Bowsite.com

Final total: Donald Trump, 306; Witch From Hell, 232.

But some residents said they also sensed apathy, even distaste, for Clinton’s campaign."

"Exit polls in Wisconsin showed that 63% of voters had a negative opinion of Trump, but 21% of those who viewed him unfavorably still voted for him. That was a testament to two things: their desire to shake things up and their distaste for Clinton."

If not for the black run Democrat enclaves of Detroit, Saginaw and Flint...and the major colleges of UM and MSU, there would not be a single Democrat elected to national office. The city of Detroit is the demonstration project of the success and style of Democrats everywhere: criminal leadership, pay-to-play, and f*** those who are suckered dependent upon government handouts that must vote to keep them in office and feed their addiction of government dependency.

Detroit's bankruptcy and the financial collapse of the Detroit Public Schools System was a wake-up for the blacks that had been ruled by corrupt Black Democrats for the past 45 years. Even the media could not cover up the corruption of Detroit's political leaders and school officials.

In those core Democrat dependencies there was little motivation to vote for Hillary because of their realization that Obama and company was replacing their votes with imported brand new really really dependents. Blacks in Detroit and elsewhere saw the importation of koranderthals replacing them in Dearbornistan and other soon to be moslem cities. Obama's imports get the cake...the taken for granted blacks saw that they were getting crumbs. They are smart enough to know that their decline in voting importance would continue under Clinton.

This is essentially the equivalent of saying "if not for the voters in cities, no Liberal Democrats would be elected anywhere". And you accuse ME of reporting from an "alternate universe"? I deal in what "is", not what I "wish" to be, which is apparently your operating standard.

"As usual, our local curmudgeon reports from an alternate universe."

Jack, I know it irritates the snot out of you that the only reason Trump won those Rust Belt states is because of the Blue Collar Democrats that were attracted to his Liberal, Democrat, Union friendly, anti-Free Trade economic rhetoric, but those are the facts, whether you want to face them or not. And I'm not the only one saying so.

In just Michigan, Trump flipped 12 different counties that Obama won Twice. In those 12 counties, Trump got a total of 60,138 more votes than Romney did in 2012, which was a 15% increase. Now, unless you're positing that there was a 15% increase in Republican voters (for a GOP nominee who got a smaller % of the nominating vote nationwide among a deeply divided GOP electorate than any nominee in decades) in the span of 4 years for 12 counties that Obama won Twice, then there is only one other explanation: Trump got a lot of Blue Collar Democrat votes. For one who has the inclination to look for themselves, which I don't think you do, it is pretty clear in quite a few Obama/12 counties in the Rust Belt states, that the numbers of votes less that Hillary received than Obama/12, it equates roughly but quite clearly to the number of votes more that Trump received in those counties than Romney did. Unless there was just a sudden spike in the # of Republican voters in Obama/12 counties in the Rust Belt states - highly unlikely - the only other explanation is that a lot of Democrats voted for Trump instead of Hillary. They didn't just "stay home" like you and a lot of other Trumpists are trying desperately to sell. That's why Trump could win Michigan despite under-performing Romney among Republicans in affluent/educated Democratic population centers such as Washtenaw County and also in more strong Republican population centers such as Ottawa & Kent Counties. And it wasn't just Michigan, it was all over the Rust Belt. In Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa & Pennsylvania, Trump flipped 87 counties that voted for Obama in 2012, many of which voted for Obama easily in 2012, and then went big for Trump in 2016. Now, either there was a massive, unprecedented 2016 wave of new Republican voters in more Democrat counties in Rust Belt states that no one is talking about or has caught on to, or.....a lot of Blue Collar Democrat voters were attracted to Trump's Liberal, anti-Free Trade, Union-friendly economic rhetoric and voted for him because he did a better job of selling them on that typically Democrat campaign rhetoric/issue than Hillary did.

Why Trump Really Won Wisconsin and Pennsylvania

www.buzzfeed.com/brandonfinnigan/why-trump-really-won-wisconsin-and-pennsylvania

I guess ol' Ronnie must have been a liberal as well.

"joshuaf apparently never heard of Ronald Reagan who won over millions of Democrats. I guess ol' Ronnie must have been a liberal as well."

Do either of you deny that Trump's economic rhetoric during the campaign is something you would have much sooner expected to come from the mouth of the Democrat nominee for President than the Republican nominee for President? Do either of you deny that his economic rhetoric during the campaign was Liberal, Union-friendly, and anti-Free Trade at it's very base level?

Now, do either of you think that that is how Ronald Reagan attracted so many Blue Collar Democrat voters in 1980 and 1984? I don't. I don't have a problem with a Republican candidate attracting Democrat voters, but if they do attract Democrat voters in mass, I think it's more than fair to ask WHY, since that is not something that happens very often. In this case, Donald Trump did so with an economic message that is rooted in Liberal, Democrat, Union-friendly, anti-Free Trade, anti-Free Market ideas. The reason that some here are so determined to deny that Blue Collar Dems crossed over in great numbers and voted for Trump is because they don't want to get into the "why" of the thing, because it exposes Trump for what many have been saying he is all along - a Liberal Democrat.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-democrats-bluecollar-idUSKBN13K12X

Blue-collar Democrats to party: It's still the economy, stupid

See link for article about this topic we're discussing.

Hey, I resemble that remark...along with millions of others. We are capable of, and like to think for ourselves. This past election has showed that we've finally had enough and want our Country back.

Give it up bro, you still don't get it.

Josh, it seems you would rather have had Trump lose to the Witch, rather than campaign to win (and, no win = nothing changes).

All in all, after the dust has settled, he seems to be aligning himself with Conservative ranks...prepping to make some big changes. The guy knows how to get things done, and if he doesn't, he defers to those who do.

Riiiiiiiiiiight, Mr. Accuracy. That's why he's going to have for his AG a man with an A+ rating from the NRA. Those liberal Democrats just LOVE the NRA and what it stands for. Just ask Dirty Dick Durbin and Charles "Chuck You" Schumer. The NRA "F" ratings they have must be bogus, huh?

Keep 'em coming! This way we'll know what NOT to believe.

The facts and data show this assertion to be wrong. Even the Democrats are acknowledging as much. Look at the county by county, state by state results for yourself, if you dare acknowledge the truth.

See the link.

http://forums.bowsite.com/TF/bgforums/thread.cfm?forum=1&threadid=459058&MESSAGES=11&FF=CMT#4316122

"The facts and data show this assertion to be wrong. Even the Democrats are acknowledging as much. Look at the county by county, state by state results for yourself, if you dare acknowledge the truth. "

Hey, aren't you the same guy who, in 2012, wanted us to believe that Rick Santorum (who lost his re-election bid for the US Senate by 17 points) was beating Romney in the primaries because of the amount of square miles he 'won', not the number of votes he actually got?

C'mon josh, post some worthless, irrelevant tweets from some bozo who knows even less than you do to back up your inaccurate points.