The Democrats’ 2016 mistake

Posted by $ nickursis 7 years, 4 months ago to Government
38 comments | Share | Flag

Read this if you care about where we are going, because it does provide a chilling prediction of something I can point to in fact: We will soon have a country that will predominately elect Progressive Democrats. I cite Oregon as an example: You can run a criminal candidate (like the beast, but our was John Kitzhaber), who then immediately resigns to avoid prosecution (which worked) and then the unelected candidate sails into office with only 3 counties voting her in. The beast won Oregon because 3 counties went her way. 90% of the state voting for Trump. If you look at the voting map of Oregon, it should scare you, because soon, as soon as they wake up, they will take and seize power for good, as they gather more and more special interests groups. This guy has it right, when they get their act together, they will be able to consistently win, with it being a 52-48 vote and it will steadily tilt in their direction as more of the uneducated masses graduate High School and drink the Koolaid. The rural voters saved the day, because the cities failed to show up, maybe because they assumed she would win, but the system will still slowly turn to where you will be unable to assemble enough people with the ability to think things through, see beyond the smoke, and realize they have been had.Trump only won by a hair in some states, had they really gotten their vote out, he would have lost. As long as they use the populated areas to their advantage, a smaller (in area) group will start dictating to the larger (in area) part of the country, what kind of crazy stuff will happen, and then expect the larger part to pay for it. Like free college, paying off student loans, etc, they will be on the great giveaway in 4 years.
SOURCE URL: https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-democrats-2016-mistake-100053074.html


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 11
    Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 4 months ago
    I read the article and it appears to undercut your prediction that "We will soon have a country that will predominately elect Progressive Democrats."

    Two quotes from the article:

    "But that’s making another dubious assumption — that because any bloc of voters is reliably in one camp today, they’ll still be there 10 years from now. "

    "It assumes, too, that younger voters don’t grow more ideologically diverse as they age."

    Obama lost 5% of the African-American vote in 2008 and 7% in 2012. By contrast, Hillary lost 12% of the African-American vote in 2016.while running against the alleged racist Donald Trump. A similar phenomenon played out with progressives' other "core constituencies".

    The actual lesson here is that demography is not destiny. The progressives' political base is slowly waking up and turning on its leaders. It's not time to throw in the towel yet.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 7 years, 4 months ago
      I see the millenials being very socialist, particularly the college educated ones. As the older folks die off, they will run the roost. Socialism is definitely on the rise and so is cronyism and entitlement. Hillary was the posterchild for crookedness and her supporters (slightly more than 50%) seemed to prefer hooking onto her coat tails than object to cronyism

      Trump was our last chance I thought to gain some time and slow down the process. Very few people in the future (if anyone) would risk their money and go through the torture Trump went through with the media and even his own party. Socialism will hve to play out and fail before people wake up. AS correctly portrayed how things will go over the next 40 -50 years in the USA.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 4 months ago
        The “torture Trump went through”? He appeared to enjoy every minute of it. I think your viewpoint is way too pessimistic. Hillary lost despite being the first major party woman candidate, and she trailed Obama’s turnout among all of the Democrats’ core constituencies (including African-Americans and Hispanics) despite promising to continue and expand his “progressive” agenda. Infighting within the Democratic Party is becoming more intense, even as Trump is beginning to unite the Republicans. Socialism is far from dead, but it’s on the defensive in the U.S. (Trump plus Republican Congress) and Europe (Brexit and the rise of anti-globalist political parties and candidates). There is plenty of reason for optimism.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 7 years, 4 months ago
          Remember that Bernie Sanders would have been the democratic candidate but for Hillary's crookedness with the superdelegates. He had more support for the socialism programs. Hillary had too much baggage that couldnt be overlooked any more that kicked her out at the end by a very THIN margin.

          Trump went through constant and unrelenting negativity for 15 months. I would have told the country to go fu&* itself, and certainly wouldnt have spend 50m for the privilege of being hassled continually. He is one of a kind, I think.

          If the country is great again after 4 years, he has a chance for re-election. The liberals will pound on him unmercifully as long as he is in the presidency, and then full blown socialism will take over. Unfortunately.

