The point was to prove you were lying when you said I was wrong about those voters leaving the Democratic party. Democrats did well in 2018 because turnout was higher, not because a lot of voters changed parties.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Americans Paid $90 Billion MORE In Taxes After Republican Tax Cut
- Thread starter Cinnabar
- Start date
The point was to prove you were lying when you said I was wrong about those voters leaving the Democratic party. Democrats did well in 2018 because turnout was higher, not because a lot of voters changed parties.
The point was to prove you were lying when you said I was wrong about those voters leaving the Democratic party.
Those voters were never in the Democratic party.
Besides, you just said that the loyal Democrats were the ones who showed up.
Democrats did well in 2018 because turnout was higher, not because a lot of voters changed parties.
I never, ever, ever said they changed parties. Never. What I said was that your prediction that being mean to Conservatives would result in a backlash against Democrats was wrong. You literally just said two posts ago that the reason Democrats won in 2018 was because loyal Democratic voters showed up.
YOU SAID THAT.
So you were wrong last year when you said that being mean to Conservatives was going to hamper Democratic turnout. You even said it did the opposite when you said loyal Democrats showed up.
TL;DR
middle class Americans made more money and paid more taxes.
Liberals: THEY PAID MORE TAXES? OMG TRUMP FOOLED YOU GUYS SO FUCKING BAD
They didn't make more money.
The 1% made more money.
Those at the bottom made more money because of minimum wage increases.
Subtract the wage growth of the 1% and the wage growth of those at the bottom (thanks to MW increases), and what was the wage growth for everyone else? I'm betting less than inflation.
Those voters were never in the Democratic party.
Besides, you just said that the loyal Democrats were the ones who showed up.
Yes, that is true.
Working class whites were a major part of the New Deal Coalition for many years. The Democrats ran those voters off with their elitist snobbish attitude looking down on those people. They continued voting Republican in 2018. The difference between 2016 and 2018 was Democratic turnout. So the white working class became alienated from the Democrats and that continued even in 2018.
So you were wrong last year when you said that being mean to Conservatives was going to hamper Democratic turnout. You even said it did the opposite when you said loyal Democrats showed up.
I never said it would hamper Democratic turnout and I did not say that you said people changed parties. I said condescending bigoted attitudes had alienated voters from the Democratic party.
What makes you think alienating working class whites and higher Democratic turnout are contradictory? They are both true--the higher turnout explains the 2018 Democratic gains compared to 2016.
So first you said they always lose seats, then you moved that bar to say they sometimes lose seats, all the while ignoring the popular vote margin because it's inconvenient to your argument.
Another Lie. I said the president's party almost always loses seats in mid-term elections.
I did not say "sometimes" they lose seats. You asked if they always lose 40 seats and I said sometimes more or sometimes less.
The presidential party has lost seats in all but three (1934, 1998, and 2002) of the 29 midterms held since 1900." Any intelligent person would agree they "almost always" lose seats in mid-term elections. Only you would argue about it.
How many votes they won by is not relevant to my statement that the president's party loses seats and is why I thought Republicans would lose seats in 2018---both correct.
But to get higher turnout Democratic propaganda obviously had to create some enthusiasm to motivate their supporters to vote which was difficult to do in 2016.
Working class whites were a major part of the New Deal Coalition for many years. The Democrats ran those voters off with their elitist snobbish attitude looking down on those people. They continued voting Republican in 2018. The difference between 2016 and 2018 was Democratic turnout. So the white working class became alienated from the Democrats and that continued even in 2018.
How did the Democrats "look down on those people"? I don't understand what you mean. Look down on them for being racist dungheaps? These clods have been loyal Conservative voters since Nixon. The Democratic Party drove them away by embracing Civil Rights, diversity, multi-ethnicity, immigration, environmentalism, and feminism. If you think those are "elitist" and "snobby" yet the white, rich, country club Republicans who are bankrolled by billionaires like the Kochs and Russian Oligarchs aren't, is a perfect example of your poor judgment and rotten character for that conjob to work.
