Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Record turn out, or record abstaining?


53 replies to this topic

#26
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

Honestly, I don't understand why so many people are like "This is such an awesome election cycle."

 

Yeah, this has been annoying me for over a year.  I can't tell you how many times I heard someone say, "Pass the popcorn" as if this is all for entertainment and doesn't really count.



#27
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,992 posts
I think I see it more as opportunity. Change has to happen and people are talking. I just went to an anniversary dinner and we had a great conversation about election processes and two party systems. We even talked about how mainstream media makes an echo chamber where you learn nothing new but get affirmation of your beliefs.

#28
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

Funny how when I look at politics and gauge the most uninformed, backwards, uneducated and out of date thinking that general leans toward fanatic approacvh to religion, racism, and general idiocy, it's almost always coming out of rural areas...


You don't think there's anything wrong with this statement?

I would ask you to take a step back and reassess. Trump's rise happened for a reason.
  • Good God a Bear and Driver +1 this

#29
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

Maybe Kurgan or Amanda or somebody much smarter about politics on me can forecast what they think is going to happen?

Well first off, thanks for the shout out, but there's nothing complicated about this. Maybe I'm 'smarter' than you on politics (emphasis on maybe).. in the sense that I've probably read more politics related things than you have, but I dunno, I did major in it.. but if we're being honest, there's nothing hyper-technical about this, or anything particularly impressive about having a major in political science.  Give me a day, and someone who's taken at least a basic high school American History class, and I could teach them everything I know.

 

But to address the topic- most writers right now are predicting low turnout for two basic reasons:

 

1.  Obama's base is likely to turn out in fewer numbers.  His base was basically- minorities, the youth, poor people, and affluent liberal whites.  Affluent liberal whites will turn out in the same numbers, but we'll probably see black turnout decrease, as well as youth turnout, just because Clinton isn't that exciting of a candidate (especially compared to Obama).  Poor people turnout is generally low anyway and will likely stay that way. 

 

2.  Both candidates have high unfavorable percentages.  This impacts primarily independent voters.  Since neither candidate has good numbers when it comes to the favorability rating- i.e., they are both disliked on a personal level, a lot of the centrist/non-partisan type swing voters may not even show up. 

 

So the next question is- how will this impact the race.  Well, that's a question I could write pages on.. but I'll keep it short.  Low turnout elections generally favor Republicans (see, e.g., midterm elections) since conservatives always turn out (no matter how much they bitch about the candidates), and it's Dems that always are fighting an uphill battle in this sense as they rely on minorities to show up to the polls, which is always hit-or-miss.  However, that doesn't necessarily point to a significant advantage for Trump in this election.  Not because of GOP defections (bitch as they may, they won't vote for Clinton, and even if they stay home, the states they are numerous in are going GOP anyway).  But it's because of a combination of the swing vote- independents who have no real allegiance (national polling is actually the best way to track them), and demographics.  Even in low turnout, since it's a general election there will probably be enough minorities to vote Clinton in... keep in mind that Romney not only won white men (easily), but also white women (56% to 42%).  I expect it to be the same for Trump- even in low turnout, he'll win whites overwhelmingly (even women), but will lose the swing states due to minorities.  Unless, of course, he magically increases white turnout in certain blue-collar PA counties (not holding my breath on that one).


  • Driver +1 this

#30
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

Not because of GOP defections (bitch as they may, they won't vote for Clinton, and even if they stay home, the states they are numerous in are going GOP anyway).

 

Republicans?  They make up about a third of the voters in pretty much all the swing states.  That's fairly numerous and difficult to make up if Trump fails to capture that low-hanging fruit.  Even a small shift in votes from that group, whether from defections or not going to the polls, would make a huge difference.



#31
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,992 posts

I don't agree CM, 100%.

