2020 US Election (Part One)

[Lexicus]

Trump did better among minorities than previous Republican candidates. In particular, he did better among Hispanics.

What do you think is think is the significance of the fact that white people voted for Trump by a 20 point margin while every non-white group voted for Clinton by significantly higher margins?

 

[El_Machinae]

Some people don't see the 'decency' of wealth transfers, which is fair. But we have to remember that the economy is like a poorly tested boardgame. But you cannot stop playing. If you're playing a game, and you notice that there's some systemic imbalance of the rules, you might finish the current game and then playtest another game with a new set of rules. You cannot do that in real life. You have to keep playing.

The American Revolution was founded on the idea that people should get unearned wealth. Nearly all wealth these days is unearned. It's just mostly a question of how it's distributed according to the rules of the currently existing game.

 

[onejayhawk]

He did worse than McCain, who was a previous Republican candidate.

Your numbers are right but you read them backwards. Trump improved 8% on Romney. Trump improved only marginally on McCain.

The point is that that Trump's win was across the board, not just in white sectors. This shoots a hole in the argument that Trump is promoting white supremacy. Nationalism, yes. White nationalism, no. If anything, his support in minority blocs has improved since 2016. Jobs may have something to do with it.

J

 

[Lexicus]

I don't see the decency in wealth transfers.

Worker makes a widget in one hour, is paid $9, boss sells the widget for $20, has $11 of wealth been transferred from the worker to the boss here (and if not, what is going on?) and is there "decency" in this process?

 

[Lexicus]

The point is that that Trump's win was across the board, not just in white sectors.

So this is a nice example of dishonesty because it's hiding two definitions of "win" in the same word! Trump "won" in the normal sense in "white sectors" because white people voted for him by a 20 point margin, as I said. But he did not "win" any other racial grouping by the same definition: black people voted against him 89 to 8 (an 81-point margin against). Charitably, by "win" here you mean " did better than Romney with" but you elide that by claiming he won "across the board."

I'll repeat my question:

What do you think is think is the significance of the fact that white people voted for Trump by a 20 point margin while every non-white group voted for Clinton by significantly higher margins?

Here are the numbers for reference:

Note that these numbers among non-whites mean that had only non-whites voted in the election, Hillary Clinton would have won every single electoral vote: Trump would have received zero.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Your numbers are right but you read them backwards. Trump improved 8% on Romney. Trump improved only marginally on McCain.

The point is that that Trump's win was across the board, not just in white sectors. This shoots a hole in the argument that Trump is promoting white supremacy. Nationalism, yes. White nationalism, no. If anything, his support in minority blocs has improved since 2016. Jobs may have something to do with it.

J

???

He literally got a lower percentage and a worse margin than McCain. He went from 6 to 8% on the black vote. Perhaps the most ludicrous is saying 8% of the black vote is a win across the board. Or any other nonwhite group.

 

[Lexicus]

It should also be noted that while I haven't looked at the data exhaustively I know for a fact that Bush enjoyed relatively strong support from Hispanics and at that time Hispanics were still largely "in play" between Democrats and Republicans, at least in national elections (the California GOP had already committed suicide largely by adopting nativist politics that turned the large Hispanic population of that state thoroughly against them).

 

[Gori the Grey]

I care about Western civilization instead,

There you go again.

 

[Zkribbler]

He did worse than McCain, who was a previous Republican candidate.

IIRC, Bush the Dumber got 45% of the Hispanic vote.

 

[Sommerswerd]

She couldn't even do better with Hispanics, supposedly the minority Trump hated and who outnumber blacks more than 2-1.

In the election? No. The bolded is false.

 

[Berzerker]

Once again. Hillary was never president. Presidents set foreign policy. Free free to criticize Obama. Vice presidents don't set foreign policy. Their one role is to support the president even when they don't agree with them. You don't hear democrats criticizing Pence for his foreign policy, because guess why, he's not the president. There are many things to criticize Hilary for, but doing so for foreign policy is just silly since she was never president. Congressmen just represent their constituents (or they're supposed to) and for that vote that's what Hillary did.

So only Bush is to blame for the Iraq War? How many New Yorkers wanted to invade Iraq on 9/12? She wasn't representing them, she was lying to them to garner support for invading Iraq. "Consent" was manufactured in much the same way con artists talk people out of their money. Looks like the Democrats are gonna nominate Biden, oh joy... Lets find the male version of Hillary to tunnel under the moral high ground. The good news for Hillary's supporters is Biden will replace her as my new villain.

