Go Back   AFA Forums > Secularism and Social Issues > Politics

Politics Political issues which help or hinder our society

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #391  
Old 12th November 2016, 11:10 AM
wolty's Avatar
wolty wolty is offline
See you at the snow....
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 24,007
Default Re: The US Election, 2016 Edition.

Quote:
STOKER said View Post
Quote:
wolty said View Post
I was trying to understand how Trump was elected and posting lots of different opinions about the reasons. Why the actual voters voted the way they did. Or didn't vote.


Isn't it the exact same reason why any election is won or lost?
One party doesn't represent the views of the electorate.
In this case the U.S. electorate has given a resounding FUCK YOU to the politically correct left.
Um, she is hardly left. And as well she got more votes anyway. So no, not a 'fuck you' either.
__________________
.
.
.


The Nizkor Project- Logical Fallacies

Atheist: n; A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary

Last edited by wolty; 12th November 2016 at 11:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #392  
Old 12th November 2016, 11:30 AM
loubert's Avatar
loubert loubert is offline
*Insert naughty words here*
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Townsville
Posts: 4,420
Default Re: The US Election, 2016 Edition.

Quote:
wolty said View Post
Hillary Clinton Likely Received More Votes Than Any Presidential Candidate Beside Obama

The early reports seemed clear: Hillary Clinton lost the election because nobody was excited enough about her candidacy to come out and vote. Remember this tweet that went around on Wednesday morning?





Quote:
Based on these numbers, it seemed obvious what happened: A whole lot of people decided they couldn’t stand to pull the lever for Clinton and just stayed home. It made intuitive sense. Clinton was a bad candidate who couldn’t get people excited, and she took voters for granted in states like Wisconsin and Michigan. Case closed, right?

Except it turns out these initial tallies were grossly incomplete. Now that more votes have been counted, it’s becoming increasingly clear that support for Clinton wasn’t particularly low by recent standards.

Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third-party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth.

It's worth noting that population growth makes it all but inevitable that major-party candidates in the present will receive more votes than candidates from the past. It’s also undeniable that Clinton didn’t have nearly the level of support that Obama did in 2008 and 2012. But when assessing Clinton’s candidacy, it does seem worth noting that she got more votes than George W. Bush did in 2004, than John McCain did in 2008, than Mitt Romney did in 2012, and than Donald Trump did in 2016.

My bold.
Third highest number of votes ever in a US election behind two Obama's, has beaten the vote of every Republican ever and didn't win.........
I disagree with the method being presented here. As populations grow the number of voters will grow. This is mentioned but what needs to be looked at is past participation rate. You could have a 90% turnout in the past but only have half the numbers of the voting block that currently voted. You could also have 50% turn out with a larger voting block in total due to population increase, but still have higher numbers than the 90% turn out. Trends need to be looked at over the entire election history (IMO) to arrive at an informed answer. It'll probably take another week maybe (?) before we know final figures.
__________________
Prejudices are what fools use for reason. Voltaire

Reply With Quote
  #393  
Old 12th November 2016, 11:37 AM
wolty's Avatar
wolty wolty is offline
See you at the snow....
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 24,007
Default Re: The US Election, 2016 Edition.

Quote:
loubert said View Post
Quote:
wolty said View Post
Hillary Clinton Likely Received More Votes Than Any Presidential Candidate Beside Obama

The early reports seemed clear: Hillary Clinton lost the election because nobody was excited enough about her candidacy to come out and vote. Remember this tweet that went around on Wednesday morning?





Quote:
Based on these numbers, it seemed obvious what happened: A whole lot of people decided they couldn’t stand to pull the lever for Clinton and just stayed home. It made intuitive sense. Clinton was a bad candidate who couldn’t get people excited, and she took voters for granted in states like Wisconsin and Michigan. Case closed, right?

Except it turns out these initial tallies were grossly incomplete. Now that more votes have been counted, it’s becoming increasingly clear that support for Clinton wasn’t particularly low by recent standards.

Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third-party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth.

It's worth noting that population growth makes it all but inevitable that major-party candidates in the present will receive more votes than candidates from the past. It’s also undeniable that Clinton didn’t have nearly the level of support that Obama did in 2008 and 2012. But when assessing Clinton’s candidacy, it does seem worth noting that she got more votes than George W. Bush did in 2004, than John McCain did in 2008, than Mitt Romney did in 2012, and than Donald Trump did in 2016.

My bold.
Third highest number of votes ever in a US election behind two Obama's, has beaten the vote of every Republican ever and didn't win.........
I disagree with the method being presented here. As populations grow the number of voters will grow. This is mentioned but what needs to be looked at is past participation rate. You could have a 90% turnout in the past but only have half the numbers of the voting block that currently voted. You could also have 50% turn out with a larger voting block in total due to population increase, but still have higher numbers than the 90% turn out. Trends need to be looked at over the entire election history (IMO) to arrive at an informed answer. It'll probably take another week maybe (?) before we know final figures.
Population increase is important. But I would also be interested in the percentage of popular votes she will win by and still lose.

A friend posted on FB that it is possible to get 36% of the total vote and still win with the way the electoral college is set up. That brings into sharp focus, any and all voter suppression tactics. Which would seem to be primarily designed to suppress liberal voters in the US.

My point, it's hardly a democracy the USA.
__________________
.
.
.