 

Point 1 rebuttal: I think Hillary will have most of Obama's base. She appeals more to the Black Lives Matter group more so than Bernie. While some may abstain and some run to Jill Stein (See Bernie followers who can't do the leap to Hillary as easily but those are mostly white people) I think Hispanics will go with Hillary because of Trump's rhetoric on the wall. That Hispanic vote can drive the numbers to replace the abstainers choosing not to vote. A lot of Hispanic voters that used to vote GOP could cross over.

 

Point 2 rebuttal sort of but not really: The third parties are starting to see a bump. Jill Stein is seeing her numbers up higher than minuscule (highest poll has her 5%) and Johnson is starting to poll in the teens consistently. This is indeed a sign of the major parties unfavorable ratings. But - and this is a tenuous but - I don't think we've not had a high favorable rating for a president in a long time so favorability does not seem important to me for ratings. Basically I want a president who doesn't bumble his way into a war so meh if a president only gets say 45 to 55% favorability ratings. I'm a settler. I do think Hillary can turn it around. She's bought a ton of ads to air during the Olympics while she kinds of backs down from campaigning for those two weeks.



#32
Guest_El Chalupacabra_*

Guest_El Chalupacabra_*
  • Guests

I mean it's hard not to be entertained. It's been pretty astonishing. But I'm with you, I'm pretty disgusted with our electorate for allowing this to happen.

It's definitely eye-brow raising.  But entertaining?  I wouldn't use that word to describe it.  But it is disgusting that so many of the electorate are that dimwitted to allow this to happen. 

 

I think I see it more as opportunity. Change has to happen and people are talking. I just went to an anniversary dinner and we had a great conversation about election processes and two party systems. We even talked about how mainstream media makes an echo chamber where you learn nothing new but get affirmation of your beliefs.

Yeah, no.  See that is what pisses me off with Trump supporters.  A need for a change and seizing the opportunity to do it, is one thing.  But Trump as the vehicle for the change?  All that has happened is Hillary, the career politician candidate that couldn't be any more establishment will be elected.  Trump has set things in motion for the GOP to enact party policies and election rules after this election cycle to make it more difficult, if not impossible for an outsider to even have a chance to bring new, fresh blood in. Mark my words, the GOP will be more of what they have been accused of, and more establishment and elitist, than ever before by next election cycle.  All Trump has succeeded  in doing is basically set things in motion to bring more of the same, and double down on it.  

 

 

 

Maybe Kurgan or Amanda or somebody much smarter about politics on me can forecast what they think is going to happen?

Well first off, thanks for the shout out, but there's nothing complicated about this. Maybe I'm 'smarter' than you on politics (emphasis on maybe).. in the sense that I've probably read more politics related things than you have, but I dunno, I did major in it.. but if we're being honest, there's nothing hyper-technical about this, or anything particularly impressive about having a major in political science.  Give me a day, and someone who's taken at least a basic high school American History class, and I could teach them everything I know.

 

But to address the topic- most writers right now are predicting low turnout for two basic reasons:

 

1.  Obama's base is likely to turn out in fewer numbers.  His base was basically- minorities, the youth, poor people, and affluent liberal whites.  Affluent liberal whites will turn out in the same numbers, but we'll probably see black turnout decrease, as well as youth turnout, just because Clinton isn't that exciting of a candidate (especially compared to Obama).  Poor people turnout is generally low anyway and will likely stay that way. 

 

2.  Both candidates have high unfavorable percentages.  This impacts primarily independent voters.  Since neither candidate has good numbers when it comes to the favorability rating- i.e., they are both disliked on a personal level, a lot of the centrist/non-partisan type swing voters may not even show up. 

