US Elections: If you experience a painful election...

[Guess who's back]

I liked the speech and also the Trump victory speech. It's such a contrast between the election rallies when they just attacked the other candidate (and in Hilarys case attacking the supporters of other candidates).

[James Arryn]

1 minute ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Yeah and the person they elected was a New York City business man who hosted a reality show.

There is soul search but good grief.

Right. I get that people think there are problems, and I completely get that Hilary was an imperfect solution...but Trump?

This is a choice that will Iive in infamy and rightfully cause national embarrassment. When the alternative to the status quo is dog crap, Cicero chooses to make the best of the SQ.

[mormont]

6 minutes ago, zelticgar said:

You over look the abandonment of the working class by the Democrats.

Here's the problem with that narrative. The working class voted for the Democratic candidate.

Here's the other problem: the black working class voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate. So did other minority working class people. So this is, indisputably, not about the working class but about the white working class. Even then, whites in other socioeconomic groups voted for Trump in at least as large, if not larger, proportions as the working class did: or so the exit polling data suggests.

So how is this about Hollywood in some way, and not about race?

[James Arryn]

Just now, mormont said:

Here's the problem with that narrative. The working class voted for the Democratic candidate.

Here's the other problem: the black working class voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate. So did other minority working class people. So this is, indisputably, not about the working class but about the white working class. Even then, whites in other socioeconomic groups voted for Trump in at least as large, if not larger, proportions as the working class did: or so the exit polling data suggests.

So how is this about Hollywood in some way, and not about race?

Have you not seen a Bruckheimer film? The working class is sweaty, grim, fatalistic but mostly white and very sage. 

[S John]

I'm travelling to the UK for a few weeks next month and I have already paid for the majority of the trip while the dollar to pound exchange rate was favorable.  

Any merit to the idea of going over to my bank today and converting some spending $$ to GBP's?  Any risk of the dollar tanking relative to the pound in the next few days / weeks?  

[JoeyBanana]

I did kinda expect him to win but still shocked. Wow.

Somebody mentioned Merkel to dismiss sexism against Clinton playing a substantial role. Eh, well that was a brain fart. She was the conservative candidate, not running against one. Should be obvious it is a one-way street.

[butterbumps!]

4 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

To be fair I find the whole issue quite debatable, but its that often the subject is completely shut down, and those who disagree with the supposed consensous are labelled as bigots... pretty much like your post above. This probably isn't the place for that discussion though.

I'm not treating it as a zero sum game at all. Clintons campaign was littered with flaws and problems, she was never going to be voted in. But her gender was so low down the list of reasons people disliked her that is barely worth mentioning. That some people want to promote the idea it was based on sexism tends to just highlight that some people have an agenda of their own. 



 

 I'm not labeling people as bigots.   I'm explicitly saying that there are otherwise good, well meaning people who contribute to the sexist climate!   And one cannot deny that various forms of bigotry really are the lifeblood of Trump's support/ campaign!   He rode on a very literally intolerant campaign.  I'm the one specifically not advocating for calling people names, or writing off whole character judgments for problematic thoughts/ behaviors.  

I said it seems like you're making this zero sum because it seems like you're trying to suggest that it's her flaws, rather than insidious sexism that brought her loss.    I'm saying it's both, and that I think her flaws have been exacerbated by her gender in many cases-- an argument James Arryn also made upthread.    I think it's a mistake to deny the deep sexism as a factor, just as it would be to deny that she had some pretty extensive baggage rendering her a very flawed candidate. 

[Frey family reunion]

29 minutes ago, mormont said:

What you're calling for has never existed in any political party I've ever heard of in any country at any time. I'm not even sure what it would look like. 'Very simple'? Simple to say, maybe. Not simple in any other way.

No, it's really not very complicated.  Reduce the influence of the party insiders, and let your candidates duke it out with as little meddling as possible.  Reagan was certainly not a darling of the Republican party when he got the nomination.  Bill Clinton was thought by many as too young and hadn't waited his turn when he got the democratic nomination (at a time when many in the party were scared to run against George Bush since he had just convincingly won a war).  Obama came out of nowhere to beat Hillary when she was supposed to be the presumptive nominee.  And now Trump came from outside and waged a very messy nomination process against a large group of Republican party "good soldiers". 

