(November 10, 2016 at 12:49 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(November 10, 2016 at 12:42 pm)Aroura Wrote: To clarify, he planned to visit, but cancled.  Here it is.

Trump cancels rally in Wi

So no, he didn't visit, wither.  Promised to twice, never showed.

Aroura...I know he canceled some of his planned visits - I mentioned that...that didn't make the other visits disappear he canceled two out of six.........and that;s only counting the visits -after- the primaries.  He'd have been there -more- if he hadn't canceled.  I don't know why you feel compelled to argue here.  I;m trying to help you understand why trump won and you seem to be interested, mostly, in denying reality in service of some shitty and demonstrably innaccurate tu qoque.  No, Hillary didn't visit Wisconsin.  Yes, Trump -did-.  That had an effect on the voters, clearly, lol.

Trump won in the places he did go, where Hillary didn't.  He won, because of who he did speak to, whom Hillary didn;t.  She thought one of two things, dependoing on the places in question.  That it was either unwinnable, or in the bag.  She was right about the unwinnables, wrong about what was in the bag, and now we all pay for it.

I literally cannot find any other visits while looking it up.  But I'll take your word for it.  I won't take Drich's, but I do beleive you if you say so.

Hillary Lost Pennsylvania and Mich, where she went a ton.  I'm not sure that would have been a defining factor in Wisconson when it wasn't in other places.
The places she WON were places she never went and never had to go. Her campaign failed in nearly every state she went for hard.  Florida, NC, etc.

(November 10, 2016 at 11:27 am)Nymphadora Wrote: I dunno..

I think the indigenous peoples of this land would disagree with you.

Are you kidding?? most indians voted for trump. they endorsed Him as the candidate for american indians
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016...rican-coa/


again demagoguery

Preaching through fear and talking to sterotypes rather than fact.

But I guess you guys can't help that has it 'trickled down' from mother hen herself.

This still holds true today:

https://youtu.be/ZPHSXUS0_1c

(November 10, 2016 at 12:58 pm)Aroura Wrote: I literally cannot find any other visits while looking it up.  But I'll take your word for it.  I won't take Drich's, but I do beleive you if you say so.

Quote:It would be Trump's fifth campaign stop in Wisconsin since the Republican National Convention in July. And his Wisconsin campaign spokesman confirmed Monday he has plans for a sixth event in the state before Nov. 8.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/g...cd0f4.html
That;s one of them he ended up canceling, iirc.

As Lavar Burton used to say..."don;t take my word for it" -

Quote:Hillary Lost Pennsylvania and Mich, where she went a ton.  I'm not sure that would have been a defining factor in Wisconson when it wasn't in other places.

That would be a failure of message, not presence.  You have to keep in mind that the rust belt is new to the whole "living in a wasteland" bit.  As soon as it got as bad for them as it's been for rurals for decades..they went red just like the rurals.  

-and so it came to pass that the blue wall fell, and the shambling undead came pouring in to cast their votes.

Quote:The places she WON were places she never went and never had to go.

The "in the bag" category.  She thought that Wisconsin was just such a place. I;m not trying to imply that her campaign was always wrong...but they were obviously wrong in places that it mattered.

Quote:Her campaign failed in nearly every state she went for hard.  Florida, NC, etc.

Again, a failure of message.  Turns out, she wasn't actually speaking to everyone her supporters -thought- she was speaking to. Or, to put it more bleakly, she was counting on the better angels of our nature, lol. It's hard to hear them when things have gotten shitty for you. The message of inclusion, frankly, is a bit deflated when the currently privileged can legitimately say to themselves..."inclusion to what, to this.....-I- don't even want to be in this". Yes, our economy has been doing better, but that;s largely do to the upper crust, and the continuing transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich...which will be exacerbated by the next administration. The numbers say we;re doing better, and we are doing better....but "we" is an awfully misleading term, in context.

(November 10, 2016 at 1:19 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: This still holds true today:

https://youtu.be/ZPHSXUS0_1c

Truer than ever before. 

