Political Roundtable Part XII

[dckingsfan]

Dems lose seats because their voting base doesn't consist of old, white, retired, politically-engaged people with literally nothing to do with their lives but show up and vote.

Having a low-flexibility job and a family makes it harder for folks to show up on a Tuesday.

meh - not buying it. I think it is more messaging and turnout for specific issues.

There are ~ 231M eligible voters. Trump: 62,979,879 and Clinton: 65,844,954.

Basically there were more non-voters than either Trump or Clinton received ~ 92M (Obama received 69,456,897 votes in 2008). So, neither resonated that well (using both of their low approval ratings).

Trump supporters are the ones with low-flexibility (life).

I just think the messages of both parties are underwhelming.

I haven't looked it up, but being in urban areas might be easier to get to a polling place?

[TGW]

Senator Warren made Devos look silly today.

Devos has no experience at all...what a joke. She's no better than Ben Carson as head of HUD.

[dckingsfan]

Senator Warren made Devos look silly today.

Devos has no experience at all...what a joke. She's no better than Ben Carson as head of HUD.

""Now we all know President Trump's experience with higher education was to create a fake university, which resulted in him paying $125 million to students that he cheated," said Warren, who supported Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. "How do you plan to protect taxpayer dollars from waste, fraud and abuse from colleges and taking millions of dollars and student aid?"

"Senator, if confirmed I will certainly be very vigilant," DeVos said. "The individuals with whom I worked will ensure that federal monies are used properly and appropriately. I will look forward ..."

Warren interrupted DeVos asking about more responsibility and details.

"You are going to subcontract making sure that what happens with universities that cheat students doesn't happen anymore," the senator asked. "You will give that to someone else to do? I want to know what your ideas are."

"I want to make sure we don't have problems with that as well. If confirmed, I will work diligently to confirm we are addressing any of those issues," DeVos replied.

And then Warren wouldn't even shake hands with Devos... Warren was pissed because DeVos didn't bite.

How I saw it:
Warren: We want much a much bigger federal government role in education, do you agree?
Devos: We will see...
Warren: We created a huge problem with guaranteeing student loans. How are you going to fix this problem!
Devos: We will see...

[TGW]

Senator Warren made Devos look silly today.

Devos has no experience at all...what a joke. She's no better than Ben Carson as head of HUD.

""Now we all know President Trump's experience with higher education was to create a fake university, which resulted in him paying $125 million to students that he cheated," said Warren, who supported Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. "How do you plan to protect taxpayer dollars from waste, fraud and abuse from colleges and taking millions of dollars and student aid?"

"Senator, if confirmed I will certainly be very vigilant," DeVos said. "The individuals with whom I worked will ensure that federal monies are used properly and appropriately. I will look forward ..."

Warren interrupted DeVos asking about more responsibility and details.

"You are going to subcontract making sure that what happens with universities that cheat students doesn't happen anymore," the senator asked. "You will give that to someone else to do? I want to know what your ideas are."

"I want to make sure we don't have problems with that as well. If confirmed, I will work diligently to confirm we are addressing any of those issues," DeVos replied.

And then Warren wouldn't even shake hands with Devos... Warren was pissed because DeVos didn't bite.

How I saw it:
Warren: We want much a much bigger federal government role in education, do you agree?
Devos: We will see...
Warren: We created a huge problem with guaranteeing student loans. How are you going to fix this problem!
Devos: We will see...

If that's how you saw it, you might need new glasses. You also skipped the part where she said she had no experience with pell grants or school loans in general. Devos is a right-wing elitist who's clearly never struggled for anything in life, and that's her view of what schooling should be--the haves get everything and have nots get thrown to the trash.

[gtn130]

Dems lose seats because their voting base doesn't consist of old, white, retired, politically-engaged people with literally nothing to do with their lives but show up and vote.

Having a low-flexibility job and a family makes it harder for folks to show up on a Tuesday.

meh - not buying it. I think it is more messaging and turnout for specific issues.

There are ~ 231M eligible voters. Trump: 62,979,879 and Clinton: 65,844,954.

