistance. “There is no turning back for us,” she said.

WHAT TRUMP & THE GOP HAVE SAID

The president-elect has not stated explicitly that he will reverse the policy, but his comments on the campaign trail indicated he is skeptical of it. “It's a very tricky subject,” Trump told CBS News in December 2015 just a few days after the Pentagon announced the change. “You're in there and you're fighting and you're sitting next to a woman, and now they want to be politically correct. They want to do it, but there are major problems. And, as you know, there are many people that think this shouldn't be done, at a high level, at a level of general.” 

Just weeks before the election, during an October campaign event with veterans in Herndon, Virginia, Trump addressed questions about gender integration by promising to heed his generals' advice and by suggesting Obama had not. “We have a politically correct military, and it's getting more and more politically correct every day. ... Some of the things that they're asking you to do and be politically correct about are ridiculous," he said.

The Republican Party platform adopted in August called for “an objective review of the impact on readiness of the current administration’s ideology-based personnel policies." Specifically, the platform states the party wants to exempt women “from direct ground combat units and infantry battalions."

The Pentagon’s change came after 15 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, where counterinsurgency operations made rules referencing "ground combat" seem out of step with missions targeting a shadowy enemy using nontraditional, asymmetrical tactics. During those conflicts, more than about 300,000 women were deployed into combat zones. More than 9,000 earned combat action badges, while 800-plus were wounded. At least 161 have died from combat- and noncombat-related incidents, according to Defense Department data.

Some experts say the issue is far more controversial among people who know very little about the military. “The fact that most of the American public is so removed from the battlefield makes it easier to make it a political issue,” said Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, author of “Ashley's War: The Untold Story of a Team of Women Soldiers on the Special Ops Battlefield.”

“They don’t know that this has been happening for more than a decade and women have been on the front line because commanders needed them," she said. “It is possible that people who were opposed to it from the start could use this as their window. But what I hear from folks on the ground is, if you meet the standards and accomplish the mission, then you’re part of the team. And oh by the way, that’s been happening for 15 years.”
 
Goodbye 'foo foo' economics, hello again 'bread and butter' energy...

As Forbes contributor Michael Lynch (@laffngeconomist) tweeted last week, Tesla’s big new solar roof system is “probably the most expensive way to reduce GHG emissions short of lawyers on hamster wheels.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2016/11/09/president-trump-will-make-americas-energy-sector-great-again/#3d1aab6e64e2
 
Kat Stevens said:
I keep seeing the "non college educated white" thing in respect to Trump voters.  Of course they voted Trump, having not been privileged enough to attend a four year+ rightthink indoctrination camp, poor morons.  ::)



The Beverly Hillbillies - 1x08 - Jethro Goes to School - part 2

I got me a "sixth-grade education."

https://youtu.be/CNgv4Jp6ipc


In disclosure: I'm well aware many without an academic education, etc., were or are successful, even those that can't read or write made $$$$$$$$$$$, etc.

Just my thoughts..

 
"Elly May done popped the buttons off her shirt again!"

Just my thoughts...  :)
 
No comment, although wasn't bottle fed as a baby... :-X a yes Buttons  ;D


Going back on the Election, could it be; D. J. Trump was never breast fed?

Trump lands in new controversy over breast-feeding comments.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-idUSKCN0Q31WN20150729


Presidential Candidate Donald Trump Hates Breastfeeding Women ...
http://www.babypost.com/blogs/baby-buzz/presidential-candidate-donald-trump-hates-breastfeeding-women

What happened Too kissing babies in elections, I the words of FF: Whose Baby Is That?", "What's Your Angle?", "I'll Buy That".


C.U.
 
Kat Stevens said:
I keep seeing the "non college educated white" thing in respect to Trump voters.  Of course they voted Trump, having not been privileged enough to attend a four year+ rightthink indoctrination camp, poor morons.  ::)

It's also because a great many people in the blue camp consider only university to be education.

I know a ton of folks in the trades with great careers. That's of course balanced by the degree holding barista battalions.
 
Kat Stevens:
I keep seeing the "non college educated white" thing in respect to Trump voters.  Of course they voted Trump, having not been privileged enough to attend a four year+ right think indoctrination camp, poor morons.

ModlrMike:
It's also because a great many people in the blue camp consider only university to be education. I know a ton of folks in the trades with great careers. That's of course balanced by the degree holding barista battalions.

Agree fully. I always felt that the demographic "non college educated white" was condescending and disliked the connotation that they are less intelligent. Trades persons, probably the majority of US military enlisted members are probably not considered in this demographic. Are they lessor persons?

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40 US Dept of Education

The 6-year graduation rate for first-time, full-time undergraduate students who began their pursuit of a bachelor's degree at a 4-year degree-granting institution in fall 2008 was 60 percent. That is, 60 percent of first-time, full-time students who began seeking a bachelor's degree at a 4-year institution in fall 2008 completed the degree at that institution by 2014.
 
Kat Stevens said:
I keep seeing the "non college educated white" thing in respect to Trump voters. 
 

Attachments

  • L4kLWCT.jpg
    L4kLWCT.jpg
    63 KB · Views: 194
Rifleman62 said:
Are they lessor persons?

Pour moi: Nope, however if they are an arse....In educated or Non... You have good, the bad and the ugly.....I know a few that are....Yr typical well educated and without, know it all, with chips on their shoulders looking down on others.




We all heard in conflict of interest; Trump is going to get tough on China’s trade policies, etc., the reality will dawn on him
when China holds the note over his Big head….

Trump's Empire: A Maze of Debts and Opaque Ties - The New York ..
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-debt.html?_r=0

Here's why Donald Trump hates China so much: he's ... - Daily News Bin
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/heres-why-donald-trump-hates-china-so-much-hes-massively-in-debt-to-the-chinese-government/25765/

'Beholden to no one' Trump owes $650 MILLION to China, and ...
http://therightscoop.com/beholden-to-no-one-trump-owes-650-million-to-china-and-goldman-sachs/

My understanding the P and VP are exempt from blind trusts, etc., carrying on…


C.U.
 
More tea leaves to read - highlights mine ...
President-elect Donald Trump made his first two key personnel appointments on Sunday, one an overture to Republican circles by naming GOP chief Reince Priebus as his White House chief of staff, the other a shot across the bow of the Washington establishment by tabbing Breitbart news executive Stephan Bannon as chief strategist and senior counselor.

The two men had made up the president-elect's chief of staff shortlist, and while Priebus received that job, Bannon's post also is expected to wield significant clout. The media executive with ties to the alt-right and white nationalist movement was given top billing in the press release announcing their appointments.

Trump's hires were, at first glance, contradictory, though they fit a pattern of the celebrity businessman creating a veritable Rorschach test that allowed his supporters to see what they wanted. Priebus, who lashed the RNC to Trump this summer despite some intraparty objections, is a GOP operative with deep expertise of the Washington establishment that Trump has vowed to shake up. He has close ties to House Speaker Paul Ryan, a fellow Wisconsinite ...
 
Back
Top