 

So the next question is- how will this impact the race.  Well, that's a question I could write pages on.. but I'll keep it short.  Low turnout elections generally favor Republicans (see, e.g., midterm elections) since conservatives always turn out (no matter how much they bitch about the candidates), and it's Dems that always are fighting an uphill battle in this sense as they rely on minorities to show up to the polls, which is always hit-or-miss.  However, that doesn't necessarily point to a significant advantage for Trump in this election.  Not because of GOP defections (bitch as they may, they won't vote for Clinton, and even if they stay home, the states they are numerous in are going GOP anyway).  But it's because of a combination of the swing vote- independents who have no real allegiance (national polling is actually the best way to track them), and demographics.  Even in low turnout, since it's a general election there will probably be enough minorities to vote Clinton in... keep in mind that Romney not only won white men (easily), but also white women (56% to 42%).  I expect it to be the same for Trump- even in low turnout, he'll win whites overwhelmingly (even women), but will lose the swing states due to minorities.  Unless, of course, he magically increases white turnout in certain blue-collar PA counties (not holding my breath on that one).

 

 

 

So you don't think the first woman to run for president is going to turn out a high vote, at least for liberal women?  Gotta disagree with you there, CM.

 

Now I know Hillary is polarizing, and both candidates are unpopular.  And I for one, don't think this cycle will break any voter turnout records.  But that said, I think the liberal female voter demographic will break records.  We haven't even got to the debates yet, and the campaign blitz has not even begun to get into full swing.  Once it does, you can bet that liberal females will be mobilized, and will turn out in high numbers.

 

This also leads to another segment: the ultra conservative  white male voters who feel disenfranchised.  Especially if they were around when Hillary was First Lady.  That segment of the population see Hillary as the devil, and I think that is another segment that will be mobilized in equal and opposite reaction to the liberal female voters, and they will have a higher than usual, if not record turn out, as well.    



#33
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 19,608 posts
Clinton campaigning and running ads will cut both ways for her. She's going to remind people that they hate her. Her best bet is to let Trump run himself into the ground. A lot of left and center-left voters who are on the fence are going to end up voting for her if they hate Trump more, but every time she shows her face, people remember that they don't like her and don't trust her.

She can even pick up some Republican votes if she just is unobtrusive and lets Trump push them away.

#34
Guest_El Chalupacabra_*

Guest_El Chalupacabra_*
  • Guests

 

 

I don't agree CM, 100%.

 

Point 1 rebuttal: I think Hillary will have most of Obama's base. She appeals more to the Black Lives Matter group more so than Bernie. While some may abstain and some run to Jill Stein (See Bernie followers who can't do the leap to Hillary as easily but those are mostly white people) I think Hispanics will go with Hillary because of Trump's rhetoric on the wall. That Hispanic vote can drive the numbers to replace the abstainers choosing not to vote. A lot of Hispanic voters that used to vote GOP could cross over.

 

 

 

 

I agree that Hillary will have most of Obama's base.  Really, Trump has managed to piss off every group who voted for Obama.  Religious and ethnic minorities are easily in Hillary's pocket.  Liberal women are easily in Hillary's pocket.  Liberal white men won't set  records showing up, but the ones that do vote, are easily in Hillary's pocket.   Even some fiscal conservatives may vote Hillary this time around.

 

Personally, I think Hillary will win, and it won't be close electorally.  



#35
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts
She's bought a ton of ads to air during the Olympics while she kinds of backs down from campaigning for those two weeks.

 

Clinton's been pretty quiet from the beginning.  That's ultimately been Trump's biggest windfall for her.  Clinton only has one tactic in her playbook:  Call the other guy extreme.  Clinton is an absurdly poor campaigner.  The more she's seen by the public, the less they like her.  She's no political animal with a need for people to like her as her husband and Trump are, and she'd just as soon not have to bother with the crowds.  Trump's presented her with the perfect target.  He's easy to demonize and the attention all goes to him.  It's allowed Clinton to mostly stay out of the spotlight and run probably the quietest campaign from a major party candidate in my lifetime.  She can win just by releasing ads.  If she actually had to get into the fight herself and make people want to vote for her, she'd be lost.

 

And that's not even taking into account the wallpapering of the mistakes she's already making.  Imagine for a minute if she were caught in her latest email lie if the Republican candidate were anyone but Trump?  The Republican would be happy to stand aside and let her hang herself trying to explain how in the world Comey backed her up that she was truthful when he flat out testified before Congress that pretty much every defense she had was a lie.