Basically there were more non-voters than either Trump or Clinton received ~ 92M (Obama received 69,456,897 votes in 2008). So, neither resonated that well (using both of their low approval ratings).

Trump supporters are the ones with low-flexibility (life).

I just think the messages of both parties are underwhelming.

I haven't looked it up, but being in urban areas might be easier to get to a polling place?

I was talking about midterms, and your take on Trump supporters being "the ones with low-flexibility" is completely wrong, and this has been established for quite a while.



Trump supporters have an above average median household income. Clinton lost the election because she didn't get enough votes from college-educated whites - not because she failed to capture the spirit of Real Working Class Americans or whatever the narrative is.

The average Trump supporter isn't struggling.

[dckingsfan]

Senator Warren made Devos look silly today.

Devos has no experience at all...what a joke. She's no better than Ben Carson as head of HUD.

""Now we all know President Trump's experience with higher education was to create a fake university, which resulted in him paying $125 million to students that he cheated," said Warren, who supported Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. "How do you plan to protect taxpayer dollars from waste, fraud and abuse from colleges and taking millions of dollars and student aid?"

"Senator, if confirmed I will certainly be very vigilant," DeVos said. "The individuals with whom I worked will ensure that federal monies are used properly and appropriately. I will look forward ..."

Warren interrupted DeVos asking about more responsibility and details.

"You are going to subcontract making sure that what happens with universities that cheat students doesn't happen anymore," the senator asked. "You will give that to someone else to do? I want to know what your ideas are."

"I want to make sure we don't have problems with that as well. If confirmed, I will work diligently to confirm we are addressing any of those issues," DeVos replied.

And then Warren wouldn't even shake hands with Devos... Warren was pissed because DeVos didn't bite.

How I saw it:
Warren: We want much a much bigger federal government role in education, do you agree?
Devos: We will see...
Warren: We created a huge problem with guaranteeing student loans. How are you going to fix this problem!
Devos: We will see...

If that's how you saw it, you might need new glasses. You also skipped the part where she said she had no experience with pell grants or school loans in general. Devos is a right-wing elitist who's clearly never struggled for anything in life, and that's her view of what schooling should be--the haves get everything and have nots get thrown to the trash.

You mean this part?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/student-debt-payback-far-worse-than-believed-1484777880

I like that she isn't coming in with experience in the student loan area - they need to go.

And the decreasing purchasing power of Pell Grants plus guaranteed loans just worsens the problem.

The problem isn't enforcement (as Warren was suggesting), the problem is how to get rid of a very, very broken program.

[dckingsfan]

Dems lose seats because their voting base doesn't consist of old, white, retired, politically-engaged people with literally nothing to do with their lives but show up and vote.

Having a low-flexibility job and a family makes it harder for folks to show up on a Tuesday.

meh - not buying it. I think it is more messaging and turnout for specific issues.

There are ~ 231M eligible voters. Trump: 62,979,879 and Clinton: 65,844,954.

Basically there were more non-voters than either Trump or Clinton received ~ 92M (Obama received 69,456,897 votes in 2008). So, neither resonated that well (using both of their low approval ratings).

Trump supporters are the ones with low-flexibility (life).

I just think the messages of both parties are underwhelming.

I haven't looked it up, but being in urban areas might be easier to get to a polling place?

I was talking about midterms, and your take on Trump supporters being "the ones with low-flexibility" is completely wrong, and this has been established for quite a while.



Trump supporters have an above average median household income. Clinton lost the election because she didn't get enough votes from college-educated whites - not because she failed to capture the spirit of Real Working Class Americans or whatever the narrative is.

The average Trump supporter isn't struggling.

So, just ignore the 90M that didn't vote. Why didn't they vote? You are saying there were 90M who couldn't get to the polls.

Your chart - if I was going to pick on it - should be for the election and not the primaries...

[gtn130]

meh - not buying it. I think it is more messaging and turnout for specific issues.

There are ~ 231M eligible voters. Trump: 62,979,879 and Clinton: 65,844,954.

Basically there were more non-voters than either Trump or Clinton received ~ 92M (Obama received 69,456,897 votes in 2008). So, neither resonated that well (using both of their low approval ratings).

Trump supporters are the ones with low-flexibility (life).

