2016 US Election Democratic Governance is only 7% of Society

[RainbowUnicorn]

i did the math
i came to a figure of 7.14% rounded down to 2 decimal places as a 50% per candidate share of the vote as they both got roughly 50% give or take 3%.

democrats got around 53% and Republicans got around 45%
roughly 2% to alt candidates.

it left me wondering as i was contemplating that women should have a higher proportional representation of voting power because they are effectively managing the children and have heavy social accountability custom and culture to seek that they place the children as a part of their social moral representation.

i find it all very bizzar given this supposed modern age of commuication.


i find it even more bizzar given the US is supposedly a consumer society & thus women have a far greater spending power as a consumer than men do.

statistically women spend most of the weekly budget and thus statistically any company that does not put women as a priority for their products simply wont last.
that seems a little odd when you then look at the political leadership model.

its all completely backwards.
thus statistical representation of women in national leadership is highly disproportionate to the critical economic reality(as a consumer-choice-market-economy nation)

thoughts ?

[C C]

i find it even more bizzar given the US is supposedly a consumer society & thus women have a far greater spending power as a consumer than men do. statistically women spend most of the weekly budget and thus statistically any company that does not put women as a priority for their products simply wont last.

Indeed.

Top 10 Things Everyone Should Know About Women Consumers
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bridgetbrenn...consumers/

Bridget Brennan: "Women are the world’s most powerful consumers, and their impact on the economy is growing every year. The global incomes of women are predicted to reach a staggering $18 trillion by 2018, according to global professional services firm EY. Since I run a firm that helps businesses develop marketing and sales strategies for women consumers, I am constantly asked about the “secret” to why women buy and why they don’t. While there are no secrets and no silver bullets, here are 10 things to keep in mind when marketing and selling to women..."

- - - - - - -

it left me wondering as i was contemplating that women should have a higher proportional representation of voting power because they are effectively managing the children and have heavy social accountability custom and culture to seek that they place the children as a part of their social moral representation.

That was very much the expectation last year, not just in terms of voting but also with regards to competing significantly with males in lobbying and pecuniary manipulation.

Women’s Rising Influence in Politics, Tinted Green
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/us...itics.html

EXCERPT: "Women are bankrolling political campaigns this year more than ever, driven by their rising rank in the workplace, boosts in women’s wealth, and networks set up to gather their donations and bolster their influence. In an election year when women could be a decisive force, the transformation is occurring at every level of political giving and in both parties, from grass-roots supporters sending in a few hundred dollars to the rarefied ranks of ultrawealthy donors who fund “super PACs.” Forty-three percent of all reported contributions to federal candidates for this election have come from women..."

- - - - - - -

But the tendency of prognosticators to treat women along with minority groups as if they're reliable, monolithic robots in their ballot box choices is just as much condescending stereotyping when such is optimistically anticipated on the southpaw side of politics. Thus part of the ensuing dive in disappointment after the election was over.

Why Did College-Educated White Women Vote for Trump?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016...women.html

EXCERPT: [...] Palma Frable has two daughters, and she raised them to be independent, to think for themselves. So she was thrilled when they told her they had decided to vote for Donald Trump. Abigail is 18, and she went with her older sister, Lauren, 22, to register to vote.[...] She [Hillary] actually beat Trump in Lackawanna County but just barely, with under 50 percent of the vote, compared with Barack Obama’s 63 percent. Clinton also lost white women by three crucial points in Pennsylvania. The Frables help explain why. The three women are college-educated or college-bound, and they voted for Trump not because they feel left behind but to improve economic opportunity, as they see it.

For this cohort, the concern isn’t necessarily their own finances. “My life wouldn’t change either way,” Frable said about the material difference between a Clinton and Trump presidency. “I don’t think my taxes will be better or worse with one or the other.” But she felt confident that her children will find better jobs after college with Trump in office, and she talked with longing about his promise to restore jobs, like one she remembers a friend of her father’s had, working in an auto factory in Detroit. “If we could have export agreements with, say, France or Germany, or let’s face it, Russia, they would take our quality goods and we could be great again,” Frable said.

All of this — along with other items on the Trump “wish list,” as Frable put it, like defeating ISIS and cracking down on border security — matters far more to her than anything Trump said about women or was accused of doing to them. Anyway, given Bill Clinton’s history, how can Hillary complain? “I have disrespect for Hillary for not doing more for herself, not standing up for herself with him,” Frable said. “That’s more damaging than goofball words Trump came up with.”