So this is a nice example of dishonesty because it's hiding two definitions of "win" in the same word! Trump "won" in the normal sense in "white sectors" because white people voted for him by a 20 point margin, as I said. But he did not "win" any other racial grouping by the same definition: black people voted against him 89 to 8 (an 81-point margin against). Charitably, by "win" here you mean " did better than Romney with" but you elide that by claiming he won "across the board."

Are you accusing J of claiming Trump won the black vote and calling him dishonest? His 2 definitions of 'win' are not hidden, your charitable definition is just common sense. His point is Trump did better than Romney with minorities.

 

[onejayhawk]

So this is a nice example of dishonesty because it's hiding two definitions of "win" in the same word! Trump "won" in the normal sense in "white sectors" because white people voted for him by a 20 point margin, as I said. But he did not "win" any other racial grouping by the same definition: black people voted against him 89 to 8 (an 81-point margin against). Charitably, by "win" here you mean " did better than Romney with" but you elide that by claiming he won "across the board."

I'll repeat my question:

Here are the numbers for reference:
View attachment 523
View attachment 523875

Note that these numbers among non-whites mean that had only non-whites voted in the election, Hillary Clinton would have won every single electoral vote: Trump would have received zero.

For the record, I did not say he won across the board. He improved across the board and your data supports my point. So, what are you asking?

In the election? No. The bolded is false.

In the general population. Among actual voters, you are correct.

J

 

[Zkribbler]

So only Bush is to blame for the Iraq War? How many New Yorkers wanted to invade Iraq on 9/12?

You don't remember Bush's mantra: "Terrorists attacked us on 9/11. Saddam supports terrorists," which conned 80% of Americans into believing Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks?

Hillary did't con anyone. She just went along with the lemming stampede.

 

[rah]

So only Bush is to blame for the Iraq War? How many New Yorkers wanted to invade Iraq on 9/12? She wasn't representing them, she was lying to them to garner support for invading Iraq. "Consent" was manufactured in much the same way con artists talk people out of their money. Looks like the Democrats are gonna nominate Biden, oh joy... Lets find the male version of Hillary to tunnel under the moral high ground. The good news for Hillary's supporters is Biden will replace her as my new villain.

He had the ultimate responsibility, he was in charge. I doubt Biden will care about being your new villain. But if he does by some chance win the election and you want to comment/complain about his foreign policy, at least he'll actually be responsible for it then.

I despise Hillary and that doesn't stop be from making fun of Trump for whatever he's doing that I think is stupid. (which is almost everything)

 

[onejayhawk]

He had the ultimate responsibility, he was in charge. I doubt Biden will care about being your new villain. But if he does by some chance win the election and you want to comment/complain about his foreign policy, at least he'll actually be responsible for it then.

I despise Hillary and that doesn't stop be from making fun of Trump for whatever he's doing that I think is stupid. (which is almost everything)

As long as you acknowledge that President Obama had responsibility for ISIS, that's a viable position. Is that what you are saying?

J

 

[Lexicus]

For the record, I did not say he won across the board. He improved across the board and your data supports my point. So, what are you asking?

Trump's win was across the board,

So, what are you asking?

I already asked you what you believe the significance is of the massive racial gap in voter support for Clinton and Trump in 2016. Why did a majority of white voters vote for Trump and 89% of black voters vote against him? What is your explanation for that fact?

 

[onejayhawk]

I already asked you what you believe the significance is of the massive racial gap in voter support for Clinton and Trump in 2016. Why did a majority of white voters vote for Trump and 89% of black voters vote against him? What is your explanation for that fact?

The answer is the same one I gave before, Trump is doing better among minorities than McCain or Romney.

The thing to learn is that 2016 was not a racially charged election despite news reports to that effect. In particular, Sommerswerd's assertion that it was the white working class voters that swung the election is disproven. Trump improved in all racial demographics. That was somewhat expected among blacks but recoil among Hispanics never materialized.

J

 

[rah]

As long as you acknowledge that President Obama had responsibility for ISIS, that's a viable position. Is that what you are saying?

J

Actually I still blame Bush for that, but Obama didn't solve the problem so yeah, he has to bear some of the responsibility there. But much less than Bush.

 

[Sommerswerd]

In the general population. Among actual voters, you are correct.

We're talking about elections, so that's all that matters. However, even if we weren't, you're still wrong... but it's not really worth arguing about, since, again... elections are the subject of this thread.

 

[onejayhawk]

Actually I still blame Bush for that, but Obama didn't solve the problem so yeah, he has to bear some of the responsibility there. But much less than Bush.

Then you are being inconsistent. Sorry, but that's the way it works. The situation that resulted in ISIS was well known in 2009. We pulled out taking almost no precautions, To be consistent, the majority of the blame falls on the man in charge at the time, in this case Obama.

J