 

It'd be the only news in the campaign right now.  Instead, we're living in bizarro world where it's all about the Republican attacking gold star families.



#36
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

 

Not because of GOP defections (bitch as they may, they won't vote for Clinton, and even if they stay home, the states they are numerous in are going GOP anyway).

 

Republicans?  They make up about a third of the voters in pretty much all the swing states.  That's fairly numerous and difficult to make up if Trump fails to capture that low-hanging fruit.  Even a small shift in votes from that group, whether from defections or not going to the polls, would make a huge difference.

 

I guess it's possible, but I don't think we even get there.  The GOP always turns out.  The myth of the hidden untapped waters of GOP voters that will materialize out of nowhere if the GOP just runs a conservative candidate, is nothing more than a canard that movement conservatives like to parrot around even though it has no basis in fact when you examine the actual numbers.



#37
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

I don't agree CM, 100%.

 

Point 1 rebuttal: I think Hillary will have most of Obama's base. She appeals more to the Black Lives Matter group more so than Bernie. While some may abstain and some run to Jill Stein (See Bernie followers who can't do the leap to Hillary as easily but those are mostly white people) I think Hispanics will go with Hillary because of Trump's rhetoric on the wall. That Hispanic vote can drive the numbers to replace the abstainers choosing not to vote. A lot of Hispanic voters that used to vote GOP could cross over.

 

Point 2 rebuttal sort of but not really: The third parties are starting to see a bump. Jill Stein is seeing her numbers up higher than minuscule (highest poll has her 5%) and Johnson is starting to poll in the teens consistently. This is indeed a sign of the major parties unfavorable ratings. But - and this is a tenuous but - I don't think we've not had a high favorable rating for a president in a long time so favorability does not seem important to me for ratings. Basically I want a president who doesn't bumble his way into a war so meh if a president only gets say 45 to 55% favorability ratings. I'm a settler. I do think Hillary can turn it around. She's bought a ton of ads to air during the Olympics while she kinds of backs down from campaigning for those two weeks.

Your point 1- I think you're a little confused.  I'm not arguing that those demographics are going to vote for a different candidate (or for the GOP).  Clinton almost certainly "has them" (or at least, a strong majority of them).  My argument is that they won't bother to show up to vote at all.  The ones that do are mostly voting for Clinton obviously, I'm not arguing that.

 

I mean, we'll see.  I'm putting my money where my mouth is, right here.  In 3 months, we'll know.  I bet you the number of overall votes goes down, and we'll see a pretty large drop off in specifically black turnout.  Most political writers are predicting the same, but who knows, maybe they're all wrong and you're right.

 

Your point 2- you're right, that's not a rebuttal.



#38
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

So you don't think the first woman to run for president is going to turn out a high vote, at least for liberal women?  Gotta disagree with you there, CM.
 
Now I know Hillary is polarizing, and both candidates are unpopular.  And I for one, don't think this cycle will break any voter turnout records.  But that said, I think the liberal female voter demographic will break records.  We haven't even got to the debates yet, and the campaign blitz has not even begun to get into full swing.  Once it does, you can bet that liberal females will be mobilized, and will turn out in high numbers.
 
This also leads to another segment: the ultra conservative  white male voters who feel disenfranchised.  Especially if they were around when Hillary was First Lady.  That segment of the population see Hillary as the devil, and I think that is another segment that will be mobilized in equal and opposite reaction to the liberal female voters, and they will have a higher than usual, if not record turn out, as well.

Maybe liberal female turn out is higher, it's a possibility, but I don't think it'll be enough to offset the drop in a) black turnout, b) youth turnout, and most importantly c) middle class independents that like neither candidate.  So the overall number of people voting should go down for this election, compared to 2012 and 2008.
 