The Nizkor Project- Logical Fallacies

Atheist: n; A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
Reply With Quote
Like loubert liked this post
  #394  
Old 12th November 2016, 11:50 AM
wolty's Avatar
wolty wolty is offline
See you at the snow....
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 24,007
Default Re: The US Election, 2016 Edition.

Quote:
loubert said View Post

I disagree with the method being presented here. As populations grow the number of voters will grow. This is mentioned but what needs to be looked at is past participation rate. You could have a 90% turnout in the past but only have half the numbers of the voting block that currently voted. You could also have 50% turn out with a larger voting block in total due to population increase, but still have higher numbers than the 90% turn out. Trends need to be looked at over the entire election history (IMO) to arrive at an informed answer. It'll probably take another week maybe (?) before we know final figures.

Participation rate is 1% down from the last election. 57.6% versus 2012 58.6% VEP. I'm left wondering if it will go up once all votes are counted. If there are any outstanding even?

Edit, removed this first graph. Not much point total population percentages versus eligible voters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_...tial_elections
__________________
.
.
.


The Nizkor Project- Logical Fallacies

Atheist: n; A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary

Last edited by wolty; 12th November 2016 at 11:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #395  
Old 12th November 2016, 11:54 AM
STOKER STOKER is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 224
Default Re: The US Election, 2016 Edition.

Quote:
wolty said View Post
Um, she is hardly left. And as well she got more votes anyway. So no, not a 'fuck you' either.
But it would have been a "fuck you" to Trump, if Hillary had of won, right?
And she is certainly more left then Trump.
__________________
Obedient servant of Satan
Reply With Quote
  #396  
Old 12th November 2016, 11:58 AM
wolty's Avatar
wolty wolty is offline
See you at the snow....
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 24,007
Default Re: The US Election, 2016 Edition.

Quote:
STOKER said View Post
Quote:
wolty said View Post
Um, she is hardly left. And as well she got more votes anyway. So no, not a 'fuck you' either.
But it would have been a "fuck you" to Trump, if Hillary had of won, right?
Um, she got more votes than him.
Quote:
And she is certainly more left then Trump.
On some policies he is more left than her. In fact she may well be more economically conservative than him. Hence TPP support and so on.

Trump doesn't fit into any left/right scenario as he has flip flopped on nearly every issue. That's why the Republicans for the most part cut him adrift.

I wouldn't discount things like her support of socially liberal views such as Marriage Equality, Migrants and Abortion as hurting her in a conservative country.
__________________
.
.
.


The Nizkor Project- Logical Fallacies

Atheist: n; A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
Reply With Quote
  #397  
Old 12th November 2016, 12:04 PM
STOKER STOKER is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 224
Default Re: The US Election, 2016 Edition.

Quote:
wolty said View Post
Um, she got more votes than him.
And where did it get her?


Quote:
On some policies he is more left than her. In fact she may well be more economically conservative than him. Hence TPP support and so on.

Trump doesn't fit into any left/right scenario as he has flip flopped on nearly every issue. That's why the Republicans for the most part cut him adrift.

I wouldn't discount things like her support of socially liberal views such as Marriage Equality, Migrants and Abortion as hurting her in a conservative country.
I agree with that, completely. So I admit my initial statement could have been worded more accurately.
__________________
Obedient servant of Satan
Reply With Quote
Like wolty liked this post
  #398  
Old 12th November 2016, 12:13 PM
loubert's Avatar
loubert loubert is offline
*Insert naughty words here*
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Townsville
Posts: 4,420
Default Re: The US Election, 2016 Edition.

Quote:
STOKER said View Post
Quote:
wolty said View Post
Um, she is hardly left. And as well she got more votes anyway. So no, not a 'fuck you' either.
But it would have been a "fuck you" to Trump, if Hillary had of won, right?
And she is certainly more left then Trump.
Drop the left vs right bullshit for a start. Try subbing in hierarchical vs egalitarian, you'll get further. Also, stop assuming what others would have said if Hillary had won. Just because you decided to say it doesn't mean those in the opposite "camp" would have, damn sure there's a word for that type of thinking
__________________
Prejudices are what fools use for reason. Voltaire


Last edited by loubert; 12th November 2016 at 12:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #399  
Old 12th November 2016, 12:13 PM
wolty's Avatar
wolty wolty is offline
See you at the snow....
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 24,007
Default Re: The US Election, 2016 Edition.

Quote:
STOKER said View Post
Quote:
wolty said View Post
Um, she got more votes than him.
And where did it get her?

As I noted above, it would appear a candidate could achieve a vote of up to 40% less than another candidate and still win due to the Electoral College setup.
Quick math puts that at around 80,000,000 versus 50,000,000 of eligible voters this cycle and still lose. If my friend is correct regarding his estimate of 36% vote to win. I have no reason to doubt him. He is very heavily involved in US politics in the US.

I would hardly call that a victory. Or a democracy.
__________________
.
.
.


The Nizkor Project- Logical Fallacies

Atheist: n; A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary

Last edited by wolty; 12th November 2016 at 12:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #400  
Old 12th November 2016, 12:27 PM
wolty's Avatar
wolty wolty is offline
See you at the snow....
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 24,007
Default Re: The US Election, 2016 Edition.

Just on participation rate, link here.
http://www.electproject.org/home/vot...r-turnout-data
__________________
.
.
.


The Nizkor Project- Logical Fallacies

Atheist: n; A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 01:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.