Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
nah000
climber
no/w/here
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2016 - 01:46pm PT
|
here are the results of some of the exit polling from the nytimes...
what i find interesting is that the primary dividing lines are not along education, age, sex, or even income bracketing [although there are of course tendencies within all of those].
the most divisive lines are based on race and where a person lives:
and what i find more interesting about those race numbers, is that trump was actually more successful [and equally/more importantly clinton was less successful] in getting the non-white vote than his predecessor. 7% more black, 8% more latinx, and 11% more asians voted for trump than voted for romney. only 1% more white voted for trump than romney... which is kind of remarkable to me given the rhetoric that is currently out there. ie. it shows that for all of the talk of there being a "new" split based on race, it is actually an "old" one. and one that actually decreased rather than increased.
age is interesting in the same way. trump actually won 5% more of the millenials than romney. and he lost 4% of the blue hairs [no disrespect intended]. ie. the age split was not as extreme as we saw in brexit and the split was actually less pronounded than it was in the romney/obama race.
one of the two splits that did become more polarized was sex:
but it was mostly due to women not turning out for clinton in the way that was expected as there was only a 1% decrease in the number of females who voted for trump over romney. whereas there was a 5% increase in the male vote for trump over romney.
the other split that became more polarized was the one along education lines:
ie. higher educated folk swung even more democrat while less educated swung even more republican.
at the same time, education was far less telling than the urban vs rural split.
and the one based on income was one of the least telling of any of them, and actually became far less polarized than in the previous election:
the sum of all of this is that it was less trump winning, as he didn't really gain many new votes:
trump: 59.8 million votes [and that was with third party candidates that common sense says likely took more votes away from trump than clinton]
romney: 60.9 million votes
clinton: 60.9 million votes
obama: 65.9 million votes
rather, it was primarily clinton losing.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2016 - 01:54pm PT
|
I'd seen the same data, nah000, and come to your same conclusion. I think if the result were reversed, I would conclude that it was Trump losing rather than Clinton winning.
The small third party vote, compared with 1992 and 1996, disappointed me, though. George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton were much more attractive candidates as people than our choice this election. Perhaps Perot got so many votes because voters did not think the election of GHW or WJC would be a disaster. I think in this election, fear of one of the two main candidates, more than enthusiasm for one, drove the voting.
John
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2016 - 01:55pm PT
|
Without Obamacare, I am screwed. Nobody will insure me.
First, Trump isn't planning to "eliminate" Obamacare instantly. Likely he'll work with Congress to, over time, revamp aspects, phase out aspects, and perhaps even write an alternative that doesn't hand us over to the insurance companies on a silver platter without any actual reform (read: radical forced cost reductions for health care itself). You have no reason at present to believe that all protections regarding pre-existing conditions are going to suddenly go away. In fact, such protections existed in most states well prior to Obamacare, which I'll address a bit more in a moment.
Until the feds make healthcare a not-for-profit enterprise, or at least closely regulate profits, it will continue to be ridiculous that a syringe costs, for example, $100 the second it hits a professional's hand! That is what really needs reform, and Obamacare did absolutely nothing to touch the real issue that plagues American healthcare. I'm hopeful that this sort of thing will be addressed in this next iteration.
Another point is that HIPAA (1996) precipitated state reforms such that most states now have laws on their books (completely apart from Obamacare) that require insurance companies operating in their states to limit what is called "pre-existing", waiting periods, etc. These laws would be worth looking into.
Worst case, even if Obamacare suddenly, overnight went completely away and health-insurance was thrown into total chaos, perhaps you'd need to move to a state that offers better such protections than where you now live. That's a hassle, but it's better than being "screwed," as you say.
Furthermore, at least 34 of the 50 states operate their own "high-risk pools," whereby people denied insurance or charged "substantially more than typical market price" for coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions are enabled to be state-subsidized for the costs of coverage or enabled to flat-out purchase insurance-company coverage under the law (effectively denying the insurer the ability to deny coverage). Some of these states have overlapping or alternative programs whereby persons having uninsurable pre-existing conditions can obtain low-cost coverage from the state itself, with premiums based on an income-assessment.
Obamacare is not the only game in town, and the word "screwed" is pretty sweeping unless there are literally NO alternatives. We have too limited of information to believe that you are indeed "screwed."
Even so, for my own part, I find what you said troubling enough that I would take up the cause to help you track down alternatives, once I better understood the situation.
From talking with attorneys I know, I believe that there are always good alternatives to medical bankruptcy. Those people that end up in bankruptcy over medical conditions were those that did not seek professional guidance until they were so far down the path (due to ignorance) that they really had screwed themselves.
So, let's be sure that such a thing doesn't happen in your case, Moose!
