I read an interesting thought piece - its thesis was that in swing districts the worst thing the Dems could do is talk about impeachment. Because you are staking an extreme, choose a side position, and swing districts have a lot of people who could vote either way. Sensing that a party is looking to go radical is not what independents want to hear.
I suspect we will not hear much from establishment dems on impeachment - apparently it plays very very badly in the field.
Yes, and that's why he won! wrote:
Yes he does! The fact that Trump behaves like an adolescent boy is why his base (poor, uneducated white men from rural areas) voted for him. Like Hingle, they loooovvvveeeee a good fart joke!
I love the fake construct that the "resistance" has created for itself. If you look at the numbers, Hillary won the under $50k/yr demographic and Trump won EVERYTHING above that. Seems like the poor wanted HRC.
http://www.businessinsider.com/exit-polls-who-voted-for-trump-clinton-2016-11/#by-income-clinton-led-only-among-voters-with-a-2015-family-income-under-50000-a-group-that-included-36-of-the-voters-in-the-exit-polls-4Stupid people voted for Trump. Smart people voted for Hillary.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/
Get yo facts straight wrote:
Yes, and that's why he won! wrote:Yes he does! The fact that Trump behaves like an adolescent boy is why his base (poor, uneducated white men from rural areas) voted for him. Like Hingle, they loooovvvveeeee a good fart joke!
I love the fake construct that the "resistance" has created for itself. If you look at the numbers, Hillary won the under $50k/yr demographic and Trump won EVERYTHING above that. Seems like the poor wanted HRC.
http://www.businessinsider.com/exit-polls-who-voted-for-trump-clinton-2016-11/#by-income-clinton-led-only-among-voters-with-a-2015-family-income-under-50000-a-group-that-included-36-of-the-voters-in-the-exit-polls-4
it's tricky, as you'd expect.
the 70,000 people who seem to have moved trump into the win do seem to be left behind types. In PA, MI, WI. They flipped three states...and they seem to have been motivated by economic fear and racial animosity.
hard to tease out all this of course...but always remember that repubs are the rich person's party - they are rich and they always vote repub...matters not a whit who the candidate is. that's why they won the richer groups...they ARE the richer groups, always. Not a trump phenomenon.
So when we talk about 'how trump won' there are many moving pieces. Incl the poor turnout among the Dems in certain places.
factual analysis wrote:
Stupid people voted for Trump. Smart people voted for Hillary.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/
I'll take your piece and add mine. It's too hard to untangle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/16/the-education-gap-among-whites-this-year-wasnt-about-education-it-was-about-race/?utm_term=.c28fed605c41factual analysis wrote:
Stupid people voted for Trump. Smart people voted for Hillary.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/
You don't understand the difference between being intelligent, being educated, and being "smart", do you?
One could argue that attaining a high level of "education" and not making any money from it is "stupid." Trump won all income groups over $50K, and Hillary won the ones under $50K by significant margins. Congrats Hillary, I guess.
Trump won the white college-educated vote 50-45, and lost the overall college-educated vote 49-45. Pretty even if you ask me.
Real facts over here wrote:
factual analysis wrote:Stupid people voted for Trump. Smart people voted for Hillary.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/You don't understand the difference between being intelligent, being educated, and being "smart", do you?
One could argue that attaining a high level of "education" and not making any money from it is "stupid." Trump won all income groups over $50K, and Hillary won the ones under $50K by significant margins. Congrats Hillary, I guess.
Trump won the white college-educated vote 50-45, and lost the overall college-educated vote 49-45. Pretty even if you ask me.
We need to stop arguing about this crap and just admit that the Dems had NO MESSAGE this time around. An old white woman with perfectly evolved positions over the last 30 years to stage her into position as being the first female president was a dull follow up to BARACK OBAMA. One was exciting, one was boring, sucked, and clearly corrupt.
Trump won like 400 counties that voted for Obama at least once. That's insane.
Stop whining wrote:
Real facts over here wrote:You don't understand the difference between being intelligent, being educated, and being "smart", do you?
One could argue that attaining a high level of "education" and not making any money from it is "stupid." Trump won all income groups over $50K, and Hillary won the ones under $50K by significant margins. Congrats Hillary, I guess.
Trump won the white college-educated vote 50-45, and lost the overall college-educated vote 49-45. Pretty even if you ask me.
We need to stop arguing about this crap and just admit that the Dems had NO MESSAGE this time around. An old white woman with perfectly evolved positions over the last 30 years to stage her into position as being the first female president was a dull follow up to BARACK OBAMA. One was exciting, one was boring, sucked, and clearly corrupt.
Trump won like 400 counties that voted for Obama at least once. That's insane.
you are generally right, but quit with this 'county' thinig. It's stupid given the massive differences in counties cross the nation.
HRC was not corrupt. Stop with the fake news - the election is over. The Russians got to you -- now you know. Don't do that next time.
You're right about the messaging tho - the Dems still have no message other than identity politics.
Stop whining wrote:
Real facts over here wrote:You don't understand the difference between being intelligent, being educated, and being "smart", do you?
