Originally posted by Lews
Well, actually, it is borne out by the stats:
What stats? I see some commentary but no stats? and is that commentary from Nate Silver? Forgive me if I take it will enough salt to drown a battleship.
Even with the "opinion" of Nate Silver, that doesn't explain that Obama, who bailed them out, was flatly deserted just 4 years later when these jobs were then thriving and growing again. There was no "Anxiety" about car industry union jobs in 2012 in Michigan when the market was in steady upswing (and actually only yesterday, was the first layoff of 2000 jobs for GM for smaller cars that aren't selling well due to a slump in oil prices - and again, the rest of the industry is doing just fine).
The other statement you posted completely confirms my point; Union, blue collar households and workers will vote republican over logic. It's a tribe/gang mentality thing. Democrats bailed them out. Their economy was literally saved by Obama and Hilary promised more of the same, yet Trump at the time of the crisis openly said "let 'em go bankrupt".
quote:
Originally posted by Lews
It's easy to sit on the coasts and look at the unemployment numbers and say, 'Hey, those people have jobs, they should be happy!'. But those same people, with jobs, see the encroachment of foreign competition and automation and (perhaps rightfully, perhaps not) worry about their future and their children's futures. This trend is especially so when other sources of personal capital and prestige are decreasing.
The unemployment figures nationally are better than they've been for a decade, regardless of where you look, even in the most impoverished areas.
The stunning irony is, that these people worried about automation or manufacturing or steel jobs just voted in record numbers for the guy whose fortune is built on outsourcing to China. Again, voting for your tribe rather than your better interests.
SYSTEM-J
Well, the only stat (and I use the term loosely) you posted was "800,000 jobs in Michigan alone".
It's likely to be similar to Brexit. UK employment figures are up relative to the recession era, and the Tories get to claim they "saved" the economy (a left/right inverse of hero and perpetrator relative to the US), but almost all job creation has been through self-employment or zero hour contracts. Job security, living costs and long term prospects are going backward for a lot of people in former industrial regions.
It's certainly a cruel irony that the angry poor tend to move away from the left as they get more disaffected, when the left are the ones actually trying to help them. However, Brexit/Trump is not about these voters rationally responding to their problems, as I said before. The decline of traditional working class communities and jobs is the reason for their anger, there's little doubt of that, especially when multiplied by the frightening forces of immigration and globalisation.
DJ RANN
quote:
Originally posted by Vector A
Huh?
In what world did he "destroy" her? Electoral college count was 279 to 228 (versus 332 to 206 in 2012, for example) and she won the popular vote by 200,000.
The Dems screwed up by underestimating the volatility of working class votes in rust belt states and by nominating someone who could not connect with those voters and had all the charisma and enthusiasm-generating power of wet cardboard. And this in an election in which, judging by what was going in the Republican primary and at Trump's rallies, those last qualities were clearly going to matter a lot.
She lost nearly ever battleground state and some of her sure thing states. As said, he got more then George W (both elections, and one vote less than JFK). He didn't limp over the finish line and she won the popular vote becuase places like densely populated Cali and NY (sure thing states for any dem candidate) voted so hard for her, where everywhere else didn't.
Every final poll and 538 had her 302, and being a dem, she had 3 of the 4 largest electoral votes states in her pocket and still failed. She got conclusively whooped in nearly every battleground state as well as losing some dem strongholds such as PA and even their hometown state of AK. While the margin isn't huge, it's a massive defeat given the context and how stacked it was meant to be in her favor. She spent 63% more than Trump per electoral college vote and still somehow lost and it wasn't even tight.
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by Trance-M
How many had his thought? Landed at Schiphol and didn't know yet :)
The American election reminded me a lot of our own, and if the similarities prove to hold, his reasoning is flawless.
However, given that Republicans are the majority in both houses, I find it unlikely that it'll happen :(
Vector A
quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
She lost nearly ever battleground state and some of her sure thing states. As said, he got more then George W (both elections, and one vote less than JFK).
No, he didn't, by any measure.
George W 2004: 286 EC votes, 62,040,610 total votes
Trump 2016: 279 EC votes, 59,821,874
And even if Trump did get more total votes, getting slightly more total votes than someone did 12 to 16 years ago is basically meaningless. The country's population has increased by 26,000,000 people from 2004 to 2016.
If you really want a chronological comparison, go with a less ridiculous one: he got almost 1,000,000 fewer votes than the losing Romney-Ryan ticket of 2012!
We can agree that the polls screwed it up, but trying to paint this as some crushing victory for him is simply not accurate. It was "crushing" only in the sensing of "crushing" many people's expectations and beliefs of inevitability, not in its extent when compared to other elections.
