The 2016 US General Election

[astralis]

JAD,

By 'medium-term demographic' may I assume you mean the continued increase in the Hispanic population (and other ethnic groups). If so, the dems have some hurdles to get over. First, the majority of Hispanics would have to affiliate with the Democratic party. Second, the party would have to retain its traditional base (no significant defections to the right). And third, the Republican party's current hold on the White House and the Congress would have to yield poor economic results.

if Dems got the exact same turnout in 2020 as they did in this election (ie, lower levels of minority support than 2008-2012, a significant WWC defection to Trump/GOP)...the demographic changes alone (both age and ethnicity) would have flipped the results.

As for the Democratic base, why would it hold together if the economic situation improves in the intervening years. What could the dem leadership offer them?

the real question is "why wouldn't it?" IE, Bill Clinton reaped the political rewards of prosperity in 1996. for that matter, Obama was obviously doing decently if voters gave him another chance in 2012.

in any case, the Dem base, or more accurately coalition, has never focused solely on economic concerns. (for that matter, the entire electorate, and -especially- Trump voters; the single biggest predictor of whether or not a person was going to vote for Trump was NOT socio-economic status or even party affiliation (!) but their answer to the question 'Do you think Barack Obama is a Muslim?').

That is not to say a Democrat can't still win the White House even as the flow continues rightward. The GOP did it periodically after the progressive movement began with FDR in the 1930s; yet, despite those interludes, the progressive movement kept its momentum intact. Even now I'm not altogether certain it has lost it, but it seems so. We'll see.

i think you're mistaking the black swan event for a trend (and i mentioned this before in a different context-- whether or not a Trump administration actually constitutes what conservatives would consider...conservatism).

to look at it from more of a generational view, Baby Boomers and the remnants of the Silent Generation came out in higher numbers, and they voted decisively in favor of Trump. Millennials, having grown from 19% of the electorate to roughly 30% of the electorate today (matching Baby Boomers in size, although actual turnout was rather lower to HRC's disappointment), have voted decisively Democratic in every single election since they became eligible to vote. by 2020 they will make up 35% of the electorate, and by 2024, 40%. their views are significantly more liberal than their predecessors, which GVChamp has noted to his great displeasure, lol.

there is some indication that the post-Millennial generation is slightly less liberal than their Millennial counterparts (they grew up in the Obama years, not the Bush years), but given the absolute size of the Millennial cohort (even bigger than the Boomers!) they will not reach parity until roughly 2060. of course predicting politics that far ahead is a fool's game anyway.

[GVChamp]

their views are significantly more liberal than their predecessors, which GVChamp has noted to his great displeasure, lol.

You're not going to like it, either!!!! Bunch of silly delusional commies.

[DOR]

Asty:

By 'medium-term demographic' may I assume you mean the continued increase in the Hispanic population (and other ethnic groups). If so, the dems have some hurdles to get over. First, the majority of Hispanics would have to affiliate with the Democratic party. Second, the party would have to retain its traditional base (no significant defections to the right). And third, the Republican party's current hold on the White House and the Congress would have to yield poor economic results.

Whether or not all 3 conditions materialize over the next 4-8 years will depend on the state of the economy. Not that other issues won't matter, but assume for the moment that international relations are no worse off than they are today, and there have been no major military conflicts, why would Hispanics flock to the Democratic party?

As for the Democratic base, why would it hold together if the economic situation improves in the intervening years. What could the dem leadership offer them?

That is not to say a Democrat can't still win the White House even as the flow continues rightward. The GOP did it periodically after the progressive movement began with FDR in the 1930s; yet, despite those interludes, the progressive movement kept its momentum intact. Even now I'm not altogether certain it has lost it, but it seems so. We'll see.

Which states are you thinking of? Since Dems have little difficulty winning the most votes (6 of the last 7 presidential elections, for example), the crux of the matter is which states get turned by demography.

Say, Texas.

[bfng3569]

Is that a surprise? The White House didn't like the "Sadaam had nothing to do with 9/11" report, so they told the CIA to try harder. The next take, which was less of an intel report than a political action plan, was presented to congress as if the first never existed. Congress bought it, and millions of people died and we got ISIS.

yes, that is.

if you have actual articles with proof that show Bush forced the CIA to lie, lets see them.

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002




“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998

“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983” — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Robert Byrd, October 2002

“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” — Tom Daschle in 1998

“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Bob Graham, December 2002

“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” — Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002

“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” — Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 – 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” — Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.” — Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

“Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.” — Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

also, how many other intelligence agencies in the world thought the same thing?

[astralis]

are we really going through all of this again for the 98293489324th time?

Bush didn't force the CIA to lie, but the administration (especially Cheney/Wolfowitz) continually pressured the CIA to get findings that they wanted, did a lot of massive cherry-picking of available intel, and when that wasn't enough, tried to play DIA off CIA to get the type of raw intel they were looking for.

people whom internally disagreed were side-lined and people whom publicly disagreed were shown the door.

there was a serious failure of intelligence AND a serious failure of leadership, because instead of using intel to advise the COAs, it worked the other way around. the leadership wanted the intel to JUSTIFY the war.