One could argue that attaining a high level of "education" and not making any money from it is "stupid." Trump won all income groups over $50K, and Hillary won the ones under $50K by significant margins. Congrats Hillary, I guess.
Trump won the white college-educated vote 50-45, and lost the overall college-educated vote 49-45. Pretty even if you ask me.
We need to stop arguing about this crap and just admit that the Dems had NO MESSAGE this time around. An old white woman with perfectly evolved positions over the last 30 years to stage her into position as being the first female president was a dull follow up to BARACK OBAMA. One was exciting, one was boring, sucked, and clearly corrupt.
Trump won like 400 counties that voted for Obama at least once. That's insane.
It is time to stop talking about the election at all...that is not important anymore. What IS important is that we have a President who has asked at least three heads of intelligence agencies to stop their probe into his administration's ties with Russia. We have a president who gave secrets to the Russians. Those two things alone should be enough to shake any American to their core.
Flagpole wrote:
Stop whining wrote:We need to stop arguing about this crap and just admit that the Dems had NO MESSAGE this time around. An old white woman with perfectly evolved positions over the last 30 years to stage her into position as being the first female president was a dull follow up to BARACK OBAMA. One was exciting, one was boring, sucked, and clearly corrupt.
Trump won like 400 counties that voted for Obama at least once. That's insane.
It is time to stop talking about the election at all...that is not important anymore. What IS important is that we have a President who has asked at least three heads of intelligence agencies to stop their probe into his administration's ties with Russia. We have a president who gave secrets to the Russians. Those two things alone should be enough to shake any American to their core.
Trumpkins will tell you it's the only thing to talk about. It's deflection from Trump's daily failures and they look at the election as a "lesson" on uprising and a sign of F U against th establishment. If that's true people will say F U in the midterms to Trump/GOP and the Dems will fill the gap. It all swings eventually but Trumpkins refuse to believe it.
Flagpole wrote:
Stop whining wrote:We need to stop arguing about this crap and just admit that the Dems had NO MESSAGE this time around. An old white woman with perfectly evolved positions over the last 30 years to stage her into position as being the first female president was a dull follow up to BARACK OBAMA. One was exciting, one was boring, sucked, and clearly corrupt.
Trump won like 400 counties that voted for Obama at least once. That's insane.
It is time to stop talking about the election at all...that is not important anymore. What IS important is that we have a President who has asked at least three heads of intelligence agencies to stop their probe into his administration's ties with Russia. We have a president who gave secrets to the Russians. Those two things alone should be enough to shake any American to their core.
You wish, Flagpole!! Hahaha!! You take that stats course yet to learn what probability means? Dolt.
EPIC Flagpole wrote:
Flagpole wrote:It is time to stop talking about the election at all...that is not important anymore. What IS important is that we have a President who has asked at least three heads of intelligence agencies to stop their probe into his administration's ties with Russia. We have a president who gave secrets to the Russians. Those two things alone should be enough to shake any American to their core.
You wish, Flagpole!! Hahaha!! You take that stats course yet to learn what probability means? Dolt.
1) We shall find out if Trump indeed did win the election.
2) Of course I know what probability means. Saying Trump had ZERO chance to win meant 100% probability that that would whip Trumpsters up into a lather.
3) Words from former CIA chief Brennan today have provided another nail. Trump will not make it to the end of his first term. Tick, tick, tick.
eric a blair wrote:
Stop whining wrote:We need to stop arguing about this crap and just admit that the Dems had NO MESSAGE this time around. An old white woman with perfectly evolved positions over the last 30 years to stage her into position as being the first female president was a dull follow up to BARACK OBAMA. One was exciting, one was boring, sucked, and clearly corrupt.
Trump won like 400 counties that voted for Obama at least once. That's insane.
you are generally right, but quit with this 'county' thinig. It's stupid given the massive differences in counties cross the nation.
HRC was not corrupt. Stop with the fake news - the election is over. The Russians got to you -- now you know. Don't do that next time.
You're right about the messaging tho - the Dems still have no message other than identity politics.
Nice try on the Fake News. CNN spouts it daily. MSNBC spouts it daily. All the online fake news outlets spout it daily. How's that Russian Collusion story going for ya'll?
But, not one leaked email from Wikileaks was ever disputed from HRC/DNC. Not one.
Hillary lied during the investigation (why I wonder?).
Hillary destroyed thousands of emails (why I wonder?).
Hillary then lied about those deleted emails too (why I wonder)!!
Comey inconceivably concluded "there wasn't any intent" of mishandling the information. Please. Clinton-Comey ties run deep.
Flagpole wrote:
EPIC Flagpole wrote:You wish, Flagpole!! Hahaha!! You take that stats course yet to learn what probability means? Dolt.
1) We shall find out if Trump indeed did win the election.
2) Of course I know what probability means. Saying Trump had ZERO chance to win meant 100% probability that that would whip Trumpsters up into a lather.
3) Words from former CIA chief Brennan today have provided another nail. Trump will not make it to the end of his first term. Tick, tick, tick.
What world are you living in? Talk about doubling down on stupidity. Jeez. You're a ridiculous person.