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2016 - 02:02pm PT
|
Hey Cragman.. When Obama won you predicted that their would be a violent civil war within a year because Obama was going to take all of our guns away. Were you just being a cry baby?
|
|
Mike Honcho
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2016 - 02:02pm PT
|
|
|
nah000
climber
no/w/here
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2016 - 02:09pm PT
|
JEleazarian: agreed.
and if one out of every 100 people changed their vote from trump to clinton [a 2% swing] nate silver posted that the map would have looked like this:
ie. just as "decisive" a win for clinton as there was in reality for trump...
which provides another piece of evidence pointing to that this was less about some new reality, but rather it was the failure of the democratic candidate to rally both her base and a few independents that resulted in exposing the splits that have always been there...
and in many ways those splits were less pronounced in this election than they have been in the past...
it's just that the old 49% just became the new 51%... or in this case the new 47.5%...
|
|
Happiegrrrl2
Trad climber
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2016 - 02:10pm PT
|
Cragman - I don't have any doubt that if one found a similar thread when Obama was elected in 2008, the same types of "sky is falling"(to use your words) text would be coming from those who voted Red. Probably worse, actually.
I do not get how you can exhibit such patience and love for your family and be so nasty online to those you have never met. The same with Cosmic. It just seems so opposite what I was taught were the ways a Christian behaves. FWIW, I was born into a Catholic family and attended parochial school through tenth grade. So, though I am no scholar of the Xian religion, I lived it for a good length of my life. I still consider myself a Christian, as well. Your online voice seems so unlikely, from someone who professes the follow Christ.
Maybe while Trump is getting ready to "drain the swamp," you might consider doing the same to the swampy depths of cruelness that are indicated in your words against others who don't share your feelings.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2016 - 02:10pm PT
|
A cuisinart in every van.
Gimme Gimme Gimme
Back from the USSR boys, don't know how lucky we are
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2016 - 02:14pm PT
|
Just a word on the legitimacy of the election:
People may grouse that Hillary actually won, because she got the popular vote. Of course, that is not our system.
However, winning the popular vote would not win, either, unless it was more than 50%.
The Constitution calls for, when no candidate wins more than 50%, for the race to go to the House of Representatives, dominated by the GOP.
So Trump would have won, anyway.
The same was true with Bush v Gore.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2016 - 02:16pm PT
|
He is now the leader of the Republican Party.
False. And on many levels.
He IS not the President yet. At the moment, he's just a guy (with SS protection). Until he's sworn in, he's just a guy.
Furthermore, THIS Republican party has staunchly resisted Trump throughout the process, even as recently as just days ago threatening to disown him and resist his every attempted policy. They hate him! And there's no law requiring them to treat him as their PARTY leader.
That party is in control of the Congress.
In a limited sense. They are not godlike, such that they can do whatever they want over the objections of Democrats. And even if they were, the do not OWN America nor determine what sorts of behaviors individuals will engage in. Racism in the robust sense is already illegal everywhere in America!
That gives him great power.
See above. And, no.
In two months time, he will be President,
Then you MIGHT have the start of a case to say "his." Until at least that point, this talk of "his America" is flagrant, inflammatory, alarmist propaganda. And until he is actually EXERCISING some real power, it's impossible to detect the causal chains emerging from the exercise of power.
Meanwhile, until then, this is much more accurately called "Obama's America," or, "Hillary's America." If there are causal chains to be traced back to people in actual power, well, those have been the people in actual power.
Otherwise (and this is REALLY the case), you've got a few goofballs doing isolated goofball things. Such incidents have NOTHING to do with "Trump's America."
and will shortly name his Supreme Court replacement
Yada, yada, yada. Alarmist propaganda.
....giving the GOP control of the courts.
Ohhh... I see. And the GOP courts are going to tear down the laws regarding racist graffiti? Is that it?
Wowwww... get out of the echo chamber!
Even at this point, his words carry great power.
And there's the core liberal mistake. Words have ONLY the power that listeners ascribe to them. The old saw is true: "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me."
The whole liberal "safe space," "I shouldn't have to hear anything that offends me" BS is just that: BS.
Trump's words might influence, but they have no POWER. Individuals have the power to determine their own behaviors, and behaviors are what actually affect causal chains.
And Obama has said more words to take race-relations back decades than any president in decades! Trump could hardly do worse.
He can destroy the Stock Market by saying the wrong thing.
False. And just more alarmist propaganda. When the market declined immediately following the election, guys like you were saying: "See! See! Trump is already throwing us into recession." It's ridiculous on so many levels.
First, note that the market immediately recovered and has gone up ever since, "A result that few expected," which has been the result of everything "Trump" so far.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/10/investing/markets-stocks-donald-trump-rally/index.html
Next, the FED has far, far more influence on the market by suggesting (or even talking about) the interest rate.
Finally, economic factors either entirely out a president's control or at most distantly influenced by a president are what most drive the market's "sense" of things. Presidents actually have very, very little power over the economy or the market reactions to the economy.
