Support NeoGAF

[Fenderputty]

You'll have to parse other states, but in Massachusetts Bernie got 2 times the votes of trump alone and still lost.

So you have a graphic that is objectively true, but means little without context.

I do believe Trump will have a galzanizing effect in deep red States. The question is what effect appears in the swing States that matter.

It compares dem turnout to 2008 just after a crash and the worst president in years. The dem side is pointless. The republican side is pretty wild though.

 

[Maitiú]

Of course. The Democrats don't have a race, let alone one with a existential crisis hinged on their leading candidate, so voter turnout for the primaries was relatively lower and Republican turnout was desperately higher. This has no reflection on the general election turnout, when the country is choosing between Clinton and Trump.

 

[Raxus]

Well usually people vote Less in the primaries.

So Dems will still come out. Hard to imagine even more GOPers coming out of the cracks. But we shall see.

Dems need to get fired up.

We also need to take the fact we are down to 2 candidates for the Dems as opposed to the 5 for Republicans. I am more interested in the math for the general with the shadiness that is gerrymandering going on in the past few years.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

What an absurd argument.

So the RNC is going to ignore millions of voters and splinter the party even more because they can't control him?

How is that working out so far?

It's not about 'control' by itself. There is a real fear that if Trump keeps bashing immigrants through the general, he'll cause Hispanic voters to completely break with GOP for the next decade. This is exactly what happened in California when they passed the anti-immigration law in '94. Basically the Republicans would concede this election to have a chance in 2020.

 

[shortsFortallPeople]

It definitely is a bit worrying to me that Democrat turnout is so much lower than 2008. It's also extremely worrying to me that a lot of Bernie's diehard fans are becoming very anti-Hillary. I want Bernie too, I love him, and think he has a better chance in the GE against Trump. But I see pleeeenty of people on my Facebook wall who claim they'll either stay home on election day, or vote Trump just to be anti-establishment despite how monstrously different Trump is from Bernie.

I'm of course doing my best to get all of my friends to see reason, but it's really making me paranoid that this Bernie to Trump trend is being undersold.

a lot of hillary's diehards in 2008 also said they'd stay home.

we saw how that turned out

 

[jmdajr]

It's possible open primaries had many people directly voting against Trump even though they will vote Dem in general.

Hell maybe even troll voting for him.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Ding ding.

Also worth noting, the fact that Trump has angered the Latino population means next to nothing because the only states in which they matter are usually Democratic states anyway.

It really will come down to minority turn out in most of the swing states.

Not really. If Hispanics vote hugely against the Republicans it can cost them Florida, Nevada, Colorado, and maybe North Carolina. Florida by itself basically means they need a miracle to win the general.

 

[Macho Madness]

It's not about 'control' by itself. There is a real fear that if Trump keeps bashing immigrants through the general, he'll cause Hispanic voters to completely break with GOP for the next decade. This is exactly what happened in California when they passed the anti-immigration law in '94. Basically the Republicans would concede this election to have a chance in 2020.

Then you have two parties. "The Donald J Trump Party of White Nationalists and Beautiful Walls" and "The Shitty Version of the Democratic Party that Promises they Actually don't hate Minority Groups but Legislate against them at every turn"

 

[Macho Madness]

Hispanic voters matter more in the general election than black voters do because they can swing huge states.

 

[TyrantII]

Ding ding.

Also worth noting, the fact that Trump has angered the Latino population means next to nothing because the only states in which they matter are usually Democratic states anyway.

It really will come down to minority turn out in most of the swing states.

Sort of.

NV, CO, and NM went for Obama due to Latinos, and are trending more blue every 4 years. Latino support is huge in the South West, and will only increasingly be more effective as demographic trends hit Arizona and Texas.

Also, as an example, Springfield and Lynn/Lowel in Massachusetts went Clinton giving her two countries that should have been strong Bernie territory; both areas being above average in Latino populations.

Anyways, all in all I think Clinton should nominate Castro as a VP, or another rising Latino star in the Party. 2022-24 is right when the demographic shift is scheduled to tip the scales, and having some vets from the Latino community ready to strike will just be good for progressive policy.

 

[Journeywalker]

a lot of hillary's diehards in 2008 also said they'd stay home.

we saw how that turned out

To be fair, Obama had the young demographic, which is more likely to sit out if their favored candidate doesn't win. Hillary voters showed up for Obama because they were going to show up regardless.

