Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 261: Schiff Happens

(+) Yeah! (+)

You guys are something else. Lol.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Thanks for your opinion. The gap was significant also between Clinton and Trump on women up through most of the election cycle til the end where it narrowed significantly.

Literally every poll I'm seeing has the gender gap in the 13-16% range and it ultimately ended up being 22% in 2016. And the only reason it wasn't bigger in 2018 is because how much men moved to the left.

The Republican party is officially men only, and they legit need to run up the score with uneducated men because they lose every other Demo.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

Literally every poll I'm seeing has the gender gap in the 13-16% range and it ultimately ended up being 22% in 2016. And the only reason it wasn't bigger in 2018 is because how much men moved to the left.

The Republican party is officially men only, and they legit need to run up the score with uneducated men because they lose every other Demo.

Ignore gender gap. Stick to what your main theme was. Women's percentage gap.

Trumps gap if your numbers are correct was less of a gap than Romney's based on that article.

The women gap was 24%+ in Clinton's favor before the election. You claimed it finished at 10%.

Thus, it closed significantly. All through the election, they stated that women would win the election for Hillary but the numbers tightened significantly.

And, that was with a woman candidate. I suspect you will be close to 2016 numbers. Definitely not larger than 2018.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I like how rock just blatantly insults corrik as if that is a acceptable.

Wtf

i mean, corrik has insinuated that liberals are idiots.

you reap what you sow!

---

TheRock1525 posted...

Literally every poll I'm seeing has the gender gap in the 13-16% range and it ultimately ended up being 22% in 2016.

The 2012 election ended with
the largest gender gap in history. Mitt Romney won among men by 8 points, 54% to 46%, but lost among women by twelve points, 56% to 44% yielding a whopping 20-point gender gap.

In a Pew poll from early July, Clinton was beating Trump by 24 percentage points among women and Trump was beating Clinton among 6 points among men
yielding a 30 point gender gap. In a
Monmouth University poll from late June Clintons lead among women was 27 points and Trumps lead among men was 13 points. And in a Public Policy Polling release from late June, Clintons lead among women 15 points while Trumps lead among men was 11 points.

Literally every poll? 30, 40, 26 gender gaps.

---

Peace___Frog posted...

Forgive me, if you're concerned about decorum and being polite, then you're also dumb.

I am all for a good insult every now and again, but this topic series really hammers home how people like Corrik are "the worst" a lot etc and then displays the very worst in discussion tendencies! I hope Corrik is wrong for example, but there is unfortunately a likelyhood of what he says being a bit accurate.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i mean, corrik has insinuated that liberals are idiots.

you reap what you sow!

I think you may be a bit busy being a monster in the Kobe topic to multitask right now!

---

It's not a surprise more women vote Democrat, when Republicans want to deny rights to women. Republicans don't want them to have rights to their own bodies, they don't want them to have Equal Rights, they don't want them to have equal pay. They definitely don't understand women either.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I think you may be a bit busy being a monster in the Kobe topic to multitask right now!

sir chris: therock just blatantly insulted corrik wtf
also sir chris: lasa is a monster

---

In fairness a lot of women don't want those equal rights either! It does intrigue me though, wondering about the future of the Republican party as the years go by. Would probably help to have a populist left president who isn't beholden to big money interests for awhile though, that'd really kill off the Republicans fast.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

sir chris: therock just blatantly insulted corrik wtf
also sir chris: lasa is a monster

That's the joke.jpg

---

As less of the population is religious and the republican party clings to the religious aspect, it will bleed women support. In presidential elections, women I think tend to trend towards their husbands (if they have one) which is why I think Presidential elections are likely closer than what I expect from off year ones.

Presidential elections for better or worse are viewed as having more of an impact on the family's jobs and finances.

The day and age will come when this will change, but I don't think we are quite there yet.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

That's the joke.jpg

oh. well, it wasn't funny. it also added nothing to the discussion.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Eh, I think the women vote will not be far off from 2016.

Also what was the shift from men from 2016 to 2018? 2018 was a midterm election and the party in power always does worse in those historically. It wouldnt surprise me to see every demographic shift towards democrats in that scenario.

---

I chuckled, and really that's the only person I care about when I am in these topics! Much healthier that way in my experience.


---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Also what was the shift from men from 2016 to 2018? 2018 was a midterm election and the party in power always does worse in those historically. It wouldnt surprise me to see every demographic shift towards democrats in that scenario.

I mean, it definitely shifted that direction I am sure.

By Rock's comparisons I should argue women will have a smaller gap than 2016 in 2020 because Trump closed the gap from 2012 when Romney ran. Lol.

Realistically, it will probably be closer to 2016. Maybe in the 12-14% area. I do expect it to slightenly widen depending on the candidate.

---

Corrik conveniently ignoring how the entire electorate moved right thanks to Comey's last minute screwjob on Clinton. That poll you cite has Trump only +6 with men but he ultimately finished +12.

