Did anyone watch the trainwreck that was Frankie Boyle's American Autopsy? All the guests were women and majority American. Some topics included misogyny and white male priveledge.
Frankie genuinely looked like he wanted to leave. He's the only one not smiling.
>>21350 Wait, you mean we've had more than one nutter that witters on about "managerial politicians" and how they and their system need to burn to the ground? I honestly didn't think this site was that popular outside of its usual beefy niche.
>>21354 I'd wager at least 70% of this site is familiar with Adam Curtis, a man who uses "managerial" like a Scotsman uses "bastirt" and an Australian uses "cunt", so I'm not sure why this would come as a surprise.
>>21359 At this stage I honestly don't know which way he's covering up. Is he trying to hide his genuine unease, or is he trying to look uneasy to hide that their disagreement boiled down to the whitest beef ever and they were both playing to the crowd?
>>21363 Mitt attacked him pretty harshly, harder than he hit Obama at any rate. Trump's probably just going to have some fun with him before he tosses him into the ashbin of history, along with the Bushes.
>>21364 I can't help but think that Mitt was just playing to the gallery, though. He did seem to have a bit of a smirk going on whenever he was attacking The Donald, but that said Mormons are notoriously cheerful.
>>21363 The cautionary post written about Ed Miliband and the media's selection of pictures that fit the desired narrative probably applies. There were certainly jovial and friendly moments when Obama hosted Trump at the White House and the usual suspects went with the frosty pictures.
Hillary's pitch was that she would continue the Obama years. See her response to Trump's whole "make America great again" theme: she responded that "America is already great". Instead of offering an alternative solution to the problems that Trump talked about, she mostly refused to engage with them, or at most said that Trump wasn't the right person to address them, again without offering any substantive counter.
In a way, she couldn't believably talk about how she was going to address them, because she had been intimately involved in the last two Democratic administration. Her husband signed NAFTA and Gramm–Leach–Bailey, she was a prolific establishment senator and ally of Wall St. in the years leading up to the GFC, she was a key player in the Obama administration's overseas misadventures. If she gave any serious acknowledgement of the issues facing America and Americans, she immediately opened herself up to attacks on her role in creating them.
Sanders did not have that constraint, and could have (and undoubtedly would have) run a campaign that put those issues, and his preferred solutions, front and centre instead of cynically asking the American public "what else are you going to do, vote for Donald Trump?".
>>21367 >Sanders did not have that constraint, and could have (and undoubtedly would have) run a campaign that put those issues, and his preferred solutions
... and unless they were only voting Trump because they didn't like Clinton, he'd still have lost. On the messages they responded to, Trump was offering them far more than Sanders. Sanders offered criticism, Trump offered action. Sanders said it wasn't fair that jobs were being moved to Mexico. Trump said he'd not only stop jobs being moved to Mexico, but also bring jobs back to the US. Things like that matter, even if the promises are unrealistic. (Case-in-point: He's already walked back on most of them.) If Sanders wasn't going to win them over on message, the only way he was going to do it was if the voters simply didn't like the candidate they'd been given, and all the evidence suggests that the association simply wasn't that weak. Those voters weren't regretfully voting against Clinton. They were enthusiastically voting in favour of Trump.
In hindsight, Trump's appeal to those voters is undeniable, except apparently to the Berniebros who seem intent on continuing to deny it. For all the talk of Sanders being almost certain to defeat Trump, remember that when the polls opened on election morning, Clinton was almost certain to defeat Trump. The final polling averages in some states missed the result by more than the supposed margin of error. That's for actual polls - I daresay the hypothetical polls will have missed even harder.
But by all means continue to deny reality. Continue to argue that Sanders could have won even in the face of all the evidence. That's definitely going to achieve something.
>>21368 >and unless they were only voting Trump because they didn't like Clinton, he'd still have lost.
You keep saying this but that doesn't make it true. You don't seem to understand that the pool of people who could potentially have been persuaded to vote Democrat includes many more people who didn't vote than people who voted Trump.
>Sanders offered criticism, Trump offered action
Of course, I remember how Sanders would end every speech on, say, income inequality with "... but I don't intend to do anything about it". The fuck are you talking about?
>Continue to argue that Sanders could have won even in the face of all the evidence. That's definitely going to achieve something.
Mate, I don't argue with people on this website because I think I'm "achieving something". If you do, you should really take a good long look at yourself.
>>21369 >You keep saying this but that doesn't make it true.
Nice meme, m7. You can bleat about it all you like but the fact remains that it is indisputably true. You can make as many excuses as you like. The simple fact of the matter is that the constituency the Democrats needed to vote for their candidate not only didn't, they openly embranced their opponent. End of story.
>You don't seem to understand that the pool of people who could potentially have been persuaded to vote Democrat includes many more people who didn't vote than people who voted Trump.
Well that's all right then. If Bernie couldn't win by persuading the people that were going to vote Trump, maybe he could have persuaded a bunch of new voters to come to the polls. Feel free to make some suggestions. FWIW, where Clinton really suffered with turnout was among black working-class voters, but it turns out there aren't that many of those in the Rust Belt. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are 85% white.
>I remember how Sanders would end every speech on, say, income inequality
You mean those speeches on issues like income inequality and student debt that mainly middle-class voters care about? Middle-class voters that in those states were already going to vote Democratic? While Trump was literally promising the working class he was going to bring their jobs back?
>The fuck are you talking about?
Your inability to read beyond the bits you want to quote.
>>21371 I'm not sure even you know what the actual case you're making is at this point. You're positively manic for someone casting accusations of "pent up emotion".
>>21372 If you weren't such a daft cunt, you'd have noticed it was that the idea of "Bernie would have won" is bollocks and anyone who believes it is either deluding themselves or in denial. It's just like the Corbynistas who seem insistent that their man is totally electable and is going to win in 2020, despite the party having substantially underperformed under his stewardship.
