Home
Blog
Careers
Forums
Downloads
FM24 Real Name Fix
FM23 Real Name Fix
FM24 New Leagues
FM23 New Leagues
FM24 Tactics
FM24 Data Update
FM Database
FM Guides
FM Shortlists
FM24/25 Update Wonderkids
FM24/25 Update Free Players
FM24/25 Update Bargains
FM24/25 Update Players to avoid
FM24/25 Update Club Budgets
FM24/25 Update Club Facilities
Graphics
Installation Guides
Records
Prediction League
Fantasy Football
Search
Shola
I mean Bush, Kasich, Rubio, Clinton and Christie all got blown away by Trump. A fairly broad spectrum of conservative to centre left. As did 'competent' Osbourne, Cameron and May get blown away by Brexit.
I think people getting there news from Facebook is the defining trait of 2016. All of the fireguards that used to be provided by newspapers and journalists have been replaced by Facebook, the Alt-Right and Demagogue's peddling hatred, scapegoats and easy answers.
How is a politician supposed to compete when they're big argument is things will possibly be marginally better? - When you've got huge populist movements, like Trump or Brexit that are going to magically fix everything.
Vercoe
Franck
The fall of liberal democracy, should we actually get that far, will solely be on the hands of the fuckwits who have fallen for the demagoguery of Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Viktor Orban et al.
You do not get to blame the consequences of your own decisions on other people.
Grimnir
A lesson every liberal need learn. The labelling of every Trump and Brexit supporter as stupid/racist/deplorable by the liberal supporters of Clinton made sure she sank her own ship and completely missed what was going on.
Grimnir
King Luis
Such a lazy comparison.
If you can't see the difference between a career politician getting into power over a racist, misogynistic, TV personality with no history in politics then you are completely missing the point.
Also you seem to have conveniently forgotten the Tea Party protests.
Grimnir
But I wouldn't have voted for Clinton, either.
Franck
People do not get to support an orange racist rape monkey and then act indignant when people call them out for it.
Shola
It's a very trivial point, but shows fundamentally that the South genuinely is extremely ignorant of the North East. (see also people from Yorkshire being classed as Geordies)
Number 1
Maybe it also helped Trump had so many scandals that it was hard to keep up or focus ire on one target. Not that it matters too much - be it shady business deals, political unsuitability, or just being impeached by reason of insanity, I don't think he'll last the full 4 year term. Although as the anti-abortion and anti-gay Mike Pence is his VP and would take over, that's really taking the "douche or turd" principle to breaking point.
I do think its quite bizarre that Clinton got more votes but lost to a guy who got less votes than both guys Obama beat. But then I thought the reverse scenario of Clinton winning electoral college vs Trump winning popular was likelier, although I get the idea of state-by-state winners leading to an accumulative win. But it does seem perplexing this is a thing, and judging by history, tends to usually ends badly - 1876's election ended in a year's legal arguments before the guy who won the popular vote was given it anyway, the winner in 1888 was voted out 4 years later for the previously incumbent President he had beaten anyway, and 2000 gave us George W. Bush. So... yaaay for democracy.
K3V0
Carroll.
Ninja
Maybe they shouldn't vote for someone thats all of those things then?
On the subject, its a bit hypocritical to claim the high ground about how 'liberals' made you do X Y and Z because they offended you and then attempt to disparage 'liberals' as a collective and use it as a dirty word.
Not exactly particularly conciliatory.
Grimnir
I was just saying I can see how Trump won.
Ninja
Thats fine. I was offering it up as a criticism of that line of thinking, but not necessarily a criticism of you.
I just doesn't really stack up with reality though. Trump won because he won the states he needed to. He's set to lose the popular vote (bearing in mind all votes haven't been counted yet) by abut 3 million votes and his vote share is roughly in line with previous Republican candidates; the result is a long, long way from a decisive rejection of the Democratic party or Clinton or an embrace of Trump's rhetoric but, more simply, a Republican candidate performing roughly as expected in the US system.
Whilst it is obviously upsetting to see a man who has said and done what he has done being voted into the White House and he did pick up the protest vote, but as a representative of the party not in power he's bound to pick up the protest vote regardless of what he says, the idea that the actual results of the election show that Trump galvanised his supporters doesn't really stack up.
And case in point here's a tweet showing ad campaigns in two swing states Trump won. The Clinton campaign got complacent and spent its money on stupid places they weren't going to win leaving Trump free to chip away at states they should have been targeting.