(November 10, 2016 at 1:21 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(November 10, 2016 at 12:58 pm)Aroura Wrote: I literally cannot find any other visits while looking it up.  But I'll take your word for it.  I won't take Drich's, but I do beleive you if you say so.

Quote:It would be Trump's fifth campaign stop in Wisconsin since the Republican National Convention in July. And his Wisconsin campaign spokesman confirmed Monday he has plans for a sixth event in the state before Nov. 8.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/g...cd0f4.html

As Lavar Burton used to say..."don;t take my word for it" -

Quote:Hillary Lost Pennsylvania and Mich, where she went a ton.  I'm not sure that would have been a defining factor in Wisconson when it wasn't in other places.

That would be a failure of message, not presence.  You have to keep in mind that the rust belt is new to the whole "living in a wasteland" bit.  As soon as it got as bad for them as it's been for rurals for decades..they went red just like the rurals.  

Quote:The places she WON were places she never went and never had to go.

The "in the bag category.  She thought that Wisconsin was just such a place.

Quote:Her campaign failed in nearly every state she went for hard.  Florida, NC, etc.

Again, a failure of message.  Turns out, she wasn't actually speaking to everyone her supporters -thought- she was speaking to. Or, to put it more bleakly, she was counting on the better angels of our nature, lol.

Right, I get that the message failed.  I'm just pointing out that since her message did not resonate in the heartland and rust belt, it wouldn't have made a difference for her to visit Wisconson either.  Acting like that was some huge failure and she might have otherwise won is silly.

But we NEED to end the coal industry, we need to regulate emissions.  Her tax policies would still have helped them more than Trumps, but I guess their livelyhoods are threatened under greener policies, so I'm not sure what message she could have sent to appeal to both the social liberals in the cities that want these changes to be made, and the rural folks, who have good (if very short sighted) reasons not to.

(November 10, 2016 at 1:20 pm)A Theist Wrote:

Best image ever.

(November 10, 2016 at 12:58 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(November 10, 2016 at 12:47 pm)Drich Wrote: I felt the same way when obama was first elected.. Time will tell which one of us was right.

Well, time has obviously shown that you were wrong about Obama.  He exceeded the campaign promises of his opponents.  He made our economy stronger than Mitt Romney promised to, for instance.  Let's not pretend that you now or have ever had an issue with Obama for anything other than "social" reasons.  He outperformed his rivals promises economically and politically (and that's granting his rivals the generous assumption that -they- could have delivered on them)

That;s ignoring that all of the problems you -have- expressed with obama fall into one of two categories.  Pure and abject fantasy, or a misunderstanding of the terms and concepts to which you refer when making criticism.  Your head is as full of funhouse mirrors as your boy Trump's.

come on douche, even the LA times calls the economy as it is. You horse lost. drop the BS, and learn from your mistakes.

All that matters is whether voters want a change or not. And that depends on how well the economy has been performing under the outgoing administration; in this case, the Obama administration.

For the last, agonizing  six months, the airwaves and newspapers have been filled with political prognoses. Every commentator claimed special insight into how voters would cast their ballots and why. Most of them were wrong, of course. And according to economic theory, completely irrelevant. None of the political factors the pundits cited ad nauseum even enter the best economic models.

Simply put, Clinton lost because the economy under President Obama did not perform well enough to meet Fair’s thresholds of happiness.  Economic growth was anemic for nearly all of the last eight years. As a result, job creation lagged far behind the records set during other post-recession recoveries. 

In the Fair model, GDP growth in the three calendar quarters prior to the election is critical: That’s when voters are especially  attuned to how the economy is performing. And on that count, Clinton lost a lot of votes; GDP growth was a paltry 0.8 %  in the first quarter of this year, 1.4 % in the second and 2.9 % in the third. This sluggish growth hardly inspired confidence in the economic policies of an Obama/Clinton team, and it seems Clinton couldn’t talk her way out of this performance.



http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-...story.html