rencontres recrutement auchan
7/8/2017 2:00:47 AMrencontre gay par gps Hitlery Lost Because Trump Seen as More Left-Wing 
shakira yo te encontre varios rasguños rencontre sexe sainte foy l es lyon
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (23,430)
Tampa, FL
60, joined Feb. 2013


New study shows Clinton lost election because of growing working class opposition to war
By Eric London
8 July 2017
World Socialist Web Site
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/08/comm-j08.html

Excerpt:

Since Hillary Clinton’s defeat in the 2016 elections, the corporate press, the Democratic Party, and a host of self-proclaimed left-wing groups that operate in the Democrats’ orbit have attempted to prove that Trump’s election was the product of bigotry and backwardness in the white working class.

This false narrative is further exploded by a new report titled “Battlefield Casualties and Ballot Box Defeat: Did the Bush-Obama Wars cost Clinton the White House?”

Published in June by Douglas Kriner of Boston University and Francis Shen of the University of Minnesota Law School, the study concludes that the Democratic Party lost the 2016 election because working class voters in poorer areas hit hardest by military casualties from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan saw the Democratic Party as the primary party of war and militarism. They abstained or voted for Trump as a result.

Kriner and Shen break down the shift away from the Democratic Party from 2012 to 2016 on a state-by-state and county-by-county basis and compare the shift with soldier death rates from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The authors find “extreme” levels of disparity between county casualty rates. Just over half of all counties had a casualty rate of 1 or fewer deaths per 100,000 from Iraq and Afghanistan, while a mere 10 percent of counties have casualty rates of over 7 war deaths per 100,000 residents. The counties with the highest casualty rates are the poorest and least educated.

Kriner and Shen find a strong positive correlation between Republican shift in 2016 and death and injuries from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Each state’s rise in the casualty rate by one person per million residents corresponded with a roughly .25 percent swing from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016.

The authors conclude that if the casualty rates in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin were lowered by 10 people per million, Clinton would have won all three states. Trump won each state by less than 1 percent, pushing him past the 270 electoral vote mark required to win election.



“Our analysis predicts that Trump would have lost between 1.4 percent and 1.6 percent of the vote if the state had suffered a lower casualty rate. As illustrated in Figure 2, such margins would have easily flipped all three states into the Democratic column. Trump’s ability to connect with voters in communities exhausted by more than fifteen years of war may have been critically important to his narrow electoral victory.”

This process played out even more acutely on a county-by-county level: “Trump was even more successful in surpassing Romney’s 2012 performance in communities that had suffered disproportionately high casualty rates.”

Kriner and Shen explain that anti-war sentiment among the poorer sections of the population most impacted by the war has been a dominant, subterranean feature of American political life for over a decade.

In 2004, one-and-a-half years after the Bush administration launched the war in Iraq, the authors point out that although Bush won reelection, “he lost significant electoral ground in states and communities that had paid the heaviest share of the war burden in casualties.”

In 2006, when the Democrats won both houses of congress, Kriner and Shen note that “Republican losses were steepest among communities that had suffered disproportionately high casualty rates in Iraq.” They note, “In both 2004 and 2006, voters in these communities became more likely to vote against politicians perceived as orchestrating conflicts in which their friends and neighbors died.”

Similarly, the authors explain that Barack Obama won the 2008 election in large part as a result of popular opposition to the war in Iraq, which Obama claimed to oppose.

“The electoral punishment suffered by Republicans in the 2000s was a story of both casualty and economic inequality,” Kriner and Shen write. “The communities suffering the most from the fighting overseas were communities with lower income and education levels. These communities, in turn, increasingly turned against political candidates insisting on more combat.”

But while “voters in such communities increasingly abandoned Republican candidates in a series of elections in the 2000s,” their opposition to war expressed itself in a turn away from the Democrats in 2016.

After benefiting from the groundswell of opposition provoked by the Bush administration’s wars, the Obama administration continued the wars and sent tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan. His administration was the first in US history to spend a full two terms at war.

Under Democratic Party leadership, the government launched new wars in Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, and Syria. Clinton ran her 2016 campaign on calls for escalating US intervention in Syria and threatening war with Russia, a nuclear armed power. It is a testament to the record of the Democratic Party that Trump’s jingoistic program could be viewed by many as the more “dovish” option.

Kriner and Shen’s statistics reveal a powerful fact about American politics: the working class is tired of being used as cannon fodder in imperialist war.

Meet singles at DateHookup.com, we're 100% free! njut rencontre!

DateHookup.com - 100% Free Personals


7/8/2017 5:02:58 AMfaire des rencontre pour sortir Hitlery Lost Because Trump Seen as More Left-Wing 
rencontres aisne
Over 2,000 Posts (3,695)
Jacksonville, FL
52, joined Jul. 2014


Heres another statistic for you, peanut brain;

80% of "everybody" immediately laughs their a** off when Condor posts a "World Socialist Website" thread.

The other 20% consists of 8 guys with their moms foil covered bra's strapped to their head in a basement watching midget porn.

7/8/2017 5:46:11 AMnumero de site de rencontre par telephone Hitlery Lost Because Trump Seen as More Left-Wing 

il y a les rencontres
Over 4,000 Posts! (5,324)
Warren, MI
37, joined Sep. 2008


More condom BS.

Condom hates right wingers.

Democrats are right wingers.

Condom votes Democrat.

Until he figures out that Dumbocrats are NOT right wingers you can't even have a conversation with the dumbshit.

7/8/2017 6:04:44 AMrencontre sur uzes Hitlery Lost Because Trump Seen as More Left-Wing 
texte pour une belle rencontre blague annonce rencontre
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (23,430)
Tampa, FL
60, joined Feb. 2013


Quote from woniota:
Heres another statistic for you, peanut brain;

80% of "everybody" immediately laughs their a** off when Condor posts a "World Socialist Website" thread.

The other 20% consists of 8 guys with their moms foil covered bra's strapped to their head in a basement watching midget porn.


The World Socialist Web Site didn't write that report. Unlike the capitalist media, they merely reported about it. Now, why do you think Fox News, CNN, ABC, CBS, the New York Times, Republicans, Democrats, etc. are not excited to report that story?

7/8/2017 6:37:12 AMrencontre brabant flamand Hitlery Lost Because Trump Seen as More Left-Wing 

chat chartres Mercedes_3
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (13,865)
New South Wales
Australia
90, joined Jun. 2016


Hillary lost because it's not compulsory to vote in America.

7/8/2017 7:05:08 AMrencontres bamako Hitlery Lost Because Trump Seen as More Left-Wing 
baby prostituées italie rencontre automnale paramoteur
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (23,430)
Tampa, FL
60, joined Feb. 2013


Quote from Mercedes_3:
Hillary lost because it's not compulsory to vote in America.


Excerpt:

But while “voters in such communities increasingly abandoned Republican candidates in a series of elections in the 2000s,” their opposition to war expressed itself in a turn away from the Democrats in 2016.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/08/comm-j08.html