I just think the messages of both parties are underwhelming.

I haven't looked it up, but being in urban areas might be easier to get to a polling place?

I was talking about midterms, and your take on Trump supporters being "the ones with low-flexibility" is completely wrong, and this has been established for quite a while.



Trump supporters have an above average median household income. Clinton lost the election because she didn't get enough votes from college-educated whites - not because she failed to capture the spirit of Real Working Class Americans or whatever the narrative is.

The average Trump supporter isn't struggling.

So, just ignore the 90M that didn't vote. Why didn't they vote? You are saying there were 90M who couldn't get to the polls.

Your chart - if I was going to pick on it - should be for the election and not the primaries...

I'm not saying that at all. I made no assumptions whatsoever about people who didn't vote. My post before was speaking broadly about midterm elections.

What we know about the presidential election is that Trump voters had a higher median income than Clinton voters, and any statement about Trump supporters being less able to vote due to income is not only completely unsubstantiated but also very, very likely wrong.

[gtn130]

And, DC, if we looked at a graph of the general, it would obviously be even more slanted in favor of my argument. Kasich and Cruz had much higher income voters than even Trump, and Trump ostensibly absorbed most of those votes. And Clinton and Sanders shared the same low median income among their voters.

There really isn't any debate about this - Clinton's voter base has a lower median income than Trump's. It's not close or something even worth discussing.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

I'm not saying that at all. I made no assumptions whatsoever about people who didn't vote. My post before was speaking broadly about midterm elections.

Sorry, completely missed that

What we know about the presidential election is that Trump voters had a higher median income than Clinton voters, and any statement about Trump supporters being less able to vote due to income is not only completely unsubstantiated but also very, very likely wrong.

I think that, "Trump voters had a higher median income" isn't correct. I think in the primaries it may have been the case, but not in the general election.

And my actual point was - I don't think that there was any kind of burden on voters getting to the booth that tilted toward Clinton or Trump.

[gtn130]

I'm not saying that at all. I made no assumptions whatsoever about people who didn't vote. My post before was speaking broadly about midterm elections.

Sorry, completely missed that

What we know about the presidential election is that Trump voters had a higher median income than Clinton voters, and any statement about Trump supporters being less able to vote due to income is not only completely unsubstantiated but also very, very likely wrong.

I think that, "Trump voters had a higher median income" isn't correct. I think in the primaries it may have been the case, but not in the general election.

And my actual point was - I don't think that there was any kind of burden on voters getting to the booth that tilted toward Clinton or Trump.

You got a reason why?

Here is the data:



28% of Clinton's voters have a househould income below $30k. 14% of Trump's voters are in that category.

Here is the effect income has on voter turnout:


(larger version: http://www.demos.org/data-byte/voter-turnout-income-2008-us-presidential-election)

What more do you need to see?

[closg00]

Zero hour is approaching, did they find anyone to sing for The Donald? I couldn't get any info from Ted Nugent and Kidd Rocks tweets.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[dckingsfan]

@gtn - you second figure is much more telling

what your figure is showing us is that
Clinton was supported by the very rich
Trump and Clinton were close on the middle and upper middle class
Trump won the lower middle class
Clinton won the poor

It also shows that the more educated the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Clinton.

I think that is a more accurate way to portray the blocks vs. rounding out income averages for all the groups.

I think this figure would be even more interesting in a map.

[gtn130]

@gtn - you second figure is much more telling

what your figure is showing us is that
Clinton was supported by the very rich
Trump and Clinton were close on the middle and upper middle class
Trump won the lower middle class
Clinton won the poor

It also shows that the more educated the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Clinton.

I think that is a more accurate way to portray the blocks vs. rounding out income averages for all the groups.

I think this figure would be even more interesting in a map.

I don't think we can say Trump won the lower middle class when the range of income is so huge. When you consider in the primary that the median household income for Trump voters was ~$70k, I think it's fair to assume Trumps voters in the general fall closer to the $75k end of the $30-$75k range that you're calling "lower middle class"

[montestewart]

@gtn - you second figure is much more telling

what your figure is showing us is that
Clinton was supported by the very rich
Trump and Clinton were close on the middle and upper middle class
Trump won the lower middle class
Clinton won the poor

It also shows that the more educated the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Clinton.