In this coming election, there's significantly less undecided voters and the electorate is much closer to set, hence why Trump's polling never moves beyond a certain number, or how 538 could almost predict the election results to a T.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

Corrik conveniently ignoring how the entire electorate moved right thanks to Comey's last minute screwjob on Clinton. That poll you cite has Trump only +6 with men but he ultimately finished +12.

In this coming election, there's significantly less undecided voters and the electorate is much closer to set, hence why Trump's polling never moves beyond a certain number, or how 538 could almost predict the election results to a T.

So, you ignored the polling you didn't want to see in order to continue your point. Okay. You just said you literally didn't see any polling that said what I said. I linked you it. Then even pulled the numbers out for you because you still said they don't exist. Now you are completely talking about something else.

Was there not a Comey screwjob in your own numbers? That only happened after I showed polling to talk about what I was saying?

Come on, now. You don't have to agree, but to say someone is stupid for expecting the gap to close as the election gets closer is a tad silly.

---

It's not about whether the gap will close, it's that the gender gap is polling at insanely high levels, higher than any poll you can cite. Clinton was on average 5.9 points higher than Trump heading into October 28th (aka Comey's Letter), after which it became 2.9 points (or within the margin for error).

The point is that even a "tightening" wouldn't offset the huge disadvantage Trump has with women. That +24 is likely a +14 without the Comey letter on election day, and seeing a +30 right now could put the female gender gap around +20 on election night, especially since you'd have a really hard time explaining how Trump has won over any new female voters since 2016.

---

Corrik's point is valid, and the difference is probably not as pronounced as polling suggests, but I see clear growth in the intervening years since 2016, and that's what I think Rock is arguing here.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

It's not about whether the gap will close, it's that the gender gap is polling at insanely high levels, higher than any poll you can cite. Clinton was on average 5.9 points higher than Trump heading into October 28th (aka Comey's Letter), after which it became 2.9 points (or within the margin for error).

The point is that even a "tightening" wouldn't offset the huge disadvantage Trump has with women. That +24 is likely a +14 without the Comey letter on election day, and seeing a +30 right now could put the female gender gap around +20 on election night, especially since you'd have a really hard time explaining how Trump has won over any new female voters since 2016.

You are correct the female vote gap is higher. The closest I can cite is 27 and 24 in that article. That is not extremely far off, and again this is a poll taken during the leadup to democratic primaries before even the election is set. I'd assume it would tighten just naturally when you have candidates 1 on 1.

---

Trump hasn't broadened his appeal any, but I'm sure that'll change once the election gets closer. He'll start pandering to groups other than his core base. The question is: How many people are gullible enough to believe a word that comes out of a Pathological Liar? Especially when they've seen for themselves what he's done.

---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Corrik's point is valid, and the difference is probably not as pronounced as polling suggests, but I see clear growth in the intervening years since 2016, and that's what I think Rock is arguing here.

Well there has only been one substantial election since 2016 and it is a cycle democrats would have been predicted to do better with every demographic regardless who the republcan standard barer was. I think it is too early to draw any conclusions just yet.

---

Generally speaking, women are majority liberal and men are majority conservative.

In terms of shifting demographics I'd pay attention to that first since the upcoming generation is more conservative than its predecessor already.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

Trump hasn't broadened his appeal any, but I'm sure that'll change once the election gets closer. He'll start pandering to groups other than his core base. The question is: How many people are gullible enough to believe a word that comes out of a Pathological Liar? Especially when they've seen for themselves what he's done.

Trump promised a lot of things in 2016. He promised to be the best president ever for LGBT people. He's been one of the worst, actually. He promised to protect social security. He hasn't cut it yet, but if the leaks are right he's planning to cut it in his second term. He both promised to be a pacifist president, and promised to commit war crimes. I can definitely see how someone would be suckered into voting for him in 2016, but realize he was lying about stuff they cared about and vote against him in 2020. In 2020 he won't be able to get away with promising different things to different audiences; he has a record now.

That said, I thought the same thing about George W Bush back in the day. In 2000, ok, people thought he was a bit stupid, got his grammar backwards sometimes, I wasn't a fan of how dynastic his candidacy seemed, or how he was a favourite to win the primary just because he had more personal money than the other candidates to spend on the primary, but he didn't seem terrible or anything.

In 2004 he had started two wars, Afghanistan at least was justified but it was obvious there were no WMDs in Iraq. First time the US had ever attacked a country without UN approval. This guy is obviously a disaster the people will vote him out right? Right? (Spilers: apparently not).

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Well there has only been one substantial election since 2016 and it is a cycle democrats would have been predicted to do better with every demographic regardless who the republcan standard barer was. I think it is too early to draw any conclusions just yet.

Totally fair, totally fair. At the same time, we are seeing retention of those numbers out of the midterms, where normally we would see a decline in the opposition to the incumbent.

---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Totally fair, totally fair. At the same time, we are seeing retention of those numbers out of the midterms, where normally we would see a decline in the opposition to the incumbent.

Probably not til the match up is set.

---

I think it's more accurate than the fabled Generic Dem though!

