IMO, this election wasn't about Democrats that crossed over as some say. It was about Democrats staying home. Both candidates received less votes I believe than the winner and loser in the last two elections did.

 

Democratic message was all about trying to disqualify Trump in the eyes of voters through fear (see all of the stories of people saying they are scared or afraid) of a Trump presidency.

 

Trump called Clinton a criminal, but also spent a lot of time on other issues.

 

There were some democrats that crossed over absolutely but that didn't determine the outcome.

 

Neither drove significant turnout numbers, it was the lack of turnout by uninspired democrats that determined this election.

 

So you are saying that the democrats will get the rural vote again once they inspire the folks who stayed home? Am I correct in this assessment?

Quite frankly, JJ, it is not the liberal agenda I believe caused the problem. It was not as liberal as most perceive it. Now if Bernie was the nominee, it would have been that liberal agenda.

 

Most of the Dems that voted for Trump probably were not concerned he was going to take on gay rights, abortion, and those types of social issues because in reality those Dems are not for the entire liberal agenda whatever that is. Those Dems just want government to keep their nose out of those things. They will watch closely if DJT really deals with immigration, security and economics as he says he will. If Christianity becomes front and center and the hate issues arise with minorities, he will lose their vote and support and you won't know until the next election.

 

Those are the silent votes he received. They will silently watch, also. Don't worry about the protesters and the ultra liberals they will not change. Worry about those that want governing not politics as usual.

 

I have no idea if this is what you are talking about, though.

IMO, this election wasn't about Democrats that crossed over as some say. It was about Democrats staying home. Both candidates received less votes I believe than the winner and loser in the last two elections did.

 

 

2016 will exceed 2012 in total votes cast but not by much. However, as a % of eligible voters it was about the same as 2012 and below 2008.

 

The states that saw more turnout as compared to 2012 went R.

 

Essentially, PA WI and MI won the election for Donald Trump. Specifically, the western part of each of those won the election as they switched from supporting Obama in 2008 and 2012 to supporting Trump in 2016.

 

As you point out the urban areas of those states did not turn out like they did in 08 and 12.

 

Trump won those 3 states by a total of about 115K votes.

So you are saying that the democrats will get the rural vote again once they inspire the folks who stayed home? Am I correct in this assessment?

 

I don't think that will ever happen. However I do feel both parties lost the moderate voter this time around. Let's face it, If Kasich had been the R candidate, I think he would have won in a landslide vs Clinton. If Biden had been the D candidate, he would have won in a landslide vs Trump.

 

I would like to think there is a core value in the majority of voters that wants what is best for the country...Neither party gave that to us this year...

 

That is why I took your lead from almost a year ago @Purplepride and began researching 3rd party votes as a way to show my displeasure about what is going on in Washington.

So you are saying that the democrats will get the rural vote again once they inspire the folks who stayed home? Am I correct in this assessment?

 

I didn't mention rural vote, I was just saying why they lost this election. If you look at a county by county vote map, democrats weren't winning a lot of rural counties in the last several elections anyway. In Presidential elections Dems win by winning the cities, they turned their backs on rural America many years ago. Bigger turnout in south florida, Philadelphia, Detroit and a few other cities and Mrs. Clinton would be 45.

2016 will exceed 2012 in total votes cast but not by much. However, as a % of eligible voters it was about the same as 2012 and below 2008.

 

The states that saw more turnout as compared to 2012 went R.

 

Essentially, PA WI and MI won the election for Donald Trump. Specifically, the western part of each of those won the election as they switched from supporting Obama in 2008 and 2012 to supporting Trump in 2016.

 

As you point out the urban areas of those states did not turn out like they did in 08 and 12.

 

Trump won those 3 states by a total of about 115K votes.

 

If those urban areas had turned out, Dems wouldn't even be talking about rural vote...they would be celebrating another Clinton in the White House.

So you are saying that the democrats will get the rural vote again once they inspire the folks who stayed home? Am I correct in this assessment?

