Ted Cruz had exactly 0.00% chance against Hillary in the general election
| Pink supple ticket booth roommate | 11/22/17 | | Sienna Kitchen | 11/22/17 | | Pink supple ticket booth roommate | 11/22/17 | | Sienna Kitchen | 11/22/17 | | Pink supple ticket booth roommate | 11/22/17 | | Sienna Kitchen | 11/22/17 | | racy insane old irish cottage dilemma | 11/22/17 | | dark contagious garrison roast beef | 11/23/17 | | Sienna Kitchen | 11/26/17 | | drunken light regret cruise ship | 11/22/17 | | Pink supple ticket booth roommate | 11/22/17 | | Maize field associate | 11/22/17 | | Pink supple ticket booth roommate | 11/22/17 | | Maize field associate | 11/22/17 | | vibrant embarrassed to the bone quadroon | 11/22/17 | | Pink supple ticket booth roommate | 11/22/17 | | french resort mental disorder | 11/22/17 | | Sienna Kitchen | 11/22/17 | | Concupiscible principal's office | 11/23/17 | | vibrant embarrassed to the bone quadroon | 11/22/17 | | Sienna Kitchen | 11/22/17 | | Pink supple ticket booth roommate | 11/22/17 | | Sienna Kitchen | 11/22/17 | | Bat shit crazy point mad cow disease | 11/22/17 | | Pink supple ticket booth roommate | 11/22/17 | | Sienna Kitchen | 11/22/17 | | french resort mental disorder | 11/22/17 | | hyperventilating locale | 11/22/17 | | racy insane old irish cottage dilemma | 11/22/17 | | Sienna Kitchen | 11/22/17 | | racy insane old irish cottage dilemma | 11/22/17 | | Sienna Kitchen | 11/22/17 | | racy insane old irish cottage dilemma | 11/22/17 | | Carnelian lodge giraffe | 11/22/17 | | infuriating marvelous parlour filthpig | 11/22/17 | | Slippery Native Depressive | 11/22/17 | | racy insane old irish cottage dilemma | 11/22/17 | | Pink supple ticket booth roommate | 11/22/17 | | racy insane old irish cottage dilemma | 11/22/17 | | Pink supple ticket booth roommate | 11/22/17 | | racy insane old irish cottage dilemma | 11/22/17 | | Pink supple ticket booth roommate | 11/22/17 | | racy insane old irish cottage dilemma | 11/22/17 | | Pink supple ticket booth roommate | 11/22/17 | | racy insane old irish cottage dilemma | 11/23/17 | | Pink supple ticket booth roommate | 11/23/17 | | autistic sweet tailpipe institution | 11/22/17 | | Pink supple ticket booth roommate | 11/22/17 | | Deep Slap-happy Hospital Twinkling Uncleanness | 11/22/17 | | racy insane old irish cottage dilemma | 11/22/17 | | Deep Slap-happy Hospital Twinkling Uncleanness | 11/22/17 | | racy insane old irish cottage dilemma | 11/22/17 | | Deep Slap-happy Hospital Twinkling Uncleanness | 11/22/17 | | racy insane old irish cottage dilemma | 11/22/17 | | erotic keepsake machete | 11/22/17 | | Pink supple ticket booth roommate | 11/23/17 | | plum cuckoldry national | 11/23/17 | | Pink supple ticket booth roommate | 11/23/17 | | rusted senate mexican | 11/23/17 | | Pink supple ticket booth roommate | 11/23/17 | | Pink supple ticket booth roommate | 11/24/17 | | Razzle-dazzle big-titted chapel persian | 11/24/17 | | Pink supple ticket booth roommate | 11/25/17 | | pale cracking affirmative action tank | 11/24/17 | | Pink supple ticket booth roommate | 11/26/17 | | Pink supple ticket booth roommate | 11/27/17 | | erotic keepsake machete | 05/30/19 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: November 22nd, 2017 10:22 PM Author: Maize field associate
where did that weird faggot even come from? wtf?
he's a Canadian fucking Mexican? and he wants to be president? what is this shit?
go away, faggot.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3806428&forum_id=2#34753224) |
Date: November 22nd, 2017 10:31 PM Author: racy insane old irish cottage dilemma
this is the one time Consuela makes perfect sense (pains me to say that).
No way Cruz would have won Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin.
He would have done better in some traditional Republican areas but that would not have flipped any Clinton states back to him. In fact, he probably would have also lost North Carolina.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3806428&forum_id=2#34753263) |
Date: November 22nd, 2017 10:41 PM Author: racy insane old irish cottage dilemma
Also, to my last point. Both parties are essentially 50/50. So the better candidate is always the one who can bring out non-traditional voters to change that 50/50 dynamic.
Obama brought out a huge surge in African American turnout in 2008 and 2012. In a stable environment like 2012, this was enough to push him over the edge in states that are typically close where the black vote is a very large share of the total vote (e.g., PA, VA, MI, FL).