The DNC believed that it was HIllary's turn to get their nomination.  So other potential nominees were probably discouraged or told to wait their turn.  When Bernie upset the apple cart and entered the race, the DNC turned on him.  Let the nomination process be big and bloody, and in the end your candidate be will someone who has proven they can reach the greatest number of voters.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Just now, butterbumps! said:

 I'm not labeling people as bigots.   I'm explicitly saying that there are otherwise good, well meaning people who contribute to the sexist climate!   And one cannot deny that various forms of bigotry really are the lifeblood of Trump's support/ campaign!   He rode on a very literally intolerant campaign.  I'm the one specifically not advocating for calling people names, or writing off whole character judgments for problematic thoughts/ behaviors.  

I said it seems like you're making this zero sum because it seems like you're trying to suggest that it's her flaws, rather than insidious sexism that brought her loss.    I'm saying it's both, and that I think her flaws have been exacerbated by her gender in many cases-- an argument James Arryn also made upthread.    I think it's a mistake to deny the deep sexism as a factor, just as it would be to deny that she had some pretty extensive baggage rendering her a very flawed candidate. 

My problem is that you are seemingly giving them an equal weighting, when it really isn't even close to being equal. Why people are upset enough to vote for Trump is because they are totally disillusioned with the establishment. They feel big business is ignoring them, that there is a left liberal media controlling their thoughts, that immigration and political correctness are unstoppable forces, that America has made a mess of the world.. all of which Clinton was directly involved in. These are major issues for people. And they were ignored. Totally ignored. 

How are any of those issues to do with sexism? 
 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

7 minutes ago, S John said:

I'm travelling to the UK for a few weeks next month and I have already paid for the majority of the trip while the dollar to pound exchange rate was favorable.  

Any merit to the idea of going over to my bank today and converting some spending $$ to GBP's?  Any risk of the dollar tanking relative to the pound in the next few days / weeks?  

I just came back from the US. Got my exchange rate timing SO badly wrong. 

[zelticgar]

10 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Well, I'm really not.    The issue as I see it is that these people have been duped by a fraud.   He isn't going to do jack shit for their plight.    They may believe Trump has their back, but they've just been sold a lemon.   The reality is that Trump is worse for their material prospects than Hillary would have been, but they've been fed a steady stream of "news" and party lines that have these voters enthusiastic to vote against their self interest (and/ or to not recognize their self interest at all). 

She offered them tangible benefits.   He offers them an outlet for a hissy fit.

I don't disagree with the theory that Trump may be a fraud but he is also an unknown. I find the idea that Hillary has anything to offer in the form of tangible benefits dubious at best. I think it is perfectly reasonable for someone to make the calculation that they would rather test a wildcard (Trump) versus opting for someone they know is not going to offer any substantial changes to their situation (HRC). 

All I'm really trying to point out here is that there are reasons to look at that explain why this occurred and they don't all boil down to the idea that there is this huge population of bigots and misogynists scheming to take over the political infrastructure. There are other things at play that are worth discussing. 

[Hodor the Articulate]

What affect will this have on the Republican party, if any?

41 minutes ago, SerPaladin said:

I often get "dour" and occasionally "intimidating" because I'm a serious and very large human. "Arrogant Prick" is the male version of RBF.

It's not the same. The words lobbed at you imply power, whereas RBF carries an underlying sentiment of "you should smile more, honey. Smiles make you look prettier!" I've been hearing variants of that since I was a kid. It's patronising and reduces my value to how attractive I am.

[James Arryn]

17 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

 I'm not labeling people as bigots.   I'm explicitly saying that there are otherwise good, well meaning people who contribute to the sexist climate!   And one cannot deny that various forms of bigotry really are the lifeblood of Trump's support/ campaign!   He rode on a very literally intolerant campaign.  I'm the one specifically not advocating for calling people names, or writing off whole character judgments for problematic thoughts/ behaviors.  

I said it seems like you're making this zero sum because it seems like you're trying to suggest that it's her flaws, rather than insidious sexism that brought her loss.    I'm saying it's both, and that I think her flaws have been exacerbated by her gender in many cases-- an argument James Arryn also made upthread.    I think it's a mistake to deny the deep sexism as a factor, just as it would be to deny that she had some pretty extensive baggage rendering her a very flawed candidate. 

Yeah, I think without her flaws she wins, but she probably also wins without her gender. I think people will concentrate on one or the other going forward as it suits their rhetoric, but both were real factors. I'd have been  persuaded that her flaws were more decisive if the gender vote gap had been less ~...as is, she's an elusive what if, a less dramatic/able Bobby Kennedy, a chance for progress (milquetoast though it might have been) vs.mthe arbitrary egoism of the next....Jesus Christ...president Donald Trump.