 

[shortsFortallPeople]

Sort of.

NV, CO, and NM went for Obama due to Latinos, and are trending more blue every 4 years. Latino support is huge in the South West, and will only increasingly be more effective as demographic trends hit Arizona and Texas.

Also, as an example, Springfield and Lynn/Lowel in Massachusetts went Clinton giving her two countries that should have been strong Bernie territory; both areas being above average in Latino populations.

Anyways, all in all I think Clinton should nominate Castro as a VP, or another rising Latino star in the Party. 2022-24 is right when the demographic shift is scheduled to tip the scales, and having some vets from the Latino community ready to strike will just be good for progressive policy.

Florida has a strong Cuban voting block, too, so upsetting those folks in a potential swing state seems like a mistake.

To be fair, Obama had the young demographic, which is more likely to sit out if their favored candidate doesn't win. Hillary voters showed up for Obama because they were going to show up regardless.

If young people give a shit about how the Supreme Court makes its decisions and how Congress leans in the next 4 years it would be in their best interests to vote for the candidate closest to their ideals. I sincerely doubt they'll sit out this vote unless they want progress in this country to come to a grinding halt but, hey, young people are entitled to making mistakes too.

 

[TyrantII]

Hispanic voters matter more in the general election than black voters do because they can swing huge states.

The only group that doesn't matter is old white men.

Democrats are a pretty well rounded coalition of Young, Women, Blacks and Latinos. They're all important, and they are all seeing their issues taken up.

 

[border]

Also worth noting, the fact that Trump has angered the Latino population means next to nothing because the only states in which they matter are usually Democratic states anyway.

Florida has a pretty significant Hispanic population, and is definitely not a guaranteed blue state.

 

[vainglorious]

It's not so much the high Republican turn out that concerns me, as that's expected with a Democratic president in power. What's bothering me is the huge swing of Independents who voted in the Republican primary for Trump.

:/

 

[Macho Madness]

To be fair, Obama had the young demographic, which is more likely to sit out if their favored candidate doesn't win. Hillary voters showed up for Obama because they were going to show up regardless.

What Bernie is learning right now is that relying on the young vote doesn't win you elections. If you do that as a candidate, you will lose.

Now, Hillary is absolutely going to try and appeal to younger voters. She's trying her best right now to not alienate them because she knows she doesn't have them in the primary but is going to want them in the general.

 

[jmdajr]

It's not so much the high Republican turn out that concerns me, as that's expected with a Democratic president in power. What's bothering me is the huge swing of Independents who voted in the Republican primary for Trump.

:/

Have the exit polls come out? How did Trump do with them?

 

[SamVimes]

You need to put the 2008 turnout into context: America was coming from 8 years of one of the most hated presidents for the democratic party and it had a closer race which featured a once-in-a-lifetime candidate. In 2016 the dems are mostly content while the Republicans despise Obama and the primary has a large number of canditates AND trump has made many inroads with people previously uninterested in politics. This says very littlw about the GE.

 

[CDX]

This is almost meaningless. Other than to say most Democrats are happy with the current President, probably happy with both choices, and happy with Clinton being the presumed nominee. It's not a very exciting primary on the dem side.

In 1988 after 2 Republican terms H.W. Bush was running, turn out in the primaries was low for the Republicans, and very high for the Democrats. The Democrats still lost in November to the Republicans despite high primary turn out.

Primary turn out has very little meaning.

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

Ding ding.

Also worth noting, the fact that Trump has angered the Latino population means next to nothing because the only states in which they matter are usually Democratic states anyway.

It really will come down to minority turn out in most of the swing states.

Considering how significantly Hispanic turnout lags other ethnicities, this anger could actually prove meaningful in toss up States and more importantly down ballot races. Where I live in Houston, a Clinton/ trump race will have a meaningful impact on local races despite Texas overall remaining red. My Republican friends, some of whom have contested positions or are positioning themselves for future races are quite nervous.

 

[TyrantII]

Florida has a strong Cuban voting block, too, so upsetting those folks in a potential swing state seems like a mistake.



If young people give a shit about how the Supreme Court makes its decisions and how Congress leans in the next 4 years it would be in their best interests to vote for the candidate closest to their ideals. I sincerely doubt they'll sit out this vote unless they want progress in this country to come to a grinding halt but, hey, young people are entitled to making mistakes too.