Trump brought out a huge surge in (young) working class white voters that don't typically come out in big numbers. 2016 was a fairly stable environment as well, and this was enough to push him over the edge in close or trending states that have a very big white working class vote (e.g., PA, NC, MI, WI, IA, OH).
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3806428&forum_id=2#34753317) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 10:46 PM Author: Pink supple ticket booth roommate
I agree with all the analysis you've posted here except for the 50/50 dynamic. Democrats have a demographic edge which is only growing over time and will be even better for the Democrats in 2020. Hillary, despite being a historically poor candidate, still won the popular vote by millions.
They won't forget to campaign in the Midwest states next time either.
What do you hate about my other poasts?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3806428&forum_id=2#34753345) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 11:10 PM Author: racy insane old irish cottage dilemma
To your first point. I am not sure hispanics are unwinnable for the GOP but you have to remember that a clan like mentality is literally coded into human DNA. Humans are naturally more trusting of people that look similar to them. There is a biological reason for this.. self preservation..
So basically, what is harming the GOP is not so much policy... a lot of upper middle class hispanics vote Democrat because GOP politicians (most notably Trump himself) make derogatory comments about hispanics in general. This brings up the clan mentality discussed above.
This was Trump's strategy all along. Look how he did in the primary. He won all of the states where there was the deepest racial polarization (deep south, mid-atlantic, some east coast states) while generally doing much worse in western states and states that were uniformly white and there was no racial polarization (Iowa caucus)... So basically Trump has pushed this demographic polarization into overdrive.
To your second point, the strident style (like Trump's) is not helping your own interests though. For instance, lets say you truly believe that your party will never ever win minorities. Then you will have to convince people who you perceive as sharing your interests to move to your side. But you spend a lot of time bashing white libs rather than trying to convince them of your position. This might just be your xo thing, which is fine. But I have noticed the general Republican strategy lately is to attack the very voters they will probably need to convince to vote for them in 10 years to stay relevant (when as you say, demographics will fuck the GOP) - typically urban and suburban white libs/moderates. If you guys don't start doing better with socially left of center whites, the GOP is probably permanently fucked.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3806428&forum_id=2#34753497) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 11:20 PM Author: Pink supple ticket booth roommate
The best that a Republican has done with Hispanics, as far as I know, is GWB in 2004 with 44% of the vote, where he ran on a "compassionate conservatism" platform (basically fully embraced hispanics, promised more immigration, easy home purchases, ran hard on his "Texas rancher" background, etc). How do you see other Republicans doing better with Hispanics than he did?
Re: #2, you can see on XO a huge shift in white voter preference since 2008 and 2012 -- a lot (the majority?) of XO voted for Obama not once but twice. My "lib bashing" strategy is an attempt to decrease the left of center liberal's status further, thereby forcing a crisis of identity leading them to search for an alternative ideology -- the only one which exists being nationalism. Perhaps that's a failing strategy, though? It certainly feels like I'm swimming against the current.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3806428&forum_id=2#34753566) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 11:30 PM Author: racy insane old irish cottage dilemma
For 1) Yes, you are right, GWB was the best in recent memory. However, that is because these elections have become very racially polarizing lately. Before, hispanics were voting Democrat for fiscal reasons. Now they are voting Democrat because of identity politics. Take Cubans as an example of this. 20 years ago they were solidly Republican, particularly because they tend to be well-educated, anti-communist, upper-income. Now the vote is split or leans Democrat. This did not happen because of handouts. This happened because of social issues and identity politics. Part of the problem is the misconception that hispanics are naturally conservative. However, this never made sense to me as abortion has been legal in many latin american countries for decades and many latin american countries legalized gay marriage even before the U.S. did. Toning down the evangelical rhetoric and white identity politics would probably help win back a sizable share of hispanics. It's ok to be for closed borders, but probably not push it too far (e.g., deporting dreamers or other mean things).
For 2, I don't think that will be effective. Pushing people to the edge does not usually lead to an identity crisis but rather makes them double down in their thinking. There are actually studies on this. Even if you argue with people and push hard and show them convincing evidence that they are wrong, it most often pushes them even deeper into their way of thinking. I think a better strategy would be to actually listen to people's concerns who you think are convincible to push slightly in your direction. Part of the problem I see now is that Congressional Republicans have a -15 point approval rating and are focused on passing a tax bill as if that will save them, rather than focusing on why they have a -15 point approval rating. That is not all just anti-Trump stuff.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3806428&forum_id=2#34753635) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2017 12:13 AM Author: racy insane old irish cottage dilemma
I am not going to lie to you, I think the demographics is destiny thing is true largely and I think it is highly likely (80%+ chance) that Democrats are the dominant party from say 2024-2044 with little hope for change in that timespan.
