Uh-Oh

Discussion in 'Politics' started by vanzandt, Nov 5, 2019.

  1. destriero

    destriero

    Nobody announces their AG or SoS choice before the GE so it's pointless to discuss Harris as she has nothing to offer. The only variability is where Warren lands... either VP or SoS. Those are the only two choices where you'd have her support but a large vocal minority of her base will bolt if she sells out for SoS job.

    I don't think a black VP is essential. I think that Biden ticks those boxes as Obama's proxy.
     
    #51     Nov 7, 2019
  2. UsualName

    UsualName

    You don’t understand. She has no political future now. I get she got some press off of it but it wasn’t like she was just leaving the race and going back to her congressional seat. It’s over for her.
     
    #52     Nov 7, 2019
  3. Tony Stark

    Tony Stark



    http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/332970-voter-turnout-dipped-in-2016-led-by-decline-among-blacks


    Voter turnout dipped in 2016, led by decline among blacks

    By Reid Wilson - 05/11/17 02:05 PM EDT

    The percentage of eligible Americans who showed up to the polls in November dipped slightly to the lowest rate in sixteen years, led by a sharp drop-off in the number of black voters casting ballots.

    New data released Wednesday by the Census Bureau shows an estimated 61.4 percent of Americans over the age of 18 cast ballots, down from the 61.8 percent who voted in 2012 and well below the 63.8 percent who voted in 2004, the recent high-point of voter participation.

    White voters were most likely to turn out; 65.3 percent of whites told Census Bureau surveyors they voted in 2016, more than a full percentage point higher than their participation rate in 2012.

    But voter turnout among black voters fell almost seven percentage points, to 59.4 percent, the Census figures show — after hitting an all-time high of 66.2 percent in 2012.

    Fewer than half of Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans turned out to vote; 49 percent of Asians and 47.6 percent of those of Hispanic origin showed up to the polls last year.

    Demographers point to declining black turnout and relatively low Hispanic turnout — two voting blocs on whom Democrats are increasingly reliant — as two of a handful of reasons Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton fell short in a handful of key battleground states last year.

    Black turnout fell 2 points and Hispanic turnout tumbled by a whopping 34 points in Michigan, a state President Trump won by just over 10,000 votes after Clinton fell short of matching President Obama's vote totals in Detroit.

    In Wisconsin, another state Trump barely won, fewer than half of black voters cast a ballot; four years ago, when Obama carried the state, 78 percent of blacks voted.

    Turnout among black voters fell seven points in Florida, and turnout among Hispanic voters there, who make up critical voting blocs stretching from Miami-Dade County to Orlando, fell eight points. That ended a streak of four consecutive elections in which black and Hispanic voters showed up in increasing numbers. At the same time, white voters, who disproportionally backed Trump, turned out at a slightly higher rate in Florida than they had in 2012.

    "These numbers point up a fairly pervasive decline in black turnout along with modest though uneven gains for whites," said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institute. The declining turnout and Republicans' success in winning over more white voters "helped to explain shifts to Trump in several swing states."


    November's contests were decided by an electorate that looked whiter than what many demographers had expected. Between 1980 and 2012, the share of the electorate made up of non-Hispanic whites dropped from 87.6 percent to 73.7 percent; in 2016, demographers expected that number to drop again, as the diverse millennial generation takes on a larger role in the body politic, replacing older generations that were less racially diverse.

    But the Census Bureau data shows that 73.3 percent of the electorate in 2016 was made up of non-Hispanic whites, a statistically insignificant drop from four years before. The unexpected stasis, even as the country becomes more racially diverse, is explained by the drop in minority turnout.

    That made 2016 only the second election since 1980 that the share of the electorate made up of non-Hispanic whites did not decline by a significant margin.

    The decline in black participation is all the more stark after 2012, when for the first time the Census Bureau said blacks voted at a higher share than non-Hispanic whites. Still, the percentage of blacks who voted in 2016 was six points higher than the recent nadir, in 1996, when only 53 percent of blacks cast a ballot.

