Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#21
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,679 posts

Purging of Voter Rolls in the 2016 Election

 

https://ourfuture.or...integrity-panel

 

 

 

(Kris) Kobach is the driving force behind the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program, or “Operation Crosscheck” – a nationwide, behind-the-scenes Republican effort which purged at least 1.1 million, mostly minority, voters from the voting rolls in 2016, often in swing states.

 

… Kobach’s Crosscheck list contains the names of 7.2 million people with the same first and last names who are registered to vote in more than one state. For example, if you have a common name like James Brown, or Jose Hernandez, and that name appears on the voter rolls in both Michigan and Wisconsin, your name could be purged from voter rolls in both states.

 

U.S. Census data shows that minorities are overrepresented in 85 percent of common last names. According to Palast, “If your last name is Washington, there’s an 89 percent chance you’re African-American. If your last name is Hernandez, there’s a 94 percent chance you’re Hispanic.”

 

It was enough to swing the Electoral Votes in a number of states from Clinton to Trump. Here are a few examples:

 

Trump victory margin in Michigan:                            13,107

Michigan Crosscheck purge list:                                 449,922

 Michigan Electoral Vote: 16

 

Trump victory margin in Arizona:                                 85,257

Arizona Crosscheck purge list:                                    270,824

 Arizona Electoral Vote: 16

 

Trump victory margin in N. Carolina:                        177,008

Carolina Crosscheck purge list:                                 589,393

North Carolina Electoral Vote: 14

 

…Switch 42 electoral votes from Trump’s column to Clinton’s, and she would have won the Electoral vote by 274 to 264. And that doesn’t even take into account that Trump officially won Wisconsin’s 10 electoral votes by 22,748 popular votes and Pennsylvania’s 20 Electoral Votes by 44,292 popular votes.

 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#22
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,679 posts

There is a lot to digest in the attached article. Below, I only include the two concluding paragraphs.  If nothing else, you should open the link and take a look at some of the interesting graphs. 

 

The Democrats’ ‘Working-Class Problem’

 

http://prospect.org/...-class-problem’

 

 

 

Democracy Corps’ national survey conducted after the debates and shared with the Clinton campaign showed that more attacks on Trump’s temperament and his treatment of people and women barely moved voters. In contrast, a compelling economic message demanding “an economy for everyone, not just the rich and well-connected,” attacking trickle-down tax cuts “for the richest and special breaks for corporations,” and promising an agenda to “rebuild the middle class” moved unmarried women (including white unmarried women), millennials, and white working-class women.

 

This experiment showed—retrospectively, alas—that Democrats can reach working-class Americans both in our base and well into the swing electorate, including the white working class. It is time to make that challenge task number one.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#23
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,679 posts

Actually, the American Prospect had several articles in the current issue related to analyzing Trump's victory in 2016.  I quote this second article a little bit more at length because the central theme contained in the cited section is a good one.  

 

A Tale of Two Populisms

 

http://prospect.org/article/tale-two-populisms

 

 

Compare Sanders and Trump:

 

Sanders: I voted against NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China. I think they have been a disaster for the American worker. A lot of corporations that shut down here move abroad. … TPP was written by corporate America and the pharmaceutical industry and Wall Street. That's what this trade agreement is about.

 

Trump: For too long, Americans have been forced to accept trade deals that put the interests of insiders and the Washington elite over the hard-working men and women of this country. As a result, blue-collar towns and cities have watched their factories close and good-paying jobs move overseas, while Americans face a mounting trade deficit and a devastated manufacturing base.

 
 

Trump does tap into blue-collar whites’ worries about job loss and stagnation in declining manufacturing communities, but note who benefits: not multinational corporations or their CEOs, but the “Washington elite.” Sanders speaks of corporations moving overseas, but in Trump’s account it is the “jobs” that move, and the bad actors once again are politicians (and the foreign countries that take advantage of their incompetence). In political populism, corporate interests and the wealthy remain invisible. Indeed, one might even say that is its primary purpose.