But for point 1. I do agree that Jeb or Marco would have lost to Hillary because of depressed white working class turnout. However, putting your chips all in the white working class basket, while working in 2016 because it tips MI, WI, PA, NC by a point or two, is not a good long term strategy. The Jeb/Marco approach would have essentially been better, i.e., the GWB strategy but tone down the cultural conservatism (i.e., less religious) and war-mongering. Essentially do what right of center political parties in Europe now do. The reason this is a better strategy is because the white working class vote shrinks about 2-3% every Presidential election cycle due to a) more minorities, obviously, and b) Millennials and post-Millenials entering the voter pool and being better educated. So even just among whites themselves, the working class vote is shrinking. That strategy would have made a dynamic whereby Democrats still largely win the cities and scattered poor rural counties, but Republicans overall win rural areas, exurbs, and hold their own in the suburbs. Instead, the way Trump pushed the party (it was already headed in that direction) is essentially into a dynamic where Democrats win the cities, Republicans win the rural areas, and basically the closer you get to a big city, the more likely you are to vote Democrat. Demographically speaking, this is suicide for the GOP because rural areas are stagnant and in many cases shrinking in population. Cities are increasing in population, and near-in suburbs are essentially where the bulk of the U.S. population already lives. Sure, Republicans will win rural areas by a larger margin, but they will lose the suburbs. Then they will essentially face the problem Democrats now, particularly in the house... where they win a minority of districts by enormous margins but lose everything else. This is already starting to happen if you look at the Virginia House of Delegate election a couple weeks ago. Republicans stayed competitive in the total vote because they won rural areas big time. But a ton of districts flipped to democrats because they won the suburbs by 10 points here and there. In short, banking on a declining white rural population is not a good strategy even if it pays small dividends in the electoral college. It's only a matter of time until states with booming city and minority populations flip to the other side - TX, AZ, GA, NC - being by far the most likely.
for 2 - the slow game is the only approach, it's essentially what libs have done for progressive causes like gay marriage and it's worked well. I think Congressional Republicans have a low approval rating because a) Trump is unpopular, but also b) because they appear to be completely out of touch. The fact that even the reasonable ones like John McCain are really old white guys doesn't help. The fact that they are trying to publicly investigate Hillary (who's not even a public official anymore) makes them also look out of touch. They appear too culturally conservative as well. Basically the problem I see is that everyone knows that most people don't want Republicans controlling Congress right now and they are kind of stuck with them. This was partially inevitable based on the laws of politics after Trump's election. But the better strategy would have been for them to be like, ok, how can we work with the other side - or at least appear to be doing so. Instead they've brazenly been like "fuck you, we are in power" - that's fine but they won't be in power long because it reminds people why they didn't want them in power and why they naturally want a check on Trump/a republican presidency.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3806428&forum_id=2#34753901) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2017 12:35 AM Author: Pink supple ticket booth roommate
I appreciate the response, and I agree with you on almost everything you said in the first and second paragraphs. Most of the Trump supporters here really don't appreciate how dire the Republican demographic predicament is -- it's glossed over by them regularly. But do you really think the European right of center parties are the right approach, given the massive influx of Muslims there, the clampdown on freedom of speech, and the continued leftward progression in those countries? They only seem to slow the leftward momentum, not stop or reverse it. It seems like the countries having the best success at countering leftism in Europe are the explicitly nationalist countries -- Orban in Hungary (he's running an incredible anti-Soros campaign now), Poland, and the Czech Republic...which would mean a strategy in the U.S. of increased nationalism (and more radical policy prescriptions), not less.
Re: the third paragraph, do you think that the Democrats obstructing Republicans across the board has had a negative effect on them? Democrats have refused to cross the aisle to work with Republicans on anything of note so far. I agree with you on the inevitable laws of politics -- the party opposite the president usually wins the midterms. From what I see, people are angry at Congress for the gridlock, inability to get anything accomplished, and the corruption and pork more than anything else, which applies to both parties...
Lastly, do you think the left and the right have the same strategies to attain power? It seems to me that the left agitates to move society further leftward slowly over time, and the right -- if it's attaining real power -- seizes it all at once. Like El Sisi seizing power in Egypt, or Franco in Spain...can you think of any examples of the right attaining real power slowly over time?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3806428&forum_id=2#34754014) |
Date: November 24th, 2017 8:38 PM Author: pale cracking affirmative action tank
Pretty dumb argument. Aside from the fact that this is a pointless hypothetical to talk about, Hillary lost the election because her numbers compared to Obama collapsed, not because Trump converted a bunch of new voters. For instance, Trump got fewer votes in WI than Romney did and fewer votes in OH and MI than Bush 04.
Hillary was uniquely unlikable and uninspiring. The 2016 fundamentals favored the Democrats slightly; no doubt that Biden for instance would have crushed Trump and beaten most Republicans. Against Hillary, most Republicans would have won.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3806428&forum_id=2#34764701) |
|
|