The real split in the Dem. party (and who actually agrees w/ Sanders on it?)? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 18, 2024, 12:40:48 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2020 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, YE)
  The real split in the Dem. party (and who actually agrees w/ Sanders on it?)? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The real split in the Dem. party (and who actually agrees w/ Sanders on it?)?  (Read 1587 times)
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


« on: February 27, 2017, 03:42:04 PM »

In other news, Trump is incapable of talking about the economy other than in terms of foreigners taking our jobs, job-killing regulations, and Federal income tax rates (note: he didn't use to be so narrow-minded). What else is new?

Social issues are THE main reason people vote Republican; foreign policy has always been a non-issue with the electorate (possible exceptions: 2006, 1940).

I still don't understand why income was such a weak predictor of candidate preference in the 2016 Dem primary. Detroit (and Lake County) went for HRC; East Grand Rapids, though the least pro-Bernie part of Kent County due to its wealth, still went for Bernie.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2017, 07:12:48 PM »

Of course Chait is correct, but the answer wouldn't have been to browbeat Bernie into talking more about "race" in the primaries. Democrats should have been talking about "race" less, not more. In his blindness, Bernie inadvertently took the middle position.

The only thing 'wrong' with Bernie Sanders' campaign, in retrospect, is that he advertised himself as far to the left, when in reality he was the centrist in the Democratic primary. This was evident in his vote totals in places like Oklahoma, the Florida panhandle, Washington state, and even Wisconsin. I am more convinced than ever, that his best path to winning the primary would have been to openly declare himself a centrist on cultural issues, a populist on economic issues, and hammer Clinton on her elect-ability. That would have been an argument that had a chance among establishment types and cautious minorities who didn't want to take a risk by voting for a candidate perceived as extreme or "far out", but who cared a lot about winning.

Wisconsin (and Michigan) were some of McGovern's better states. WI elected the first lesbian Senator. There's nothing centrist about Washington State. Oklahoma and the FL panhandle were obvious protest votes by people who'd never vote Bernie in a general election.

Yes, Bernie should have hammered HRC on electability.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2017, 12:11:32 AM »

In other news, Trump is incapable of talking about the economy other than in terms of foreigners taking our jobs, job-killing regulations, and Federal income tax rates (note: he didn't use to be so narrow-minded). What else is new?

Social issues are THE main reason people vote Republican; foreign policy has always been a non-issue with the electorate (possible exceptions: 2006, 1940).

I still don't understand why income was such a weak predictor of candidate preference in the 2016 Dem primary. Detroit (and Lake County) went for HRC; East Grand Rapids, though the least pro-Bernie part of Kent County due to its wealth, still went for Bernie.

Maybe because the wealthiest people in East Grand Rapids were voting in a different primary.

-Same can be said of Massachusetts, where Clinton won the primary.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2017, 01:12:36 PM »

RINO, the wealthiest voters in MA tended to vote for Rubio and Kasich, not Trump. Trump did best among the upper middle class. Also, Bernie didn't win Massachusetts.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2017, 02:04:34 PM »
« Edited: February 28, 2017, 02:06:51 PM by Eharding »

RINO, the wealthiest voters in MA tended to vote for Rubio and Kasich, not Trump. Trump did best among the upper middle class. Also, Bernie didn't win Massachusetts.

1) From the exit polls, we can't really tell that ... Trump won all income brackets and all college degree levels that were polled.  Maybe you can tell somthing else by looking at the county or town results, though.

2) I'm not even saying he won the wealthiest Republicans, all I said is that Republican voters in MA tended to be more affluent than Democratic voters in MA and they preferred Trump over the other Republicans running.  Wasn't really trying to make a point.  Surely you're not suggesting that no rich Republicans voted for Trump in the primaries, because that's ridiculous.

-Obviously some did, due to the sheer extent of Trump's dominance in the MA GOP primary. He even won Newton, MA (in the primary).
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 11 queries.