Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 63 posts

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#21

Post by hackuser »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #12
ufo wrote: post #7

The thing that is really confusing for me is how Trump managed to get elected despite all this opposition to him.

Because 3 million women motivated enough to protest doesn't outweigh 30 million women motivated enough to vote. The fact of the matter is Trump's support base is broader than his opposition - at least, in the states where it matters.

In this case, it bears repeating that Trump lost the overall vote, and lost women's votes 54-41%.

The country is a democracy, not an elected dictatorship. Voters and their desires don't disappear the day after the election. Republicans took resistance of Obama's presidency to record levels; only their propagandists can say with a straight face that those who oppose Trump should be quiet for the next four years.

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#22

Post by michaelchisari »

hackuser wrote: post #17
xenadu02 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tl;dr is voter apathy in key midwest states. IIRC Trump underperformed but Clinton underperformed even more. It is difficult to say with certainty but the FBI letter probably cost her the election by slightly depressing turnout. It also looks like the Republican effort to disenfranchise people by reducing early voting, voting hours, closing polling stations, enacting voter ID laws, purging voter rolls, etc has wo…

> the FBI letter probably cost her the election by slightly depressing turnout. Of course it's hard to point to one factor in such a complex, real world situation, But look at a chart of Clinton's poll numbers; she was comfortably ahead, and as soon as Comey's letter came out, her number dropped like a rock and never recovered. > It is really embarrassing that the majority of the country votes D and the Rs have contr…

This was such a squeaker of an election, that it seems that any one of the multitude of factors changes, and Hillary wins.

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#23

Post by hackuser »

michaelchisari wrote: post #22
hackuser wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the FBI letter probably cost her the election by slightly depressing turnout. Of course it's hard to point to one factor in such a complex, real world situation, But look at a chart of Clinton's poll numbers; she was comfortably ahead, and as soon as Comey's letter came out, her number dropped like a rock and never recovered. > It is really embarrassing that the majority of the country votes D and the Rs have contr…

This was such a squeaker of an election, that it seems that any one of the multitude of factors changes, and Hillary wins.

You could say the same the other way. A rainy day in a major city in a key state and Trump gets a better result.

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#24

Post by aplomb »

michaelchisari wrote: post #20
aplomb wrote: post #16

Well so long as Soros keeps footing the bill in the shadows for all these "grassroots" organizations...

Just how much per head do you think Soros paid for the largest protests in modern American history?

Slightly more than pocket change

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#25

Post by LyndsySimon »

hackuser wrote: post #21
LyndsySimon wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because 3 million women motivated enough to protest doesn't outweigh 30 million women motivated enough to vote. The fact of the matter is Trump's support base is broader than his opposition - at least, in the states where it matters.

In this case, it bears repeating that Trump lost the overall vote, and lost women's votes 54-41%. The country is a democracy, not an elected dictatorship. Voters and their desires don't disappear the day after the election. Republicans took resistance of Obama's presidency to record levels; only their propagandists can say with a straight face that those who oppose Trump should be quiet for the next four years.

I don't think anyone expects them to be quiet.

> Trump lost the overall vote, and lost women's votes 54-41%.

I guess I don't see the point you're trying to make here.

The GP asked how Trump got elected. He overwhelmingly won white, Christian, middle-class (and above) families - a group that has felt left out of American politics for the past decade or so.

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#26

Post by snowwrestler »

aplomb wrote: post #24
michaelchisari wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just how much per head do you think Soros paid for the largest protests in modern American history?

Slightly more than pocket change

Well, shoot, do you have an address or phone number for the Soros protest fund? My friends and I all paid out of our own pockets to go to the march and it would be nice to get reimbursement or something.

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#27

Post by chuckit »

michaelchisari wrote: post #2

This is truly unprecedented. For perspective, the largest march on DC during the Vietnam War was 500,000. Adjusted for population, that would be 784,411 people. Estimated crowd in DC on Saturday was 1.2 million. Nationwide, it was 3 million. Just one of the six Los Angeles area protests had 750,000 people. Even Witchita, Kansas had thousands. I've never seen anything like this, and it's just the beginning.

What a shame they're not coming out in those sorts of numbers to protest the wars going on all over the world, drone killings, mass surveillance and so on.

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#28

Post by geowwy »

michaelchisari wrote: post #19
revx wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this time, there's enough of a threat to general persons' livelihoods (repeal of ACA, threat of international embarrassment or incident, etc) that we will start to see organized resistance. But only time will tell...

A normal presidency would see these protests and exercise caution. This is not a normal presidency, so I feel as though we're going to see a continuous escalation in response.

His tweets seems to suggest the opposite

"Peaceful protests are a hallmark of our democracy. Even if I don't always agree, I recognize the rights of people to express their views." https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/82317419903654298...

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#29

Post by michaelchisari »

hackuser wrote: post #23
michaelchisari wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was such a squeaker of an election, that it seems that any one of the multitude of factors changes, and Hillary wins.

You could say the same the other way. A rainy day in a major city in a key state and Trump gets a better result.

I'm limiting it to political events centered on the candidates, almost all of which in the near lead-up to the election were focused on Hillary. And the only really close states were PA, MI and WI, all of which went to Trump by a sliver.

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#30

Post by michaelchisari »

geowwy wrote: post #28
michaelchisari wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A normal presidency would see these protests and exercise caution. This is not a normal presidency, so I feel as though we're going to see a continuous escalation in response.

His tweets seems to suggest the opposite "Peaceful protests are a hallmark of our democracy. Even if I don't always agree, I recognize the rights of people to express their views." https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/82317419903654298...

Was it posted with an iphone or an android phone?
Post reply on HN