President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Nice revisionist history. Katherine Harris or any Florida secretary of state has nothing to do with designing the ballots. That was on the Palm Beach elections supervisor at the time, who was a Democrat.

 

Nice not to pay attention that BTExpress already corrected the fact that I confused the two people, and I thanked him for pointing out my error.
It's not revisionist history. It was a simple mistake on my part, which I acknowledged.

 

I agree that turning out the partisan base wins elections, but you also have to have the swing voter and state.
You'll notice I said you have to get the middle third of the voters, not the total electorate. If someone doesn't vote, just because they are part of the electorate doesn't really matter.
Partisans will vote on both sides. People like me who have voted both D and R have to be convinced to vote for someone.

 

ACTUAL changes in the popular vote percentage in this century: 2000 D 48-R 48. 2004, R 51-D 48, 2008 D 53-R 45. 2012, D 51-R 47, 2016 D 48-R 46. So the biggest shift in the electorate was between 2004 and 2008 when the D gained 5 points and the Republican lost 6. All that took was an ongoing unpopular and lost war and a global financial collapse a month before the election. Obviously swing voters exist, but the evidence suggests it's more like one in 20 or 25 voters, not one in three.

 

Gosh, imagine that.

U.S. Intelligence Chiefs Contradict Trump on North Korea and Iran

 

My apologies to the mathematicians. My point wasn't to get into a statistical breakdown to the 14th decimal point.
The point was that the Yellow Dog Democrats and the MAGA Hat Brigade aren't going to be swayed. They are going to vote straight ticket and not care who's name is there as long as there is a D or R after it.

 

Regarding the point of my last question, there's a tendency among educated white liberals to use Trump's immigration policies as evidence of his racism, and, further, to suggest that anybody who supports those policies does so because of their own racism. Clearly, the latter is not the case, unless a substantial percentage of Latinos (whatever the actual figure) are racist against Latinos. I'm not suggesting Latinos can't be racist against other Latinos. I am suggesting it is unlikely that a substantial percentage of Latinos are racist against other Latinos.

Like you said, there is a difference between Trump the man being racist and Trump's policies being racist, but wouldn't you agree that many liberal arguments in the age of Trump end up conflating the two? How many times have you or someone you know said something to the effect of, "Trump wants to build a wall so he can keep brown people out of the country?" The polling numbers struck me as an indication of how ineffective an argument that is. The conversation this country needs is the one you had with the gentleman at the poker table. But what if that guy in the MAGA hat was an 80-year-old white geezer on a motorized scooter? Would you have been able to have a similar conversation? Or would you have simply assumed that he was a died-in-the-wool racist whose real motivation is to Make America White Again?

Like you implied, "Trump hates brown people" is not a winning point when you are discussing Trump's policies with a brown Trump supporter. So why fall back on it when discussing Trump's policies with non-brown supporters? That was my point. Whether or not Trump hates brown people is irrelevant to whether his wall is a good idea (it's not), and a person's desire to curb illegal immigration is irrelevant to whether or not they are a racist.

 

"50 degrees isn't hot at all, Australia. Learn science! I know from Mar-a-Lago when it is hot. And wet, when a hurricane hits in terms of water." Donald J. Trump

 

yeah, if you're gonna insult a dope like trump, don't make him bust out the whole 9/5 + 32 formula.

 

Harley-Davidson Profit Is Wiped Out by President Trump’s Tariffs

 

Beans, Grains Lower Tuesday as Trade Worries Escalate

 

/approves