GOP Senators are in a Real Jam

[markjs]

Hillary was a uniquely flawed candidate.

Trump is uniquely un-qualified to be considered a "human being".

 

[Hedgology]

Hillary was a uniquely flawed candidate.

So do you now see the flaws in your forecast, without knowing who the candidates are?

 

[Winston]

54%/41% in favor of Trump. Those were figures with a female presidential candidate.

But 2020 is going to change because; reasons...

https://qz.com/833003/election-2016...whelmingly-for-clinton-except-the-white-ones/

Overall, 54% of women voted for Clinton, much higher than the 42% of women who voted for Trump. But when the women’s vote is divided by race, it becomes clear that black women actually largely drove the so-called gender gap against Trump.

This link says the opposite.

Your numbers are only whites. Clinton still took the female vote, because, reasons.

 

[Hedgology]

Trump is uniquely un-qualified to be considered a "human being".

That's your opinion. Science really doesn't care about that.

 

[Hedgology]

https://qz.com/833003/election-2016...whelmingly-for-clinton-except-the-white-ones/



This link says the opposite.

Your numbers are only whites. Clinton still took the female vote, because, reasons.

These were the statistics I'm referring to, which still proves my point.

 

[MovingPictures]

I disagree.. 6 weeks is an eternity in politics.. let alone what, 18 months? People will forget. Will it impact some votes, probably. But, not enough to be a deciding factor.

This is true.

But what's different this time is the Republicans have already lost this battle, and most people can see that. Their base is going to blame the Democrats for this, not them, so they may as well give-up the ghost already, and just salvage the optics.

OTOH, those independents who lean to the right, are getting exhausted with the drama, and they will not forget.

 

[Winston]

I don't care if you don't have any evidence; just don't treat your speculating as a quantitiative forecast and expecting everyone to treat it as such.



What?

You don't need evidence to agree with the statement that the 100 year anniversary will drive turnout among women. If you disagree that's fine. You may look a bit dim witted. But, that's still fine with me.

 

[Winston]

These were the statistics I'm referring to, which still proves my point.

So the part where Trump has a 13 point deficit with women voters proves Trump did better with women?

 

[Winston]

So do you now see the flaws in your forecast, without knowing who the candidates are?

My forecast that turnout among women will be higher? Yes, a storied and detailed prediction down to the exact numbers by precinct. :roll:

 

[Hedgology]

You don't need evidence to agree with the statement that the 100 year anniversary will drive turnout among women. If you disagree that's fine. You may look a bit dim witted. But, that's still fine with me.

Why would it drive turnout among women? Why would you assume it would incentize people to vote for your candidate? You already acknowledged that a female candidate lost, dispite winning the women's vote by a significantly higher margin.

These are legitimate questions that you don't have answers to.

 

[Hedgology]

My forecast that turnout among women will be higher? Yes, a storied and detailed prediction down to the exact numbers by precinct. :roll:

Let's just keep things simple.

You don't know who the Democrat candidate will be, you acknowledge this.

The last time the Democrats ran a female candidate, they lost. You acknowledge this.

The last Democratic Candidate was a flawed candidate. You ackenlowedge this.

Yet, you somehow expect everyone else you acknowledge that the female vote will be "higher," simply because, without knowing who will run, or what the circumstances will be.

Makes sense.

 

[Winston]

Why would it drive turnout among women? Why would you assume it would incentize people to vote for your candidate? You already acknowledged that a female candidate lost, dispite winning the women's vote by a significantly higher margin.

These are legitimate questions that you don't have answers to.

Because voter rights matter to people, especially if they were ever disenfranchised. Not everyone thinks left-brained, especially about elections. Lots of people vote based on vibe and occasion. For example, you ever heard the term "affirmative action president" in reference to Obama?

Was Obama elected due to sheer strength on policy? Or, was he elected because of the novelty of race?

Anyway, the numbers of 2018 were obviously poor for Republicans, due in part to their performing abysmally with women. If they continue to perform bad with women, and if turnout among women is higher as I think it will be, then it could be a problem for the GOP.

 

[Hedgology]

Because voter rights matter to people, especially if they were ever disenfranchised. Not everyone thinks left-brained, especially about elections. Lots of people vote based on vibe and occasion.

I'm not sure why you are unable in seeing the obvious flaw in your reasoning. What woman today is being disenfranchised?