[RainbowUnicorn]

But she felt confident that her children will find better jobs after college with Trump in office, and she talked with longing about his promise to restore jobs, like one she remembers a friend of her father’s had, working in an auto factory in Detroit. “If we could have export agreements with, say, France or Germany, or let’s face it, Russia, they would take our quality goods and we could be great again,” Frable said.

while i will agree that the premise of the policy is fantastic, i think you will find it was merely vote buying of the working class, and there will be absolutely no policy or law or investment to create more US jobs unles it involves giving tax payer funds to wealthy business people instead of using it to pay for the working class health care.
Keeping in mind the affordable care insurance company is about to be insider traded to a buddy for a fire sale price (i am guessing). resulting in wasting hundreds of millions of working class dollars while only increasing the cost of insurance for the majority of working class.(i hope im proved wrong).

All of this — along with other items on the Trump “wish list,” as Frable put it, like defeating ISIS and cracking down on border security — matters far more to her than anything Trump said about women or was accused of doing to them. Anyway, given Bill Clinton’s history, how can Hillary complain? “I have disrespect for Hillary for not doing more for herself, not standing up for herself with him,” Frable said. “That’s more damaging than goofball words Trump came up with.”

this is something i have noticed, this christian patriachal victim shaming process that is brainwashed into little girls by the christian mainstream.
Blaming hilary for bills choice of sexual escapade is pure and simpyl victim shaming disguised as a proxy slavery of hilarys own personal body to be auctioned off to the moral cause of how some think they should feel.
its soo messed up on soo many levels im not going to get any more into it.
suffice to say that women cheat just as much as men but are far better at hiding it, thus all those people judging them will be cheating or have best friends who are cheating.
hypocrisy and double standards of morality creates bigotry and groundwork for groomers and brainwashing cults.

funny how democrat and liberal private lives are ok for public scrutiny and judgement but not the conservatives.

" goofball words" =(person making this statement is making a statement of ... incompitance?) incompitence definition then suggesting other things he has said suddenly take the opposite of the factual meaning...
or just picking and choosing what they wish to beleive like a conspiracy theorist..... or cult like brainwashed person ?(factual dicotomy)
this is implied double standards of a pre-defined hypocrisy of gender role stereo types where the law and social morality are considered seperate to the actual working life morality of the society.
this picking and choosing of what is a lie and what is not a lie by the public when all is presented as truthful is a sure sign of a unspoken cultural normative, which is not surprising soo much as it is a starck contrast of selling leadership morality whhen gender is the basis for the inequality of measure of candidates.

hilary is victim shamed and blamed for bills choices of sexual activity.(sex shaming the female/slut shaming by proxy)
donalds words are declared as not actually fact

regardless of what is actual fact this shows a clear and present gender bias in the minds of society.
i suspect it is the christian patriachal model in its conservative fear process seeking to find a strong role model to counter personal insecuritys and public fear(while searching for meaing as the observer lacks ability to define truths & facts).

if the people wanted a working class president they would have chosen Berny.
but they didnt.
they wanted to maintain their constructs of sub groups and clicks and power structures primarly.

i doubt the US will see another leader as smart and expereinced and fit for purpose as Barak Obama and the majority knew this which is why they chose not to vote in the millions,
then voted for a socialist republican sales campaign.
they voted for something they knew the Republican party have never supported(socialism) and would never support(working class grass roots & public utility/department spending).

i have strayed off statistics to respond a little oops.
interestingly all the polls were wrong... thats statistics but implied statistics based on sample & data type and quality.
how many milions were paid to polling companys and can the government and more importantly the voters/public/tax payers now rely on statistical data  ?

[stryder]

The statements made by Frable are wrong in regards to how she considered America "Great Again".

“If we could have export agreements with, say, France or Germany, or let’s face it, Russia, they would take our quality goods and we could be great again,” Frable said.

Wonderful on paper, however the real world tends to have certain biases. For instance most people consider themselves to have worth, they don't want to work for peanuts, in fact they will outright flat refuse to work for a wage that they feel is unfair. Unfortunately for economics to favour US produce, that's one of ways that produce would be competitive enough to actually be sold in other countries, otherwise the cheaper option is always going to be sought.

This is an issue since Capitalism is basically getting costs down to as low as possible and bumping the end sale price as high as possible to turn the largest profit. (Disparity) The problem as mention above is that everyone wants a large cut of that profit pie and that causes there to be no profit to be had.

China's success in produce being cheap has been down to how it's economy actually reflects the number of people living in the country. It's Yuan versus other currency in value is low due to this reason, which means when people are paid in it, it's far less in value than other currencies, although the currency can be used to buy and pay for a similar amount of things.

