Il Douché and His Discontents: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 4

we prefer arguing on message boards xp

totally making this up but i always thought it was because men fetishized individualism more and women were generally leant more communal. writing this i realize it's a pretty broad stereotype.

chart also confirms that while r. edward "lyin' ted" cruz is indeed a huge liar, one of the hugest liars, he is not a demonstrably worse liar than donald trump. i wonder if that counts as one of trump's lies.

"broad" stereotype? you sexist son of a bitch

jk

also i would propose we start calling him "r. edward cruz," much as i was hoping "j. e. bush" or "j. ellis bush" would catch on, but i worry it would come off the wrong way.

I'm inclined to think that anything out of Trump's mouth aside from "my name is Donald Trump" and "I'm running for president" and "I'm going to make America great again" is a lie.

a "pretty broad" stereotype! xxp

"I'm going to make America great again"

think we can count this one as a lie too

kinda surprising to me that hillary gets a higher 'true' score than bernie

i thought men fetishized leather.

as we've said before, no idea what that methodology is, not taking at face value

it's p easy to tell the truth accidentally at least 10% of the time

(in Trump's case, there was "the Clintons came to my wedding cuz i gave em cash, and that's how the game is played")

the proportion of female voters has actually been closer to 53/47 the last three elections. that said, they've voted for

Whites comprised 72% of voters in the 2012 election but the white vote generally doesn't decide elections, because Republicans have won the White vote by double digit margins the last 4 elections. and, in fact, I went back to 1976 and I couldn't find one election where a Democrat won the white vote. Democrats have always won with minority votes.

Romney beat Obama by 20% amongst White voters (59 to 39), which was a much larger deficit than he worked from in 2008, but that was completely undone by losing 93% to 6% in the African American vote, 71% - 27% Hispanic, 73% - 26% Asian, etc. The Hispanic and Asian vote actually grew from the 2008 to 2012 elections for Obama - they were still predominately Obama in 2008, but it was closer to 3/4ths than 2/3rds in 2012.

Essentially the only way the Repubs can win the White House = maximizing their share of the white vote, while minimizing the damage of the minority vote (ie, losing 58%-42% isntead of say, 70%-30%). Democrats already know they're going to lose the white vote, but if they garner 2/3rds - 3/4ths of the minority vote, they can make up most deficits. More than likely, had minorities not increased their support for Obama in 2012, he might have lost, but Democrats only need to minimize, not erase their deficits amongst white voters.

Which is why I really feel like, as clemenza suggested above, Trump is doomed as a candidate. Granted, we don't allocate electoral votes by race and different demographics exist for different states, but no Republican candidate ever wins by alienating minorities, and Trump has done that moreso than Romney, which is a feat since minorities overwhelmingly hated him.

That's some fucked up definition of 'decide elections' - if the white vote stayed home, do you think things would look the same?

we're talking about voters who vote.

turnout obviously matters as well, but the white proportion of the vote has decreased in six consecutive elections - from 87% in 1992 to 72%. that is based in part in minority turnout but I can't imagine that a bigoted man threatening to be the most powerful man in the free world* wouldn't inspire similar turnout among

minorities

No, I get that - if the white vote switched to double-digit margins for Democrats, would things look the same? Or am I missing what you mean by "doesn't decide elections"?

they don't decide elections in that it's a given that the majority will go for the GOP. I guess it's less of a given that minorities will break for Democrats

xpost what I mean is, losing the white vote doesn't mean a loss in the elections. Obviously if Democrats won the lion share of the white vote, they'd win in a landslide. but they haven't done this in 30+ years. the closest they've come is losing by 4 percent.

xpost yes that's what I meant Outis. for instance, when Dubya won re-election, he managed to win 40%+ of the vote from several minority groups.

so risking wrath again, may i ask what pct of liberal/Dem US Jews shares Hil's opinion, offered to AIPAC, that the entire divestment movement is antisemitic?