For example, you ever heard the term "affirmative action president" in reference to Obama?

Was Obama elected due to sheer strength on policy? Or, was he elected because of the novelty of race?

I'm also not sure what relevance this has with anything.

Anyway, the numbers of 2018 were obviously poor for Republicans, due in part to their performing abysmally with women. If they continue to perform bad with women, and if turnout among women is higher as I think it will be, then it could be a problem for the GOP.

You just saw data that demonstrated that there was not much of a difference between the women's vote from 2016 and 2018. Again, one has to wonder where you are getting this analysis from...

 

[Winston]

Let's just keep things simple.

You don't know who the Democrat candidate will be, you acknowledge this.

The last time the Democrats ran a female candidate, they lost. You acknowledge this.

The last Democratic Candidate was a flawed candidate. You ackenlowedge this.

Yet, you somehow expect everyone else you acknowledge that the female vote will be "higher," simply because, without knowing who will run, or what the circumstances will be.

Makes sense.

If you measure the trajectory of 2016>2018, what do you think is going to change? Is Trump going to magically admit and own up to sexual assault. Apologize for Kavanaugh? Ban Christian fundamentalists from the judiciary? What do you think may happen that could radically alter the trajectory of this political climate, with regards to how women feel about the GOP?

 

[Hedgology]

If you measure the trajectory of 2016>2018, what do you think is going to change?

I don't know what is going to change, and neither do you.

Is Trump going to magically admit and own up to sexual assault. Apologize for Kavanaugh? Ban Christian fundamentalists from the judiciary? What do you think may happen that could radically alter the trajectory of this political climate, with regards to how women feel about the GOP?

Wasn't there supposed to be a Blue Wave in November?

 

[Winston]

I'm not sure why you are unable in seeing the obvious flaw in your reasoning. What woman today is being disenfranchised?

It doesn't matter if they've been affected personally. You have to think in symbols. What a vote symbolizes is important. You don't think you'll see long winded social media posts about how granddaughters were so proud to make their bra burning grandmothers of yesteryear proud? Clue yourself in buddy.

I'm also not sure what relevance this has with anything.

Okay, just avoid the questions, that's fine. If Obama's race impacted the 2008 election, as I've heard many a right winger claim on here. Then that demonstrates that people DO vote based on novelty. So, the 100 year anniversary being special to women could impact the 2020 election.

You just saw data that demonstrated that there was not much of a difference between the women's vote from 2016 and 2018. Again, one has to wonder where you are getting this analysis from...

I saw the data of the breakdown between parties, but, we didn't see the raw #'s of votes. You know a crucial part in understanding how high turnout was.

 

[Winston]

I don't know what is going to change, and neither do you.

Well, I didn't claim to know exactly what was going to happen, I just made a small observation that you turned into a giant argument.

Wasn't there supposed to be a Blue Wave in November?

Dems picked up 40 house seats, you could hang 10 on that wave.

 

[Hedgology]

It doesn't matter if they've been affected personally. You have to think in symbols. What a vote symbolizes is important. You don't think you'll see long winded social media posts about how granddaughters were so proud to make their bra burning grandmothers of yesteryear proud? Clue yourself in buddy.

That's nice, but clearly none of that happened in 2016. I'm not sure why you're so content in living in the past.

Okay, just avoid the questions, that's fine. If Obama's race impacted the 2008 election, as I've heard many a right winger claim on here. Then that demonstrates that people DO vote based on novelty. So, the 100 year anniversary being special to women could impact the 2020 election.

Again, relevance? It's either your argument or it's not your argument. If it's not, I'm not sure why you want me to address what other people are saying. If it is your argument, I again refer your what I have said previously.

I saw the data of the breakdown between parties, but, we didn't see the raw #'s of votes. You know a crucial part in understanding how high turnout was.

Absolute number of votes are irrelevant; what matters more is the distribution. The distribution shows there is no difference in the woman's vote that went to Republicans

 

[Winston]

That's nice, but clearly none of that happened in 2016. I'm not sure why you're so content in living in the past.

2016 isn't 2020. So, you don't think the anniversary will matter to women. I think it will. It's a simple disagreement.

Again, relevance? It's either your argument or it's not your argument. If it's not, I'm not sure why you want me to address what other people are saying. If it is your argument, I again refer your what I have said previously.

I think race played a part. If Dems had nominated another white guy, I doubt the candidate would've received as many votes. Even considering the backlash to Bush.