#39
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts
I guess it's possible, but I don't think we even get there.  The GOP always turns out.  The myth of the hidden untapped waters of GOP voters that will materialize out of nowhere if the GOP just runs a conservative candidate, is nothing more than a canard that movement conservatives like to parrot around even though it has no basis in fact when you examine the actual numbers.

 

Romney got 93% of Republicans and McCain 90%.  That alone is almost enough to account for Romney doing 3 points better than McCain.  Registered Republicans are a bigger group than blacks and Latinos put together and, yes, their motivation can make a difference along the margins.

 

I've yet to see any poll with Trump in the 90s among Republicans (83% according to Washington Post-ABC News today) and have seen some dip into the 70s.  That's not even taking into account unmotivated voters.  Trump needs to get a minimum of 90% among Republican voters and not suffer more than a small drop in voter turnout to have a chance.  It's why they're running ads directed at Republicans trying to get them motivated to go out to the polls based on Clinton being worse.

 

Dropping 10% of the Republican vote from Romney (who obviously lost by 4 points himself) would be devastating to any chance Trump would have.  Even dropping down to McCain's 90% would be tough to make up.  Trump needs all the Republicans plus to find new voters in these swing states in order to win.  Johnson and Stein might take away some voters from both sides, but that makes keeping the core base intact all the more important.

 

Finally, it's nice to say that the untapped army of voters is a myth.  That may be true.  But just because they've always showed up in the past, doesn't mean they can't be demotivated in November.  Trump is his own kind of candidate.  He might think of himself as "high energy", but there are a lot of skeptical Republican voters out there about him.  At least with Romney and McCain there was nothing wrong with them in most voters' minds and it wasn't quite the lesser of two evils, just an evil vs. someone they may not particularly care for.



#40
Guest_El Chalupacabra_*

Guest_El Chalupacabra_*
  • Guests

So you don't think the first woman to run for president is going to turn out a high vote, at least for liberal women?  Gotta disagree with you there, CM.
 
Now I know Hillary is polarizing, and both candidates are unpopular.  And I for one, don't think this cycle will break any voter turnout records.  But that said, I think the liberal female voter demographic will break records.  We haven't even got to the debates yet, and the campaign blitz has not even begun to get into full swing.  Once it does, you can bet that liberal females will be mobilized, and will turn out in high numbers.
 
This also leads to another segment: the ultra conservative  white male voters who feel disenfranchised.  Especially if they were around when Hillary was First Lady.  That segment of the population see Hillary as the devil, and I think that is another segment that will be mobilized in equal and opposite reaction to the liberal female voters, and they will have a higher than usual, if not record turn out, as well.

Maybe liberal female turn out is higher, it's a possibility, but I don't think it'll be enough to offset the drop in a) black turnout, b) youth turnout, and most importantly c) middle class independents that like neither candidate.  So the overall number of people voting should go down for this election, compared to 2012 and 2008.


Compared to 2008? Certainly. But I think it will be far from record lows. Won't break records for high turnout either, but between the people turning out as anti trump, women turning out for Clinton, and men turning out as anti Clinton, i think we may see something approaching 2012. Maybe not as much, but probably enough to be an above average turnout.

#41
The Kurgan

The Kurgan

    There can be only one

  • Member
  • 2,116 posts

Maybe Kurgan or Amanda or somebody much smarter about politics on me can forecast what they think is going to happen?


I'm flattered that you would think of me so, but we are, to some degree, in uncharted waters here. But if you ask me, Chalup is probably closest to the mark here:
 

So you don't think the first woman to run for president is going to turn out a high vote, at least for liberal women?  Gotta disagree with you there, CM.
 
Now I know Hillary is polarizing, and both candidates are unpopular.  And I for one, don't think this cycle will break any voter turnout records.  But that said, I think the liberal female voter demographic will break records.  We haven't even got to the debates yet, and the campaign blitz has not even begun to get into full swing.  Once it does, you can bet that liberal females will be mobilized, and will turn out in high numbers.
 