Yup, and I forgot to add that each of those states becoming competitive makes it that much harder to see a path to the Whitehouse for the GOP. All that talk of them shrinking into a minority regional party is mostly due to demographic changes on those states, taking them off the table.

 

[vainglorious]

Have the exit polls come out? How did Trump do with them?

I was listening to WGBH this morning and at least in Massachusetts there was a huge turn out for Trump with Independents. The Independent vote gave Trump Massachusetts.

 

[Kraftwerk]

The desperation is palpable. People passing this around social media as some revelation.....at least do some research people. Yikes.

 

[boiled goose]

Who do you work for? Because the picture you are painting is the individual voters voices don't matter because they are all beholden to their industry/employer they work for. The secretary who works for Wall Street and donate $25 to Hilliary is obviously donate on the behalf of Wall Street, not her own reasons.

So tell me, who are you shilling for when you donate money to Bernie's campaign?

I mean, why did you ignore the rest of the post?
Convenient huh. If you read my answer, the answer was there.
No honest debate here.. You are completely arguing against a strawman. It is so frustrating and dishonest. We are talking about large individual donations.

I think $25 dollar donations per person no matter where you work is fine.
My whole argument is that donations should be proportional to your share of constituency.



Because you ignored it. I'm posting it again here.

------
Now we are getting somewhere. So we are in agreement so far right? Onto who can donate and how much.

Do you see the difference between large sums of money from a few and small sums of money from many?

Representative democracy should represent constituents equally or cater to those who have more money? Is it one person, one vote or whoever has more money wins. Should legislation be passed to represent constituents or constituents with money?

There is a complex discussion to be had on how to fund campaigns. What should be the limits. Who can donate and how much. These are all fair, and not trivial questions.

Do I think people (or corporations, unions, etc.) should be able to influence politicians based on who has more money? HELL NO. I think any influence should be proportional to your share of the constituency. That doesn't mean you have to do what the majority says. There is leadership, there is the constitution, etc. But should money buy legislation? I say no.

Do we disagree?

Please be honest here. Take your time to think it through. Be honest because if we disagree, then our differences are pretty fundamental and we have to take a few steps back.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

I was listening to WGBH this morning and at least in Massachusetts there was a huge turn out for Drumpf with Independents. The Independent vote gave Drumpf Massachusetts.

This is why I'm interested in if the GOP side cools down now, after they get out of the deep south, and some of those independents decide to cross over to the dem in the up coming states.

 

[giga]

The desperation is palpable. People passing this around social media as some revelation.....at least do some research people. Yikes.

This originated from the cesspools of reddit.

 

[TyrantII]

It's not so much the high Republican turn out that concerns me, as that's expected with a Democratic president in power. What's bothering me is the huge swing of Independents who voted in the Republican primary for Trump.

:/

There's no such thing. They all either lean GOP or Dem. A better term is to call them infrequent voters.

Remember all those people in polls saying they no longer identify with the GOP? Well, they're back. It wasn't GOP enough and Trump is their guy.

Conversely, that's alienating the middle-right of the party and the establishment. When all is said and done, I think you're going to see GOP up in red States and down in swing States, just like the trend in 2008 and 2012. And that does nothing for the GOP but ensure a loss. It's why the establishment is freaking out.

 

[Chris R]

This is almost meaningless. Other than to say most Democrats are happy with the current President, probably happy with both choices, and happy with Clinton being the presumed nominee. It's not a very exciting primary on the dem side.

In 1988 after 2 Republican terms H.W. Bush was running, turn out in the primaries was low for the Republicans, and very high for the Democrats. The Democrats still lost in November to the Republicans despite high primary turn out.

Primary turn out has very little meaning.

We will see in November. I won't be surprised when Trump wins though, because between him, Obama and Hillary the Republican base is turning out like never before.

 

[CharminUltra]

The desperation is palpable. People passing this around social media as some revelation.....at least do some research people. Yikes.

Hot.

 

[Journeywalker]

If young people give a shit about how the Supreme Court makes its decisions and how Congress leans in the next 4 years it would be in their best interests to vote for the candidate closest to their ideals. I sincerely doubt they'll sit out this vote unless they want progress in this country to come to a grinding halt but, hey, young people are entitled to making mistakes too.

