Liveleak Forums

Liveleak Forums (http://forums.liveleak.com/index.php)
-   North America (http://forums.liveleak.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Why Trump Won: The Statistics Tell The Story (http://forums.liveleak.com/showthread.php?t=119094)

Aquina1300 12-24-2016 06:26 PM

Why Trump Won: The Statistics Tell The Story
 
For those who like to crunch post election data, this seems to be the definitive piece so far.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/up...=top-news&_r=1

Trump's win basically boils down to two facts.
1) Northern white working class voters without college degrees switched their votes from Obama to Trump.
2) Black voter turnout dropped between 5 to 10 percent across the nation.

The explanation for the first point, that the white working class changed their vote had to do with Trump's aggressive campaigning on the issue of job creation and the supposed free trade agreements. Obama won those same northern white voters in 2008 by campaigning against NAFTA, promising job creation and a better economy. Hillary, by contrast, ignored white working class voters or took them for granted, even though the uneducated white working class makes up the largest single voting block in American politics. Hillary was more inclined to negatively characterize them and their concerns. It's no secret that white working class voters, especially of the northern variety, are the most ignored and forgotten voting block of the 21st century, that is, before Trump came on the scene.

As to the second point, black turnout and registration fell throughout the entire nation. This should not have surprised Democrats or Hillary's campaign. It was widely revealed in after election data in both 2008 and 2012, that blacks turned out in record numbers to vote for Obama because Obama was the first black president. Obama never had any coat tails with the black voter turnout in down ballot, midterm or special elections. No one Obama endorsed publicly was able to reproduce the same high black turnout rates. Even Deval Patrick, who was elected the governor of Massachusetts, was able to reproduce the same rate of black voter turnout that Obama received in either 2008 or 2012. It should be noted, Obama made personal appearances and stomped for Deval Patrick, aggressively. The notion that Hillary could reproduce that achievement as an old, white woman who was the ranking member of the establishment, was pure hubris.

As to the idea that the possible first woman president could be the same historic first as the first black president was also deeply flawed. Electing the first black president was historic mostly because blacks are a minority and a significant part of the non-black electorate would also have to vote for Obama for him to have won in 2008 and 2012. In effect, white working class voters without college degrees would have to vote for Obama for Obama to win in 2008 and 2012, and they did. That demographic made up 34% of Obama's electorate in 2012. That 34% is also more than double what the black vote for Obama was in absolute numbers. Women, if there is an actual women's block vote, have been the majority voting group since 1996. Women could vote a woman into office any time they want even without a single male vote.

Women, however, aren't a block vote. Women, like any other group, vote based on their own immediate concerns. A woman who works in academia is always going to vote for the candidate that is most pro-abortion being that abortion is a sacrament to feminists. A religious stay at home mother with four kids is going to vote for economic opportunities for her working class husband. That left wingers and the establishment class thought that Hillary could unite those two disparate archetypes of women just because Hillary is a woman was utterly preposterous.

As a pro-lifer, I could never be "with her" because her views are utterly abhorrent to me. Granted, lefties and dems, would like to think my position is woefully ignorant and ignorable, but the facts are, most women are pro-life and most Americans do want restrictions on abortion procedures. The tiny minority on the abortion issue, is Hillary's position on abortion where abortion is implicitly viewed as a courageous act on behalf of women's empowerment and civil rights. There was no way Hillary could ever create a body of support with women that even came close to rivaling Obama's support from black voters. But in trying to create that body of support and also to turn out black voters, Hillary alienated, ignored and belittled the one group that she did need - white working class male voters without college degrees.

I also think a lot of Hispanic working class male voters are a part of that demographic type as well.

Daveypoo 12-24-2016 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquina1300 (Post 2257775)
For those who like to crunch post election data, this seems to be the definitive piece so far.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/up...=top-news&_r=1

Trump's win basically boils down to two facts.
1) Northern white working class voters without college degrees switched their votes from Obama to Trump.
2) Black voter turnout dropped between 5 to 10 percent across the nation.

The explanation for the first point, that the white working class changed their vote had to do with Trump's aggressive campaigning on the issue of job creation and the supposed free trade agreements. Obama won those same northern white voters in 2008 by campaigning against NAFTA, promising job creation and a better economy. Hillary, by contrast, ignored white working class voters or took them for granted, even though the uneducated white working class makes up the largest single voting block in American politics. Hillary was more inclined to negatively characterize them and their concerns. It's no secret that white working class voters, especially of the northern variety, are the most ignored and forgotten voting block of the 21st century, that is, before Trump came on the scene.

As to the second point, black turnout and registration fell throughout the entire nation. This should not have surprised Democrats or Hillary's campaign. It was widely revealed in after election data in both 2008 and 2012, that blacks turned out in record numbers to vote for Obama because Obama was the first black president. Obama never had any coat tails with the black voter turnout in down ballot, midterm or special elections. No one Obama endorsed publicly was able to reproduce the same high black turnout rates. Even Deval Patrick, who was elected the governor of Massachusetts, was able to reproduce the same rate of black voter turnout that Obama received in either 2008 or 2012. It should be noted, Obama made personal appearances and stomped for Deval Patrick, aggressively. The notion that Hillary could reproduce that achievement as an old, white woman who was the ranking member of the establishment, was pure hubris.