I’m not going to wade into the debate over BDS, but it was striking that Clinton took what is essentially the position of maximal opposition to BDS: not that it has legitimate arguments to make even if it often takes them too far, or that the movement tolerates anti-Semites within its ranks, or that people within it are starting from liberal values and thus might be persuaded to agree with someone like her, but that the entire thing is anti-Semitic and therefore must simply be fought:

“Many of the young people here today are on the front lines of the battle to oppose the alarming boycott, divestment and sanctions movement known as BDS.

“Particularly at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise across the world, especially in Europe, we must repudiate all efforts to malign, isolate and undermine Israel and the Jewish people.

“I’ve been sounding the alarm for a while now. As I wrote last year in a letter to the heads of major American Jewish organizations, we have to be united in fighting back against BDS.”

And she took on Trump for saying in February that when it comes to negotiations between the two sides, he would attempt to be “neutral.” His opponents in the Republican primaries have gotten a lot of mileage out of that one word, and Clinton used it against him as well: “Yes, we need steady hands, not a president who says he’s neutral on Monday, pro-Israel on Tuesday, and who knows what on Wednesday, because everything’s negotiable.”

In Trump’s defense (yes, I just wrote those words), when this subject comes up he’ll say as loudly as anyone else how “pro-Israel” he is, but when he used that term he was talking about being an arbiter in negotiations. And he’s forthright in saying it’s basically a ruse. “I would like to at least have the other side think I’m somewhat neutral as to them, so that we can maybe get a deal done,” he said at the last debate. “I think it’s probably the toughest negotiation of all time. But maybe we can get a deal done.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/21/hillary-clinton-gets-to-donald-trumps-right-on-israel/

i haven't seen any polling but i saw a poll this weekend that said that ninety-four percent of Jewish Americans said that if Israel “no longer existed tomorrow,” they would feel that was a tragedy, with nearly one in four saying they would consider such an event to be the “biggest tragedy of my lifetime.” Eighty-five percent said that Israel is “right to take threats to its existence seriously,” and that Israel’s concerns are not irrational or overstated.

so the % who think that BDS is intrinsically antisemitic is probably a bit lower than those figures, but i'd guess not much

The chances that a large percentage of the white vote won't vote Republican (either staying home or third-party) seem a fairly crucial factor at the moment - how is that not deciding the election?

xp xpost what I mean is, losing the white vote doesn't mean a loss in the elections. Obviously if Democrats won the lion share of the white vote, they'd win in a landslide. but they haven't done this in 30+ years. the closest they've come is losing by 4 percent. - these two sentences contradict each other! How would Democrats win the lion share without Republicans losing it?

here's a bunch of data from the somewhat recent big Pew study you can comb through on the issue:
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/chapter-5-connection-with-and-attitudes-towards-israel/

No part of BDS is about the destruction of the state of Israel, FFS!

idk, the founder of BDS has openly called for the destruction of Israel, the plank about the right of return for descendants of 1948 refugees implies as much, it is often comorbid w/ other more obviously destructive ideologies, and norman finkelstein believes it is but reasonable ppl can disagree. not sure this is the best thread to rehash this argument tho.

these two sentences contradict each other! How would Democrats win the lion share without Republicans losing it?

first sentence is clearly referring to the Democrats...?

xxp

That's still the same thing though - if losing the white vote doesn't matter (because obviously Democrats win presidential elections) but gaining it would, that's still 'decides elections'.

Oh good right of return is anti-semitic, glad we cleared that up.

xxxpost what I'm saying (and Outis clarified) is that Democrats *never* win the white vote. I could only find stats that go back to 1976, and in every single election, whites predominately voted for the Republican candidate, with margins ranging from slim (4%) to large (20%). Obviously, Republican white males either staying home, voting third party, or actually voting Democrat for the first times in their lives could give the white vote to the Democrats. That would result in an overwhelming Democratic landslide, yes, but it wouldn't be the principal reason for the victory since Democrats have proven even 20% deficits amongst white voters can be erased with the minority vote. A

s Clemenza I believe noted upthread, for the Republican party to win this election without winning additional minority support from the previous election, he'd have to win a ridiculous percent of the white vote, one that is unusual and unlikely. Meaning, the Republicans know they have to reach out to and convert minorities to win the election. They'd probably need to get at least 40% in a few of the communities - having a hard time imagining Asians, Hispanics, or African-Americans thinking a guy that has said racist shit and doesn't openly criticize the KKK is a guy that deserves their vote. Where Dems could lose is if minority turnout decreases proportionately in this election, but even then it'd have to decrease significantly.