I think that is a more accurate way to portray the blocks vs. rounding out income averages for all the groups.

I think this figure would be even more interesting in a map.

I don't think we can say Trump won the lower middle class when the range of income is so huge. When you consider in the primary that the median household income for Trump voters was ~$70k, I think it's fair to assume Trumps voters in the general fall closer to the $75k end of the $30-$75k range that you're calling "lower middle class"

More data needed. Any data regarding the Rust Belt states that Trump grabbed (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin) that have more often voted Democrat or at least been up for grabs? Initial reporting seemed to indicate that it was a blue collar shift in those states, but I haven't seen any hard numbers backing that up. The incomes of families working in manufacturing (both spouses working) are perhaps at the higher end of the "lower middle class," or even "middle class," but I don't know enough about incomes in those states.

I know four Ohio voters (not counting Nate and Dat), all upper middle-class or above: three I assume voted for Trump but usually vote Republican regardless, one is a true independent who I assume did not vote for Trump based on her reception of his gender-based messaging. I also know a number of Republicans and conservatives (upper middle-class or above) who voted for Clinton or Johnson, rejecting Trump's objectives, his demeanor, or both.

[dckingsfan]

@gtn - you second figure is much more telling

what your figure is showing us is that
Clinton was supported by the very rich
Trump and Clinton were close on the middle and upper middle class
Trump won the lower middle class
Clinton won the poor

It also shows that the more educated the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Clinton.

I think that is a more accurate way to portray the blocks vs. rounding out income averages for all the groups.

I think this figure would be even more interesting in a map.

I don't think we can say Trump won the lower middle class when the range of income is so huge. When you consider in the primary that the median household income for Trump voters was ~$70k, I think it's fair to assume Trumps voters in the general fall closer to the $75k end of the $30-$75k range that you're calling "lower middle class"

More data needed. Any data regarding the Rust Belt states that Trump grabbed (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin) that have more often voted Democrat or at least been up for grabs? Initial reporting seemed to indicate that it was a blue collar shift in those states, but I haven't seen any hard numbers backing that up. The incomes of families working in manufacturing (both spouses working) are perhaps at the higher end of the "lower middle class," or even "middle class," but I don't know enough about incomes in those states.

I know four Ohio voters (not counting Nate and Dat), all upper middle-class or above: three I assume voted for Trump but usually vote Republican regardless, one is a true independent who I assume did not vote for Trump based on her reception of his gender-based messaging. I also know a number of Republicans and conservatives (upper middle-class or above) who voted for Clinton or Johnson, rejecting Trump's objectives, his demeanor, or both.

Agree, I think there is just not enough data there... "Middle class" isn't very straight forward. Some places you can feel middle class earning as much as $200k Some define middle class (households) as those earning 67%-200% of a state's median income. So, I would think the analysis needs to be on a state by state basis to be relevant.

[tontoz]

I accepted Trump's victory awhile ago but I can't help feeling like I am living in some kind of alternate reality. Donald Trump becoming President would have been laughable to anyone a couple of years ago.

[Induveca]

I accepted Trump's victory awhile ago but I can't help feeling like I am living in some kind of alternate reality. Donald Trump becoming President would have been laughable to anyone a couple of years ago.

Same here happy I'm able to completely avoid inauguration coverage, and many days leading up. I've been happily free of the force-fed media negativity.

Hopefully when I get back, reluctant acceptance will be the norm by the media.

[gtn130]

@gtn - you second figure is much more telling

what your figure is showing us is that
Clinton was supported by the very rich
Trump and Clinton were close on the middle and upper middle class
Trump won the lower middle class
Clinton won the poor

It also shows that the more educated the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Clinton.

I think that is a more accurate way to portray the blocks vs. rounding out income averages for all the groups.

I think this figure would be even more interesting in a map.

Here are the exit polls: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0

Under $30,000 Household Income
Clinton - 53%
Trump - 41%

$30,000 - $49,999
Clinton - 51%
Trump - 42%

I think we can safely say that Clinton actually won the lower middle class.