          Brexit and to some extent the Trump revolution were over free flowing immigration mostlly, not on individual freedom and rights.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 4 months ago
      Correct CBJ, most of us were a bit liberal when we were young, daunted by the forces of power, eager to lash onto the opposing view points of the day.

      Ahh, but for most of us that took life by the reigns and didn't cheat, lie or take the easy way out eventually gained a mind, principles and an appreciation for the opportunity to rule ourselves and our lives.

      In short...we grew up and became adults.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Dobrien 7 years, 4 months ago
        As a teen and young adult I was a democrat the philosophy I thought was "do your own thing" whatever it was as long as it was ethical .
        As I entered the work force and started a family at 21. I also became self educated. I realized I was an independent as that was as far away from either party. I voted Trump to stop the Caligula and Nero of today. Also a benifit is he is an outsider. Who doesn't need the corruption to attain his wealth.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 4 months ago
      CBJ, I am not arguing your points, they seem valid, however:
      "It assumes, too, that younger voters don’t grow more ideologically diverse as they age. According to an analysis by the Democratic group Third Way, Gen Xers — my generation — grew markedly more conservative in the decade between 2000 and 2011. There’s not much reason to think millennials will remain stuck where they are, either."

      This statement carries a double edged sword, the change in philosophy stems, IMHO, for the reality check that happens when you have to go to work, look at your paycheck, and see 30-40% gone to the state for all the happy crap. My concern is that The Beast counted on things she did not have a right to count on, but that the NEXT one will. The manipulative nature of Bernie should scare everyone, he had a Trump like appeal, and had he not been sabotaged by his own party, might have won. Both Hillary and Bernie engaged in one upmanship in promising the moon and beyond to the snowflakes, and only when Bernie went away tdid Hillary retire to her cave and think great thoughts on how great she is. That will not be the case next time, and they will have 4 more years of new snowflakes flopping around ready to feed at the trough. That may kill off any chances unless a lot of improvements are seen in the next 4 years. The power of corruption and the free giveaway is strong, especially to people to untrained in critical thought to ask how are you going to pay for all this. The greatest improvement could be to have a civics class that teaches TANSTAAFL and what it really means, that might help stem their influence. Thanks for the reply.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 4 months ago
    The practice of winner-take-all awarding electoral votes within a state partially causes this to happen. On the other hand, that practice also gave Trump a sizable win due to the electoral vote of many small states. If all electoral votes were awarded based on percentage of popular vote Hitlery might be president elect. The "solution" might be to award the first 2 electoral votes in each state to the candidate with the most popular vote in that state, and to split the rest of the electoral votes in each state based on percentages of popular vote in that state. This would would have awarded one electoral vote to 3rd party candidate McMullin in Utah and the rest split between Trump and Hitlery. Trump would have won 58 (or 60 if Michigan settles for Trump) electoral votes to Hitlery's 40 electoral votes of the initial base 2 per state. Then the rest would have gone approximately Hitlery 220, Trump 217, McMullin 1 based upon popular vote. Trump still would have won with about 275 (or 277) to Hitlery's 260 electoral votes.

    I agree with your basic comment though. As long as the young are brainwashed in statist biased schools they will vote more for socialism and the American experiment will end in failure due to domestic enemies.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 7 years, 4 months ago
      Maybe the real problem is that the election has degenerated into the selection of an emperor who can take from one and give to another. If we stop THAT power, the presidency would be an administrative position involving running the bureaucracy the way the congress and courts interpret the constitution.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by mminnick 7 years, 4 months ago
      Two states parcel the electoral votes based on congressional district - Maine and Nebraska.it usually goes 2 for the winner of the stae and 1 for each congressional district. If youlookk at the mape Trump one a disctrict in Main so get one vote from there and Clinton get 3. In Nebraska, trupm won all the discticts and the state. so got all of theirs. I may be mistaken about Nebraska but not main. There was much talk early on in the election coverage abut how trump could get to the needed 270 and the separate congressional districts were discussed at length.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 7 years, 4 months ago
        Had that been true in Oregon, then he would have gotten 2 of 4 or1 of 4 depending on the numbers. That seems to be a fairer way to distribute votes and smooth out the large area/people impact.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 7 years, 4 months ago
      The other alternative, which I prefer, is to follow Maine's example and allocate 2 votes to the state winner and one for each congressional district. This would mean that every state had "swing" districts and the candidates couldn't ignore any state as they currently do California and New York.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ rainman0720 7 years, 4 months ago
        Totally agree +11