DJ RANN
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Here's the big graphic, dip:
Still comes out as closer to 3 than 4 with the .4 added in, so suck on it and smile for the camera. But again, mere pedantry. I said "1 in 3" because I couldn't be bothered to whip out the calculator to crunch the decimal places, and it has little bearing on my point. As I said the night before the results came in, Trump had a realistic chance, and Silver showed that. You backed the idiots who thought it was a 1 in 66 chance and along with Woony started playing the know-it-all who knew the polls were really just manufactured drama. I'll take my satisfaction at being vindicated - it's about the only positive to come out of the whole grim affair.
Let's add what you posted earlier:
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
If you're going to cling to desperate pedantry, at least get it right. The article I linked stated 71%, which is a whole 5% from 66, and roughly 1 in 3 for Trump. It's actually 1 in 3.448.
.
1 in 3 is a 66% inverse chance.
71 is 5 away from 66
or........
only 4 away from 75, which is....
wait for it
75%.
I dunno where you get your maths from but even without adding the real extra figure of .4, it's closer to 1 in 4 than 1 in 3.
In fact the real math is only 3.6% away from 75 (1 in 4) rather than 4.8 (1 in 3).
Maybe if you're going to get pedantic you should whip out the calc first :p
And by the way, the article you posted stated Polls only was 71 and Polls adjusted (which is the actual figure that 538 uses as their headlines) was 72. but either way, closer to 1 in 4.
wotyzoid
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
The American election reminded me a lot of our own, and the similarities prove to hold, his reasoning is flawless.
However, given that Republicans are the majority in both houses, I find it unlikely that it'll happen :(
The smile he gives at the end, wow. ing old man. Thinks he's being so clever.
Vector A
From summer 2015:
Wonder how the doofuses yukking it up in this clip feel now.
SYSTEM-J
quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
I dunno where you get your maths from but even without adding the real extra figure of .4, it's closer to 1 in 4 than 1 in 3.
If he has a 29% chance of winning, that's 29 times in 100 he is expected to win. If we want to reduce that to a "1 in [x]" statement we have to divide both sides by 29.
100/29 = 3.448
1 in 3.448 is closer to 1 in 3 than to 1 in 4. As is (barely) the 3.4965 we get if we do the same with 28.6%.
I must admit that expressed in percentages, 29% is closer to 25% than it is to 33.333%. I'm now hoping someone who understands maths better than my A Level knowledge can explain what the actual answer is here.
planetaryplayer
More votes penciled for harambe is the only answer
DJ RANN
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Well, the only stat (and I use the term loosely) you posted was "800,000 jobs in Michigan alone".
It's likely to be similar to Brexit. UK employment figures are up relative to the recession era, and the Tories get to claim they "saved" the economy (a left/right inverse of hero and perpetrator relative to the US), but almost all job creation has been through self-employment or zero hour contracts. Job security, living costs and long term prospects are going backward for a lot of people in former industrial regions.
It's certainly a cruel irony that the angry poor tend to move away from the left as they get more disaffected, when the left are the ones actually trying to help them. However, Brexit/Trump is not about these voters rationally responding to their problems, as I said before. The decline of traditional working class communities and jobs is the reason for their anger, there's little doubt of that, especially when multiplied by the frightening forces of immigration and globalisation.
I completely agree with your brexit analysis - it's spot on, but with this specific example in the USA the important bit is 800,000 auto industry and manufacturing union jobs . It's such a perfect example because these people were union; compensated well above normal working class rates and had pensions, heavily regulated workplaces, decent security etc - these aren't minimum wage, burger flipping blue collar jobs, these are the ones that if you get, you keep.
And that's why them switching from Obama to Romney was so insane, and switching even further to Trump? Professionally suicidal given his stance towards unions, but his rhetoric about tearing up NAFTA managed to appeal to them, even if it is at the potential cost of their Union gigs. Trump has said from the outset he favors employers over unions so the fact they went for him in such a large and unexpected way is bizarre.
To make matters worse, nearly all major Union decisions end up in the supreme court, and we know how that's going to go now....
I think though what you touched on about traditional working class communities and jobs disappearing is the basis for this, albeit the rage (and protest votes) aimed at the wrong target.
Just look at Walmart, the USA's single biggest employer (2m people). they've killed off every small job/local competing business. I was recently in spokane, WA, and around their tiny airport there was nothing left becuase two walmarts had killed off every other business in the locale.
Walmart recently decided to change their full time classification to 32 hours a week (and thus qualify for health insurance pension etc) then cut everyone except management to under 32 hours. And guess what? Everything they sell is ing made in China. That's the problem - it's outsourcing on a macro and micro level and honestly, Trump is the poster boy of that type of business.