Regarding Brennan- Trey Gowdy grilled the crap out of him and, once again, on national television, there is "no evidence of collusion".
The fake "Russia!" story is destroying all MSM credibility. But they're desperate.
Stop whining wrote:
Flagpole wrote:1) We shall find out if Trump indeed did win the election.
2) Of course I know what probability means. Saying Trump had ZERO chance to win meant 100% probability that that would whip Trumpsters up into a lather.
3) Words from former CIA chief Brennan today have provided another nail. Trump will not make it to the end of his first term. Tick, tick, tick.
What world are you living in? Talk about doubling down on stupidity. Jeez. You're a ridiculous person.
Regarding Brennan- Trey Gowdy grilled the crap out of him and, once again, on national television, there is "no evidence of collusion".
The fake "Russia!" story is destroying all MSM credibility. But they're desperate.
I saw Trey "Benghazi" Gowdy questioning Brennan.
Brennan never said there is no evidence of collusion. He said there was sufficient reason to turn things over to the FBI to investigate criminal wrongdoing. In fact, Brennan was very careful to avoid the word "evidence" at all. Several times he said he couldn't get into specifics in an open hearing.
Brennan said today, “Therefore, I felt as though the FBI investigation was certainly well founded and needed to look into these issues,â€
Trumpettes are NOT Americans!
Stop whining wrote:
Flagpole wrote:1) We shall find out if Trump indeed did win the election.
2) Of course I know what probability means. Saying Trump had ZERO chance to win meant 100% probability that that would whip Trumpsters up into a lather.
3) Words from former CIA chief Brennan today have provided another nail. Trump will not make it to the end of his first term. Tick, tick, tick.
What world are you living in? Talk about doubling down on stupidity. Jeez. You're a ridiculous person.
Regarding Brennan- Trey Gowdy grilled the crap out of him and, once again, on national television, there is "no evidence of collusion".
The fake "Russia!" story is destroying all MSM credibility. But they're desperate.
This is bizarre to me. I find it difficult to believe that so many of you are still standing by Trump. Brennan actually didn't say there is no evidence. He said, "I don't do evidence". He then went on to say that he "encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals, and it raised questions in my mind whether or not the Russians were able to gain the cooperation of those individuals."
They are appropriately continuing to investigate. You don't ask a police detective just barely into a murder case if they have evidence yet of who the killer is and then expect it to be over if the answer at that point is no.
Lots of smoke here, so they are still looking for the fire.
Trump also hasn't done really anything he promised you Trumpsters other than get a conservative judge on the SC, and that had very little to do with Trump. Failed in his ban attempt, won't say "radical Islamic Terrorists" when in the middle east, has shown no respect for the rule of law, no wall built or even on the way, has failed miserably so far in the Obamacare repeal and replace promise, US automakers are going to be laying off tons of workers. I would like to know what he has done for working class people...nothing is the answer.
Trump lies like a rug, he fires Comey because of the investigation, he continues to say nice things about Flynn...and WHY do that? Because Trump believes that when you say nice things about someone that that person then is loyal to you, and he doesn't want Flynn to sing and give all the dirt he has on Trump. It is all so ridiculous. Trump is ridiculous. If Trump had been elected as a Democrat (he WAS a Democrat for most of his adult life) and were doing all this crap, I would call him out on it too and not be supporting him in the slightest (I would not have voted for him). Country over party. Admitting that you voted for a bad and unprepared guy for President over continuing to support a buffoon.
Stop whining wrote:
What world are you living in? Talk about doubling down on stupidity. Jeez. You're a ridiculous person.
Regarding Brennan- Trey Gowdy grilled the crap out of him and, once again, on national television, there is "no evidence of collusion".
.
Lol. The fvck? That is a fake quote and you are a straight-up liar! Brennan did not say that there was "no evidence of collusion", not even close! These are his exact words:
"I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind about whether Russia was able to gain the cooperation of those individuals... I don't know whether or not such "collusion"... existed. I don't know. But there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required further investigation by the Bureau to determine whether or not U.S. persons were actively conspiring, "colluding", with Russian officials."
The only way you can read that statement and conclude that there's NOTHING to the Russia story is if you are being purposefully retarded.
The Gallant Pig Man wrote:
Stop whining wrote:What world are you living in? Talk about doubling down on stupidity. Jeez. You're a ridiculous person.
Regarding Brennan- Trey Gowdy grilled the crap out of him and, once again, on national television, there is "no evidence of collusion".
.
Lol. The fvck? That is a fake quote and you are a straight-up liar! Brennan did not say that there was "no evidence of collusion", not even close! These are his exact words:
"I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind about whether Russia was able to gain the cooperation of those individuals... I don't know whether or not such "collusion"... existed. I don't know. But there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required further investigation by the Bureau to determine whether or not U.S. persons were actively conspiring, "colluding", with Russian officials."
The only way you can read that statement and conclude that there's NOTHING to the Russia story is if you are being purposefully retarded.
Agreed (except for the retarded comment). Anyone looking at that exchange between Gowdy and Brennan and thinks that was good for Trump just has a Trump "Make America Great Again" hat up their butt.