I absolutely agree they should be motivated. I'm challenging the assumption that just because Hillary supporters came out for Obama in 2008, Hillary can bank on Bernie supporters showing up in 2016.

 

[boiled goose]

It's not so much the high Republican turn out that concerns me, as that's expected with a Democratic president in power. What's bothering me is the huge swing of Independents who voted in the Republican primary for Trump.

:/

In MA, a huge liberal state, more and more voters are remaining unenrolled or unenrolling from the democratic party. As an independent myself..I totally get it and it is scary.

 

[Pineapple]

It's worrisome. I just hope we show up in November.

 

[Abounder]

Drumpf is the Republican's bizarro Obama, not only are they up in turnout but they are dominating the 'lefty' media metrics as well. Hillary will win but it'll be too close for comfort

 

[vainglorious]

There's no such thing. They all either lean GOP or Dem. A better term is to call them infrequent voters.

Remember all those people in polls saying they no longer identify with the GOP? Well, they're back. It wasn't GOP enough and Trump is their guy.

Conversely, that's alienating the middle-right of the party and the establishment. When all is said and done, I think you're going to see GOP up in red States and down in swing States, just like the trend in 2008 and 2012. And that does nothing for the GOP but ensure a loss. It's why the establishment is freaking out.

Well... Independent voters generally participate in Democratic primaries as well. But there was a complete reversal of that behavior from Independents on Super Tuesday - at least in Mass. I don't think that's something to ignore.

 

[TyrantII]

I was listening to WGBH this morning and at least in Massachusetts there was a huge turn out for Trump with Independents. The Independent vote gave Trump Massachusetts.

That's the narrative, but its simply not true. Bernie and Hilary combined got 2X the amount of votes of all the GOP candidates.

It's the same nonsense as them entertaining the idea that Massachusetts will go Red in November. It's fun to talk about, but its misconstruting what is actually happening.

 

[Macho Madness]

In MA, a huge liberal state, more and more voters are remaining unenrolled or unenrolling from the democratic party. As an independent myself..I totally get it and it is scary.

This is happening across the country, to both parties. That less than one percent of the Democrats in MA did it is nothing to worry about.

 

[JetBlackPanda]

Drumpf is the Republican's bizarro Obama, not only are they up in turnout but they are dominating the 'lefty' media metrics as well. Hillary will win but it'll be too close for comfort

if she is even allowed to run amirite?

 

[vainglorious]

That's the narrative, but its simply not true. Bernie and Hilary combined got 2X the amount of votes of all the GOP candidates.

It's the same nonsense as them entertaining the idea that Massachusetts will go Red in November. It's fund tpntall about, but its misconstruting what is actually happening.

Mass will never go red in the general, but there is a lot of strong visible support for Trump around here. I'm seeing more and more Trump bumper stickers and yard signs everyday. Purely anecdotal I know, but... I'm fucking seeing it.

 

[pigeon]

The numbers still speak to Democratic complacency, which no one can intelligently deny.

As a Democrat right now, seeing Trump and Cruz compete for the presidential nomination, I'm honestly pretty complacent.

 

[TyrantII]

Mass will never go red in the general, but there is a lot of strong visible support for Trump around here. I'm seeing more and more Trump bumper stickers and yard signs everyday. Purely anecdotal I know, but... I'm fucking seeing it.

Saw it with McCain and Romney too. What's been interesting to me is talking to my GOP always vote Republican middle class friends and their disgust towards Trump.

These are people that mostly vote GOP because of small government and less taxes; but only lightly buy into the tribalism. He's a step to far for them.

 

[John Dunbar]

i liked rubio's interview on fox news.

"i would have won if pretty much everyone else would have dropped out."

 

[CharminUltra]

Goodbye, Super Tuesday
Who could hang a name on you?
When you change with every new day
Still I'm gonna miss you...

 

[Chococat]

I mean, why did you ignore the rest of the post?
Convenient huh. If you read my answer, the answer was there.
No honest debate here..

When you skip over the main thrust of my post and don't answer a simple question, you're not honestly debating. You were never debating, you just want to spew your talking points by moving goal post.

I think $25 dollar donations per person no matter where you work is fine.
My whole argument is that donations should be proportional to your share of constituency.

No, that wasn't your statement:

Anything that gets posted will be rationalized and ignored so i will try a different approach.

