I'm not the biggest fan of Michael Moore, but maybe he's on to something here.
- Trump is ahead of Hillary in the latest polls in Pennsylvania and tied with her in Ohio. Tied? How can the race be this close after everything Trump has said and done? Well maybe it’s because he’s said (correctly) that the Clintons’ support of NAFTA helped to destroy the industrial states of the Upper Midwest. Trump is going to hammer Clinton on this and her support of TPP and other trade policies that have royally screwed the people of these four states. When Trump stood in the shadow of a Ford Motor factory during the Michigan primary, he threatened the corporation that if they did indeed go ahead with their planned closure of that factory and move it to Mexico, he would slap a 35% tariff on any Mexican-built cars shipped back to the United States. It was sweet, sweet music to the ears of the working class of Michigan, and when he tossed in his threat to Apple that he would force them to stop making their iPhones in China and build them here in America, well, hearts swooned and Trump walked away with a big victory that should have gone to the governor next-door, John Kasich.
- In 2012, Mitt Romney lost by 64 electoral votes. Add up the electoral votes cast by Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It’s 64. All Trump needs to do to win is to carry, as he’s expected to do, the swath of traditional red states from Idaho to Georgia (states that’ll never vote for Hillary Clinton), and then he just needs these four rust belt states. He doesn’t need Florida. He doesn’t need Colorado or Virginia. Just Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And that will put him over the top. This is how it will happen in November.
This is a valid argument, but not a very strong one, because it doesn't actually address any of the points he is making. It's relevant to know that Michael Moore doesn't have a very good track record for predicting presidential elections, but that doesn't mean that he has to be wrong this time. It would be more convincing (and comforting) to address the arguments themselves, especially the first one about winning traditionally blue Rust Belt states.
Okay, I'll play. Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin all have marijuana initiatives on the ballot. Cranky white people aren't coming out to vote for or against weed. Young hipsters are. And they aren't voting for Trump. The "angry old white men" are a factor but they're 7% of the population in Michigan, for example. Meanwhile, blacks and hispanics are 20%, and "Latinos para trump" notwithstanding ("To Serve Man?"), it's hard to imagine he's doing well with the spanish-speaking contingent. And "imagine" is what we have to do because the only polls focusing on it are bullshit organizations like Survey Monkey. Yep, old people vote. but 14 states are courting ganja voters, the exact same way the Republicans got out the hate vote in 2004. It's interesting that Michael Moore focuses on the end of the Angry White Man without noticing that demographically speaking, males over 55 account for 10% of the population. Throw out the 25% of them that aren't white and your angry white males are 7.5% of the electorate. Latinos are 12.5%, African Americans 12.3%. And yeah, it gets electorally fuzzy but obviously, "who votes" matters as much as "how they vote" and even Hari Seldon over there at 538 is only counting polls. And the polls are really shitty on minority voting. Or, "Hi, I'm Michael Moore and this is about me." Problem is, the overwhelming majority of congressmen and senators (even the majority of democratic senators) voted for the Iraq War. One of the Greeks said something like "it is better to be wrong with everyone than right alone" and regardless of Michael Moore's (or my) feelings about the Iraq War, Hilary Clinton was in a position to make a decision. Donald Trump, on the other hand, was protecting half a billion dollars in junk bond sales. Here's The Donald, day after the state of the union: Is there room for debate about the Iraq War? Sure. Is it one of five reasons? No. Not to anybody but Michael Moore. Who fucking cares? I volunteered for Kerry and it did fuckall. I voted for Kerry and it did fuckall. I'm not sure why "I'll vote for Clinton but be bummed out" somehow counts less than "I'll vote for Clinton and be stoked." Until ballots have constitutionally-binding emoji on them, this is nothing more than a bullshit wordcount filler. This is Michael Moore saying "ignore the data." Sure, "ignore the data" but that doesn't make Trump president, that makes the outcome less certain. Presidents are elected by the electoral college, not popular vote. Here's the polls for 2012: Here's the electoral map: Michael Moore is an interesting documentarian, but he's no Sybil. This is more of a "I have sand in my underpants" screed than an actual analysis. And that's why moe's link is more than enough.I believe Trump is going to focus much of his attention on the four blue states in the rustbelt of the upper Great Lakes – Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Four traditionally Democratic states – but each of them have elected a Republican governor since 2010 (only Pennsylvania has now finally elected a Democrat).
The Last Stand of the Angry White Man. Our male-dominated, 240-year run of the USA is coming to an end. A woman is about to take over! How did this happen?! On our watch!
The Hillary Problem. Can we speak honestly, just among ourselves? And before we do, let me state, I actually like Hillary – a lot – and I think she has been given a bad rap she doesn’t deserve. But her vote for the Iraq War made me promise her that I would never vote for her again. To date, I haven’t broken that promise.
Trump: Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn’t be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know. He’s under a lot of pressure. He’s — I think he’s doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned.