This also leads to another segment: the ultra conservative  white male voters who feel disenfranchised.  Especially if they were around when Hillary was First Lady.  That segment of the population see Hillary as the devil, and I think that is another segment that will be mobilized in equal and opposite reaction to the liberal female voters, and they will have a higher than usual, if not record turn out, as well.


I agree that Hillary will have most of Obama's base.  Really, Trump has managed to piss off every group who voted for Obama.  Religious and ethnic minorities are easily in Hillary's pocket.  Liberal women are easily in Hillary's pocket.  Liberal white men won't set  records showing up, but the ones that do vote, are easily in Hillary's pocket.   Even some fiscal conservatives may vote Hillary this time around.
 
Personally, I think Hillary will win, and it won't be close electorally.


This is how I see it going. I'd also add that the "ultra conservative white male voters who feel disenfranchised" are a declining group, both culturally and demographically. In 2016, they will learn the hard way that it's not 1994 anymore. The tides of history and zeitgeist have turned against them. Trump's candidacy is largely a reflection of the dawning of this reality upon them. They're frustrated with movement conservatives that have been unable to stem the tides of cultural liberalism even when they could win nationally, which they've been struggling more and more to do all the time.  

 


  • Driver +1 this

#42
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

 

So you don't think the first woman to run for president is going to turn out a high vote, at least for liberal women?  Gotta disagree with you there, CM.
 
Now I know Hillary is polarizing, and both candidates are unpopular.  And I for one, don't think this cycle will break any voter turnout records.  But that said, I think the liberal female voter demographic will break records.  We haven't even got to the debates yet, and the campaign blitz has not even begun to get into full swing.  Once it does, you can bet that liberal females will be mobilized, and will turn out in high numbers.
 
This also leads to another segment: the ultra conservative  white male voters who feel disenfranchised.  Especially if they were around when Hillary was First Lady.  That segment of the population see Hillary as the devil, and I think that is another segment that will be mobilized in equal and opposite reaction to the liberal female voters, and they will have a higher than usual, if not record turn out, as well.

Maybe liberal female turn out is higher, it's a possibility, but I don't think it'll be enough to offset the drop in a) black turnout, b) youth turnout, and most importantly c) middle class independents that like neither candidate.  So the overall number of people voting should go down for this election, compared to 2012 and 2008.



Compared to 2008? Certainly. But I think it will be far from record lows. Won't break records for high turnout either, but between the people turning out as anti trump, women turning out for Clinton, and men turning out as anti Clinton, i think we may see something approaching 2012. Maybe not as much, but probably enough to be an above average turnout.

I wasn't arguing that it would be record lows, just that turnout would go down.

#43
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts
I'd also add that the "ultra conservative white male voters who feel disenfranchised" are a declining group, both culturally and demographically.

 

That group's expanded over the last 8 years and has sucked in a lot of women as well.



#44
Guest_El Chalupacabra_*

Guest_El Chalupacabra_*
  • Guests

 

I wasn't arguing that it would be record lows, just that turnout would go down.

 

I wasn't implying that you were.   The original question Driver posed  was, though.   I actually partially agree with you .  Just giving my speculation of how I think it will turn out.

 

 

Maybe Kurgan or Amanda or somebody much smarter about politics on me can forecast what they think is going to happen?


I'm flattered that you would think of me so, but we are, to some degree, in uncharted waters here. But if you ask me, Chalup is probably closest to the mark here:
 

So you don't think the first woman to run for president is going to turn out a high vote, at least for liberal women?  Gotta disagree with you there, CM.
 
Now I know Hillary is polarizing, and both candidates are unpopular.  And I for one, don't think this cycle will break any voter turnout records.  But that said, I think the liberal female voter demographic will break records.  We haven't even got to the debates yet, and the campaign blitz has not even begun to get into full swing.  Once it does, you can bet that liberal females will be mobilized, and will turn out in high numbers.
 
