US Elections: Never Trust a Man with Orange Eyebrows

[butterbumps!]

Oh yes Robert Byrd, who renounced his early time with the KKK and went on to become an avid supporter of the Civil Rights Act such that upon his death the NAACP issued a statement about how he's an example of the "transformative power of the nation."  

That same sort of renunciation is precisely what people are wanting from trump.   

[aceluby]

It's not that all Trump supporters are bigots, it's that all Trump voters decided that bigotry and white nationalism aren't as big of a deal as whatever it was the reason they voted for him; whether that be abortion, immigration, or change/corruption.  Every one of them at the very least decided that racism and bigotry just wasn't as important as they were, and many of them did vote for racist, bigoted, misogynistic reasons.

[Fez]

28 minutes ago, Lord Flashheart said:

Chafee is a local embarrassment for me (RI native) the man was somehow elected as an independent governor despite being completely inept.

Was Chafee governor when the whole Curt Schilling/38 Studies debacle happened?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

What about Hillary's mentor who was a KKK member? If Trump had such a mentor we'd never hear the end of it. Yet people perpetuate this hysteria about Trump voters all being bigots.

So, the celebrations being held by the KKK over Trump's victory,how should those be viewed?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

No-one votes based off the VP.

Not really. A lot of Christians stuck with Trump because of Pence. And in hindsight Kaine gave Clinton nothing. She might have won if she selected someone who'd energize the base or the working class. 

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well see, as per my previous argument, I question the certainty with which the above is asserted. Maybe Democrat turnout wasn't low. Maybe they turned out, but voted for Trump. And maybe it was the conservative Republican turnout that was low. Resulting in Trump getting more or less similar numbers to what Romney got, but without a large swathe of the conservative Republican vote. Instead, he replaced that with votes from Democrats (and Independents) who voted for Obama last time around.

What makes you think this? The data is pretty clear. Likely Democratic voters simply didn't turn out for Clinton in the same way they did the last two cycles. 

[The guy from the Vale]

2 minutes ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

What about Hillary's mentor who was a KKK member? If Trump had such a mentor we'd never hear the end of it. Yet people perpetuate this hysteria about Trump voters all being bigots.

You're talking about Robert Byrd. Yes, he was a KKK member in his youth and filibustered the civil rights act back in '64. after the death of his son in 1982, however, he regretted that position and called his membership in the KKK the "biggest mistake of [his] life". In 2004, he received a 100% NAACP rating. When he died, the NAACP press statement read " [Byrd] became a champion for civil rights and liberties".

You know, sometimes, it's not about where you start your journey. It's where you end it. And Byrd's transformation from racist Dixiecrat to staunch NAACP ally is one of the greatest stories of redemption I've ever seen.

[aceluby]

I also think this loss is a clear case of getting your base to come out and vote.  Trump was able to do that and really proved that anyone with a heartbeat and an R behind their name will get the votes he got.  So Democrats need to realize this and actually work to make sure that they can get out the vote in each state to overcome that floor.  They simply did not do that this go around.  Part of that is that Clinton was a weak candidate, and part of that was the complacency of the DNC in typical strongholds.  Hopefully this is a wakeup call.

[Lord Flashheart]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

Was Chafee governor when the whole Curt Schilling/38 Studies debacle happened?

He was not. He took over in 2011. The 38 Studios deal was made in 2010. I'd love to be able to blame his stupid mug for that one. 

[SerPaladin]

53 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

I asked a few threads back but I still don't fully understand; the Republican narrative seems to be that the party is weak and powerless and there was nothing they could've possibly done to stop Trump accosting their party. The Democrat narrative seems to be that the party is strong and all-powerful and there was nothing the public could've done to stop The Party foisting Clinton on them. So which is it? How hard is it to become your party's nominee?

There seems to a notion that it's the job of the public to fold your arms and do nothing for four years, then say "right, who have you got for me?" "Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton." "Nope, don't like either. See you in four years." To what degree can an American (I'm not one, FYI) get involved in the nomination process? Would it be fair to say that Hillary had to cosy up to certain people and 'play the game' as that's the only way you get to be nominee? I find it very easy to imagine a parallel universe where Sanders lost to Trump and we're all sat around discussing why on Earth we didn't pick the 'safer' choice of Hillary and went with the elderly socialist Jew (not that I have a problem with any of those things, but you know).

Is it possible the Democrats were just shit out of luck this year in that they didn't have a good candidate?

The Republican Party is "weak" in that it is splintered. Tea Party vs. Establishment, Fiscal vs. Social vs. NeoCons, Libertarians v.s Evangelicals. It's still a vehicle, but there are more than a few groups who think they have their hands on the wheel. So you get Trump the outsider, Bush the establishment, Christie and Walker and Perry and Jindal vs. Cruz and Huckabee, and Rand Paul the Libertarian on the outs.

The Democratic Party is strong, in part because of the power and sway that all the Super-Delegates bring to the primary process. If the leadership decides who they want, Hillary, then they can make a lot of things suddenly move in that direction.

They both have as much institutional ground game. All the talk of Clinton's advantage in ground game was a bit of wishful thinking for the democrats. yes, the campaign's ground game was superior to Trump's but Trump had the support of the RNC's ground game. Trump was still at a disadvantage, but it wasn't the 5-1 Clinton advantage the press made it out to be. Closer to a 6-5 DNC + Clinton advantage over RNC + Trump.

[IheartIheartTesla]

4 minutes ago, aceluby said:

So Democrats need to realize this and actually work to make sure that they can get out the vote in each state to overcome that floor.  They simply did not do that this go around.  Part of that is that Clinton was a weak candidate, and part of that was the complacency of the DNC in typical strongholds.  Hopefully this is a wakeup call.