As to the idea that the possible first woman president could be the same historic first as the first black president was also deeply flawed. Electing the first black president was historic mostly because blacks are a minority and a significant part of the non-black electorate would also have to vote for Obama for him to have won in 2008 and 2012. In effect, white working class voters without college degrees would have to vote for Obama for Obama to win in 2008 and 2012, and they did. That demographic made up 34% of Obama's electorate in 2012. That 34% is also more than double what the black vote for Obama was in absolute numbers. Women, if there is an actual women's block vote, have been the majority voting group since 1996. Women could vote a woman into office any time they want even without a single male vote.

Women, however, aren't a block vote. Women, like any other group, vote based on their own immediate concerns. A woman who works in academia is always going to vote for the candidate that is most pro-abortion being that abortion is a sacrament to feminists. A religious stay at home mother with four kids is going to vote for economic opportunities for her working class husband. That left wingers and the establishment class thought that Hillary could unite those two disparate archetypes of women just because Hillary is a woman was utterly preposterous.

As a pro-lifer, I could never be "with her" because her views are utterly abhorrent to me. Granted, lefties and dems, would like to think my position is woefully ignorant and ignorable, but the facts are, most women are pro-life and most Americans do want restrictions on abortion procedures. The tiny minority on the abortion issue, is Hillary's position on abortion where abortion is implicitly viewed as a courageous act on behalf of women's empowerment and civil rights. There was no way Hillary could ever create a body of support with women that even came close to rivaling Obama's support from black voters. But in trying to create that body of support and also to turn out black voters, Hillary alienated, ignored and belittled the one group that she did need - white working class male voters without college degrees.

I also think a lot of Hispanic working class male voters are a part of that demographic type as well.

No, it was because RACISM! SEXISM! HOMOPHOBIUM! ISLOMOPHOBIA!

radgy 12-24-2016 09:44 PM

he won for the most basic of reasons,he wast
a career pollitician,plain n simple

deathmode 12-25-2016 05:35 AM

I kept telling people he was taking things off road. Nobody knew what was out there but I knew it was a lot of people. Like me and my wife, both college grads, both good jobs. We were done with Obama's policies.

inevitab1e 12-25-2016 06:06 AM

Correct, Trump won because RW media propaganda was able to scare enough people to vote against Hillary. This is normal for the election season. Scare people first, then hit them with the lies. This way they'll believe it.

Aquina1300 12-25-2016 06:07 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by deathmode (Post 2257883)
I kept telling people he was taking things off road. Nobody knew what was out there but I knew it was a lot of people. Like me and my wife, both college grads, both good jobs. We were done with Obama's policies.

Look at this graph from the article....

Attachment 146890

There are two things to notice......

The first part to notice is that whites without a high school diploma and post graduate educated whites voted more for the Democratic candidates in 2004, 2008 and 2012, than whites with just a high school diploma, some college and college degree. But in 2016, while post grad whites when even more strongly for Hillary, whites without a high school diploma veered sharply in the direction of Trump. It's actually the biggest movement from 2004 on the entire graph. It also confirms the stereotype that the democrat party may have the most educated voted block but it also has the least educated voted block and high school drop outs are far more numerous than post graduates.

The second thing to notice is that even though college educated whites veered toward Hillary in 2016, it was more of a standard deviation compared with the mean and not a huge upset that media made it out to be. It wasn't in record setting numbers but more along the lines of the percentage Obama won in 2008 and it wasn't a majority. The only education level that went for the Democrats by a majority were post graduates. None of the other education level voted a majority for John Kerry, Obama in 2008 or 2012, or Hillary in 2016.

That being said, Hillary didn't win the majority of college educated whites as the media and the Clinton campaign said they would and Democrats alienated the poorest whites at epic proportions. The real story here is how much the least educated whites swung toward the Republicans since 2004.

the demon 12-25-2016 06:54 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Daveypoo (Post 2257801)
No, it was because RACISM! SEXISM! HOMOPHOBIUM! ISLOMOPHOBIA!

And bigevilbadscary RUSSIA!

Damn those Russians Attachment 146892

the demon 12-25-2016 07:22 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by inevitab1e (Post 2257885)
Correct, because LW media propaganda was able to scare enough people to vote against Trump. This is normal for the election season. Scare people first, then hit them with the lies. This way they'll believe it.

No doubt. CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC and the majority of mainstream networks were seriously pumping out the propaganda to take advantage of vulnerable and naive minds. Even Hollywood got in on it lol. Oh and MTV, and SNL and just about every show on cable television. Boring into the feeble minded leftists, filling their heads with absolute shit. The dumb ones fell for it, but others didn't and they decided to either vote Trump, or not vote at all.

YOU were one of the dumb, weak minded people who bought the lies, hook line and sinker.Attachment 146893

Daveypoo 12-25-2016 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inevitab1e (Post 2257885)
Correct, Trump won because RW media propaganda was able to scare enough people to vote against Hillary. This is normal for the election season. Scare people first, then hit them with the lies. This way they'll believe it.

Hahahaha... you serious?

The entire media has no credibility at this point. The people's trust in those fuckers is at its most historic low. Even the right-leaning media is experiencing this.

Although the right-leaning media is a little more trustworthy than the left (which was proven throughout the election as they were the only ones who dared to report on Hillary's flaws), they're still suffering from the lack of trust.

Like right now, at this point in time, I would trust Breitbart or RT over the BBC or CNN. But I still do not trust Breitbart or RT to NOT lie to me. I just trust them not to lie to me as much as BBC/CNN would.

inevitab1e 12-25-2016 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquina1300 (Post 2257886)
Look at this graph from the article....

Attachment 146890

Post graduates always support democrats. They're the most educated. High school drop outs support republicans. The more educated a person is, the less likely they are to vote republican.


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:36 AM.