For all the talk about 'new' politics Trump won it for some very old reasons.
Shola
Trump probably won because he actually offered a solution to the working classes. He flipped the Rust Belt because he actually gave people a reason to vote. Does Clinton actually offer any reason for a poor person to vote for Clinton? - (aside from to stop Trump)
Ninja
Well apparently more poor and working class people voted for her than him so maybe?
I don't actually know though. Her entire campaign seemed to be 'I'm not as shit as him' which is true but obviously uninspiring.
Grimnir
Just let him survive these 4 years, lot of talk that he won't but Mike Pence is even worse! Better the Devil you know...
Shola
There were really significant swings in the poorer voters though iirc 20%-30%. Richer people were already the natural base for Republicans - and I think there were very slight swings to Clinton in those demos.
Also obviously the poorer people will be disproportionately Black/Latino who generally voted Clinton.
Ninja
The last sentence is true, but I believe they were much more likely to vote for Obama than they were for Clinton which could well skew swing data.
The interesting question here though is how unusual those swings are. All these tables have democrats first.
For references sake here is Obama's numbers from 2008.
Under $15,000 73 25 2 6
$15,000–30,000 60 37 3 12
$30,000–50,000 55 43 2 19
$50,000–75,000 48 49 3 21
$75,000–100,000 51 48 1 15
$100,000–150,000 48 51 1 14
$150,000–200,000 48 50 1 6
Over $200,000 52 46 2 6
and 2008
Under $30,000 63 35 2 20
$30,000–49,999 57 42 1 21
$50,000–99,999 46 52 2 31
$100,000–199,999 44 54 2 21
$200,000–249,999 47 52 1 3
Over $250,000 42 55 3 4
even compared to Bush's 2000 numbers theres not a massive amount of difference to his income vote breakdown to Trump's.
<$15,000
58
38
1
4
$15,000-29,999
54
42
1
3
$30-49,999
49
48
1
2
$50-74,999
46
51
1
2
$75-99,999
46
52
*
2
$100,000 & over
43
55
*
3
Even going back to Clinton in 92 there's not a huge amount to suggest that Trump did anything unusual:
11 Under $15,000 58 23 19 59 28 11
23 $15,000–29,999 45 35 20 53 36 9
27 $30,000–49,999 41 38 21 48 40 10
39 Over $50,000 39 44 17 44 48 7
18 Over $75,000 36 48 16 41 51 7
9 Over $100,000 — — — 38 54 6
Now all of these graphs subdivide the data in a way the original didn't, but I think its reasonably clear that the huge swing is more about Obama getting people out to vote in ways Clinton couldn't and didn't than it is about Trump. And that there is always a swing against the ruling party towards the other in the poorest of society.
Shola
It's hard to say. Arguably Gore has the exact same problem as HRC. Seen as a party hack insider attempting to win a third term. Which is the exact inverse of Obama, as a fresh outsider without the mainstream support of the DNC, trying to win a first term. Mittens Romney was also a terrible candidate to appeal to the poor four years ago - which will add to the swing.
The economy is also completely different as well, which is another factor, imo people were probably a lot more optimistic in 1999.
I'm hopeful Trump losing the popular vote, and winning on an extremely low voter turnout means that Trump actually has limited appeal and only a smallish number of people are fanatical about him. Compared to Brexit, were extremely high turnout, meant Britain was just racist.
Franck
Just looking at incomes doesn't say very much. The argument around Trump is that he flipped working class white people who traditionally vote Democratic in states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, that particular demographic gets drowned out by other groups like blacks and hispanics who virtually always vote for the Democrats when you look at poor people in general.
Franck
Christian Sharia Man is dangerous for America, the Orange Rape Monkey is dangerous for the whole world.
Donald Trump hasn't even been sworn in yet and he's already completely undermined NATO, something that leaves much of Europe in a very dangerous position. And that's before considering the potential fallout from the trade wars with China he promised during the campaign, or his frightening comments about nuclear weapons.
Shola
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38045742
Police basically not investigating crimes - as they could ignore them instead. Really awful.
King Luis
Phoenix Arrow
It's as if everyone who used to post here grew up, went to uni and got a job or whatever. But KM isn't here either?
DNZY
Eric Portapotty
It ain't dead, it's just the likes of you and Bian aren't here.
And TS, but he's too busy on Reddit.
Franck