 

Trump’s political populism is, fundamentally, a story about the failure of government. And unfortunately, there is good reason to believe it deeply resonates with white working-class voters. Just 20 percent of them believe they can trust the federal government more than half of the time (a rather low bar). While 61 percent of white working-class voters have an unfavorable view of corporations, a stratospheric 93 percent have an unfavorable view of politicians. 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#24
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,679 posts

Democrats In Decline?

 

https://www.democrac..._neglect_people

 

 

 

We had unprecedented—or, unprecedented in 20 years, black voter turnout drop-off. More than a million fewer black voters came out. And you had a splintering of the progressive white vote. And you had a larger increase of voters for Johnson and Stein—I sometimes call the JohnStein voters—than you did for Trump. And if you look in a place—Wisconsin is where it’s clearest. Trump got fewer voters in Wisconsin than Romney did. So it wasn’t like everybody flocked to him. It’s that the progressive votes splintered and was depressed. And that’s the challenge that the Democrats face, is how to reinspire, bring back out African-American voters, bring up Latino vote and bring back the whites who defected to third and fourth party. That’s the way to put back the Obama coalition. That’s the way to get back into power. But all this attempt to try to figure out how to woo voters who were drawn to one of the most racist, misogynistic, xenophobic campaigns in history is a fool’s errand.

 

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, this whole question of the Democratic Party’s relationship to—especially to xenophobic voters has not—this is not the first time the party has grappled with it. I mean, if you go back to the ’50s and the ’60s, the Dixiecrats were a staple or a part of the Democratic Party. Then, when the Clinton era developed, there was the whole emphasis of the New Democrats to try to get conservative white voters, even as the nation keeps shifting, as you mention in your book, demographically, and the Democratic Party itself. So, how do you get these leaders to understand, to look at the future of America and not at the past?

 

STEVE PHILLIPS: Well, writing a book is not enough, as I have found out. So, it’s—there’s such a powerful incentive and default position that the thing to do is to go chase that shrinking sector of the population. I want to be clear: I’m not saying don’t pay attention to white people. I’m saying it’s the conservative white voter. You’re going—Democrats are going after the wrong white voters. There are progressive white voters, there are progressive working-class white voters, who need to be inspired and who need to be attracted and brought back. But the percentage of the population that the white working class comprises has shrunk dramatically. In the mid-1970s, the white working class was 74 percent of the electorate. In this last election, they were 43 percent of the electorate.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#25
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,897 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

7 month reminder!

CucQekgVYAAm705.jpg


Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#26
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,897 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

What's so exceptionally sad is just how it backfired. The DNC was basically thinking like the aforementioned childlike Uptown Leftists— "I think it's bad; therefore everyone else must think it's bad."

 

Instead, they pretty much just enabled a massive wave of ultranationalism and neofascism to rear its ugly head. Now don't get me wrong, it was definitely already there. Festering in comments sections, private discussions, and drunken rants across the nation and the web. I've been a regular on the internet for well over a decade now. There has been nothing like this in all that time, but only in how open and blatant it is.

 

Hell, I still remember the first time I saw a person outwardly say "White Power!" on a Breitbart comment section— and they were subsequently lambasted and chastised for "(demo)KKK(rat) speak." Whereas I'm finding people saying the same thing or something in that vein on Fox News articles. As much shit as we give Fox News, it's never been this openly racist. Daily Caller used to be sensible; nowadays, I feel like TheBlaze is one of the more levelheaded places. 

 

And it all came back to the fact that the DNC decided to elevate fringe rightist candidates. Did they not think that they would inadvertently normalize these beliefs? 

 

 

 

The Tragedy of Clinton grows ever more bitter as time goes on. It just shows you how otherworldly out of touch the Democratic Elite were; they were literally at the point where they thought they could bring fascist sympathizers to the forefront and this would help Clinton. 

 

I mean, you have to ask yourself— how discordant did "President Clinton" sound that they felt the need to bring a theocrat, a wannabe theocrat, and a fascist sympathizer to the top of the Republican campaign trail in an attempt to get people to vote for her? Did they know? I suppose they did.