Romney lost the minority vote something like 80/20 in 2012, and that is one reason he lost the election. Minorities hated him. Obviously *every* vote is important, I'm just saying hey, if on election date, Trump was to command the white vote, even by 10% or more, it won't necessarily translate into a victory because it hasn't in the past. It's a vote they always win - they have to win where they haven't won recently.

The proportion of the voters that were white has precipitously declined from 87% to 72%, which means minorities carry a much larger influence on the election than they did in previous decades.

http://www.junkiesfan.com/images/cover_woen.jpg

hat's still the same thing though - if losing the white vote doesn't matter (because obviously Democrats win presidential elections) but gaining it would, that's still 'decides elections'.

what I'm saying is Democrats probably don't have to do well or even win amongst white voters to win in 2016, despite them being the majority of voters. obviously it would benefit them to do so but it isn't *necessary*

good posts neanderthal

i've been trying to explain this to various family members terrified of trump winning the general, and while it scares the shit out of me too, it is not likely to happen bc while i can imagine him possibly outperforming romney w/ white males, i certainly can't imagine him outperforming romney w/ minorities

he just doesn't have the numbers

I get what you're saying, and I agree with what you're saying - I'm just pointing out that phrase you used isn't what I think you meant.

These have been around for awhile (well, for at least three and a half years or so.)

But here's what the 2012 electoral map between Obama and Romney would've looked like if only white men were allowed to vote:

http://i.imgur.com/nV8Rjz9.jpg

Hooray for Oregon and Washington State!

Maine and Vermont?!

Quite surprised by Oregon, considering how polarised that state is (VERY conservative east), but then it's not very diverse either, so I guess the Portland metropolitan area has lots of white, male Obama supporters.

alfred have you been to vermont

even the rednecks have progressive politics and drive subarus

If Donald Trump becomes the Republican Party's nominee, Utahns would vote for a Democrat for president in November for the first time in more than 50 years, according to a new Deseret News/KSL poll.

"I believe Donald Trump could lose Utah. If you lose Utah as a Republican, there is no hope," said former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, a top campaign adviser to the GOP's 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney.

The poll found that may well be true. Utah voters said they would reject Trump, the GOP frontrunner, whether former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is the Democratic candidate on the general election ballot.

While Clinton was only slightly ahead of Trump — 38 percent to 36 percent — Sanders, a self-declared Democratic socialist, holds a substantial lead — 48 percent to 37 percent over the billionaire businessman and reality TV star among likely Utah voters.

"Wow. Wow. That's surprising," said Chris Karpowitz, co-director of Brigham Young University's Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy. "Any matchup in which Democrats are competitive in the state of Utah is shocking."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865650513/Poll-Utah-would-vote-for-a-Democrat-for-president-over-Trump.html?pg=all

Yeah, the GOP figured out too late that winning entails more than slapping an 'R-' on a plate of pig offal.

my sense is, a result that weird -- mormons are one group in the conservative coalition with a really dim view of trump -- would indicate other weirdness all over the map, NOT a uniformly bad map for trump-as-nominee. he's also been mouthing off about romney's faith personally over the past few weeks.

i feel like his irreligious bullying anti-trade anti-immigrant nationalism is especially bad for sunny industrious deseret, but is (i fear) pretty great for a lot of angrier and down-at-the-mouth constituencies.

we have no idea what this election is going to look like, basically

holy shit @ Utah

he's also been mouthing off about romney's faith personally over the past few weeks.

I wouldn't be surprised if this has a lot to do w it

that and romney's speech against trump.

yeah i can imagine trump losing a lot of votes in western/mountain states but gaining nearly as many in the rust belt. and places like ohio and michigan carry more electoral votes than those mountain states....

in other words, yeah, who knows.

Frank rich correctly pointed out the bullshit duplicity of romney's speech but yeah probably

Xp

Warren going in on Trump on twitter fwiw