The Depressed Sanders Vote. Stop fretting about Bernie’s supporters not voting for Clinton – we’re voting for Clinton! The polls already show that more Sanders voters will vote for Hillary this year than the number of Hillary primary voters in ’08 who then voted for Obama. This is not the problem. The fire alarm that should be going off is that while the average Bernie backer will drag him/herself to the polls that day to somewhat reluctantly vote for Hillary, it will be what’s called a “depressed vote” – meaning the voter doesn’t bring five people to vote with her. He doesn’t volunteer 10 hours in the month leading up to the election. She never talks in an excited voice when asked why she’s voting for Hillary.
The Jesse Ventura Effect. Finally, do not discount the electorate’s ability to be mischievous or underestimate how any millions fancy themselves as closet anarchists once they draw the curtain and are all alone in the voting booth.
Cogent and well considered, as usual. Except... No, what he is saying here is that someone grumpily voting for Clinton is not out roping in all their neighbors and cousins and in-laws and FB friends to come out and vote. They are driving to their polling station alone. Dragging their feet in line, droopily pulling the level labeled "Clinton", and moping their way back home to drink a cold glass of chardonnay and watch West Wing re-runs. So every vote for Clinton is, well, a vote for Clinton. Compared with Bubba, who is a Patriot, goddam it, and so is gonna rope in every one of his in-bred moronic cousins, and the bartender, and that damn homeless guy on the corner, drive them to their polling place, and inform them loudly and with veins throbbing in his forehead that they WILL go inside, and they WILL vote for Trump, or else ole Bubba is gonna kick some cousin ass! Every Bubba vote for Trump is actually 1+N votes, where N=number of Bubba's cousins. Which seems kinda far-fetched to us lefties on the coasts, but - goddamn, if I am not seeing this from my acquaintances in the flyover states. Bubba has never given a shit about politics before. Now he feels like he has a voice, and a chance to stick it to everyone he has ever paid taxes to, so he's gonna grab that opportunity and run with it. Unless "America" beer goes on sale for $.10 a tallboy with attached Roman Candle on November 7th.... Who fucking cares? I volunteered for Kerry and it did fuckall. I voted for Kerry and it did fuckall. I'm not sure why "I'll vote for Clinton but be bummed out" somehow counts less than "I'll vote for Clinton and be stoked." Until ballots have constitutionally-binding emoji on them, this is nothing more than a bullshit wordcount filler.
The argument, basically, is that Clinton doesn't inspire a get-out-the-vote campaign the way Trump does. No matter how you do the math, the vote is the vote - and I get it, trump is a "populist" candidate. But the populist movement this year, on that side, is "keep the goddamn Darkies out of the country" while the populist movement this year, on this side, is "oh shit there's a Nazi running for President" with some "also, make weed legal" thrown in for good measure. For every argument you can make for the populism of Trump, an argument can be made for the populism against Trump. Clinton hasn't even accepted the nomination yet. Sanders endorsed her yesterday. Arguing the ground operations in November from here in July is... well, premature. And we could debate "grass roots" vs. "astroturf" from here to the moon and back but... Fuck Bubba's cousins. Trump gets coverage by saying outlandish shit. Now that we're in the general election, every outlandish thing Trump says gets an automatic rebuttal in the press. Every campaign ad doesn't. And Clinton simply has more money. I hear what you're saying. But the disaffected white guy vote doesn't balance out the are-you-fucking-kidding-with-that-taco-salad Hispanic vote or the polling-at-zero-in-multiple-states African American vote.
What's funny to me is the same people who laugh and point at the divided Republican party somehow see it as an unstoppable juggernaut when they consider the Democrats. Clinton has been the obvious nominee since 2012. Sanders made a hell of a run at it and good on 'im but it's kind of amazing that Clinton's nomination was ever even vaguely in doubt. On the other hand, Not. A Single. Former President. is endorsing Trump. None of them went to the convention. At the glee-club unifying rally, Trump's biggest rival basically told him to get stuffed. The Koch brothers are sitting it out. Bloomberg, the Republican Dark Horse White Knight, endorsed the other party. Yet Michael Moore brings up "grass roots" and people lap it up like it makes sense.
That has always been the case, though. The R's are a fucking machine. They have this shit wired. On the other hand, all you ever needed to do to destroy the Democratic party is put two of them in a room together. This election cycle has broken that decades-long narrative, though, and now the R's can't find their ass with both hands. What's funny to me is the same people who laugh and point at the divided Republican party somehow see it as an unstoppable juggernaut when they consider the Democrats.
And that all plays into the trump narrative. US vs them the 1% vs the rest of America. For a lot of people the sanders vote wasn't an endorsement of sanders it was a not Clinton vote. You underestimate how pissed off people are and now many there are. See brexit
I wonder if this is true though. Obviously people are lamenting the end of Bernie's campaign now in July, but we've got a lot of time between now in November for Clinton to do some image rehab (potentially with Kaine... we'll see how that goes) and/or for Drumpf to continue to spew horrifying proto-fascist screed. A lot of the Bernie stans I've seen have pointed out the promotion of the platform over the candidate and the legislation, SCOTUS nominations, and other civil liberties that are threatened by not rallying around the Clinton flag. I think there's plenty of time for people to get more comfortable with voting for HRC.
