PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by nik-

You still just refuse to accept there could be other reasons huh?

Endemic of the reasons Clinton lost last night. Denigrate and dismiss.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's totally predictable though, and there's no doubt it'll continue. Ideally the Democratic party would conduct an honest post-mortem self assessment with a view to winning next time, but people are pretty terrible at self-examination.

uh, are you guys reading my posts?

edit: nm, you obviously aren't

[Hack&Lube]

This article really provided me a lot of insights on how the Democrats lost a keystone of their heritage (suspicion of banks, finance, and monopolies). and empowered the financial distress that drove a lot of the misery of the disenfranchised into Trumpism. I thought it was a great insight that the young Democrats that swept in after the Vietnam and Nixon turmoil didn't experience that madness of 1920s stock market excesses and the great depression that followed. They embraced big banks as a tool to push forward their civil liberties agendas. They lost part of the heritage of the Democratic party which held up a check against those forces. They abandoned populism of the people and became the party of urban counter-cultural elites who thought they knew better than their rural brethren because they were enlightened about liberal ideals. They abandoned the Unions that used to be part of their base, empowered monopolies, and created the corporate beasts that destroyed the tradesmen and mom & pops of rural America.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...t-soul/504710/

It's a good lesson for myself to stop thinking of myself as some kind of enlightened, progressive latte-sipping genius and realize that I don't know anymore and am not better than the yop-gobblers and ovaltine chuggers of the world.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

uh, are you guys reading my posts?

All the ones about how this was all racism and voter suppression?

Those things matter, but it's dangerously ignoring too much of the root support. I personally thought the danger was that it was going to continue to be ignored after he lost ... but ... oops?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

uh, are you guys reading my posts?

Unfortunately.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Racism doesn't explain why white rural areas voted that for Obama twice flipped to Trump. A great many of us have settled into our echo chamber of righteousness throughout this election and missed the big picture. Trump told the down and out what they wanted to hear. We might believe we know its all bull####, but it worked on those who didn't think they have another option.

True. This is why this election was more a loss for the Democrats than a win for the Republicans.

In any given election, you can count on approximately 50/50 support for each side just by drawing party lines and historical geographical support. It really only takes about 1% to shift and make the difference on who wins. Trump successful identified the groups that would shift over, and the Dems failed to draw anyone to replace them. I don't think the results are indicative that anything is different than past elections. Unfortunately, I do think Trump is going to be a wrecking ball though.

I would be curious to see if voter turnout was lower in those ridings as well. As Moore said, the Democrat voters were depressed. With Obama, they were dragging their friends and relatives to the polls. With Clinton, they were going by themselves.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by bob-loblaw

I thought I read that Nate Silver said a bunch of states passed some laws to effectively create a voting block in the Electoral College. Basically, those states pledged that if the winner of the overall popular vote lost the electoral vote, those states would vote for that person instead of the one that won the state.

Is this fact or fiction, and if fact, would it affect anything in this race? I assume not so much or everyone would be all over it.

There is but they need enough states to cover 270 electoral votes. They are at 120 or 160 or something right now. New York joined last month I believe.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by nik-

All the ones about how this was all racism and voter suppression?

Those things matter, but it's dangerously ignoring too much of the root support. I personally thought the danger was that it was going to continue to be ignored after he lost ... but ... oops?

I had a good talk over lunch with five Americans that are in the city for business and the prevailing opinion amongst them was not that they liked or loved Donald (all five voted for him) but that they really, really didn't like Hillary. A lot of Americans simply didn't want Hillary Clinton to be the president.

[polak]

Unemployment Rates:

September U.S. rate: 5.0%
September Michigan rate: 4.6%
September Wisconsin rate: 4.1%
September Pennsylvania rate: 5.7%

Again.... Don't let facts get in your way guys. Trump sold these people an illusion.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Drak

Ridiculous comment and off topic on my post to begin with. My entire point had nothing to do with Bill Clinton. You started bringing in Bill Clinton as though you were trying to pin me for some double standard. You really need reading comprehension.

Part of your argument, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that president Trump is not the outstanding family man that many of those who voted for him would normally 'require' in a president. Would that be fair?

But my argument is that the other candidate wasn't either. They didn't have an option to vote for that family values candidate in this election. Neither Trump or Clinton met the "qualification for presidents to have a stable family values marriage."

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by nik-

All the ones about how this was all racism and voter suppression?

Those things matter, but it's dangerously ignoring too much of the root support. I personally thought the danger was that it was going to continue to be ignored after he lost ... but ... oops?

Do I need to mention Hillary was a bad candidate in every post for it to be remembered or if I bring up race does that automatically mean I've excluded all other variables and context?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by bob-loblaw

I thought I read that Nate Silver said a bunch of states passed some laws to effectively create a voting block in the Electoral College. Basically, those states pledged that if the winner of the overall popular vote lost the electoral vote, those states would vote for that person instead of the one that won the state.

Is this fact or fiction, and if fact, would it affect anything in this race? I assume not so much or everyone would be all over it.

There's an agreement in place but requires enough states to sign up to reach at least 270 votes before it comes into force (and probably only after a Supreme Court review).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...rstate_Compact

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Racism doesn't explain why white rural areas voted that for Obama twice flipped to Trump. A great many of us have settled into our echo chamber of righteousness throughout this election and missed the big picture. Trump told the down and out what they wanted to hear. We might believe we know its all bull####, but it worked on those who didn't think they have another option.

It might be trying to find a silver lining, but I honestly believe the opposite. He's not actually a racist and was just acting that way to win the election.

Weitz's below post is resonating with me the most as the simplest explanation:

Originally Posted by Weitz

I might be the only one, but I think Trump ran his campaign in the only way he could to have a chance at winning. I said this months ago, but it really was the only way to win.

