Clinton lost because PA, WI, and MI have high casualty rates and saw her as pro-war, study say

[enhanced_deficit]

Informative study on SWC Hillary's fail:

Clinton lost because PA, WI, and MI have high casualty rates and saw her as pro-war, study says

US Politics Philip Weiss on July 6, 2017

America has been at war for 15 years but few Americans notice, because overall it is rural communities that have suffered the highest casualty rates, Francis Shen and Douglas Kriner argue in an important new paper. And it was those communities, in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, that gave Donald Trump his victory over Hillary Clinton, who was seen as pro-war.





Related

Audio of Hillary Proposing Palestinian Election Rigging

Hillary Clinton: I vote for Iraq war with conviction

Iraq/Afghanistan wars disabled 624,000 US troops , Divorces up 42%, Foreclosures up 217%

 

[oyarde]

Deaths from my home state for WW 2 , Korea , Nam , Iraq , Afghanistan are 12,132 . That is exceeded by the following 8 states ; New York 43,034 , California 32.434 , Illinois 27,147 , Texas 24,524 , Michigan 19,705 , Mass. 15,306 , New Jersey 14,939 and Missouri 12,210 .

 

[oyarde]

So , yeah , Michigan , Indiana , Texas and Missouri etc need no pro war politics ......

 

[Zippyjuan]

America has been at war for 15 years but few Americans notice, because overall it is rural communities that have suffered the highest casualty rates,

Casualty rates By State (deaths per male aged 18-44):

Iraq:

Pennsylvania: 0.009%
Wisconsin: 0.009%
Michigan: 0.009%

States with same or higher rates:

Alabama: 0.009%
Alaska: 0.014%
Arizona: 0.010%
Arkansas: 0.013%
Delaware: 0.010%
Hawaii: 0.012%
Idaho: 0.013%
Iowa: 0.009%
Kansas: 0.009%
Kentucky: 0.009%
Louisiana: 0.011%
Maine: 0.010%
Mississippi: 0.010%
Missouri: 0.009%
Montana: 0.018%
Nebraska: 0.014%
Nevada: 0.009%
New Hampshire: 0.010%
New Mexico: 0.013%
North Dakota: 0.012%
Ohio: 0.009%
Oklahoma: 0.012%
Oregon: 0.011%
South Dakota: 0.015%
Tennessee: 0.009%
Texas: 0.010%
Vermont: 0.020%
Virginia: 0.010%
Wyoming: 0.016%

Twenty states had higher casualty rates in Iraq than the three states. One- Montana- had twice the casualty rate.


Afganistan:

Pennsylvania: 0.003%
Michigan: 0.002%
Wisconsin: 0.002%

States with at least 0.003% casualties (deaths per adult male of fighting age in Pennsylvania- the highest of the three states listed):

Alabama: 0.003%
Alaska: 0.004%
Arizona: 0.003%
Arkansas: 0.004%
Florida: 0.004%
Georgia: 0.003%
Hawaii: 0.003%
Illinois: 0.003%
Indiana: 0.003%
Iowa: 0.003%
Kansas: 0.004%
Kentucky: 0.004%
Louisiana: 0.003%
Maine: 0.009%
Maryland: 0.003%
Massachusetts: 0.003%
Mississippi: 0.003%
Missouri: 0.004%
Montana: 0.005%
Nebraska: 0.003%
Nevada: 0.004%
New Hampshire: 0.006%
New Mexico: 0.003%
North Carolina: 0.003%
North Dakota: 0.004%
Ohio: 0.003%
Oklahoma: 0.004%
Oregon: 0.003%
South Carolina: 0.003%
South Dakota: 0.003%
Tennessee: 0.003%
Texas: 0.003%
Utah: 0.003%
Vermont: 0.004%
Virginia: 0.003%
Washington: 0.003%
West Virginia: 0.004%
Wyoming: 0.003%

Delaware was the only state in the country with a lower Afghanistan casualty rate than Michigan and Wisconsin. (Washington DC also had a 0.001% rate). Ten states matched their 0.002% casualty rate.

Twenty five states (half of the country) are on both lists with at least as high if not higher casualty rates as Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/states-with-the-most-war-casualties

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

[The usual misrepresentation that earns you a neg rep]

First of all, rural communities are not the equivalent of states. Secondly, the word used was "high" casualty rates, not "highest."

You did not have to bother finding another source in your attempt to be contrary because the article hardly conforms to your attempted spin:

Central to Trump’s victory was his ability to flip three reliably blue states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Trump carried each of these states by less than 1%. In terms of their share of wartime sacrifice, all three of these states experienced
casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan that placed them in the middle of the distribution, nationwide. Michigan’s casualty rate was the national median, while Pennsylvania’s casualty rate was just above the median and Wisconsin’s just below it. What if each of these states had suffered a lower casualty rate – for example, that of neighboring New York?

