No. For your analogy to work, you would have to compare the points scored by the team's scores last game, and then compare them to the current game. Nobody does that because its stupid to do for a game.
Game 1
Team A scored 61 and Team B scored 36.
Team A won by 25 points.
Game 2
Team A scored 67 and Team B scored 28.
Team A won by 39 points.
The shift in the difference is 14 points. For the interception analogy to work, Trump would have had to take the points away from Clinton in the same event. The 14 comes from the comparison of this election with the last. If Trump had taken votes, then for every vote lost by Clinton, Trump would have picked one up. That is not what happened. Clinton lost 8% and Trump gained 6% which means 25% of those that left Clinton hypothetically simply did not vote for either. Clinton lost more than Trump gained. There was not an interception. There was not a flip. There was a change in the difference of the distribution of the votes.
Make up any shit you want, but you are still wrong.
The guy is a douchebag who sometimes says funny things and has some kind of moderately-racist mental complex with muslims.
People seem to be using voting for obama as a counterargument. Obama is Mr. Harvard Law with a skin condition, not Miguel climbing a fence to get at a shitty job. Spoiled brats looking to validate their station in life are obviously more comfortable picking on one than the other.
Put simply, Democrats knowingly chose to nominate a deeply unpopular, extremely vulnerable, scandal-plagued candidate, who — for very good reason — was widely perceived to be a protector and beneficiary of all the worst components of status quo elite corruption. It’s astonishing that those of us who tried frantically to warn Democrats that nominating Hillary Clinton was a huge and scary gamble — that all empirical evidence showed that she could lose to anyone and Bernie Sanders would be a much stronger candidate, especially in this climate — are now the ones being blamed: by the very same people who insisted on ignoring all that data and nominating her anyway.
But that’s just basic blame shifting and self-preservation. Far more significant is what this shows about the mentality of the Democratic Party. Just think about who they nominated: someone who — when she wasn’t dining with Saudi monarchs and being feted in Davos by tyrants who gave million-dollar checks — spent the last several years piggishly running around to Wall Street banks and major corporations cashing in with $250,000 fees for 45-minute secret speeches even though she had already become unimaginably rich with book advances while her husband already made tens of millions playing these same games. She did all that without the slightest apparent concern for how that would feed into all the perceptions and resentments of her and the Democratic Party as corrupt, status quo-protecting, aristocratic tools of the rich and powerful: exactly the worst possible behavior for this post-2008-economic-crisis era of globalism and destroyed industries.
Case in point: Consider the reason to build such a wall is to keep out less worthy people, like a gated community. That's the height of privileged thinking.
Now at first it may not seem a lot of these white jobs are great, but consider what they're making (trumpsters average 70k household) vs their skill set compared to most of the world, or even many minorities in the same country.
article said:Their instruments for retaliation are Brexit and Trump.
The GOP kept losing until they nominated the birther-in-chief turned alt-right recruiter. Certainly a lesson to be learned there....But Obama was clearly a black man. What sort of vile racist would vote for a black man? Obama won his elections by significant margins. If Democrats continue to blame their loss on racism and "Whitelash" instead of trying to understand the painful reasons why they lost then they will continue to lose elections.
Hillary Clinton was rightfully viewed as a member of the wealthy elite establishment that sent jobs overseas and allowed foreigners into the country to take Americans' jobs. She was seen as a supporter of NAFTA and the TPP. She was seen as a friend to Wall Street and big banks and a Washington insider. I suspect that many people voted for Trump in spite of his racist remaks and gaffs. Many votes for Trump were probably votes against Clinton and the corrupt party she represents.
In contrast, Trump exhibited empathy for working class Americans and claimed he wanted to address their economic and immigration issues. Here's a great op-ed:
Democrats, Trump, and the Ongoing, Dangerous Refusal to Learn the Lesson of Brexit
It's less about privileged thinking and more about a concern for economic self-preservation. If the US allowed unrestrained immigration, what do you think would happen? Imagine if the nation's population exploded to 2 billion within a short period of time. Basically, importing deeply impoverishied people into your country isn't a real good economic plan and won't do much to help the tens of millions of poor and lower class people you already have.
Are you open to the possibility that people making $70,000/year might be concerned for the economic well being of friends, family, and other Americans making less than $30,000/year? Do we know what the voters incomes looked like in the key swing states? It could also be argued that living in a more prosperous nation with fewer poor is in a well-to-do person's self interest (less crime, less tax money needed for welfare, etc.)
The GOP kept losing until they nominated the birther-in-chief turned alt-right recruiter. Certainly a lesson to be learned there.