I don't think his presidency will be nearly as bad as people think. He is a huge ego guy and won't want to go out as the "worst president ever". I see him being very middle of the ground.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Racism doesn't explain why white rural areas voted that for Obama twice flipped to Trump. A great many of us have settled into our echo chamber of righteousness throughout this election and missed the big picture. Trump told the down and out what they wanted to hear. We might believe we know its all bull####, but it worked on those who didn't think they have another option.

It worked for Obama and Trump for the same reason, and obviously not racism. But it's desperation more than anything that they latch on to. They go the entire W era without seeing jobs or income growth. Then they went the entire Obama era with the same things not happening. So they just put their hope in the candidate promising change, regardless of party or race. And when Trump doesn't deliver it either, in 4 or 8 years the Dems will have a good chance to reserve the map again if they make the same pledges, regardless if they actually intend on following through. These people want hope, and sadly for them often fall for the false hope.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by polak

Unemployment Rates:

September U.S. rate: 5.0%
September Michigan rate: 4.6%
September Wisconsin rate: 4.1%
September Pennsylvania rate: 5.7%

Again.... Don't let facts get in your way guys. Trump sold these people an illusion.

Not disagreeing, but does this consider underemployment?

If everyone is either a ditch digger or an investment banker, it's not exactly a fun place to be.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by nik-

I personally thought the danger was that it was going to continue to be ignored after he lost ... but ... oops?

I liked the "America has shown it's divided tonight" quotes. Had Hillary won the nation was still going to be divided - it was just going to be brushed back under the rug.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

It's not, it's a measure of being informed. While I don't doubt there's a genius carpenter who's highly skilled at his craft, doesn't mean he's capable of understanding sciences, economics, and contemporary issues he's (or she) has never been exposed to or even trained to understand. Even geniuses require language for thought, concepts for paradigms, and ideas for creative thought

And I know more than enough people with advanced degrees that have no idea how to handle operating in the real world. They spend all their time in academia, and struggle with basic concepts like cooking, paying bills in a timely matter, or holding a job.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

It might be trying to find a silver lining, but I honestly believe the opposite. He's not actually a racist and was just acting that way to win the election.

Weitz's below post is resonating with me the most as the simplest explanation:

I still find it terrible that he used other people's racist fears to win. On one had, I don't think he is a racist, but he let people take things whatever the way they wanted to and was fine with it knowing full well that racists would embrace it. Then I think, well isn't that racist?

I think he will be terrible for the sole reason that he is impulsive and disrespectful in general. He may want to do good, but I just don't think he is fit. It's like saying, I hate career doctors. I want my next surgery to be completed by a railway tycoon. No matter how big of an ego that tycoon has or how badly he wants to be remembered as not being "the worst" surgeon, I know that I am probably not leaving the hospital with all my parts in tact.

[jammies]

I give it 6 months of the Republicans trying to work with Trump before they realize he wants headlines, not policies. Then there will be struggle in the backrooms and obstructionism reborn. 2018 will be a bloodbath as Trumpistas try to use the primaries to unseat those in the party perceived as the old elites, in favour of toadies and true believers more amenable to Dear Leader.

The problems with American politics lie in the Constitution, which was designed for a mostly rural country happy to let the gentlemen rule. The electoral college, specifically designed to thwart populism, has entrenched a binary choice of President instead, and actually enabled a populist shyster to take office despite a minority of votes in his favour. The Supreme Court has become, rather than a brake on tyranny, a kind of tyranny in itself, beholden to none once confirmed and with attitudes dictated by the exigencies of the partisan battles taking place when each Justice is nominated. Congress is concerned with re-election and satisfying special interest groups' and their states' interests over the nation's; and also is not much concerned with prudent governance, for that buys no television ads.

What amazes me even more than electing the old rich white beneficiary of elitism as some kind of reformer, is that Americans paradoxically make a positive fetish of the founding fathers, the Constitution, and the idea of America while simultaneously decrying the institutions that these foundations and ideas have established, seeing them as hopelessly corrupt and broken. Yet, this is inevitably what you get when your Republic lasts too long, an infirmity of ideas - just look at the slowing and now glacial rate of Amendments to the Constitution, where there have been 2 in the last 45 years, and the most recent (1991) had actually been proposed over 200 years before ratification.

Trump won't make things better because of many reasons - not least his intellectual incapacity and preference for bombast over rationality - but he can certainly make them worse. The hope that he will kick over the whole rotten structure would only be appealing if he wasn't likely to either have a worse replacement in mind, or no idea at all what he wants other than to gratify his ego and need for adulation. While there was certainly little scope for positive change under Clinton, there is none under Trump. It's not just that his call back to an older, better America is revisionist and flawed, it is that it is impossible. The Rust Belt will keep on rusting, illegal immigrants will keep on doing the jobs Americans won't, and Wall Street will still manipulate the markets for the benefit of the insiders - and the crazies will keep getting crazier.

PS: the two amendments are: in 1971 lowering the voting age to 18; and in the 90s preventing Congress from voting itself raises and getting them right way, instead they now have to wait 'till the next election cycle.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Not disagreeing, but does this consider underemployment?

If everyone is either a ditch digger or an investment banker, it's not exactly a fun place to be.

Fair, but do you think a 1%'er and someone who got his fame by flaunting his wealth and brand is the guy who is going to champion the redistribution of wealth in the US?

Trump could very well be great for big business but I'm fairly positive that'll come at the expense of workers rights (among other things) and not the other way around.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

This is the fault of the left in this campaign. Why is a college education a measure of intelligence. White-collar is not better than blue-collar. Both are equally smart.

It's adorable that you believe that. That is simply not true.