[bfng3569]

are we really going through all of this again for the 98293489325th time?

Bush didn't force the CIA to lie, but the administration (especially Cheney/Wolfowitz) continually pressured the CIA to get findings that they wanted, did a lot of massive cherry-picking of available intel, and when that wasn't enough, tried to play DIA off CIA to get the type of raw intel they were looking for.

people whom internally disagreed were side-lined and people whom publicly disagreed were shown the door.

there was a serious failure of intelligence AND a serious failure of leadership, because instead of using intel to advise the COAs, it worked the other way around. the leadership wanted the intel to JUSTIFY the war.

I might not have been around, but I am curious about how 'Bush' forced the CIA to lie (when the statement was made in this thread)

as well as other foreign agencies who came to similar conclusions.

really has little to do with this thread so I have no issues removing it entirely.

[JAD_333]

JAD,



if Dems got the exact same turnout in 2020 as they did in this election (ie, lower levels of minority support than 2008-2012, a significant WWC defection to Trump/GOP)...the demographic changes alone (both age and ethnicity) would have flipped the results.

Again, no one can predict at this time where the support of ethnic minorities will go. Much depends on what the new administration achieves, particularly with respect to the economy. Trump appears to be more interested in domestic issues than others. I sense he is bound and determined to make the economy the centerpiece of his presidency. We can argue into the wee hours whether he will succeed or not, but we can't foretell where we'll be in 4 years.

the real question is "why wouldn't it?" IE, Bill Clinton reaped the political rewards of prosperity in 1996. for that matter, Obama was obviously doing decently if voters gave him another chance in 2012.

All true, but supposing the scale of improvement in the coming 4 years dwarfs those of Clinton and Obama, or even matches them, the dems will be in for a rough ride in 2020.

in any case, the Dem base, or more accurately coalition, has never focused solely on economic concerns.

True. Nor is any party.

i think you're mistaking the black swan event for a trend (and i mentioned this before in a different context-- whether or not a Trump administration actually constitutes what conservatives would consider...conservatism).

By definition a black swan event is unpredictable and out of the norm. I've said I am not certain Trump's election is the end of the progressive movement. It may be just another GOP interlude. But I believe the times are ripe for a shift toward conservative end of the spectrum. The movement will not happen all at once. Look at the progressive movement from FDR to now. It did not reach its apex until the ACA was passed. So, too, the shift to more conservative governance will build over some time until it too reaches a breaking point. The whole process is a replica of the average human condition--always looking for equilibrium but never accepting it, aka "the grass is always greener on the other side" syndrome.

to look at it from more of a generational view, Baby Boomers and the remnants of the Silent Generation came out in higher numbers, and they voted decisively in favor of Trump. Millennials, having grown from 19% of the electorate to roughly 30% of the electorate today (matching Baby Boomers in size, although actual turnout was rather lower to HRC's disappointment), have voted decisively Democratic in every single election since they became eligible to vote. by 2020 they will make up 35% of the electorate, and by 2024, 40%. their views are significantly more liberal than their predecessors, which GVChamp has noted to his great displeasure, lol.

lol,,,I don't mean to be dismissive of demographics, but slicing and dicing the electorate and identifying its inclinations is too much of a distraction from long-term thinking. What happens when the demographics are there but their thinking changes? Events and conditions mold social responses. History teaches; it doesn't predict.

there is some indication that the post-Millennial generation is slightly less liberal than their Millennial counterparts (they grew up in the Obama years, not the Bush years), but given the absolute size of the Millennial cohort (even bigger than the Boomers!) they will not reach parity until roughly 2060. of course predicting politics that far ahead is a fool's game anyway.

Exactly.

[GVChamp]

Demographics aren't destiny in terms of parties as the parties aren't fixed entities. They can and do redefine themselves, which is what they are supposed to.

Political coalitions and policy direction are a different story. You can see groups coming and predict their influence, at least to some extent, especially since they wax and wane in strength over multiple cycles.

[Chunder]

Almost half?
More like less than 20%.
Second best result of the year.

So we can conclude therefore that Hillary did not win the popular vote as most people did not actually vote for her. You don't win government, you loose it.

The devil is in the detail of just how undemocratic the democratic party is. All they need to do is win the groupthink in major metropolis areas and to hell with everywhere else. The party for social inclusion only wants the results that favor it. There is no built in affirmative electoral system for those areas who love their wifes, don't discriminate against muslims, blacks or hispanics because they don't know any, would probably welcome any friendship but are racist misogynists.

A system so unbelievable stacked in The Democrat party candidates favor. Over twice the funding of Trump. All the favorable press coverage, including press collusion (Damn those Russians for their expose') probably helped along by journalistic bias, her pop star rallies, The establishment of his own party working against him... , and the guy wins. And all you've got is a popular vote lead of some 3 million in a nation of how many, in major metropolises of how many with complete control over media content, major educational institutions, and of course a guilded self interest? Against Donald Trump!!!