I never said it would hamper Democratic turnout and I did not say that you said people changed parties. I said condescending bigoted attitudes had alienated voters from the Democratic party.
Except that it didn't, and last year saw record Democratic turnout. Who are the voters you say were alienated from the Democratic Party? You're the one who argued that the reason Trump stole the 2016 election was because of black voters not showing up. So...you seem to be setting another goalpost here about at what point the Democrats "alienated" the troglodytes from the party, because these white racist shitpiles haven't voted Democratic in a generation. So that means what happened last year has nothing to do with why trash votes for the GOP.
What makes you think alienating working class whites and higher Democratic turnout are contradictory?
Because you were arguing before that those people were loyal Democrats, then you changed that argument mid-stream to say they were alienated before 2018, before 2016...so I'm trying to peg you down to some specifics, but you just keep falling into the bad habit of sophistry and ambiguity.
They are both true--the higher turnout explains the 2018 Democratic gains compared to 2016.
So Democrats gained voters in 2018 while they were being mean to Conservative dingleberries when you said the opposite would be the case.
Face It: You (Probably) Got a Tax Cut
Studies consistently find that the 2017 law cut taxes for most Americans. Most of them don’t buy it.
Ben CasselmanJim Tankersley
By Ben Casselman and Jim Tankersley
April 14, 2019
If you’re an American taxpayer, you probably got a tax cut last year. And there’s a good chance you don’t believe it.
Ever since President Trump signed the Republican-sponsored tax bill in December 2017, independent analyses have consistently found that a large majority of Americans would owe less because of the law. Preliminary data based on tax filings has shown the same."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/b...e-tax-cut.html
Studies consistently find that the 2017 law cut taxes for most Americans. Most of them don’t buy it.
Ben CasselmanJim Tankersley
By Ben Casselman and Jim Tankersley
April 14, 2019
If you’re an American taxpayer, you probably got a tax cut last year. And there’s a good chance you don’t believe it.
Ever since President Trump signed the Republican-sponsored tax bill in December 2017, independent analyses have consistently found that a large majority of Americans would owe less because of the law. Preliminary data based on tax filings has shown the same."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/b...e-tax-cut.html
Another Lie. I said the president's party almost always loses seats in mid-term elections.
But that's not even true since the data you provided showed an almost equal split between gains and losses!
You gave 5 midterm instances since 1994.
Of those five, two showed gains for the President's party.
2/5 = 40%
So it's not "almost always". It's "sometimes".
Language matters.
I did not say "sometimes" they lose seats. You asked if they always lose 40 seats and I said sometimes more or sometimes less.
So you did say "sometimes", and in the examples you provided, it's not even true that the President almost always loses seats in a midterm because 2 of the 5 elections you cited showed the President's party gaining seats.
The presidential party has lost seats in all but three (1934, 1998, and 2002) of the 29 midterms held since 1900."
Right, but those two in 1998 and 2002 happened within 4 years of each other. That doesn't strike you as odd, since it hadn't happened for 64 years prior?
How many votes they won by is not relevant to my statement
Well your statement isn't what I was talking about. So you're now trying to hijack this because you don't want to talk about the popular vote. The seats are what's really irrelevant because of the gerrymandering, most prevalent since the 2012 election when the new redistricted maps went into effect. That's why you have to look at the popular vote total alongside the seats; the seat total doesn't tell the full story of what happened in the election. In fact, you're using it to mitigate the wave that happened and is indicated by the popular vote total by diminishing its significance of relying purely on the net gain of seats. That's sophistry and total bad faith, particularly since that's been my argument this whole time, and you've chosen to avoid it either because it's too complicated for you to understand, or because you know how damaging it is to what you believe.
But to get higher turnout Democratic propaganda obviously had to create some enthusiasm to motivate their supporters to vote which was difficult to do in 2016.
What was the propaganda?
So Democrats gained voters in 2018 while they were being mean to Conservative dingleberries when you said the opposite would be the case.[/QUOTE
No, they did not "gain" voters except that more turned out. Groups that loyally support Democrats like black voters had low turnout in 2016. They were still Democrats but they just could not stomach Hillary. Voter turnout increased in 2018 explaining Democrats gaining control of the House.