This is of course true, but I am also disturbed that the Democratic way to victory (say in PA and MI) involves racking up large number in Philly, Detroit and Flint and hoping it overcomes rural/suburban votes from the rest of the state. In my mind, this is a high-risk effort since it is very geographically localized rather than a more diffuse state-wide effort. The problem with localization is that small events can have a dramatic effect on turnout (strikes, weather, sportsball games, gutting of polling booths etc. etc.)

[DraculaAD1972]

25 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, the celebrations being held by the KKK over Trump's victory,how should those be viewed?

The very fact that there IS a KKK is bizarre to me, they should probably be ignored- since these groups thrive off their own notoriety.  If they start to gather a large following due to Trump's election then I would expect Trump to address them specifically, and condemn them passionately, until then why give them publicity which is what they want?

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 minutes ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

The very fact that there IS a KKK is bizarre to me, they should probably be ignored- since these groups thrive off their own notoriety.  If they start to gather a large following due to Trump's election then I would expect Trump to address them specifically, and condemn them passionately, until then why give them publicity which is what they want?

 

That's a dodge.  The fact that the KKK sees Trump as one of their own should give people pause.

[Frog Eater]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That's a dodge.  The fact that the KKK sees Trump as one of their own should give people pause.

The KKK is using Trump in the headlines to feel relevant. They havent been relevant in 50 years. They still arent. 

Trump has disavowed the KKK support. What else do you want him to do?

Did you feel the same when the Black Panthers celebrated Obama's win? Does the fact that the Black Panthers see Obama as one of their own give you pause?

[Dr. Pepper]

3 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

The KKK is using Trump in the headlines to feel relevant. They havent been relevant in 50 years. They still arent. 

Trump has disavowed the KKK support. What else do you want him to do?

Did you feel the same when the Black Panthers celebrated Obama's win? Does the fact that the Black Panthers see Obama as one of their own give you pause?

The Black Panthers aren't the fucking KKK.  Jesus fucking christ.  

 

[Frog Eater]

Just now, Dr. Pepper said:

The Black Panthers aren't the fucking KKK.  Jesus fucking christ.  

 

you're right. the black panthers are much more relevant than the KKK. 

[OldGimletEye]

Ten Bond Yield is at about 2.24 right now. 

So far, it looks like the markets think the Trump boom is a thing. 

[aceluby]

41 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

This is of course true, but I am also disturbed that the Democratic way to victory (say in PA and MI) involves racking up large number in Philly, Detroit and Flint and hoping it overcomes rural/suburban votes from the rest of the state. In my mind, this is a high-risk effort since it is very geographically localized rather than a more diffuse state-wide effort. The problem with localization is that small events can have a dramatic effect on turnout (strikes, weather, sportsball games, gutting of polling booths etc. etc.)

State-wide efforts are a losing proposition.  The thought that you could flip life long republican voters if democrats would put up the right candidate is a pipe dream.  People have been voting against their self interests for decades because of the letter that follows the name of the candidate, and that's not going to stop any time soon.  The way for democrats to win is to energize their base and get out the vote.  The way for republicans to win is to suppress that as much as possible and hit their floor.  Trump won with fewer votes than McCain or Romney because he hit that floor and democrats couldn't get their vote out.  It's really as simple as that.

[butterbumps!]

18 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

The KKK is using Trump in the headlines to feel relevant. They havent been relevant in 50 years. They still arent. 

Trump has disavowed the KKK support. What else do you want him to do?

Did you feel the same when the Black Panthers celebrated Obama's win? Does the fact that the Black Panthers see Obama as one of their own give you pause?

A good start would be to acknowledge all of toxicity he incited and coasted on as the toxic hatespeech it is, that it has no place in America, that he was wrong for having stoked it, and that discrimination will not be tolerated.  He can give a truly full throated renunciation of both the KKK and the alt-right ideologies, telling them that they have no place in his administration and no reason to celebrate.      He can also not appoint notoriously bigoted advisors to government positions.    He can implore those who voted for him to tame whatever whitelash and anger propelled him to power, and stop the open bigotry that's been occurring.    He can tell his campaign cronies to stop blaming Obama and Clinton for not quieting the protests against his bigotry, and take responsibility for it as the president elect.    Maybe something like this.   

[Frog Eater]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Ten Bond Yield is at about 2.24 right now. 

So far, it looks like the markets think the Trump boom is a thing. 

yeah, his administration will roll back a lot of the banking regulation put in place under Obama. We will see how long the banks behave without a leash before they crater again. 

I am a believer that regulation exists for a reason (usually), and is also usually reactionary. It was put in place due to address abuses that were taking place. Removing those reactionary regulations will just lead back to the initial behavior that necessitated the regulation in the first place. 

[OldGimletEye]

11 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

yeah, his administration will roll back a lot of the banking regulation put in place under Obama. We will see how long the banks behave without a leash before they crater again. 

I am a believer that regulation exists for a reason (usually), and is also usually reactionary. It was put in place due to address abuses that were taking place. Removing those reactionary regulations will just lead back to the initial behavior that necessitated the regulation in the first place. 

Oh, believe me I support Dodd-Frank and think it's necessary.
I also think Trump's economic policies will be bad long term.
But, right now, I'm pretty certain that markets are thinking Trump will create the temporary deficits that we need right now.
I'm not defending Trump's policies in any way, shape, or form.

Just be prepared for:

"It was a supply side miracle!!!!"