 

You reap what you sow...


Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#27
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,679 posts

While the Trump-Russia collaboration angle is being heavily reported in current headlines, this angle is not so heavily stressed:

 

Election Hacking Efforts, Wider Than Previously Known, Draw Little Scrutiny

 

https://mobile.nytim...55ySFt1H1?amp=1

 

Introduction:

 

The calls started flooding in from hundreds of irate North Carolina voters just after 7 a.m. on Election Day last November.

 

Dozens were told they were ineligible to vote and were turned away at the polls, even when they displayed current registration cards. Others were sent from one polling place to another, only to be rejected. Scores of voters were incorrectly told they had cast ballots days earlier. In one precinct, voting halted for two hours.

 

Susan Greenhalgh, a troubleshooter at a nonpartisan election monitoring group, was alarmed. Most of the complaints came from Durham, a blue-leaning county in a swing state. The problems involved electronic poll books — tablets and laptops, loaded with check-in software, that have increasingly replaced the thick binders of paper used to verify voters’ identities and registration status. She knew that the company that provided Durham’s software, VR Systems, had been penetrated by Russian hackers months before.

“It felt like tampering, or some kind of cyberattack,” Ms. Greenhalgh said about the voting troubles in Durham.

 

There are plenty of other reasons for such breakdowns — local officials blamed human error and software malfunctions — and no clear-cut evidence of digital sabotage has emerged, much less a Russian role in it. Despite the disruptions, a record number of votes were cast in Durham, following a pattern there of overwhelming support for Democratic presidential candidates, this time Hillary Clinton.

 

 

No wonder the Russians did not want us to do recounts.

 

Hillary supported Trump on the assumption he would be easy to beat in the general election.  Followed by the Russians supporting Trump on the assumption that he would be easier to deal with as president than would Hillary.  

 

Anybody see a pattern emerging, or is it just me?


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#28
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,679 posts

Reactions to Hillary Clinton’s New Book

 

http://www.alternet....ry-clinton-book

 

Introduction:

 

Hillary Clinton, who you might remember ran for president a second time last cycle, just wrote a new book. The memoir, titled What Happened,promises to be Clinton’s take on just that: exactly how things went so wrong that she lost a contest that should have been unlosable. Plenty of people are eager to read Clinton’s campaign post-mortem, in which she goes after Bernie Sanders, Kremlin-backed actors and, in her own words, “my own shortcomings and the mistakes we made.”

 

There are also a lot of people who are not only not excited to read the book, they wish it hadn’t been written at all. A fair number of these people are Democrats, and they have not been shy about giving out quotes expressing just how not into Clinton’s new book they are. 

 

Here’s a sampler of those quotes, mostly from interviews with the Hill and Politico, from the last few days (see alternet link provided above).


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#29
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,679 posts

Speaking of reactions to Hillary Clinton's new book.

 

 

Bernie Sanders Answers Hillary's Criticisms

 

http://www.alternet....-her-new-memoir

 

Introduction:

 

America’s most popular politician, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., appeared on Stephen Colbert’s “Late Show” Thursday night where he was asked to respond to leaked excerpts from Hillary Clinton’s new book in which she blamed the senator for causing “lasting damage making it harder to unify progressives,” as well as accused him of joining the presidential race to “to disrupt the Democratic Party.”

 

Instead of firing back at Clinton, the longest reigning Independent senator in U.S. history, explained that he didn’t divide progressives at all. “Actually, the case is that the progressive movement today, and grassroots activism, is stronger than it has been in many, many years,” Sanders told Colbert.

 

“As a result of our campaign, millions of young people began to vote for the first time, became engaged in the political process . . . we have got to stand together against [President Donald] Trump’s efforts to divide us up, take on the billionaire class and make that political revolution so that we have a government that works for all of us, not just the one percent,” Sanders explained.

 

Colbert sarcastically pointed out that those were the exact attacks Clinton was talking about.

