Nip in t'bud.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 33931
  • Start date Start date
Yes JJ, it's exactly what politicos in representative democracies do. They spout some words that they think will get votes then.....with very few exceptions. Very few, so few I can't think of any that stick to their words! Maybe the more extreme ones like thatcher?
 
Jackoftrades said:
You did. But although you proved it with statistics, you failed to show how the vote had changed geographically.

So both facts cant support your theory, sorry
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly, 5 states swung. States where Clinton did next to no campaigning. Which led to her vote dropping out.
 
Jackoftrades said:
You did. But although you proved it with statistics, you failed to show how the vote had changed geographically.
Click to expand...
Obviously ,, the vote has changed somewhere along the line, otherwise it would be President Clinton (wouldn't it?)
 
joinerjohn1 said:
Did you ever see Cameron with a pint of best in his hand? Nah,, Even left his daughter in the pub when he'd forgot about her. :D:D:D:D
PS, I've never had the chance to vote for our Nigel, as I live in the wrong constituency.
Click to expand...


So the beer in his hand did seriously influence your thoughts?
 
Actually I believe Cameron and several other 'politicos' have been pictured supping a pint, political advisors saw Nige and advised accordingly.
 
Jackoftrades said:
So the beer in his hand did seriously influence your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Not at all JoT... Lighten up a bit, it's only a forum. Even you would have to admit, Nigel's got more charisma than Cameron, May, Corbyn and most other MP's put together.
 
fillyboy said:
Actually I believe Cameron and several other 'politicos' have been pictured supping a pint, political advisors saw Nige and advised accordingly.
Click to expand...
Yeah , probably spits it out after taking a sip. :p:p:p:p
 
Whilst I've never been able to bring myself to vote for Nige, I did come close, I do admire him and would say he's achieved more in British politics in the last
30 years than any other politician, his achievement was the referendum.
 
fillyboy said:
Whilst I've never been able to bring myself to vote for Nige, I did come close, I do admire him and would say he's achieved more in British politics in the last
30 years than any other politician, his achievement was the referendum.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.

I despise the guy and everything he represents. I despise his manner, his dishonest glib posturing, his ugly gurning face, his hypocrisy, his lack of political dignity, his offensive manner, his borderline racism, his pretence at representing 'the people'.

Whether he might say some things I might agree with becomes a moot point, an irrelevance - you can find points of agreement with virtually every person regardless of political leaning. Overall he represents everything I despise.

I hate the man. Loath him.
 
I bet you just hate his speeches in the EU parliament , telling them exactly how it is too.. Dontcha. :p:p:p:p:p:p
 
Devil's Advocate said:
Hmmm.

I despise the guy and everything he represents. I despise his manner, his dishonest glib posturing, his ugly gurning face, his hypocrisy, his lack of political dignity, his offensive manner, his borderline racism, his pretence at representing 'the people'.

Whether he might say some things I might agree with becomes a moot point, an irrelevance - you can find points of agreement with virtually every person regardless of political leaning. Overall he represents everything I despise.

I hate the man. Loath him.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I agree with you, he does have charisma.;)
But without him, we wouldn't have had a referendum, I can sense you're not a fan of democracy so that may not have suited you. But the fact is, He forced
Cameron, a man whose sole achievements in office were gay marriage and a tax on carrier bags, to hold a referendum on our future in the EU.
It was a referendum that no wanted, least of all the Tories, but the people did want it, and the majority won, you need to get over it.
 
Jackoftrades said:
So the beer in his hand did seriously influence your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Very probably.

It certainly has others. How many times have you heard people say things like "Well, at least Farage is one of us - and he's an honest bloke, not like these other MPs."

I have heard this said - far too often.

I try to imagine the thought processes going on inside these people's heads - it defies belief.
 
Jackoftrades said:
Look at it on a map.

You might see my point
Click to expand...
OK, I figured it may be wise to have a look at this from a clean slate point of view. Assuming that my claim was neither right nor wrong.
I've had a good mooch around online and to be fair, it's not easy to get to the bottom of it. Most sites present politicized opinions and speculation rather than detail and fact. One thing that I did find is that when the final tallies were done, Clinton actually got nearly 66 million votes, Trump nearly 63, others got nearly 8. So my earlier figures were 'off'.

This is a good spreadsheet, it simply lays out the votes, margins and shifts:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true

Sadly that spreadsheet doesn't actually make it really easy, it doesn't show the votes per party in each State for 2012, just the swing and I really can't be arsed to do the maths!

Overall voter turnout was up 5.9% compared to 2012!

It would seem wise to only look at the swing States, more specifically the states that did in fact swing. There was a Swing toward the Republicans in all the other swing States too, barring Arizona but not enough to 'take the State'.
From the spreadsheet this gives:
Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
One thing becomes clear immediately, that these States didn't swing due to a depressed turnout. Turnout was in fact up in these states compared to 2012, barring Iowa, Ohio and Wisconsin which saw slight falls in voter numbers...not nearly enough to account for the swings that took place in those States though.

So with that on the table, I have to concede that my previous theory that Trump won because people in these States who would normally vote Democrat chose to stay at home that day and Republicans just voted as per usual...is indeed wrong. X

In Florida there was an 11% rise in turnout (1 million extra votes) and a 2.1% swing to the Republicans, leaving a margin of 1.2% in favour of the Republicans. The 'others' in Florida only got 300,000 votes so for rough analasys it would be fair to leave them out of it. (Even if they had got 0 votes in 2012 that would still leave 700,000 extra votes for the two main parties in 2016)

So both Clinton and Trump got more votes than Obama and Romney did in 2012 in Florida.
Trump gained more new votes than Clinton.

Confirming that as far as Florida goes, yup, I was wrong....the situation is indeed more complex.

In Iowa, there was a slight fall in turnout, -1%. This doesn't account for the 15% swing to the Republicans though...by a long way

So again, in Iowa...I was wrong...

I'm not going to go on stating that :D

But the same story plays out in the other swing States really.

So Trump did indeed get extra votes in these key States, on top of the regular died in the wool Republican voters that can always be relied upon to come out and vote.
So did Clinton but not enough.

So it appears that Trump did indeed manage to use his exploitation of 'populist' rhetoric to play on the concerns of enough of the electorate in the Rust Belt (and Florida) to get him a victory. Of course there's more to it than that, far more but it no doubt had an effect.

This of course leads onto more questions :)
A big one being, If Bernie Sanders had been the Democratic nominee would his left wing 'populist' message have triumphed over Trump in these States?
 
Well done pjt.

Sort of confirms the old maxim. Lies, damn lies and statistics o_O
 
It must be remembered though that this was a handful of States. The vast majority of the USA voted the same as they have done before.
The vast majority of the people in the swing states probably voted the same as before.
So, when commentators claim that there is a new tide of protectionist, nationalist, racist, fascist thought in the USA, they are being incredibly disingenuous, no?
The people of the USA haven't changed that much at all really. There is no rising tide of anything!
There was just a clever game played by one candidate to gain support in a few key areas and a poor game played by the other in those same areas.
That's how Trump got to be POTUS.
 
P J Thompson said:
It must be remembered though that this was a handful of States. The vast majority of the USA voted the same as they have done before.
The vast majority of the people in the swing states probably voted the same as before.
So, when commentators claim that there is a new tide of protectionist, nationalist, racist, fascist thought in the USA, they are being incredibly disingenuous, no?
The people of the USA haven't changed that much at all really. There is no rising tide of anything!
There was just a clever game played by one candidate to gain support in a few key areas and a poor game played by the other in those same areas.
That's how Trump got to be POTUS.
Click to expand...


A very clever game.

The seizing of the new word/expression, and using it against the very people that thought they were voting for.

A point that was made several threads ago, and still remains true.
 
To be fair, it's nothing new is it. It's just the way politics is done.
In the run up to an election you spout anything that your advisers think will win votes, then after the election you can ignore pretty much everything you said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top