        If I had the time and resources, I'd redo the past half dozen elections to see how they would have turned out.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 7 years, 4 months ago
          You can't really do that. If the rules were different, the campaigns and voting patterns would be different too. Much is being made of the fact that Hillary is beating Trump in the popular vote by over a million votes. But Trump didn't campaign significantly in New York, Illinois and California since they were Democratic strongholds. If he had, he might have picked up more votes in those states. He still wouldn't have won the states but the vote total would have been different.

          Similarly the incentive to vote in states where the conclusion is foregone is diminished. Here in California, I know my presidential vote was not going to affect anything and I got to choose between two Democrats for Senate. I did get to pick a representative, but it's a safe seat. If all states counted, either by total or district, there would be more incentive for people to vote in 'safe' states.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by edweaver 7 years, 4 months ago
        I was thinking that the states could designated a % of the electoral votes to metropolitan areas and the others to the rest of the state. This would make it difficult to gerrymander as FFA stated and it would force candidates to work smaller more rural areas. For example, Wisconsin had 10 votes and if no more than half we awarded to the the cities that account for 1/2 the population it would make it more difficult for the metropolitan areas to dictate the election.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 4 months ago
      I don't think we can assume that the outcome of the popular vote would have been the same if the Electoral College did not exist. For example, in a popular vote election Trump would have campaigned hard in California and New York and likely would have significantly reduced Hillary's margins in those states. The campaign strategies of both candidates would have been very different overall, and might have led to a Trump victory anyway.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 4 months ago
        While I agree that Trump's strategy would have been different in a popular vote election, I said nothing about the electoral college not existing. My speculation was specifically a modified method of assigning electoral college votes which still protects the small states and maintains one reason for Trump's strategy. The way it is done now is decided in each state, not federally, and I can't see either party pushing for the change I suggested on a national basis. Smaller population states would not be likely to go along and it would take a constitutional amendment to do away with the electoral college.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by craigerb 7 years, 4 months ago
    "it will steadily tilt in [the Democrts'] direction as more of the uneducated masses graduate High School"
    "The uneducated masses" often have more sense and better values than those who have been indoctrinated.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 4 months ago
      The point is, "Uneducated' meaning "no real education of use". Schools are the indoctrinators for the progressive agenda, having disposed of useless things like civics, math, history and chemistry, in favor of cheap and easy to learn topics like "Latino heroes of the 80's" and "Great Revolutions of Modern History". People who have been subjected to such intense "truth" are not to blame when they come out knowing that rioting is the way to change, protesting is a civil right that includes the odd Wal Mart looting session, and you owe me a "safe zone" no matter where I am, or what I do. Those then vote for the same prattle that got in school, when disgorged by people like Hillary Beast. If their numbers rise, which may happen as even employers cannot hire such village idiots, they will need to have the Progressives give them the safe spaces they crave. Thus you can win an election.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 4 months ago
    I'll just point out one problem with any of this: under the Founders' rules, it wasn't a popular election in the first place. Electors in the Electoral College were primarily selected by the States' Governors. The populace didn't have a say in voting for anything other than their House Representative. Senators were elected by State Legislators and the President effectively by the Governors. Popular elections are what have turned our nation into a mess because they become popularity contests rather than fitness for leadership comparisons.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dukem 7 years, 4 months ago
    As a 13 year Oregonian living on the east side of the Cascades (area which used to be conservative and is now rapidly becoming snowflake land with the beginning of a new campus of Oregon State University only a mile away from where I live), I concur with Nickursis.
    The changes have been amazing, perhaps even stupendous during that time, and I find myself now surrounded by people with whom I have difficulty speaking and conversing (and I do both well) because once the word Trump is uttered, the cascades of insult and denigration begin.
    I have taken to flying the American flag from my porch in a community with strong CC&R's, and have not yet been advised that the flag is hurtful, which I expect soon.
    I'm making plans for the getaway, but finding it difficult, so much of my intelligent conversation now takes place online and primarily in The Gulch.
    And I used to be a huge liberal in California, but reality has a way of changing one's viewpoint, if one pays attention (a lost art).
    It really is getting weird around here.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bsmith51 7 years, 4 months ago
    The elephant in the room of Oregon's problems is the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) which, for years, has ripped off Oregon citizens by promising a healthy retirement with ZERO contribution from its members. The promise of solvency assumes an investment rate of return of 8% in a 2% maximum interest rate environment.