I fear we will greatly regret this choice.

I hope his foreign policy apathy leads to a less eventful term than Clinton's adventurism would have certainly promised. I fear his Cold War understanding of political machismo might lead to WWIII. I am saddened beyond words about what today signifies for Muslims, Mexicans, homosexuals, women, etc. Their status as (at best) unwelcome second class citizens has been affirmed by an electoral college stamp of approval. Look in the mirror, US of A...do you recognize what's looking back?

[Weeping Sore]

I'm baffled that 29% of the Hispanic vote went to Trump. WTF?

[butterbumps!]

16 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

My problem is that you are seemingly giving them an equal weighting, when it really isn't even close to being equal. Why people are upset enough to vote for Trump is because they are totally disillusioned with the establishment. They feel big business is ignoring them, that there is a left liberal media controlling their thoughts, that immigration and political correctness are unstoppable forces, that America has made a mess of the world.. all of which Clinton was directly involved in. These are major issues for people. And they were ignored. Totally ignored. 

How are any of those issues to do with sexism? 
 

ok.  So I have not been trying to give a comprehensive "hillary lost because of X and Y and only X and Y" argument.   She lost for sundry reasons, and I believe that sexism, in addition to other bigotries and social anxieties, played a very major role.   I think she is a flawed candidate with a lot of baggage.  I also believe that her gender ended up magnifying some of that baggage for a lot of people-- often even unintentionally/ unconsciously-- because of the specific types of criticism she's gotten, both independently and adjacently to Trump, and as well as my being aware of a great deal of sexism in general-- observed, anecdotally, reported and quantified.

"immigration and political correctness are unstoppable forces," belong to the category of intolerance/ bigotry/ social anxiety.   I'd been strenuously arguing that that sort of bigotry (or myriad bigotries of varying intensities and types) played a huge role in Trump's appeal.  I'm not arguing against this.  I also railed against the utterly biased media they've taken up, and the anti-intellectual streak they've adopted.   I know they believe the mainstream media is the problem, but really, the things many of them rely on for news have them convinced to go against their own interests on so many things.   So that's kind of another issue.

idk if the argument has gotten away from us at this point.  I'm not arguing for any one cause here, but I do maintain that sexism in the US is insidious and prevalent (especially the everyday unintentional sort, a discomfort if you will), and that this absolutely did harm her-- I like how JA put it below:

9 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Yeah, I think without her flaws she wins, but she probably also wins without her gender. I

Yes-- this is my suspicion.

[Ariadne23]

2 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Yeah, I think without her flaws she wins, but she probably also wins without her gender. 

Do you think a man married to a female version of Bill would really have ever been nominated? Or should we say being married to a guy like Bill is a part of life for many women and not for men? And if we do say that, how inspiring is that to women?

Women want a little more for our lives than what Hillary has settled for. Ironic, kind of, but I'd say it's not Hillary's gender, per se, but the bad choices she's made about it.

[Altherion]

9 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

The DNC believed that it was HIllary's turn to get their nomination.  So other potential nominees were probably discouraged or told to wait their turn.  When Bernie upset the apple cart and entered the race, the DNC turned on him.  Let the nomination process be big and bloody, and in the end your candidate be will someone who has proven they can reach the greatest number of voters.

Your last statement is essentially what the Republicans did and they wound up with a candidate that most of the party elders didn't really like. There's not always a single person who appeals to both the voters and the elites.

That said, I'm genuinely puzzled why the DNC fought so hard for Clinton. It was obvious from the very beginning that most people simply did not trust her. If the Democrats wanted a woman, they had a choice of many other candidates (e.g. Elizabeth Warren) who lacked Clinton's history of scandal and were more popular. Why nominate somebody who simply did not inspire any enthusiasm whatsoever?

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

1 minute ago, butterbumps! said:

ok.  So I have not been trying to give a comprehensive "hillary lost because of X and Y and only X and Y" argument.   She lost for sundry reasons, and I believe that sexism, in addition to other bigotries and social anxieties, played a very major role.   I think she is a flawed candidate with a lot of baggage.  I also believe that her gender ended up magnifying some of that baggage for a lot of people-- often even unintentionally/ unconsciously-- because of the specific types of criticism she's gotten, both independently and adjacently to Trump, and as well as being aware of a great deal of sexism in general, anecdotally, reported and quantified.