This also leads to another segment: the ultra conservative  white male voters who feel disenfranchised.  Especially if they were around when Hillary was First Lady.  That segment of the population see Hillary as the devil, and I think that is another segment that will be mobilized in equal and opposite reaction to the liberal female voters, and they will have a higher than usual, if not record turn out, as well.


I agree that Hillary will have most of Obama's base.  Really, Trump has managed to piss off every group who voted for Obama.  Religious and ethnic minorities are easily in Hillary's pocket.  Liberal women are easily in Hillary's pocket.  Liberal white men won't set  records showing up, but the ones that do vote, are easily in Hillary's pocket.   Even some fiscal conservatives may vote Hillary this time around.
 
Personally, I think Hillary will win, and it won't be close electorally.


This is how I see it going. I'd also add that the "ultra conservative white male voters who feel disenfranchised" are a declining group, both culturally and demographically. In 2016, they will learn the hard way that it's not 1994 anymore. The tides of history and zeitgeist have turned against them. Trump's candidacy is largely a reflection of the dawning of this reality upon them. They're frustrated with movement conservatives that have been unable to stem the tides of cultural liberalism even when they could win nationally, which they've been struggling more and more to do all the time.  

 

 

Agreed, though I am not sure that the "ultra conservative white male voters who feel disenfranchised" as a group is necessarily declining is size, but they are declining in political power.  These types typically live in states with low electoral votes, so when it comes to presidential elections, I think it might be fair to say they are declining in political power.    The rest of your statement I agree with, though.  



#45
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts
Agreed, though I am not sure that the "ultra conservative white male voters who feel disenfranchised" as a group is necessarily declining is size, but they are declining in political power.  These types typically live in states with low electoral votes, so when it comes to presidential elections, I think it might be fair to say they are declining in political power.    The rest of your statement I agree with, though.

 

That sort of rhetoric is why they're expanding.  There is a reason why the Republican party has taken over a ton of statehouses and have a huge lead in the House (no it's not all because of redistricting).  And if it weren't for the Trump primal scream, Republicans would be dominating this presidential race by now.

 

The reason is largely because Democratic rhetoric has effectively divided the country along racial lines.  Constantly talking about "old white men" losing power, oddly enough, doesn't attract them to their cause, but instead causes more of them to feel disenfranchised and unreceptive to their message.

 

It's all rather destructive for a myriad of reasons.  But that's the Democrats for you.  Dividing the country to have citizens vote by their skin color or gender has become their primary goal.



#46
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,992 posts
Or apathy that has lead to low tutn outs so crappy GOP candidates get voted in. Historically non - presidential years get lower voter turn out. As a volunteer for the local Democrats I think Hillary has gotten more people registered to vore than Trump's .

#47
The Kurgan

The Kurgan

    There can be only one

  • Member
  • 2,116 posts

That sort of rhetoric is why they're expanding.  There is a reason why the Republican party has taken over a ton of statehouses and have a huge lead in the House (no it's not all because of redistricting).  And if it weren't for the Trump primal scream, Republicans would be dominating this presidential race by now.
 
The reason is largely because Democratic rhetoric has effectively divided the country along racial lines.  Constantly talking about "old white men" losing power, oddly enough, doesn't attract them to their cause, but instead causes more of them to feel disenfranchised and receptive to their message.
 
It's all rather destructive for a myriad of reasons.  But that's the Democrats for you.  Dividing the country to have citizens vote by their skin color or gender has become their primary goal.