Absolute number of votes are irrelevant; what matters more is the distribution. The distribution shows there is no difference in the woman's vote that went to Republicans

It shows they did poorly with women, and buttresses my point that a larger turnout among women isn't good for the GOP.

 

[Hedgology]

Well, I didn't claim to know exactly what was going to happen, I just made a small observation that you turned into a giant argument.

That's false. You did claim that you new what was going to happen...

Dems picked only up 40 house seats, you could hang 10 on that wave.

Fixed that for you... The general forecast was for 45 seats.

 

[Winston]

That's false. You did claim that you new what was going to happen...

I don't give a **** if Trump is on the ballot or not. It's 2020, 100 year anniversary of a woman's right to vote. They're going to be out voting in high numbers.

this is the post you're hung up on. Did I predict exact results? Or, did I say that turnout among women will be higher?

Fixed that for you... The general forecast was for 45 seats.

Yeah, maybe next time they'll only gain another 40 seats :lamo

 

[Hedgology]

2016 isn't 2020. So, you don't think the anniversary will matter to women. I think it will. It's a simple disagreement.

No, 2016 isn't 2020, but if 2016 is supposed to be different from 2020, there needs to be a reason why. I'm saying there is tanigble evidence why the anniversary won't matter and you haven't demostrated otherwise.

I think race played a part. If Dems had nominated another white guy, I doubt the candidate would've received as many votes. Even considering the backlash to Bush.

Okay, so you believe people only voted for Obama because he was black. Clearly, women didn't vote for Hillary because she was a woman. So if the former matters and the latter doesn't, why do think people will vote for a Democrat simply because of something in history 100 years ago?

It shows they did poorly with women, and buttresses my point that a larger turnout among women isn't good for the GOP.

If by "pooly" you mean -1% change in the vote, then yes, they did poorly.

Others who are more quantitiatively-minded don't see a difference.

 

[Hedgology]

this is the post you're hung up on. Did I predict exact results? Or, did I say that turnout among women will be higher?

Irrelevant. Either stand by your comments or retract.

Yeah, maybe next time they'll only gain another 40 seats :lamo

Republicans picked up 63 seats in 2010. If this is supposed to be a "Blue Wave," why did it fail to meet expectations, and why isn't it on par with what happened the last time a political party didn't control the White House during a mid-term election.

The point is, why do you keep performing below expectations? Maybe it's because you make asinine forecast that never come to fruition?

 

[Winston]

No, 2016 isn't 2020, but if 2016 is supposed to be different from 2020, there needs to be a reason why. I'm saying there is tanigble evidence why the anniversary won't matter and you haven't demostrated otherwise.

You are ignoring 2018, like it didn't happen, like you say I am of 2016. So, why are YOU looking into the past now, when I'm about the present .

Okay, so you believe people only voted for Obama because he was black. Clearly, women didn't vote for Hillary because she was a woman. So if the former matters and the latter doesn't, why do think people will vote for a Democrat simply because of something in history 100 years ago?

To be fair, those are your words. I think people voted for Obama to participate in the novelty of electing a black president. And it was an important moment to the black community.

Well, I'm sure many, many women did vote for Hillary because of her gender. But, yeah, Hillary in my opinion lost due to the DNC fumbling the primary and then doubling down on denials. So, your mis-characterizing my beliefs. Here's what I actually think. I think that 2020 will drive turnout among women and that will be bad for Republicans because of the data we've already reviewed, that you seem to think proves you right. :think:

If by "pooly" you mean -1% change in the vote, then yes, they did poorly.

Others who are more quantitiatively-minded don't see a difference.

Yeah, don't care about your spin, Republicans sucked the big one with women.

 

[Winston]

Irrelevant. Either stand by your comments or retract.

I stand by my elaborate and nuanced analysis. You have a line on Nate Silver? He's probably dying to get the scoop from Captain Obvious! If more women come out to vote, Republicans do worse :lamo :lamo :lamo

Republicans picked up 63 seats in 2010. If this is supposed to be a "Blue Wave," why did it fail to meet expectations, and why isn't it on par with what happened the last time a political party didn't control the White House during a mid-term election.

The point is, why do you keep performing below expectations? Maybe it's because you make asinine forecast that never come to fruition?

Yeah, still don't care about your silly partisan ramblings. Democrats kicked your ass, and no amount of Red washing will change that.