---

Kinglicious posted...

In terms of shifting demographics I'd pay attention to that first since the upcoming generation is more conservative than its predecessor already.

First I'd heard of that, so I went reading:

https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-z-changes-political-divides-2019-7

And...yes and no? Most of gen z actually doesn't identify with a political party (and among those that do roughly equal number identify with republicans as democrats). So in that sense they could be argued as to the right of millenials since millenials identify with democrats much more than republicans. Buuuuut on the issues they're often to the left of millenials. Issues such as

• Climate Change
• LGBT rights
• Non-binary people existing
• Marijuana legalization
• Disliking Trump in particular

Notably not some other stuff, though. Among gen Z conservatives, anti-PC memes are all the rage apparently. And while it mentions Stoneman Douglass High it doesn't say that Gen Z is particularly united on gun control.

So...I mean, republicans probably could pick up votes from this generation, but they might need to change a few party positions. (And if they do change positions, great, maybe if they change enough positions I'll be able to take them seriously as a party myself).

---

I've heard that before, but my understanding is that - yeah - when you look at the issues they are very much to the left and basically in the same league as millennials and rumors of some snapback to the right are grossly overstated.

---

None of them are 25 yet so who cares since they wont vote
---

Jakyl25 posted...

None of them are 25 yet so who cares since they wont vote

Well they've at least been better about organizing so there's that.

And yeah the whole Gen Z being more conservative isnt well-supported as far as I can tell. What probably helps contribute is that as mentioned, Gen Z is less likely to trust the major political parties. Also (and unfortunately I can't find the data for this), young white males still have a fairly conservative skew. Gen Z is the most diverse generation but that obviously is going to affect results. But on the whole they're politically similar to millennials.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/01/17/generation-z-looks-a-lot-like-millennials-on-key-social-and-political-issues/

---

Horrible SCOTUS ruling:

https://twitter.com/gregstohr/status/1221861932929601536?s=21

---

Thats the sort of thing thats probably accurate by the letter of the law, just awful in spirit
---

I thought the rhetoric sounded far below the usual standard for SCOTUS opinions. An actual quote from the Gorsuch opinion: "If all of this is confusing, don't worry, because none of it matters much at this point."

Like really? That sounds like shoddy journalism from Yahoo News or CNN. Gorsuch and the majority are probably right about the inappropriateness of district court judges trying to issue national injunctions, but that writing is disappointing.

---

On a different note, Trump has unquestionably been the best President for LGBT people. He is literally the only President who supported their equality with other people. Even Obama ran on a platform to the contrary, until he later "evolved" years into his presidency.

---

Corrik7 posted...

As less of the population is religious and the republican party clings to the religious aspect, it will bleed women support. In presidential elections, women I think tend to trend towards their husbands (if they have one) which is why I think Presidential elections are likely closer than what I expect from off year ones.

Presidential elections for better or worse are viewed as having more of an impact on the family's jobs and finances.

The day and age will come when this will change, but I don't think we are quite there yet.

Women tend to be more religious than men. Go to an evangelical church and you'll find that women by and large run the operation - although they have men to be the public faces of the church.

---

didn't he try to ban transgender people from the military on twitter

---

FFDragon posted...

didn't he try to ban transgender people from the military on twitter

Is that different from the other 44?

---

the twitter part for sure

---

FFDragon posted...

didn't he try to ban transgender people from the military on twitter

Not just try. Its apparently gone into effect. See the table near the end here for specifics:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_personnel_in_the_United_States_military#Service_ban_announcement_by_the_President

---

Unless there is a specific act of Congress, the Commander in Chief can do whatever he wants with military personnel, at any time. He can fire all transgendered soldiers, he can make all left-handed privates generals. He's the boss.

Maybe that will make people think harder about how they vote next time?

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Unless there is a specific act of Congress, the Commander in Chief can do whatever he wants with military personnel, at any time. He can fire all transgendered soldiers, he can make all left-handed privates generals. He's the boss.

Maybe that will make people think harder about how they vote next time?

I don't think we were talking about legality. And if we were, the commander in chief at a minimum owes his soldiers the same duty the King owed to those serving under him.

---

Reading through the wiki article I had forgotten that Trump had literally done this to try and free up fucking wall money.

---

About the 18-year-old Georgia boy who was deported to Mexico who came to the US at age 1 and most of whose family are US citizens - he is remarkably collected when talking to the media and blames himself for making some small mistakes that led to getting arrested for very minor crimes. I think he should be allowed to return.

---

https://twitter.com/maggienyt/status/1221789190725283840?s=21

Hmm, its almost as though theres a lesson to be learned here!

---

Listening to Tucker Carlson basically slurp-up Bernie Sanders makes me want not vote for him.

---

Dont worry, he will 180 his opinion if Sanders wins the nomination

---

Bernie appeals to the right without compromising policy. It is the dream!

But yes tucker won't be very nice in the general

---

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1221970293532643329?s=21

President Trump was effectively granting personal favors to autocrats

---