Absolutely trounced. Never before have I seen such a hissy fit. This is the thing right, which is the delineation between moderates and fanatics on both sides - Moderates actually respect the result of the election for a given time. Given the reaction of the left - it's become more of a cult. The absolute phsyop campaign waged by the left on the American Public failed. The electoral college, despite the last redoubt of the left's attempt to bully an outcome, affirmed Trump.

I suppose the problem all the people that didn't vote for Hillary, that weren't "with her" and would like to find a reliable source for info on the new Administration can't turn to one of America's many versions of PRAVDA to find out. Ironically they'll be saving trees by doing so. Not buying a rag will do your bit to alleviate global warming.

[drhuy]

Election - LOST

Recount - LOST

Faithless electors - LOST

i'm excited to see what the delusional left is going to do next

[JAD_333]

Demographics aren't destiny in terms of parties as the parties aren't fixed entities. They can and do redefine themselves, which is what they are supposed to.

Parties are destined to have a demographic profile befitting their political positions and legislative accomplishments. I agree they evolve, or "redefine themselves", as you put it, but not always. The 19th Century Federalists and the Whigs didn't evolve. I suppose they were too hidebound and felt evolving would betray their values. On the other hand, the modern day Democratic and Republican parties have always been masters at redefining themselves, albeit slowly.

Their evolution from the Civil War era till now is a good example. The fact that African Americans left the Republican party for the Democratic party during FDR's presidency in the 1930s attests to the heavy duty change the once pro-slavery Democratic Party went through to win them away from the Party of Lincoln that freed the slaves and got the 13th Amendment passed.

Political coalitions and policy direction are a different story. You can see groups coming and predict their influence, at least to some extent, especially since they wax and wane in strength over multiple cycles.

Sounds about right.

[astralis]

it is very true that demographics aren't destiny.

but to ensure that your respective party is on the right side of demographic change requires an understanding of motivating factors and of the voters themselves. how you tailor the message, etc.

Goldwater killed the idea of widespread black Republicanism by associating himself with "states' rights", which for him meant greater freedom from the federal government but for many blacks meant embracing racist state governments.

similarly the collapse of Asian-American and Hispanic support throughout the 2000s, along with support from the young (hard to believe now, but 18-24 year old voters were equally for Bush and Gore). none of these demographics have shifted in any significant sense back to the Republicans...because Republicans aren't targeting them to any extent.

Trump's victory was in essence a double-down of previous strategies. his record unpopularity-- at the start!-- may very well sully the GOP brand for a significant time to come, just like Dubya did for an entire generation of Millennials. he is now the defacto leader of the GOP, and his Congressional allies aren't notably trying to appeal to all of the groups mentioned in the GOP autopsy report from 2012, either.

i expect the GOP will change to compete for these groups later; the issue is that their current base isn't really interested in it, and there will be aspects of victory disease mixed in now too. i don't think it's a real stretch to say that the GOP will continue to have significant problems with appealing to groups outside their own shrinking demographic base for some time to come.

there was a very interesting New Yorker (long) interview with Obama regarding what comes next for Dems, etc. this bit stuck out to me.

And Obama related the Party’s losses this year to previous setbacks—and recoveries. “Some of my staff are really young, so they don’t remember this,” Obama said. “They remember my speech from the Boston Convention, in 2004, because they uploaded it on YouTube or something, but they might have been fifteen when it happened. Well, that’s the election that John Kerry lost. George Bush was reëlected. Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader in the Senate, was defeated. The Senate went Republican. The House was Republican. Me and Ken Salazar, of Colorado, were the only two Democrats nationally who won. It was a very similar period to where we are right now. Two years later, Democrats had won back the Senate; I think they had won back the House. And four years later I was the President of the United States."

[Doktor]

Question?

How do you know who voted whom? Isn't the voting secret?

Is it a guesstimate or there is something else?

[GVChamp]

IMO, 2012 autopsy is and always will remain virtue-signaling. The ending conclusion the GOP Elite took is that they are doing everything pretty awesome and basically have just to drop that whole anti-illegal immigration thing (which they never really wanted to support anyways).

Just disgusting progressivism infecting the GOP elite, and entirely wrong-headed. Remember, the GOP used to support the Equal Rights Amendment and Equal Pay nonsense, too, which totally seemed like the "right side of history" at the time. That didn't deliver electoral majorities. Moral Majority politics delivered electoral majorities, which would've been called exactly the wrong politics at the time.

Trump jacked up his AA approval ratings with relatively little outreach and Rubio single-handedly increased approval ratings of the GOP just by virtue of looking Hispanic.

[Doktor]

Almost half?
More like less than 20%.
Second best result of the year.

Almost half of those who bothered. Better?