He can start an international incident by saying the wrong thing.
And that has to do with graffiti incidents? How?
Even the everyday citizen can start an international incident. Remember the goofball American in Indonesia some years ago that got himself caned for graffiti? That sparked in international incident! Big deal.
He already has great power.
You have not made that case, nor have you (or the "news" article you cited) connected "Trump" with "Trump's America" and with a graffiti incident.
You libs see "racial incidents" everywhere you look.
Get OUT of your echo chamber!
|
|
SusanA
Sport climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2016 - 02:17pm PT
|
I do not get how you can exhibit such patience and love for your family and be so nasty online to those you have never met. The same with Cosmic. It just seems so opposite what I was taught were the ways a Christian behaves. FWIW, I was born into a Catholic family and attended parochial school through tenth grade. So, though I am no scholar of the Xian religion, I lived it for a good length of my life. I still consider myself a Christian, as well. Your online voice seems so unlikely, from someone who professes the follow Christ.
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!
Cragman, I see that you make a lot of posts that just say that everyone here is stupid. You know that you are on here too!
I know that there is a lot of silliness here but some of these things are really important to people. I am about to get laid off and I have no idea if I am going to have health insurance. I am healthy now and I'm not so worried but if I were sick right now I would be TERRIFIED because it seems that Trump is totally determined to take health care away from anyone that cannot afford it.
|
|
thebravecowboy
climber
The Good Places
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2016 - 02:25pm PT
|
will somebody please think of the media?
|
|
10b4me
Mountain climber
Retired
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2016 - 02:26pm PT
|
but rather it was the failure of the democratic candidate to rally both her base and a few independents that resulted in exposing the splits that have always been there...
I heard an interview today that said there was no enthusiasm for Clinton, that she was considered too much of an insider, and her thirty years of public service wasn't a factor.
However, they said that this is what kept McCaine from winning.
It seems as though voters are starting to want things done, and if they don't happen, they want new ideas. We may be getting into a period of one term presidents.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2016 - 02:28pm PT
|
And of course we can expect innumerable congressional and senate committee investigations into Ms. Clinton's conduct, can't we? None, of course, politically motivated in the slightest - solely for justice. It wasn't just rhetoric, was it? Would they drop this just because Clinton was defeated?
Clinton is a dead horse. They can beat on her all they want, but to what end?
They have proven themselves not stupid. They gambled on not confirming the SCOTUS....and they won, as an example.
They should do the same as they did with Clinton---identify the up and comers, then mount a campaign to destroy them before they become a threat.
That's what I think we'll see happen. Kaine, Booker, etc, better watch out.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2016 - 02:29pm PT
|
Madbolter..
Republicans say that they will repeal Obamacare within the first 100 days of Trumps presidency. If Trump doesn't veto that, then that is what we will have as the Republicans have proven that they are willing to vote in union. It doesn't matter if trump said a phase in, unless he vetoes what the republicans want to do. Do you believe that he will at least threaten that?
Dean.. can you explain what you mean by PC ? And how that is leading to a civil war? I keep hearing this PC talk, but I don't get it. So any help would be appreciated.
If you mean.. you can't call a radical muslim a radical muslim, then I get that. At least partly, but what others ways are things PC.. Could you expand on that? And show how it leads to civil war?
Thanks..
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2016 - 02:37pm PT
|
The premise that "health care" costs are supposed to be provided by the federal govt is fatally flawed. Nor should they have to be paid by your employer, no matter what the size.
Only then will those asinine costs come down to levels that the people can afford.
Insurance should be for catastrophic illness. Just like your car insurance covers major accidents.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2016 - 02:47pm PT
|
It's the Democrats I tell ya.
An App Saw Trump Winning Swing States When Polls Didn't
In 2016, the polls got it wrong. They failed to predict that Donald Trump was winning key battleground states. But a startup in San Francisco says it spotted it well in advance, not because of the "enthusiasm gap" — Republicans turning out and Democrats staying at home. Instead, the startup Brigade's data pointed to a big crossover effect: Democrats voting for Trump in droves.
Ruski democrats?
Russian government officials conferred with with members of Donald Trump’s campaign team, a senior Russian diplomat said Thursday, a disclosure that could reopen scrutiny over the Kremlin’s role in the president-elect’s bitter race against Hillary Clinton.
The statement came from Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, who said in an interview with the state-run Interfax news agency that “there were contacts” with the Trump team.
|
|
thebravecowboy
climber
The Good Places
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2016 - 02:55pm PT
|
how about the word nigger, Cragman? Is that ok?
|
|
sandstone conglomerate
climber
sharon conglomerate central
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2016 - 03:02pm PT
|
radical muslims and transgender issues...wasn't long before those words started to come up. If the other 2/3 of the country had come out to vote, that snake-oil salesman would have been buried.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!