This means for the US to be able to compete, they either have to pay workers a lot less to maintain a huge disparity so products can be produced cheaply, or the US economy has got to take an even greater currency dive than 2008 so it's not worth anything to the rest of the world.

There is only one concession I can think of with "Paying people less" and that's literally repeating history to an extent. Namely what you aren't paid in currency, your paid in bonds issued by the state. The value of those bonds could climb if the country manages to earn, however if it continues to lose then the loss will be on those that took the bonds too.

[RainbowUnicorn]

The statements made by Frable are wrong in regards to how she considered America "Great Again".

“If we could have export agreements with, say, France or Germany, or let’s face it, Russia, they would take our quality goods and we could be great again,” Frable said.

i like the imputus of this statement.
it implies there is no ability for US companys to export to Russia, France or Germany.
which is an outright lie (thus rendering the comment to be propoganda).

american industrialists have moved their companys to china.
those whom have not, can not.
no more moving will be going on and has not been going on well before the election.
the only moving that may happen is emerging competitors (of which american companys have already moved), will not want to be allowed to set up in china to compete against them...

thus now american patriotism & poverty can be used as a weapon to circumvent anti-trust laws to block competition by the rich elitists.

[C C]

An irony is that the era of AI or smart industrial machines is anticipated to bring a lot of lost manufacturing back to the US. But by the very nature of such that will not lead to hiring human workers other than those needed for maintenance.

Chinese companies, OTOH, are slowly moving into abandoned plants in Ohio and setting up facilities in other Rust Belt areas. The one discussed in this article has been booming away for a couple of years now, hiring people at lower wages and with less benefits than in the old days. This was already underway before Trump, and the latter may now actually mess that trend up if he favors native business (and tariffs) over foreign investment in local assembly yards.

[Ben the Donkey]

Blaming hilary for bills choice of sexual escapade is pure and simpyl victim shaming disguised as a proxy slavery of hilarys own personal body to be auctioned off to the moral cause of how some think they should feel.
its soo messed up on soo many levels im not going to get any more into it.
suffice to say that women cheat just as much as men but are far better at hiding it, thus all those people judging them will be cheating or have best friends who are cheating.
hypocrisy and double standards of morality creates bigotry and groundwork for groomers and brainwashing cults.

Firstly, this. 
Very few people "blamed" Hillary Clinton for Bill's dalliance. 
Pointing out that if she really had a moral objection to his penchant for pussy-chasing, she probably would have done something about it a long time ago, is not laying blame; nor is it a reflection that anyone regarded Bill's indiscretions as normal, something "like "oh, that's just what men do" (although undoubtedly, many would have thought exactly that, although how they could come to such a conclusion without wondering who they'd do it with is problematical). 

Coming to the conclusion that Hillary's reactions were engineered for public consumption is not shifting any blame. It is pointing out an elephant in the room. 

Bill's dalliances weren't a new thing. The impression most would garner from the whole thing is that Hillary's tears were more of the crocodile variety, only becoming evident when suddenly the public eye was very much focused on the Clinton's private lives. It was, possibly, something which stayed in people's minds during the recent election because it was yet another nail in the coffin of a woman who, by all appearances, was prepared to take on any persona necessary to gain or retain power. Clinton had a history of changing her stance on issues throughout her political career (often), siding with whatever point of view was largely decided to be most likely to get her the job she was after... and in the face of several opinions that America's election result was largely a shift in public opinion away from "the establishment", and evidence that Americans were becoming tired of professional, engineered politics, the groundwork for a public perception of Clinton as a polished and scripted politician was probably laid very early on.

As far as "donalds words are declared as not actually fact" goes, his response was "Anyone who knows me knows those words don't reflect who I am. I said it. I am wrong. I apologise". So I'm not sure where you're getting your info from on that. If I take your meaning correctly; I'm not altogether sure sometimes. 

My point of view is that he isn't wrong at all. All one need do is walk into any bar where sports stars, politicians or lawyers, whatever hang out, and check out the talent, to use a vernacular. Women are attracted to power, and they will put up with a lot in order to remain close to it. It is what it is, regardless of anyone's particular moral compass. 
Tell you what, walk into said bar with a hidden recording device. Unless, of course, you feel it would be morally wrong to do so... which actually opens up another little thing that is being largely ignored in this sad little tale of morals.

