Crown wrote:Addressed in reply to Aly.
You did no such thing. Please provide evidence that the DNC was suppressing the vote, as the phrase "could have found more ways to suppress the vote" implies.
Trump is appealing more to them than Romney was, and Hillary less than Obama.
This is not the case. Per
the 2012 exit polling, Mitt Romney won white voters by 27 points. Per
the Crosstabs on CNN's most recent poll (Pg. 21,Q1), Trump leads Clinton by 14 points among whites. That's nearly half of Romney's number. Even factoring in the Margin of Error, Trump is doing worse in this poll than Romney did in the 2012 exit polling.
That is a 60 odd page document with no table of contents or index, cite page and table/figure item which demonstrates her ratings among middle-class whites.
Page 21, Q3 shows two proxies for white middle class voters. She leads among respondents making more than 50k/annually by 17 points. She leads college graduate respondents by a 10 point margin. So it's not an 18 point lead, but a 17 point lead. Mea culpa.
Trump won with a minority vote because there was a actual 'true believer' that the Evangelicals could vote for in the primary. You understand that my argument that there is a widespread anti-establishment feeling going on in this election isn't negated by it not holding true across all voting demographics all the time, right?
"A" true believer? Which one? Ben Carson? Mike Huckabee? Ted Cruz? Rick Santorum? Which one was the "true believer"? My point is that Trump won with a minority of the vote because there were 17 candidates running, all of whom were taking up different factions, and none of whom had Trump's ability to appeal to a little bit of every faction. It's impossible to say in retrospect, but I suspect that Trump would not have been able to win the Primary if there were 5 candidates, rather than 17.
And my argument doesn't "negate" yours in the sense that I've disproved it. I'm putting forth evidence for why your argument, that there is widespread anti-establishment feeling going on in this election, is rather flawed. You've put forth zero evidence to support any of your assertions.
The article quoted showed that when voters were 'made of aware' of who DWS was her lead plummeted right? You need money and attention at getting an incumbent out. There is no way you can pretend having a 11% to 15% approval rating and getting re-elected cycle on cycle isn't an indictment on how hard it is to mount an voting insurgency.
That 11-15% approval rating is for Congress as a whole, not for individual members. Local representatives are usually
viewed more favorably than Congress as a whole, which helps contribute to their high re-election rate. My own Representative will have absolutely no difficulty getting re-elected this year, even if she didn't sit in an overwhelmingly Democratic seat, because she's well-liked.
I'm demonstrating that there really isn't much evidence that the American voters are more anti-establishment than usual. We hear that voters are pissed off and angry at the beltway insiders literally every election, and it isn't any more true now that Trump's managed to con his way into the Republican nomination.
It's pretty self explanatory if you clicked on the link. But if you prefer you can compare David Cameron's steady 44% before Brexit and how that turned out.
I did not click the link because it was such a non-sequitor, and it remains so. Who gives a fuck about Cameron's approval prior to Brexit? There are lots of reasons to think that Brexit and the 2016 election are fundamentally different. There are very few reasons to think that they're similar.
Are you saying that the DNC giving money to Hillary so that she could run attack adds against Bernie didn't cost him a single fucking vote? That's your stance. Interesting.
I thought we were talking about collusion as shown in the DNC emails, not her joint fundraising efforts?
In any event, I answered your question and now you answer mine. Do you have any evidence that the collusion (really shit-talking) from the DNC's emails cost Bernie a single vote? For that matter, do you have any evidence that the bullshit ads from Correct the Record or any of the other weaksauce superPACs cost him a single vote?
The DNC took donations to the DNC and funnelled it exclusively to Hillary before a single vote was cast. This isn't a narrative, it's a done fact.
You're making up a narrative about the election that is not supported by a single shred of evidence. You are apparently unable to read polls and are ignorant about how presidential elections work.