 

“But I understand,” Sanders continued. “Look, Secretary Clinton ran against the most unpopular candidate in the history of this country and she lost and was upset about that and I understand that,” he said. “But our job now is really not to go backwards. It is to go forward. It is to create the kind of nation we know we can become. We have enormous problems facing us and I think it’s a little bit silly to keep talking about 2016.”


  • Yuli Ban likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#30
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,679 posts

The Clinton Book Tour Is Largely Ignoring the Vital Role of Endless War in the 2016 Election Result

 

 

https://theintercept...lection-result/

 

Introduction:

 

TO PITCH HER BOOK, Hillary Clinton is sitting down this week for a series of media interviews, mostly with supportive TV personalities, such as Rachel Maddow, to discuss her views of “What Happened,” the book’s title. Calls for Clinton to be quiet and disappear are misguided for all sorts of reasons, including the fact that she is a very smart, informed, and articulate politician, which means her interviews — especially when she’s liberated from programmed campaign mode — are illuminating about how she, and her fellow establishment Democrats who have driven the party into a ditch, really think.

 

An hourlong interview she sat for with Vox’s Ezra Klein is particularly worthwhile. Clinton, for good reason, harbors a great deal of affection for Klein, which she expressed on multiple occasions during their chat. But Klein nonetheless pressed her on a series of criticisms that have been voiced about her and the Democrats’ stunted political approach, banal policies, status-quo-perpetuating worldview, and cramped aspirations that seem far more plausible as authors of her defeat than the familiar array of villains — Bernie Sanders, Vladimir Putin, Jill Stein, Jim Comey, the New York Times — that she and her most ardent supporters are eager to blame.

 

Despite being illuminating, Klein’s discussion with Clinton contains a glaring though quite common omission: There is not a word about the role of foreign policy and endless war during the entire hour. While some of this may be attributable to Klein’s perfectly valid journalistic focus on domestic policies, such as health care, a huge factor in Clinton’s political career and how she is perceived — as a senator and especially as secretary of state — is her advocacy of multiple wars and other military actions, many, if not all, of which were rather disastrous, rendering it quite strange to spend an hour discussing why she lost without so much as mentioning any of that.

 

This is not so much a critique of Klein’s specific interview (which, again, is worthwhile) as it is reflective of the broader Democratic Party desire to pretend that the foreign wars it has repeatedly prosecuted, and the endless killing of innocent people for which it is responsible, do not exist. 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#31
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,679 posts

Cited in the article posted above:

 

Battlefield Casualties and Ballot Box Defeat: Did the Bush-Obama Wars Cost Clinton the White House?

 

https://papers.ssrn....ract_id=2989040

 

Abstract:

 

 

America has been at war continuously for over 15 years, but few Americans seem to notice. This is because the vast majority of citizens have no direct connection to those soldiers fighting, dying, and returning wounded from combat. Increasingly, a divide is emerging between communities whose young people are dying to defend the country, and those communities whose young people are not. In this paper we empirically explore whether this divide—the casualty gap—contributed to Donald Trump’s surprise victory in November 2016. The data analysis presented in this working paper finds that indeed, in the 2016 election Trump was speaking to this forgotten part of America. Even controlling in a statistical model for many other alternative explanations, we find that there is a significant and meaningful relationship between a community’s rate of military sacrifice and its support for Trump. Our statistical model suggests that if three states key to Trump’s victory – Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin – had suffered even a modestly lower casualty rate, all three could have flipped from red to blue and sent Hillary Clinton to the White House. There are many implications of our findings, but none as important as what this means for Trump’s foreign policy. If Trump wants to win again in 2020, his electoral fate may well rest on the administration’s approach to the human costs of war. Trump should remain highly sensitive to American combat casualties, lest he become yet another politician who overlooks the invisible inequality of military sacrifice. More broadly, the findings suggest that politicians from both parties would do well to more directly recognize and address the needs of those communities whose young women and men are making the ultimate sacrifice for the country.