    The data offers both hope and warning signs to Democrats plotting their political comeback, and Republicans trying to hold on to their victories.

    On one hand, the data shows Democrats can chart a path back to political power by boosting turnout even at the margins among Hispanic and black voters. The party does not need to replicate Obama's 2008 and 2012 turnout machines; it simply needs to come close in large urban centers in key states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida.

    On the other, it shows the demographic shift that threatens to doom Republicans — who are more reliant than ever on white voters — is manifesting itself more slowly in the electorate than in the population as a whole. That fact gives Republicans time to build new inroads to minority communities, where the party has struggled to attract support.

    Younger voters grew as a share of the electorate, both as more millennials reach voting age and as they become turnout targets for both parties. Michael McDonald, a political scientist at the University of Florida, said turnout among voters between 18 and 29 years of age grew by 2.5 percentage points, the largest increase of any age group.

    But older voters are still much more likely to cast a ballot: More than 70 percent of those over the age of 65 voted in November, far higher than the 43.4 percent of 18-29 year olds who voted. Two-thirds of those between the ages of 45 and 64 voted, according to Frey's analysis.

    The Census Bureau's data relies on a survey the agency conducts to supplement the much larger Current Population Survey.

    Other surveys have concluded that a smaller number of eligible voters actually cast ballots: One study for the group Nonprofit Vote, in which McDonald took part, found 60.2 percent of the nation's 231 million eligible voters cast a ballot in November.

    That figure was higher than the percentage of eligible voters who turned out in presidential elections between 1972 and 2000, though it fell below the recent pinnacle achieved in 2008.
     
    #53     Nov 7, 2019
    UsualName likes this.
  4. UsualName

    UsualName

    #54     Nov 7, 2019
  5. UsualName

    UsualName

    Warren has almost no foreign policy expertise. She would be a terrible SoS.
     
    #55     Nov 7, 2019
  6. Tony Stark

    Tony Stark

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribe...use-of-lower-democratic-turnout/#2bfe35cf53ab

    The Non-Voters Who Decided The Election: Trump Won Because Of Lower Democratic Turnout

    An astonishing spectacle of the election aftermath is the false account of why Trump won.The accepted wisdomis that Trump succeeded in awakening a popular movement of anger and frustration among white, blue-collar, less educated, mostly male, voters, particularly in non-urban areas. Trump promised them jobs, safe borders, and dignity, and they responded by turning out in masses at his pre-election rallies and eventually at the ballots, carrying him to victory.

    This story is mostly wrong. Trump did not win because he was more attractive to this base of white voters. He won because Hillary Clinton was less attractive to the traditional Democratic base of urban, minorities, and more educated voters. This is a profound fact, because Democratic voters were so extraordinarily repelled by Trump that they were supposed to have the extra motivation to turn out. Running against Trump, any Democratic candidate should have ridden a wave of anti-Trump sentiment among these voters. It therefore took a strong distaste for Hillary Clinton among the Democratic base to not only undo this wave, but to lose many additional liberal votes.

    The story of Hillary Clinton’s defeat, then, is not the Trump Movement erupting in the ballots, nor the fable that some “Reagan Democrats” flipped again from Obama to Trump. The story is altogether different, and very simple: the Democratic base did not turn out to vote as it did for Obama. Those sure-Democrats who stayed home handed the election to Trump.

    Take Michigan for example. A state that Obama won in 2012 by 350,000 votes, Clinton lost by roughly 10,000. Why? She received 300,000 votes less than Obama did in 2012. Detroit and Wayne County should kick themselves because of the 595,253 votes they gave Obama in 2012, only 518,000 voted for Clinton in 2016. More than 75,000 Motown Obama voters did not bother to vote for Clinton. They did not become Trump voters – Trump received only 10,000 votes more than Romney did in this county. They simply stayed at home. If even a fraction of these lethargic Democrats had turned out to vote, Michigan would have stayed blue.