I never said the opposite would happen. I said in several posts that Republicans would lose House seats because that was an easy prediction. I never said a word about turnout.
But, as I showed you in the Pew data whites, males, males without a college degree continued to vote Republican in 2018 because the Democrats ran off working class Americans because of bigoted assholes who refer to them as "...the troglodytes from the party, because these white racist shitpiles....."
No, they did not "gain" voters except that more turned out. Groups that loyally support Democrats like black voters had low turnout in 2016. They were still Democrats but they just could not stomach Hillary. Voter turnout increased in 2018 explaining Democrats gaining control of the House.
But why did the turnout increase?
What was the reason? Remember, you all said that if we were mean to Conservatives, Democrats wouldn't show up to the polls. You were pretty wrong with your civility scolding, weren't you?
And the turnout didn't actually increase from 2016...overall, turnout was down about 5% from 2016.
I never said the opposite would happen. I said in several posts that Republicans would lose House seats because that was an easy prediction. I never said a word about turnout.
Wrong.
You said several times during the run up to 2018 that being mean to Conservatives in public places, yelling in their faces, snatching their red hats off their heads, punching Nazis, would result in a backlash against Democrats at the polls.
WE HAD THIS VERY DEBATE RIGHT AROUND THIS TIME LAST YEAR, FLASH.
You seem to have short-term memory loss.
But, as I showed you in the Pew data whites, males, males without a college degree continued to vote Republican in 2018 because the Democrats ran off working class Americans because of bigoted assholes who refer to them as "...the troglodytes from the party, because these white racist shitpiles....."
Two things:
1. They are white racist shitpiles, are they not?
2. It turns out the instinct to do that was the right call since it motivated loyal Democrats to vote.
So I'll tell ya what Flash; we'll continue doing what we're doing, and you can leap to the defense of Trump voters and vote for Trump yourself to teach us a lesson for alienating the "wrong" people.
Last edited:
But that's not even true since the data you provided showed an almost equal split between gains and losses!
You gave 5 midterm instances since 1994.
Of those five, two showed gains for the President's party.
2/5 = 40%
So it's not "almost always". It's "sometimes".
Language matters.
You are right, language does matter. 26/29=89.6% and that is almost always.
My data was just to provide some examples of how mid-term are sometimes higher than 40 seats and sometimes lower.
I also said "The presidential party has lost seats in all but three (1934, 1998, and 2002) of the 29 midterms held since 1900."
Did you think I was going to provide every mid-term election since 1900 when "almost always" can provide the same information in a short concise sentence?
Are 5 examples from 29 mid-term elections representative? No.
You are the only person who cannot understand such a simple concept. That explains the LV426 nomer.
But why did the turnout increase?
What was the reason? Remember, you all said that if we were mean to Conservatives, Democrats wouldn't show up to the polls. You were pretty wrong with your civility scolding, weren't you?
Please cite the post where I said that. I never predicted turnout or said Democrat wouldn't show up at the polls. You make up lies to try to argue about.
But why And the turnout didn't actually increase from 2016...overall, turnout was down about 5% from 2016.
You are comparing presidential elections with mid-terms. Mid-term election results are lower than presidential elections, so comparing the two is quite silly and unacceptable research.
You said several times during the run up to 2018 that being mean to Conservatives in public places, yelling in their faces, snatching their red hats off their heads, punching Nazis, would result in a backlash against Democrats at the polls.
I know what I said and you only get things partially correct. It did not apply to mid-terms since the president's party loses seats about 89.6% of the time. I also never related "punching Nazis" with running off the white working class. They are two different groups. I doubt Nazis even vote and they are such a small group they would have no significance in an election.
The thing I said about Nazis was to show how ridiculous your comment was that you cannot be prosecuted for assaulting or killing Nazis because they are an "inherent threat." I think you finally dropped that silly argument after you realized how wrong you were.
I have never defended Trump voters--only corrected obvious lies or cautioned against any conduct that might elect Trump again.