 

Probably not. But all of the hand-wringing over Democrats losing the white blue-collar vote misses the point that Trump ended up with fewer votes than McCain and Romney (the last I checked). Clinton simply didn't give people enough reason to vote for her, even though demographics were on her side.

 

Yes, people are angry, especially in the rust belt and poor rural areas, but a big new voting block didn't turn up and swing the election. Democrats have traditionally been the party of protectionism and trade skeptics. That a Republican candidate now expresses that isn't what won Trump the election. People adversely affected by the loss of manufacturing communities are angry, but my sense is their anger is directed at a loss of social status more than the TPP. Trump was a middle finger, not a solution.

I didn't mention rural vote, I was just saying why they lost this election. If you look at a county by county vote map, democrats weren't winning a lot of rural counties in the last several elections anyway. In Presidential elections Dems win by winning the cities, they turned their backs on rural America many years ago. Bigger turnout in south florida, Philadelphia, Detroit and a few other cities and Mrs. Clinton would be 45.

 

You are speaking in generalities about rural counties not going D.

 

I'm telling you that many D counties from the past went red in WI MI and PA. That's not a guess nor a generality.

 

It was one of THE key reasons , along with lower urban turnout, that won the election.

If those urban areas had turned out, Dems wouldn't even be talking about rural vote...they would be celebrating another Clinton in the White House.

 

Correct BUT it wasn't the only change in voting as I've pointed out. You cannot ignore the change in the 3 states I've listed.

I don't think that will ever happen. However I do feel both parties lost the moderate voter this time around. Let's face it, If Kasich had been the R candidate, I think he would have won in a landslide vs Clinton. If Biden had been the D candidate, he would have won in a landslide vs Trump.

 

I would like to think there is a core value in the majority of voters that wants what is best for the country...Neither party gave that to us this year...

 

That is why I took your lead from almost a year ago @Purplepride and began researching 3rd party votes as a way to show my displeasure about what is going on in Washington.

 

I think they can get it back IF they learn from the mistakes they made this election. They have to engage the Midwest a whole hell of a lot better than they did and they will have to work a lot harder at working to establish their trust.

 

I would love to see the Libertarian Party become stronger locally and in state elections so that one day they can truly be a viable third party and true option to win a national election.

You are speaking in generalities about rural counties not going D.

 

I'm telling you that many D counties from the past went red in WI MI and PA. That's not a guess nor a generality.

 

It was one of THE key reasons , along with lower urban turnout, that won the election.

 

Do you think the urban turnout will ever reach the levels that it had when Obama was a candidate?

I didn't mention rural vote, I was just saying why they lost this election. If you look at a county by county vote map, democrats weren't winning a lot of rural counties in the last several elections anyway. In Presidential elections Dems win by winning the cities, they turned their backs on rural America many years ago. Bigger turnout in south florida, Philadelphia, Detroit and a few other cities and Mrs. Clinton would be 45.

 

Okay. My bad. I was thinking in terms of the white rural vote. I see what you are saying now.

Probably not. But all of the hand-wringing over Democrats losing the white blue-collar vote misses the point that Trump ended up with fewer votes than McCain and Romney (the last I checked). Clinton simply didn't give people enough reason to vote for her, even though demographics were on her side.

 

Yes, people are angry, especially in the rust belt and poor rural areas, but a big new voting block didn't turn up and swing the election. Democrats have traditionally been the party of protectionism and trade skeptics. That a Republican candidate now expresses that isn't what won Trump the election. People adversely affected by the loss of manufacturing communities are angry, but my sense is their anger is directed at a loss of social status more than the TPP. Trump was a middle finger, not a solution.

 

I thought I had seen or heard somewhere that McCain and Romney received more votes than Trump did.

 

That's a wild statistic.

Do you think the urban turnout will ever reach the levels that it had when Obama was a candidate?

 

For a white candidate? The incumbent he/she is running against would have to really be a bad, bad candidate.

I thought I had seen or heard somewhere that McCain and Romney received more votes than Trump did.

 

That's a wild statistic.

 

Believe it or not they're still counting in CA and (I think) MI.

 

Trump has surpassed Romney and McCain.