Using buzz phrases like "victim shaming/blaming" or "gender sterotyping" does nothing other than attempt to paint a simple picture of complex situations in the hopes that everyone will be ashamed to point out grey areas. 
BIG grey areas. Like that elephant. 
However, although most people might be ashamed to publicly say so, the voting booth is still a reasonably private place. I actually predicted a Trump victory very early on in the piece - you could almost feel the wave building, and it was less about Trump and more about Clinton. When you say the left only have themselves to blame, there's far more to that than you seem to fully appreciate.

Being forced to apologise for speaking what is essentially fact is another crime, and yet one largely ignored. One has to wonder to what extent keeping reality a dirty little secret and pretending it doesn't exist is going to lead to any constructive conversation or resolution. Social engineering, another little hypocritical form of brainwashing.
And I might argue that the attempt to absolve women of any blame in these matters is pretty much painting them as hapless victims of circumstance and society - something I'm fairly certain is a little bit counter productive, if not blatantly hypocritical. 
I mean, is there a gender based version of the whole "white man's burden" theme? One for you perhaps, CC.

Taping a private conversation and then opening it up to the public in order to further an agenda is another moral crime, yet I've heard barely a murmur. Of course, the same ones who are loudly and publicly decrying the use of Hillary's private emails as an election weapon are probably the same ones who are leaping onto the recorded conversation as a reason Trump shouldn't be president...without so much as a blush.

It's not gender stereotyping, RU. It's not victim shaming. Or whatever the current meme is. 

Hang on, I might have a new one for you. One I just made up, as far as I know. 
It's agender politics.
Haha. It's got levels of meaning, man. Yeah, I know. Don't give up my day job.

Oh, and 

funny how democrat and liberal private lives are ok for public scrutiny and judgement but not the conservatives.

Really? Has that got any basis in fact at all, or are you just throwing it out there to see who'll bite?


I'm tempted to bring JFK into the discussion. By all accounts, he was very much like Trump, said and did whatever he liked and got away with it most of the time.
His actions or inactions might have even led to the death of Marilyn Monroe according to some theories, in the end, which is a sequence of events pointing to Kennedy as something completely different to his public persona might have led you to believe.

History has judged Kennedy more on his politics than his morals or private life, and were Kennedy alive today I have no doubt he would probably be sighing in relief there wasn't as much in the way of technology used in a dubious fashion in order to further an agenda. 

Yet he's remembered as more a lovable rogue than a predatory male. Why?
Because everyone liked him. He was better looking, too. 
Oh, and he was a Democrat. Just, you know, in case that's important.

---

And...

Indeed.

Top 10 Things Everyone Should Know About Women Consumers
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bridgetbrenn...consumers/

Bridget Brennan: "Women are the world’s most powerful consumers, and their impact on the economy is growing every year. The global incomes of women are predicted to reach a staggering $18 trillion by 2018, according to global professional services firm EY. Since I run a firm that helps businesses develop marketing and sales strategies for women consumers, I am constantly asked about the “secret” to why women buy and why they don’t. While there are no secrets and no silver bullets, here are 10 things to keep in mind when marketing and selling to women..."

- - - - - - -

Well, no. Women don't have more spending power, CC. They do, however, have different spending habits.
Just spending in general, for starters. 
(That was a joke.) 

Which is why I found

Top 10 Things Everyone Should Know About Women Consumers

vaguely disconcerting.
I'm going to just leave that there for now.

Also, there seems to be a bit of double dipping in the entire thing. Either women are still viewed as the housekeepers, thereby spending most of a household 's income on keeping the family, or they're more empowered now and have more disposable income.
Or is it trying to infer women are some sort of super-creatures doing both, while hubby comes home to a beer and the footy after work?

If this particular company is marketing based upon any one of those, they're completely behind the times. 
I mean, cars changed from being called "Valiant", "Charger", "Challenger", "Mustang" etc in the late 60's to "Prius" now. That was, primarily, because the market changed from a male dominated one to a more balanced one, if not more female-oriented in the form of smaller, more efficiently practical vehicles with generic styling. 

I also find it interesting that "stylish" has almost become synonymous with "bland and inoffensive", with reference to cars, although perhaps I'm not giving enough credit to the general population in the assumption they wouldn't know the origin of the word "prius" in the first place - although I think I'm on reasonably safe ground there. 
Still, though, even the suffix Prius is more of an ephemeral idea, than an image of a rampaging stallion.
Car names are just nonsense words now, in general. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.  

tl;dr though, "stuff" has been marketed to women for a very long time now. Decades. It's not like anyone has to "wake up" at all.   


I do live in a different country though, (I assume). 
Perhaps things are different... over there.