Your projection come-back only really works when the person targeted is projecting and not, as is the case here, simply taken aback at the absurdity of an infuriated finger-painter. One who believes his incoherent and repetitive attacks against "the Guardianistas" on an obscure imageboard really, like really, matter.
>In the Rust Belt 5, the GOP’s pickup of voters making $50,000 or less is overshadowed by the Democrats’ dramatic loss of voters in that category.
>Compared with Republicans’ performance in 2012, the GOP in the Rust Belt 5 picked up 335,000 additional voters who earned less than $50,000 (+10.6 percent). But the Republicans’ gain in this area was nothing compared with the Democrats’ loss of 1.17 million (-21.7 percent) voters in the same income category. Likewise, Republicans picked up a measly 26,000 new voters in the $50–$100K bracket (+0.7 percent), but Democrats lost 379,000 voters in the same bracket (-11.7 percent).
Well would you look at that, seems like Mr "voters didn't just not turn out for Hillary, they switched to Trump" was totally fucking wrong. I'm sure he'll be along to admit as much shortly.
>>21379 Those cherries look awfully sweet. Shame they included Ohio and Iowa. They're purple states that have been getting redder for the past eight years. If you look at the numbers just for Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, it's clear that Clinton's lost vote alone only flips Wisconsin. In the other two, even with all those lost votes, Trump doesn't win without attracting a big chunk of them. Therefore, Trump won because voters actively turned towards him.
>>21380 >Clinton's lost vote alone only flips Wisconsin. In the other two, even with all those lost votes, Trump doesn't win without attracting a big chunk of them
Trump won Pennsylvania because of Obama voters crossing over, eh? Might want to check those numbers again mate.
>>21380 >Those cherries look awfully sweet. Shame they included Ohio and Iowa. They're purple states that have been getting redder for the past eight years
Sorry, how do you imagine that the inclusion of Ohio and Iowa distorts the stats, exactly?
>>21381 I don't know. I mean, when I was at school, 2.68 million was definitely less than 2.86 million, but then I suppose with this post-truth thing maybe numbers don't work like they used to.
>>21385 What's to clarify? OH and IA were purply-red states which even before the campaign people were expecting to vote Republican. MI, PA and WI were solid blue states which the polls put around 5-6 points in favour of the Democrats. Politically they're apples and oranges.
>>21388 No, the article isn't full of lies, you just don't understand it. It'ss about party registration, not presidential votes. Being a registered Democrat is not the same thing at all as being a 2012 Obama voter.
>>21392 Because they weren't battlegrounds and they didn't flip from 2012. Therefore they aren't relevant to the subject of the article, which is why rust belt states flipped. Seriously, lad, how are you this dense?
>>21391 I think you're the one that doesn't understand it if that's your response. Following your post to its logical conclusion, party registration doesn't matter and those 100,000 registered Democrats voted for Romney. I wouldn't go so far as to say that outcome is entirely impossible, but it's rather unlikely.
>>21393 Well that's all right then. It's fine to lump together two completely different groups of states as long as they meet some arbitrary criterion such as whether they flipped.
>>21394 There are more registered Democrats than registered Republicans in Oklahoma. Oklahoma has voted for a Democratic president precisely once since 1948.
Registration matters, but it's not a proxy for voting intentions by any means.
>>21395 It's not an arbitrary criteria, it's the entire point of the fucking article.
>>21396 >There are more registered Democrats than registered Republicans in Oklahoma.
Well, yes, when you put it in a misleading fashion like that, then you would find it difficult to use it as a proxy. Thankfully, it turns out that people that deal with this stuff for a living aren't quite as dense and acknowledge that party registration is, in fact, a good proxy for actual votes if you know how to use it. And they know that spouting lines like that one is not using it properly.
>It's not an arbitrary criteria, it's the entire point of the fucking article.
Erm, if it's "the entire point of the fucking article" then by definition it is arbitrary. Alternatively, if you want to use the "other" arbitrary, then given that the two groups of states are politically very different, the choice to lump them all together rather than treat them separately was by definition arbitrary.
Put it this way: lumping OH/IA together with MI/PA/WI and drawing conclusions from the whole is like taking the UK as a whole and saying the swing from Labour to the SNP was only 0.8%.
>>21397 Looking at data from rust belt states which flipped from Obama to Trump is not an arbitrary criterion to use when examining the reasons behind rust belt states flipping from Obama to Trump. If you're going to continue to claim it is, you're either trolling or powerfully stupid. In any case, you aren't worth talking to.
>>21383 >post-truth thing
Yeah, because politics has always been a paragon of honesty. It's only since ~2012 that this whole post-truth business came about. Before that everyone was unfailingly honest.
Peace in our time. I am NOT a crook. Saddam is ready to fire chemical weapons at us in 5 minutes.
>>21398 >Looking at data from rust belt states which flipped from Obama to Trump is not an arbitrary criterion to use
Nobody said that. I said that aggregating them was arbitrary. I'm sure all three of us would agree that there's nothing wrong with looking at people's genitals, but I'm sure we'd also agree that taking the population as a whole and conclusion that on average we've got one ball each isn't reasonable.
In Iowa, Clinton received over 20% fewer votes than Obama did. In Ohio, she dropped over 400k. These two states represent more votes lost than the other three put together, and they were states that were expected to flip. Obama carrying Ohio a second time was itself unexpected - when the networks called it, the Romney camp called in to complain because their numbers were telling them otherwise, and Karl Rove memorably went into meltdown on live television. Nobody genuinely expected the other three to flip, not even in Trump's own campaign. Those two groups don't belong together as an aggregate.