As the Joker said, "ha, ha, ho, ho, he he. And I thought my jokes were bad."
The author of that article is just as clueless as he labels others as being. Brexit and Trump are both tools that are lessons learnt from history: How to manipulate the masses into thinking that they're getting what they want, even though they're still being fed the usual bullshit by the establishment, then pile on a load of Nazi-esque shit about "your problems are caused by foreigners" in order to get people to vote by their emotions and fears rather than even attempting to vote from a position of informed knowledge and logic.
Anyone who thinks they're being "anti-establishment" by voting for either of these facades of "anti-establishment" that are simply the establishment portrayed in a slightly different light but with a tonne of manipulative bullshit on top, need to go out and educate themselves before it's too late and they start falling for literally anything: "Your salvation lies here, all I need is your credit card number!". Honestly, as if the republican party or the tory party are going to undergo some saul-to-paul like transformation from being the very essence of the establishment to something else. The only "something else" they're going to embrace is a vote-winner while it suits their interests. Then they'll find another tacky slogan.
Brexit was needed because the tory party's austerity campaign linchpin is generally acknowledged not to be working. The republican party needed Trump because their usual bullshit was not working. Both tactics will be discarded once they've served their purpose. Unfortunately for the UK, brexit has many miles to go so the tory party can excuse their failed policies on "the will of the people" for decades to come.
Unfortunately, now that many politicians have embraced this revised tactic, I think the world is heading for WW3 or perhaps another cold war. It's only a matter of time once such tactics are found to work, and most of the media engages in selling "shocking" news primarily, and people more and more believe that their problems are caused by foreigners, and most politicians are too spineless to confront such ugliness while maintaining their own integrity. Where politics fail, soldiers and innocents will ultimately pay the price.
The GOP kept losing until they nominated the birther-in-chief turned alt-right recruiter. Certainly a lesson to be learned there
Yeah, there goes the neighborhood with any influx of indigenous looking mexicans, muslims, and other brownies. Better stock up on guns instead of looking at actual immigration numbers people who hate school can't understand anyway.
The reality is you have zero facts on your side, so better start learning how to buckshit.
As the Joker said, "ha, ha, ho, ho, he he. And I thought my jokes were bad."
The author of that article is just as clueless as he labels others as being. Brexit and Trump are both tools that are lessons learnt from history: How to manipulate the masses into thinking that they're getting what they want, even though they're still being fed the usual bullshit by the establishment, then pile on a load of Nazi-esque shit about "your problems are caused by foreigners" in order to get people to vote by their emotions and fears rather than even attempting to vote from a position of informed knowledge and logic.
So, how do you reconcile Obama winning by large margins including in the states that flipped for Trump with your claim that those voters were all racists? In your view, are there any other issues that might come up in a presidential election that might be important to people besides race?
Do you know much about economics, the concepts of supply of labor, demand for labor, and price points, and have you ever heard of something called Global Labor Arbitrage?
The two are hardly mutually exclusive as trivially evident from history. It pays to be on top of an ethnocentric social totem.Are you open to the possibility that mass immigration might have economic consequences and that there might be non-racist economic reasons for opposing mass immigration?
Quite comical someone pretending to be smart here believes trump's 70k+/yr followers per Gallup/Rothwell/Rosell 2016 are on the same wage curve as said rapists. Not a coincidence said followers also often pretend to be smart.As an exercise, can you tell us what basic economic principles suggest is supposed to happen to the price point-wages, if the supply of labor doubles relative to the demand for labor?
The reality is that you did an awful job of addressing my post, probably don't understand basic economic concepts, and can only resort to cries of racism when confronted with a point of view you disagree with.
Do you think McCain or Romney could have beat Hillary?Simple, McCain and Romney had too much dignity and self-respect to be king of the birthers, or paint indigenous looking mexicans as rapists. Had Trump had any or pivoted away from that as often suggested, he would've lost just like them.
Likely quite a bit more than you, which you would agree is likewise quite a bit more than the trump base.
The two are hardly mutually exclusive as trivially evident from history. It pays to be on top of an ethnocentric social totem.
Quite comical someone pretending to be smart here believes trump's 70k+/yr followers per Gallup/Rothwell/Rosell 2016 are on the same wage curve as said rapists. Not a coincidence said followers also often pretend to be smart.
My reply was written for the sake of accuracy, and I'd suggest stop pretending to be some kind of academic with those who can actually discern the difference. People who care to know things would bother to look at actual empirical data before pretending their trite little "econ" view was correct. I'd recommend the ANES 2016 pilot's data on racial identity and resentment, particularly as it correlates to candidate pref.
Do you think McCain or Romney could have beat Hillary?