And ------>

Our statistical model suggests that if three states key to Trump’s victory – Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin – had suffered even a modestly lower casualty rate, all three could have flipped from red to blue and sent Hillary Clinton to the White House.

Neg rep for the piss-poor contrarian who is getting desperate!

 

[Zippyjuan]

Deaths from my home state for WW 2 , Korea , Nam , Iraq , Afghanistan are 12,132 . That is exceeded by the following 8 states ; New York 43,034 , California 32.434 , Illinois 27,147 , Texas 24,524 , Michigan 19,705 , Mass. 15,306 , New Jersey 14,939 and Missouri 12,210 .

Bigger states with bigger population should be expected to have a higher total number of deaths. If you want to include WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan and "discount" it to a percent of fighting aged men, it breaks down like this:

Pennsylvania: 0.32%
Michigan: 0.30%
Wisconsin: 0.29%

States with higher casualty rates than 0.32% from all five wars:

Arizona: 0.40%
California: 0.34%
Colorado: 0.33%
Idaho: 0.34%
Kansas: 0.33%
Maine: 0.34%
Montana: 0.35%
Nevada: 0.37%
New Hampshire: 0.35%
New Mexico: 0.44%
North Dakota: 0.33%
Oregon: 0.36%
Utah: 0.35%
West Virginia: 0.35%
District of Columbia: 0.43%

 

[Zippyjuan]

First of all, rural communities are not the equivalent of states. Secondly, the word used was "high" casualty rates, not "highest."

You did not have to bother finding another source in your attempt to be contrary because the article hardly conforms to your attempted spin:

What if each of these states had suffered a lower casualty rate – for example, that of neighboring New York?

And ------>

They based their conclusions for a possible different outcome if the STATE had a different casualty rate. The headline also says it was due to their state rate. That makes the state casualty rates relevant.

Clinton lost because PA, WI, and MI have high casualty rates and saw her as pro-war, study says

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

They based their conclusions for a possible different outcome if the STATE had a different casualty rate. That makes the state casualty rates relevant.

Yeah, no kidding. That's what they said and that's what I relayed. That's what makes your attempted spin irrelevant.

Keep trying to stay relevant on this forum. LOL!

 

[timosman]

Can this awaken the sheeple?

 

[timosman]

Btw, the chances are much higher than lottery.

 

[oyarde]

Bigger states with bigger population should be expected to have a higher total number of deaths. If you want to include WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan and "discount" it to a percent of fighting aged men, it breaks down like this:

Pennsylvania: 0.32%
Michigan: 0.30%
Wisconsin: 0.29%

States with higher casualty rates than 0.32% from all five wars:

Arizona: 0.40%
California: 0.34%
Colorado: 0.33%
Idaho: 0.34%
Kansas: 0.33%
Maine: 0.34%
Montana: 0.35%
Nevada: 0.37%
New Hampshire: 0.35%
New Mexico: 0.44%
North Dakota: 0.33%
Oregon: 0.36%
Utah: 0.35%
West Virginia: 0.35%
District of Columbia: 0.43%

No, you really have to just look at totals . Fighting age men means nothing ,especially in modern times as most are not even fit to serve and the number of volunteers comes heavily from certain states .

 

[Zippyjuan]

No, you really have to just look at totals . Fighting age men means nothing ,especially in modern times as most are not even fit to serve and the number of volunteers comes heavily from certain states .

So it is fair to compare total war dead in New York (43,000 dead in the five wars) with say Rhode Island (just over 2,000 dead) and say that New York made a bigger sacrifice- twenty times greater? (as a percent of men of age, Rhode Island is listed as 0.30% and New York 0.26% meaning a higher percentage of Rhode Island's men were sacrificed)

 

[oyarde]

So it is fair to compare total war dead in New York (43,000 dead in the five wars) with say Rhode Island (just over 2,000 dead) and say that New York made a bigger sacrifice- twenty times greater? (as a percent of men of age, Rhode Island is listed as 0.30% and New York 0.26%)

I would have guessed Rhode Island young men to have been a bit brighter and have more opportunity .No it is not fair but it is what it is .

 

[oyarde]

Of the three mentioned in the OP , I find Michigan the most interesting,many dead and probably the least opportunity.

 

[timosman]

redneck, def: cannon fodder

 

[Dangergirl]

I think they picked PA, MI, and WI because they were the States that clinched it for Trump during the election.