Wonder all you want. If I were in a position to Swiftboat Trump, "A vote for Donald is a vote for Putin" isn't a bad place to start.
I will tell you why, right now, why Trump does not have a chance and has already lost. Last week, I sat in a room with about a dozen Evangelical types. Yea, it felt like this. NONE of them like Trump, that gay lovin' thrice married Holly-weird fella' that married those foreign women. Granted anecdote is not the same as Data, and yea he tried to pander with Pence, but if the Evangelicals don't like you as a Republican, you lost. My prediction, baring some weird global event or new round of terrorism, is that this election is going to have the lowest turn out in a US election since the 80's. Hillary will squeak in, she will drop her 2-3 Supreme Court Appointees in and serve one term before retiring in 2021 for health reasons at 74. The bad part of that is that low turn out in the state and local stuff favors Team R, which I am not a fan of right now. The DNC is useless and won't mount a 50 state strategy and we go back to focusing on battleground states for the rest of silly season.
au contraire. Turdblossom maintains that he had nothing to do with the fuck-the-gays/"family values" initiatives in 2004 but he was caught dead to rights.The DNC is useless and won't mount a 50 state strategy and we go back to focusing on battleground states for the rest of silly season.
I want to agree with you as hope springs eternal and all that jazz. But the sad reality is that the Anti Gay Marriage acts were written to motivate a demographic that already has a history of high turn out. And the sad reality is that young people don't vote. I hope that you are right and I am wrong, I really do. Because the people Trump will put on the Supreme Court scare the fuck out of me.
The nice thing about old people is they die. Wait, that sounded harsh. I mean... Yeah. Young people traditionally don't come out to vote. But regardless of the current state of the Sanders posse, you gotta admit they're energized. Will they stay energized? You're right. At this point it's a wager, not a certainty. But I'm feelin' pretty good. And the whole discussion was whether or not the DNC had a 50-state strategy. Putting minimum wage in the platform isn't the opposite of that.
The Sander's organizations are now working on getting people elected into Congress. If they can keep up the hype and excitement level I think they can do some great work. Young men wait so long for the old people to die that they forget their youth. I read that in something Russian, but cannot place the source. Then again it's 5AM and I am too damn old to have been up for the last 50 hours straight.The nice thing about old people is they die. Wait, that sounded harsh. I mean...
I can't say I'm too hyped and excited, but I am planning on voting in my Kansas state senate primary on Tuesday. Something I've never done before. I think part of what Sander's campaign achieved is that it showed his supporters that we do have the numbers to make a difference. We can drag these entrenched assholes our way somewhat. And we have some reputable people among us who can win primary battles outright. It is kind of stupid, but there is a Lord of the Rings quote that reminds me a lot of the mood that has come out of Sander's supporters post campaign.If they can keep up the hype and excitement level I think they can do some great work.
A thing is about to happen here that has not happened since the Elder Days. The Ents are going to wake up and find that they are strong.
I don't agree with him labeling Wisconsin as a Rust Belt state, but otherwise I think his point is right. The GM plant here shut down a few years ago, and we couldn't recall an anti-union college dropout governor. This is what has been bugging me for a while. A friend of mine is a dedicated Clinton supporter. A couple weeks ago she posted something like "80% of people with advanced degrees support Clinton over Trump." It may have been even higher. I'm sure it's a very comforting statistic. The smartest people support my candidate, so surely the less educated people will follow us. But they won't.Unfortunately, you are living in a bubble that comes with an adjoining echo chamber where you and your friends are convinced the American people are not going to elect an idiot for president.
I totally understand wanting to burn the whole thing down, but I don't think so. Arsonists don't generally burn down buildings while inside of them.The smartest people support my candidate, so surely the less educated people will follow us. But they won't.
The analogy I'd use is the September 11th attacks. For decades the mantra was "comply with hijackers," and three planes full of people were crashed into buildings. The fourth plane's passengers decided that wasn't working and crashed into the ground instead. I saw this in some Brexit analysis, and I think it applies to Clinton/Trump. People feel the intelligent approaches aren't working, so maybe they'll vote for the dumb one against their self interest. It only takes a small number of middle-of-the-road voters to feel politicians have let them down to think voting for a real estate reality TV star is a better idea.
Im pretty sure right around 70-80% of all majors a "liberal arts" of sorts. Most of those people are as you might guess liberal. So it's a bit self selecting
I really don't think so. Check out what the times says: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html And although 538 has Trump edging out in their "now" cast; that's the least predictive of any of their forecasts:
I got a sick, nervous feeling in my stomach reading this. Say it ain't so...