Progressive race baiting is indeed unhelpful, but its long term effect is more to keep conservatism (in its present form) on life support, and open to future resuscitation.  And the progressives are whipping up hysteria over white male privilege today for the same reasons as the neo-cons did over the Willie Hortons of America back in their day for the same underlying reasons: it works.  It solidifies the loyalty of a constellation of constituent bases that are delivering the White House.  As for Trump, he may well be why the G.O.P is doing as well as it is.  Another stale old white neo-con would not be doing nearly so well if you ask me.  Fact is, the neo-con platform is as past its expiry date today as the New Deal platform was when Reagan was elected.  Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that were not, trickle down economics, too big to fail, abstinence only sex ed, anti LGBT sentiment, creation science in the classroom, climate change denial - among others - have squandered the indomitable credibility they gained back when stagflation was an issue, and made American center right thought a laughing stock for a portion of the US population that's growing much more quickly than the dug-in red staters. And US neo-cons have no one to blame for it but themselves. The progressive race baiting Poe describes and frustration with SJW smugness is the only reason the US has not gone the way Sweden once did and Canada now is - with conservatism becoming extinct as a viable political force.

 

The only consolation I see for the conservatives in all of this is that something of a cyclical process is at work here.  Being the dominant group makes one subject to scrutiny and criticism that tends to bypass the opposition.  This is why the religious right has declined and the social justice warriors have risen - the Jesus freaks were actually taken seriously as a threat by the liberal mainstream in the 90s and 2000s, and their views subject to rigorous criticism, especially online, and concern over "political correctness" was more associated with right wing curmudgeons than with an actual threat to civil liberties.  But I remember - believe it or not - when the religious right was a fresh and vital force in cultural politics, and the "permissive society" of the 60s and 70s that it attacked was similarly viewed as failed relic of the past.  Hillary's presidency will, I think, lead to a deepening of the anti SJW backlash that's been mounting over the last few years, if only because her Justice Department will double down on censorious "hate speech" and  "harassment" laws, that will get the kinds of people who were once concerned over the Moral Majority and the PMRC to actually start taking Black Lives Matter and Feminist Frequency equally seriously.  I do believe that in time, the social justice warriors will be seen the same way as we today see the Satanic Panic of the 1980s or the social purity movements of the early 20th century.

 

In time.  But not now.  I do agree that progressive rhetoric on racial and gender issues is opening the door for for a conservatism that can step forward and claim to be the advocates of white Christian males in a culture that will not content itself with mere equality for women, peoples of color and other marginalized peoples, but will demand an eye for an eye, as indeed the SJWs have begun to do.  The SJWs have already begun their descent into the kinds of ideological excesses we saw out of the religious right during the Bush years.  But this right wing backlash is looking to be more a Trump-ish alt-right and less a Reagan-esque neo-conservatism.  Trump's failure in 2016 will have more in common with Goldwater's failure in 1964 than McCain or Romney's were in 2008 and 2012.  It will be the failure of ideas whose time has not yet come rather than the failure of ideas whose time has long since passed.



#48
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts
Or apathy that has lead to low tutn outs so crappy GOP candidates get voted in. Historically non - presidential years get lower voter turn out.

 

That's an excuse.  Democrats have done just fine in off-election years in the past.  They took over Congress in 2006 for example and gained seats in 1998.  I'm not denying that Republicans do better in off-years, but Republicans control 69 of the 99 state house and senates and 31 of the governor mansions.  Put those two together and Republicans control an astonishing 100 of the 149 possible state legislatures and governors.  Republicans have complete control, house, senate, and governor, of 23 states.  Plus they hold a 61 vote lead in the House of Representatives.

 

These results cannot be put out to low turnout or gerrymandering.  As much as Democrats claim Republicans are dying, outside of the White House, judiciary, and federal bureaucracies, Democrats have been the minority party for most of the years since 1994 and are actually in worse shape today than they've been since the early-20th century.  Unfortunately, Republicans have allowed the Democrats to rig it so that those are the only three things that actually matter for most of the big issues.



#49
Justus

Justus

    Member

  • Member
  • 13,100 posts

Funny how when I look at politics and gauge the most uninformed, backwards, uneducated and out of date thinking that general leans toward fanatic approacvh to religion, racism, and general idiocy, it's almost always coming out of rural areas...

Nice, sweeping stereotypes.



#50
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,992 posts

Poe, I'm not sure what you mean by excuse. 





Reply to this topic