Wall street and lobbyists for other industries are smart people. When they donate, they are making an investment.

Why would they give all this money to Clinton if they dont see it as an investment?

Is your argument that Clinton is taking all this money but then turns around and tricks them by not doing anything in return? WHY DO THEY KEEP DONATING THEN?

You lumped everyone in the industry together. You did not differentiate corporate donations and individual employees donating. You insinuated the only reason they voted/donate to Hilliary was for nefarious reasons. It was a smear tactic. Wall Street is the boogie man!

 

[Knoxcore]

I'm not concerned about the turnout numbers (yet). The GOP race is highly contested. There is a lot of media coverage and dollars going into that race. Come November the fight will be between the Democratic and Republican candidate. Trump will get his crowds like Romney did in 2012, but it's all about that turnout come election day. If Super Tuesday is any indication, Trump is under-performing his poll numbers. Furthermore a Trump candidacy will likely scare Democrats to the polls, similar to how a Clinton candidacy will scare Republicans to vote.

 

[Abounder]

if she is even allowed to run amirite?

Ugh. HIllary's emails is such a bummer for her campaign, it's unfortunately an instant turnoff for anyone who ever thought about a security clearance and hurts her favorability ratings in the general. It needs to fade away like it was sniper fire from Monica Lewinsky, but Drumpf and Co. won't have any of that...this race is going to be so dirty like you wouldn't believe lol

 

[Tobor]

This is pretty much what 90% of the dems are gonna do in the primaries, lol

Everyone I talked to who is a democrat was following this plan, lol.

 

[gutter_trash]

Mass will never go red in the general, but there is a lot of strong visible support for Trump around here. I'm seeing more and more Trump bumper stickers and yard signs everyday. Purely anecdotal I know, but... I'm fucking seeing it.

The majority of people don't openly advertise their voter preferences on their lawns or bumpers.

Loud people are just more noticeable

 

[4Tran]

i liked rubio's interview on fox news.

"i would have won if pretty much everyone else would have dropped out."

Rubio is such an amazingly bad campaigner. It's awesome to see the Republican establishment try to coalesce around him when he has no shot of winning the delegate race. I wonder what their endgame is - are they hoping that the primary is so split up that it ends up going to a brokered convention? Even that probably won't happen because it's looking more and more like a two-man race so they'll all have to choose between Trump and Cruz.

 

[Ekdrm2d1]

I'm not concerned about the turnout numbers (yet). The GOP race is highly contested. There is a lot of media coverage and dollars going into that race. Come November the fight will be between the Democratic and Republican candidate. Trump will get his crowds like Romney did in 2012, but it's all about that turnout come election day. If Super Tuesday is any indication, Trump is under-performing his poll numbers. Furthermore a Trump candidacy will likely scare Democrats to the polls, similar to how a Clinton candidacy will scare Republicans to vote.

Dude won't actually build a wall, will he?

 

[boiled goose]

When you skip over the main thrust of my post and don't answer a simple question, you're not honestly debating. You were never debating, you just want to spew your talking points by moving goal post.

No, that wasn't your statement:

You lumped everyone in the industry together. You did not differentiate corporate donations and individual employees donating. You insinuated the only reason they voted/donate to Hilliary was for nefarious reasons. It was a smear tactic. Wall Street is the boogie man!

OMG let's get to the freaking point. The straw man continues. This defensiveness reminds me of religious apologetic mental gymnastics. Purpose is irrelevant. The whole argument is whether we want larger donations to have more influence.

I will post again. This time important questions bolded. #pleaserespond haha

-----------------
Do you see the difference between large sums of money from a few and small sums of money from many?

Representative democracy should represent constituents equally or cater to those who have more money? Is it one person, one vote or whoever has more money wins. Should legislation be passed to represent constituents or constituents with money?

There is a complex discussion to be had on how to fund campaigns. What should be the limits. Who can donate and how much. These are all fair, and not trivial questions.

Do I think people (or corporations, unions, etc.) should be able to influence politicians based on who has more money? HELL NO. I think any influence should be proportional to your share of the constituency. That doesn't mean you have to do what the majority says. There is leadership, there is the constitution, etc. But should money buy legislation? I say no.

Do we disagree?

Please be honest here. Take your time to think it through. Be honest because if we disagree, then our differences are pretty fundamental and we have to take a few steps back.