The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
ldev wrote:Do not underestimate Trump. He has defeated 16 Republican rivals, finished off the Bush family and now the Clinton family political ambitions at least for this generation, fought the Democratic establishment, fought the Republician establishment, fought a hostile mass media, been heavily outspent financially by Clinton (who raised more than $1 billion), all at the same time and all of this on his very first political effort.
This mainly evangelical votes which has shifted to Trump. The secret shift of Evangelical vote is rewarded by Bannon appointment. BTW he is a Former Naval Officer and Investment Banker. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... 085905df2/
^^^^
Correct. Bannon is his liaison with his right wing voter base. Bannon is also a ruthless political operative, something that every campaign and President needs. The Democrats have had their Paul Begala, Rahm Emmanuel, James Carville etc. Bannon will be Trump's secret weapon to neutralize political opponents, people like Soros etc.
ramana wrote:Manas, Thanks for the honest post!!!!
Data shows Florida is due to desis.
Will see. Paarkalam.
This is BS
In any electrol college Indians make up less than few percent
There is no need to over estimate Indian voting. Total Indian voters in US are 1M and 70% may have voted.
Win in a battleground state is due to incremental votes from any community that switches sides.
Florida was won by margin of less than 1%. Indian voters comprise 0.5% of total voter base...and I think Shalab Kumar worked hard on them recognizing this is a battleground state. Indians are the largest Asian American population in Florida.
The other community Trump targeted in Florida is Cuban Americans...Florida was probably won due to combined switch of Cuban Americans and Indian Americans
Cubans have been shifting away from GOP since the refugee rush slowed down to a trickle and now you're dealing with a large segment of US-born (Miami-born) Cuban-Americans that are less anti-left. From my Cuban circles I doubt there was any shift towards Trump particularly given the hysterics in the media about how he's supposed to be racist. I'm actually at the point of unfriending some of my Cuban acquaintances throwing fits daily on social media about Trump.
The oldie crowd of Broward and Palm Beach also didn't show up in the numbers as they normally do...switch is less important than turnout here.
Well at the state level every vote counts and thus contributes towards the victory or loss of a candidate. But when total % of votes ( 0.5%) of an ethnic community ( Indian American ) in the state (Florida) is less than the winning margin by a factor of ~3 ( 1.3 % ) with the generous assumption that 100% of the community voted for a particular candidate (Donald Trump), the victory of a candidate in an election can not be attributed to this particular community.
Dipanker wrote:
That I am afraid is not correct. In electoral college only a dozen battleground states decide the outcome an thus get all the attention.
This year, 2/3 of all rallies were held in 3 battleground states ( Florida, North Carolina, Ohio ), 94% rallies were held in about 9 of them, and 15 states or so did not receive 1 single visit by either candidate.
I disagree very respectfully. The battleground states themselves are determined by their electoral vote clout and their ability to swing. To make the electoral math work, the candidates did have to visit 35 out of the 50 United States. If this was a popular vote contest, the Democrat will take home the cosmopolitan cities with some effort and the Republican will have to go village-to-village. Inherently unfair system. The electoral college system makes both candidates put up equally enthusiastic rallies in Philadelphia, PA and Winchestortonfieldville, IA.
Dipanker wrote:That I am afraid is not correct. In electoral college only a dozen battleground states decide the outcome an thus get all the attention.
This year, 2/3 of all rallies were held in 3 battleground states ( Florida, North Carolina, Ohio ), 94% rallies were held in about 9 of them, and 15 states or so did not receive 1 single visit by either candidate.
you are just totally unwilling to look at the other side of the argument.
without electoral college, the reverse will happen and that is arguably far worse. candidates will abandon battleground states and focus on turnouts in their base states. this will be more polarizing.
like it or not, trump flipped blue leaning states and that is far more legitimate to be a president than to have a turnout duel of blue states vs red states.
ramana wrote:
Gus, DT will do what's right and legal.
Even after being wrong still going strong?
I am failing to understand the logic that just because I was wrong about the election result, I cannot have an opinion that Trump handing over his business to his children is conflict of interest.
An argument should be looked at its own merit. Surely, you would agree with that, right?
ramana wrote:Manas, Thanks for the honest post!!!!
Data shows Florida is due to desis.
Will see. Paarkalam.
This is BS
In any electrol college Indians make up less than few percent
There is no need to over estimate Indian voting. Total Indian voters in US are 1M and 70% may have voted.
+1000008. No need to aggrandize ourselves to the point of delusion.
Remember kAka-tAllya-nyAya from our smritis.
There was a tal tree, and one crow came, and immediately the fruit fell down. And there were two arguers: one said that the crow sat down on the fruit and it was so light it fell down, and the other said no, the crow was trying to sit down on the fruit but in the meantime the fruit fell and he could not sit. It is like that. It may be coincidence, the crow was just trying to sit on the fruit and the fruit fell. But these people's answer is no, the crow first sat down, then is was fallen. Another says no, the fruit has fallen down; therefore the crow could not sit. So this kind of argument has no value.