"immigration and political correctness are unstoppable forces," belong to the category of intolerance/ bigotry/ social anxiety.   I'd been strenuously arguing that that sort of bigotry (or myriad bigotries of varying intensities and types) played a huge role in Trump's appeal.  I'm not arguing against this.  I also railed against the utterly biased media they've taken up, and the anti-intellectual streak they've adopted.   I know they believe the mainstream media is the problem, but really, the things many of them rely on for news have them convinced to go against their own interests on so many things.   So that's kind of another issue.

idk if the argument has gotten away from us at this point.  I'm not arguing for any one cause here, but I do maintain that sexism in the US is insidious and prevalent (especially the everyday unintentional sort, a discomfort if you will), and that this absolutely did harm her.

 

Ok, well I think I just genuinely disagree with you on this, well most of your post to be honest.

Unless there was some sort of evidence to show that her being a woman was a bigger factor than her being investigated by the FBI, her actions in the middle east, being paid by Goldman to talk, her connections to big business, or any evidence to suggest it was even slightly relevant than I'm not really going to take it seriously. 

Sure Fox news and its ilk are insidious, but I've come from the position of looking at the right wing media as this weird exception, to seeing that the general media is incredibly biased and flawed at the same time. You don't tend to notice it if you are so down the rabbit hole that you just take most of it on face value.  The difference is that something like Fox News now feels like its the outsider rebelling against a locked in system, which is how Trump is coming across as well to a lot of people. 





 

[James Arryn]

7 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

ok.  So I have not been trying to give a comprehensive "hillary lost because of X and Y and only X and Y" argument.   She lost for sundry reasons, and I believe that sexism, in addition to other bigotries and social anxieties, played a very major role.   I think she is a flawed candidate with a lot of baggage.  I also believe that her gender ended up magnifying some of that baggage for a lot of people-- often even unintentionally/ unconsciously-- because of the specific types of criticism she's gotten, both independently and adjacently to Trump, and as well as my being aware of a great deal of sexism in general-- observed, anecdotally, reported and quantified.

"immigration and political correctness are unstoppable forces," belong to the category of intolerance/ bigotry/ social anxiety.   I'd been strenuously arguing that that sort of bigotry (or myriad bigotries of varying intensities and types) played a huge role in Trump's appeal.  I'm not arguing against this.  I also railed against the utterly biased media they've taken up, and the anti-intellectual streak they've adopted.   I know they believe the mainstream media is the problem, but really, the things many of them rely on for news have them convinced to go against their own interests on so many things.   So that's kind of another issue.

idk if the argument has gotten away from us at this point.  I'm not arguing for any one cause here, but I do maintain that sexism in the US is insidious and prevalent (especially the everyday unintentional sort, a discomfort if you will), and that this absolutely did harm her-- I like how JA put it below:

Yes-- this is my suspicion.

Anything this close...my God, to be her ATM...it's got to hurt. Losing to a clown like Trump, Jesus. As flawed as I think she is, she's 10 times the candidate he is. In a way she benefited from a lull in really attractive candidates, but in another she wears the tag for being the status quo candidate when the electorate decided that an Ivy League born millionaire name brand industrialist represented the attractive anti-establishment. Wtf? 

America, you aren't what you think you are.

[Frey family reunion]

10 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Your last statement is essentially what the Republicans did and they wound up with a candidate that most of the party elders didn't really like. There's not always a single person who appeals to both the voters and the elites.

That said, I'm genuinely puzzled why the DNC fought so hard for Clinton. It was obvious from the very beginning that most people simply did not trust her. If the Democrats wanted a woman, they had a choice of many other candidates (e.g. Elizabeth Warren) who lacked Clinton's history of scandal and were more popular. Why nominate somebody who simply did not inspire any enthusiasm whatsoever?

Don't worry about appealing to the party elites, at the end of the day no matter how much they despise you they will come around because their power is tied to their party holding office.

Both sides have their political partisans.  You can bash their favored nominee up and down in the nomination process (as Trump did) but they will still end up voting for you in the general election, because they are, well, partisan, that's what they do.  It's the squishy nonpolitical people that a winning candidate has to reach, they are the ones who end up deciding a lot of these elections.  The people who can't usually be bothered to vote, whether they are technically republican or democrat. 

For the Republicans they are crucial, because there are more Democratic partisans than Republican partisans.  But the democrats still need to motivate the nonpolitical members of their party to get out and vote to a certain extent.  If Hillary could have reached them, she would have won the election, fairly easily.