    As Rand said, "One can evade reality but one cannot evade the consequences of evading reality."

    And so, just as cancer "cures" smoking, bankruptcy will "cure" the profligacy of the delusional left. Great pain will follow when the music stops.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 4 months ago
      You, sir, are a genius. That is indeed the problem, and Measure97 was the scam the Unions and Dumbocraps tried to hoist to get(steal) enough to bail out their largest freebie and special interest, that failed. Now they are trying the next move, with the same Union group announcing they are "fighting hard to get the legislature to raise the revenue through increased taxes and fees, to raise 1 billion dollars to close THIS YEARS gap! And next year? more, and more, and more...until they get forced to fix the damn mess they created. The hard part is that same group has a deathgrip on the election system in Oregon, and the Republicrats lack the balls to force a fight.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 7 years, 4 months ago
    My prediction is...

    The more the Liberal parties rely on their lazy, mis-educated supporters, the less their chances of winning elections will be. I truly believe this is why the "Mother-In-Law from Hell" lost the election.

    The Democrats will only retake the Presidency if:
    1. Conservatives rest on their laurels.
    2. The Trump administration really screws up.
    3. The party somehow, magically, gets its supporters truly fired up (like Obama did).
    or 4. The Russians do it :-)

    I'll wait and see...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 7 years, 4 months ago
    A lot will depend on Trump's success. If he actually manages to improve the unemployment figures and safety issues in black communities, the number of conservatives will grow in that population. Reaching a solution with immigration will be tough, but if he manages to redirect the legal thrust, control the border, and revamp the immigration system, he should gain Hispanic support as well. The opportunity to improve trade relations is there, as other countries really don't want to get into a trade war, and are signaling a willingness to negotiate fair solutions. On foreign policy, his offer to have constructive dialogue with Russia and China has brought down the DEFCON level from 3 to 5, so improvements are possible there. If his approach makes any headway toward his promised goals, it will set a pattern for other Republicans to follow.

    On the other hand, the Democrats appear to be headed toward becoming the Socialist party under another name. Following an extremist, radical path bent on promoting protest and lawlessness will further diminish their already shrinking influence.

    All the article said was that despite demographics leaning in their favor, the Democrats would continue to experience failure if they continued to rely on treating different racial, ethnic, and religious groups as monolithic. I didn't see any alternative strategy laid out as to how to change that approach, so there's not much to panic over, yet.

    As to your Oregon problem, it sounds like Mississippi fifty years ago, where finding a politician that wasn't crooked was rare. To change that the voters outside of Portland need to work at electing the right kind of state legislators that can throw a crowbar in the wheels of runaway statism.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 4 months ago
    Pundits. I scorn pundits. When they're wrong, it's usually monumentally so, and when they're right, it's for the wrong reasons. Their predictions are just like a craps shoot. The very same numbers can make you a winner or a loser. So, in order to be a pundit, just use the same old reasons over and over, and just like rolling the dice you'll win now and then, but mostly, you'll lose.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 7 years, 4 months ago
    Me dino says that the evil hag would now be the president-elect if a bad hair day had not run at all.
    A lot hinges on what can be accomplished during the next for years.
    Should the debt bubble burst by year four, bye bye bad hair day for he will be blamed just for being in office.
    Then we might as well start addressing each other as "comrade."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bsmith51 7 years, 4 months ago
    Wait. Didn't all of us old guys 'n' gals learn decades ago that demographics will doom us all? I know it's true because Paul Erilch "proved" it in his book, The Population Bomb, published in 1968.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo