Study: Hillary Clinton’s TV ads were almost entirely policy-free

[Fogdog]

The ones I've talked to did it for social and economic reasons. They really believed Trump about everyone getting covered and cheaper (healthcare), more job growth, lower taxes for just the middle class and reduced debt (I know, they are literally retarded), closing loopholes, cutting regulation (policy they don't even understand), building the wall, banning Muslims, shutting down BLM, and returning America to Reagan.

There is a pretty good study that shows most people who voted for Trump was due to his racist and sexist policies and language.

http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf

The study uses survey questions to identify how voters felt about different issues and compared those results to how they voted. This is different from asking why they voted, so it's quite possible to say "I voted because economic issues" when it turned out the voter wasn't all that motivated by economic anxiety.

Anyway, if you take a look at the report, you will see where I'm coming from. I too listened to the punditry after the election that talked about economic anxiety as the reason. This study says different and it's pretty convincing.

It's a whole lot better method than the stupid opinion polls that Pad keeps parroting without really understanding. That said the word is "most", so there is plenty of wiggle room to say that not everybody voted for Trump because of his racist and sexist policies. That said, I don't know how somebody who values racial economic and social justice can vote for Trump.

 

[Padawanbater2]

There is a pretty good study that shows most people who voted for Trump was due to his racist and sexist policies and language.

http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf

You just said opinion polls don't matter, now you cite an opinion poll to prove your point

 

[Fogdog]

The people that voted for TEA Party Republicans during Obama's administration were not the same people who support populist left positions. Obama and the Democrats didn't offer them anything of substance after he was elected, so they stayed home during the midterms. Obama earned nearly 5 million more votes in 2008 than he did in 2012 after 4 years governing.

Americans consistently support progressive positions when it comes to policy issues, except on the 2nd amendment and capital punishment.

The people who are voting are not progressive. Progressives largely stay home because they're not interested in voting for an establishment Democrat

Trump won because of the white working class in the rust belt

Fortunately, Obama is inept and the left wing congress is unable to mount enough votes to pass the radical left's legislation. This is giving Republicans a chance to turn the tides. Not because states are suddenly thirsting for radical right wing policies but because the radical left currently in control is too far left. -Republicans in 2009

Sanders receives standing ovations in deep red states like West Virginia from deeply conservative voters who identify with his positions on policy

The Tea Party is not an aberration. They will continue to vote.

You, on the other hand have imagined from nothing a progressive non-voting majority across the country that is thirsting for liberal progressive revolution in this country. Yet, only 13 million people showed up for Sanders. LOL That's his base of support. That's it. Maybe some others will join but the size of your voting population is tiny. Also, if anything like you, confused as well.

Obama and the 111th Democratic controlled Congress made every other Congress since then look like chumps. The voters in this country brought in conservatives who filibustered hope and change.

 

[PCXV]

There is a pretty good study that shows most people who voted for Trump was due to his racist and sexist policies and language.

http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf

The study uses survey questions to identify how voters felt about different issues and compared those results to how they voted. This is different from asking why they voted, so it's quite possible to say "I voted because economic issues" when it turned out the voter wasn't all that motivated by economic anxiety.

Anyway, if you take a look at the report, you will see where I'm coming from. I too listened to the punditry after the election that talked about economic anxiety as the reason. This study says different and it's pretty convincing.

It's a whole lot better method than the stupid opinion polls that Pad keeps parroting without really understanding. That said the word is "most", so there is plenty of wiggle room to say that not everybody voted for Trump because of his racist and sexist policies. That said, I don't know how somebody who values racial economic and social justice can vote for Trump.

I believe it was an identity thing above all as well; their ideal of patriarchal white nationalism. Maybe some were stupid enough to fall for the economic schtick, though Trump changed his economic message based on audience, the majority that voted Trump for patriarchal white nationalism used economic arguments as a device to conceal those other motivations when they were bothered to (when talking with people skeptical of Trump). It is a common thread with my conservative friends and family. You can tell even they don't believe it or avoid it all together. Fox talking points were never deeply economic, and the average Trump voters brainwashed perspective reflects that.

 

[Padawanbater2]

You, on the other hand have made up a progressive non-voting majority across the country that is thirsting for liberal progressive revolution in this country. Yet, only 13 million people showed up for Sanders. LOL That's his base of support. That's it. Maybe some others will join but the size of your voting population is tiny. Also, listening to you, confused too.

 

[UncleBuck]

You just said opinion polls don't matter, now you cite an opinion poll to prove your point

53% of people may be of the opinion that they approve of bernie, but that opinion poll does not mean they will vote for bernie. they didn't.

i approve of bernie but didn't vote for him because he didn't win. hillary did. by about 4 million votes.

and in the same state where bernie won when 200,000 people voted, hillary clobbered him when 800,000 people voted.

fogdog's "opinion poll" isn't the same as your opinion poll. he cited research about why people who voted for trump, voted for trump. it is much different than the stuff you are citing to convince us that bernie is the most popular politician of all time who got clobbered handily by hillary clinton while she treated him with kid gloves.

 

[Fogdog]

You just said opinion polls don't matter, now you cite an opinion poll to prove your point

You prove my point that you don't understand what you are talking about. Your opinion poll is just that. It's a simple question with a simple yes or no. They are interesting and not invalid, but they are abysmal at predicting voting behavior.

The paper that I've linked to is a survey that characterizes a respondents' attitudes about in this case economic concerns, sexist attitudes and racist leanings. It then looks for relationships between the respondent's attitudes and their vote. They use statistics in a sophisticated way to validate study results also build a model to further test ideas. It is also not claiming to predict future behavior but the survey is an effective tool for understanding why Trump won.

 

[Fogdog]

I believe it was an identity thing above all as well; their ideal of patriarchal white nationalism. Maybe some were stupid enough to fall for the economic schtick, though Trump changed his economic message based on audience, the majority that voted Trump for patriarchal white nationalism used economic arguments as a device to conceal those other motivations when they were bothered to (when talking with people skeptical of Trump). It is a common thread with my conservative friends and family. You can tell even they don't believe it or avoid it all together. Fox talking points were never deeply economic, and the average Trump voters brainwashed perspective reflects that.

Yep, totally agree. You said it better that I.

Contrast what you said with Pad's idea that Trumps win means the country is thirsting for a liberal revolution.

 

[Fogdog]

You are such an idiot, Pad

I take it you think this somehow proves there is a pool of non-voting progressives thirsting to vote for a liberal progressive revolution. Wishful thinking.

LOL. 13 million people voted for Sanders. That's it. That's your wave of progressive independents who are thirsting for Sanders' policies. Not even that, however, because I am a long time registered and voting Democrat who voted for Sanders so your pool of independent voters is much less than 13 million. LOL

 

[travisw]

Cherry picking is fun. Your graph stops at 2015. Do you already know what happens if you add 2016?

The headline for the poll you used from 2015 says:
Democratic, Republican Identification Near Historical Lows

The headline from the poll I used from 2016 says:
Independent Political ID in U.S. Lowest in Six Years

 

[abandonconflict]

You prove my point that you don't understand what you are talking about. Your opinion poll is just that. It's a simple question with a simple yes or no. They are interesting and not invalid, but they are abysmal at predicting voting behavior.

The paper that I've linked to is a survey that characterizes a respondents' attitudes about in this case economic concerns, sexist attitudes and racist leanings. It then looks for relationships between the respondent's attitudes and their vote. They use statistics in a sophisticated way to validate study results also build a model to further test ideas. It is also not claiming to predict future behavior but the survey is an effective tool for understanding why Trump won.

You have to keep things extremely simple for that guy. Nuances are always his weak point. I was going to step in there but your argument covers it. Still, he won't understand.

Polls: meaningless as a predictor for election results and even more so in regards to perceived popularity.

Also polls: meaningful in some other cases.

I'm sure he'll call it a strawman or something.

 

[PCXV]

Yep, totally agree. You said it better that I.

Contrast what you said with Pad's idea that Trumps win means the country is thirsting for a liberal revolution.

If they are, they don't know it. There is some truth to what Pad is saying, some parts of his posts make sense. I don't view pad or tty as an enemy but only when they make it that way. I don't mind most of the progressive changes they want to bring to the Democratic party but they must also understand the socially liberal side of Democrats and understand it enough to adopt it. Both sides have to feel at least somewhat validated.

 

[Fogdog]

If they are, they don't know it. There is some truth to what Pad is saying, some parts of his posts make sense. I don't view pad or tty as an enemy but only when they make it that way. I don't mind most of the progressive changes they want to bring to the Democratic party but they must also understand the socially liberal side of Democrats and understand it enough to adopt it. Both sides have to feel at least somewhat validated.

I think Bernie babies like Pad and tty did harm Clinton's chances of winning by their repeating right wing lies about her. I also think they are not pushing anything new in the Democratic Party. The Democratic party is a coalition of moderates and progressive liberals who value ethnic and gender diversity. Bernies babies are pushing a single agenda -- an economic agenda while downplaying racial justice policies and the women's rights movement. I don't disagree with the economic policies, I just think that it is insufficient. I've said all along that I like Bernie, I just don't like this vocal minority that is unwilling to work with other people to achieve common goals and who demand that black people, Hispanic people and women should put their issues on the back burner "for the common good".

Also, I object to their repeating right wing propaganda about the Democratic party. Lies that are repeated without counter argument become common belief. So, their repeating "corrupt Democrats", "Democrats don't support universal healthcare", "rigged election" and so forth has to be pointed out as false or else it becomes the common narrative. This is harmful to the cause of stopping Trump and his Republican party. I actually can't see how this can be validated to make them feel comfortable.

 

[Fogdog]

Polls: meaningless as a predictor for election results and even more so in regards to perceived popularity.

Also polls: meaningful in some other cases.

.

Yes, those polls that Pad likes to tout are useful in some ways, just not to predict upcoming election results.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I don't view pad or tty as an enemy but only when they make it that way.

Could you clarify what you mean by that?

I don't mind most of the progressive changes they want to bring to the Democratic party but they must also understand the socially liberal side of Democrats and understand it enough to adopt it.

By embracing a progressive economic message, it encompasses socially liberal solutions that primarily affect minorities and the most disadvantaged. By demanding a $15 minimum wage, it benefits minorities and poor people the most. So when someone makes the claim that supporting economic solutions that raise the wages of minorities doesn't affect the issue of racism, tell them they're demonstrably wrong

I think Bernie babies like Pad and tty did harm Clinton's chances of winning by their repeating right wing lies about her.

Like what? What are the unsubstantiated "right wing lies" I levied against Clinton during the campaign? Cite at least a couple examples.

I also think they are not pushing anything new in the Democratic Party.

Universal healthcare, universal college, a $15/hour minimum wage.. all new

Bernies babies are pushing a single agenda -- an economic agenda while downplaying racial justice policies and the women's rights movement.

The agenda promoted by Sanders supporters encompasses racial justice and womens rights. That's why there are more Justice Democrats who are women and POC than white males. How can one claim Sanders supporters are "downplaying racial justice policies" by supporting more women of color than white men?

I don't disagree with the economic policies, I just think that it is insufficient.

I've asked you repeatedly what you believe is sufficient to stifle racism. The only thing you've come up with so far is what ultimately amounts to restricting free speech, citing Germany as an example without explaining how to transition from the 1st amendment in America to a kind of German alternative that would be successful in the kind of melting pot society that we have that Germany doesn't

I've said all along that I like Bernie, I just don't like this vocal minority that is unwilling to work with other people to achieve common goals and who demand that black people, Hispanic people and women should put their issues on the back burner "for the common good".

Clinton supporters are the ones unwilling to work with other people to achieve common goals. The left is already unified under common goals

Also, I object to their repeating right wing propaganda about the Democratic party.

Example(s)?

Lies that are repeated without counter argument become common belief. So, their repeating "corrupt Democrats", "Democrats don't support universal healthcare", "rigged election" and so forth has to be pointed out as false or else it becomes the common narrative.

Democrats were corrupt in 2016 during the Democratic primary. Democrats like Feinstein don't support universal healthcare, according to her own words.. The election was rigged according to the head of the DNC..

This is harmful to the cause of stopping Trump and his Republican party.

No shit, pointing out how the Democratic establishment has corrupted the party is harmful to the cause of stopping Trump. Stop corrupting the party you fucking asshat. Us pointing out how you've corrupted the party is not what's corrupting the party. YOU CORRUPTING THE FUCKING PARTY IS WHAT HAS CORRUPTED THE PARTY!

You gave Republicans something to point to and say "See, they're just as corrupt as us!"

 

[UncleBuck]

What are the unsubstantiated "right wing lies" I levied against Clinton during the campaign? Cite at least a couple examples.

we do then you ask us to do it all over again a few days later.

that ronan guy you wanted to run the DNC is running as a republican.

 

[UncleBuck]

The election was rigged according to the head of the DNC..

she said the exact opposite but you won't let that stop you from lying constantly, will ya?

 

[schuylaar]

what's in a name?

i was thinking just this last night, that progressives should start running as a republican against other republicans but his platform will be what working class republicans really want- progressive policy..it's a red state and that's how he can get in the game..brilliant!

 

[schuylaar]

The ones I've talked to did it for social and economic reasons. They really believed Trump about everyone getting covered and cheaper (healthcare), more job growth, lower taxes for just the middle class and reduced debt (I know, they are literally retarded), closing loopholes, cutting regulation (policy they don't even understand), building the wall, banning Muslims, shutting down BLM, and returning America to Reagan.

people need to join reality; there's no turning the clock back.

 

[schuylaar]

she said the exact opposite but you won't let that stop you from lying constantly, will ya?

View attachment 4046442

so legit..this coming from the person who handed clinton questions in advance of primary debate.

i trust her as far as i can throw her fat blubber purple-headed body.