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#32
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,679 posts

In a close election, the loser dies the death of a thousand cuts.  Some of those cuts are self-inflicted wounds of poor policy positions or a problematic history on important issues.  Some may be due to poor organization due to under-funding or strategically inept  deployment of resources.  Then there are those that are just a matter of laws that restrict whose votes get counted.  Case in point:

 

A New Study Shows Just How Many Americans Were Blocked From Voting in Wisconsin Last Year

 

http://www.motherjon...nsin-last-year/

 

Introduction:

 

Rebecca Brinkman moved to Baraboo, Wisconsin, an hour north of Madison, from Ohio in the spring of 2016 for a job as a zookeeper. She worked from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Election Day before rushing to her polling place.

 

In addition to her Ohio driver’s license, she brought a manila envelope stuffed with documents to confirm her identity, including her credit card, her Social Security card, her rental lease, and a paycheck. “I was very well organized,” she told me. But November 2016 was Wisconsin’s first major election with a strict voter ID law in effect, which required voters to present one of a handful of categories of government-issued photo ID. Brinkman couldn’t get a Wisconsin driver’s license in time because her birth certificate was in Ohio.

 

Even though Brinkman was already registered in Wisconsin and had other forms of ID, poll workers only allowed her to cast a provisional ballot. It was never counted. “I was very frustrated,” she said. “This past election was kind of a big one.” She described herself as “liberal” and said she didn’t vote for Donald Trump, who carried the state by just 22,000 votes.

 

comprehensive study released today suggests how many missing votes can be attributed to the new law. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison surveyed registered voters who didn’t cast a 2016 ballot in the state’s two biggest counties—Milwaukee and Dane, which is home to Madison. More than 1 out of 10 nonvoters (11.2 percent) said they lacked acceptable voter ID and cited the law as a reason why they didn’t vote; 6.4 percent of respondents said the voter ID law was the “main reason” they didn’t vote.

 

The study’s lead author, University of Wisconsin political scientist Kenneth Mayer, says between roughly 9,000 and 23,000 registered voters in the reliably Democratic counties were deterred from voting by the ID law. Extrapolating statewide, he says the data suggests as many as 45,000 voters sat out the election. “We have hard evidence there were tens of thousands of people who were unable to vote because of the voter ID law,” Mayer told me. 

 

When I moved to Maine and went to register to vote, I was told that I needed a state issued driver's license or identity card to be registered.  To obtain a drivers license, I needed a birth certificate.  Obtaining that certificate was a time consuming endeavor.  Had I moved to the state closer to the deadline for registering to vote, the delay involved would have prevented me from voting.  This would have occurred despite the fact that I had been registered to vote in California for decades.  So I can easily relate to Ms. Brinkman's frustration.

 

For demographic reasons, these laws tend to restrict the vote among Democrats more than among Republicans.  They are an example of yet another voter suppression tactic that was utilized in the 2016 election.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#33
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,897 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

Clinton: It's My Fault Trump is President

Hillary Clinton has said she blames herself for Donald Trump’s election victory, suggesting she should have seen the Brexit vote in the U.K. as a warning sign about the potential of a Trump presidency.
Speaking to The Sunday Times, the former presidential hopeful said she had been surprised by the results of the November 2016 election; indeed polls largely universally predicted a victory for the Democrat ahead of the vote.
“I thought I’d be a damn good president, I did not think I was going to lose,” Clinton told the publication. “I feel a terrible sense of responsibility for not having figured out how to defeat this person. There must have been a way and I didn't find it."

Fucking finally.
 
That's all I ever wanted to hear— Clinton admitting she fucked up. She can admit that there were other factors, because there obviously were— nothing exists in a vacuum in this world— but as long as she finally understands that it came back to her own faults, IT'S DONE.
 
And you know, I had already accepted that I'd likely never hear such words stated because admitting that she and the DNC were at fault was clearly too vulgar of a suggestion. 
 
But you know something, how sickening it is that Clinton admitting that she was at fault with the 2016 election is a breath of fresh air. Trump just can never admit he can do wrong, so it's right back to exasperatedly throwing up my hands not more than five minutes later.


  • Cody930 likes this
Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: 2016, United States, Presidential Election, Blue collar voters, Evangelicals, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Donald Trump, White supremacists

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users