    Wisconsin tells the same numbers story, even more dramatically. Trump got no new votes. He received exactly the same number of votes in America’s Dairyland as Romney did in 2012. Both received 1,409,000 votes. But Clinton again could not spark many Obama voters to turn out for her: she tallied 230,000 votes less than Obama did in 2012. This is how a 200,000-vote victory margin for Obama in the Badger State became a 30,000-vote defeat for Clinton.

    This pattern is national. Clinton’s black voter turnout dropped more than 11 percent compared to 2012. The support for Clinton among active black voters was still exceedingly high (87 percent, versus 93 percent for Obama), but the big difference was the turnout.Almost two million black votes cast for Obama in 2012 did not turn out for Clinton. According to one plausible calculation, if in North Carolina blacks had turned out for Clinton as they had for Obama, she would have won the state. I saw a similar downtrend in my own eyes: I voted in a predominantly African American precinct in the south side of Chicago, and I can testify that the lines for early voting at the polling place were much shorter than they were in 2012.

    People wait in line outside a school to vote in the presidential election November 8, 2016 in the... [+]

    I can only speculate how many Bernie Sanders supporters held out. Even after the Democratic convention,about a third of Sanders followers were still not supporting Clinton. A month before the election 55 percent of them were continuing to viewClinton negatively, and a week before the elections Sanders was stillpleading with supportersin Madison, Wisconsin to “go beyond personality” and show up for Clinton. Could it be that their dispassion for their party’s candidate rode Trump to victory?

    It is of course true that in some areas, like Pennsylvania, Trump’s gains over Romney were more impressive than Clinton’s loss of Obama voters. So the story of an energized GOP working class base is not a total fantasy. But whatever Trump successfully stirred among GOP voters was not enough to win the election. Trump won despite being flawed in many ways, because Hillary Clinton was deemed even more flawed by her own base.

    The Clinton camp is going to deny the charge that Trump won because Clinton failed to bring out the vote. They would point to the large, unprecedented, 1.3 millionmargin of victorythat Clinton enjoyed in the popular vote. The problem with this popular vote margin is that much of it comes from uncontested states like California and New York. California alone gave Clinton a 3.2 million popular vote advantage. Since the margin of victory does not count, Trump did not campaign in California, and it is possible that many GOP supporters did not bother to vote. If the popular vote were to matter, candidates would surely have paid more attention to these large states, and the voting patterns could have shaped up differently. Trump would still have lost California, but perhaps by a different margin.

    It is remarkable and surprising that the elections were decided by Democrats distaste for Clinton and not Trump’s ability to reach expand the Republican vote. Think back to the weeks leading to the elections. There was a shared sense that the Republican party was losing and even disintegrating because it was unable to clamp down on a renegade candidate, having allowed populism to prevail in the primaries. The Democratic party, by contrast, was thought to be on the verge of victory and even a sweep of the Senate because it was cold calculated, using its ironfisted internal machination to discard the populist candidate and to present the then-thought more “electable” Clinton. How wrong that perception turned out to be!

    [​IMG]
    Omri Ben-Shahar

    I am a law professor at the University of Chicago and a global expert on contract law and consumer market regulation. I am the co-author of a recent book titled More Tha
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2019
    #56     Nov 7, 2019
  7. destriero

    destriero


    None of them do. lol Pompeo, Tillerson. She has to be given a title if she's not on the ticket. I was an FSO before trading full time. They don't take careerists; it's a political appointment.
     
    #57     Nov 7, 2019
  8. UsualName

    UsualName

    AA voters is the most important cohort for democrats in presidential elections. When AA voters have high turnout democrats get elected as presidents.
     
    #58     Nov 7, 2019
  9. UsualName

    UsualName

    Her title can be Senator. Democrats are under no obligation to follow Trump’s pattern of bad cabinet choices.
     
    #59     Nov 7, 2019
  10. Okay, well then, how bout Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs?


    :cool:
     
    #60     Nov 7, 2019
    vanzandt likes this.