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

[James Arryn]

13 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

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.

I think of it this way; being Bill's wife got her invited to the party, but once there she kind was kinda asked to pay his overdue bills.

[Fez]

To expand on a point I saw Ross Douthat make on Twitter, Trump is authoritarian but holds seemingly heterodox policy views, Republican Congressional Leadership hold stale Reaganite policy views but can be constitutional conservatives. Trump and Congress will be debating/fighting/negotiating over these two domains of governance.

1) If we wind up with authoritarianism and stale Reaganism (Trump lets Ryan do most things, and instead focuses on expanding executive power and pursuing grievances), the next four+ years are going to be a nightmare.

2) If we wind up with constitutional conservatism and stale Reaganism (Trump doesn't do anything at all on his own), we're in for a retread of the W. Bush years, though much moreso.

3) If we wind up with constitutional conservatism and heterodox policies (Trump actually pushes on the vague populist statements he's made, but Republicans don't let him undermine democratic norms), things might not be so bad.

4) If we wind up with authoritarianism and heterodox policies (Trump gets whatever he wants), we're in for one wild ride and there's no telling how it ends.

I hope for 3) but expect 1); 2) would be near as bad 1) but at least there's a good chance Democrats could win in 2020; and 4) is the wild card to make everyone afraid.

[James Arryn]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

To expand on a point I saw Ross Douthat make on Twitter, Trump is authoritarian but holds seemingly heterodox policy views, Republican Congressional Leadership hold stale Reaganite policy views but can be constitutional conservatives. Trump and Congress will be debating/fighting/negotiating over these two domains of governance.

1) If we wind up with authoritarianism and stale Reaganism (Trump lets Ryan do most things, and instead focuses on expanding executive power and pursuing grievances), the next four+ years are going to be a nightmare.

2) If we wind up with constitutional conservatism and stale Reaganism (Trump doesn't do anything at all on his own), we're in for a retread of the W. Bush years, though much moreso.

3) If we wind up with constitutional conservatism and heterodox policies (Trump actually pushes on the vague populist statements he's made, but Republicans don't let him undermine democratic norms), things might not be so bad.

4) If we wind up with authoritarianism and heterodox policies (Trump gets whatever he wants), we're in for one wild ride and there's no telling how it ends.

I hope for 3) but expect 1); 2) would be near as bad 1) but at least there's a good chance Democrats could win in 2020; and 4) is the wild card to make everyone afraid.

Try not to take this personally, but I hold you personally responsible for my degree of shock. I was kinda Brexit-prepped for this, but your calm assurances had me thinking I was seeing ghosts. So while I defer to ou on current political understanding, I am loathe to follow your leanings. I like and respect you, but like a cheated-on lover, will never fully trust you again. 

[Maithanet]

15 minutes ago, Altherion said:

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?

Warren chose not to run.  Biden chose not to run.  The "party elites" didn't make that decision for them.  There were people within the party who actively advocated for them to throw thier hat in the ring, and they declined.  If you really want to you could say they declined because they feared Clinton's institutional advantage would be too much for the voters to overcome, but I don't find that convincing.  Obama overcame it in 2008, after all, and it's not like either of them were without support the way Sanders was. 
The DNC didn't choose who ran in the 2016 primary, the candidates did.  Clinton did a good job of convincing people like Biden and Warren not to run.  Unfortunately, it was her strongest political move of the entire campaign. 

[Derfel Cadarn]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/relieved-britain-no-longer-biggest-fk-up-of-2016-20161109116771

The UK looked a cert for the Dumbass of the Year (Nation category) award, but you've saved us at the last minute.  Thanks America!  

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Try not to take this personally, but I hold you personally responsible for my degree of shock. I was kinda Brexit-prepped for this, but your calm assurances had me thinking I was seeing ghosts. So while I defer to ou on current political understanding, I am loathe to follow your leanings. I like and respect you, but like a cheated-on lover, will never fully trust you again. 

Fair enough. I've fully admitted that I was completely wrong about the election, like most people were. The data we had just wasn't right, and almost no one fully understand just poorly white rural voters now feel about the Democratic party.

Difference now is, I'm not making any predictions, just pointing out what can happen; which is broadly one of those scenarios. Either Trump dominates Congress; Congress runs the country because Trump doesn't care; or Trump and Congress come to an understanding, which could either be terrible or maybe not so bad (depending on what Trump actually wants).

[HoodedCrow]

Centuries back. Women are inferior and cursed.

Don't eat apples, have sex or think.

 

[butterbumps!]

38 minutes ago, zelticgar said:

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. 

I agree that there's lot of threads at play that are worth discussing, though for my part, I do think a lot of it is rooted in various bigotries (or "cultural anxieties") of varying degrees of intensity.  And I admit that I am very suspicious of anything that approaches this as "it's not about bigotry, it's about the economy" or "an outsider," and so forth (and I'm not saying you're doing that).  I very much think the bigotry/ cultural anxiety impulses are tied to all those other aspects.  

To be clear, I don't think it's the case that most Trump voters want to lynch people, or that people harboring any degree of bigoted thoughts are at the level of grand wizards or something.    I don't think all or perhaps even most of these people are avowed racists or active misogynists, though I think a lot of the Trump rallyists might fall close or into that category though, and certainly the alt-righters do.  

but for the majority, I get that a lot of them feel deep anxiety about the changing demographics and values of the US.   I think a lot of it falls into a kind of "lower level" racism/ bigotries/ sexism/ homophobia.  It's still bigoted for sure, but not that loud, consciously maliciously, sheet wearing sort.   I do get that there's different intensities to these bigotries, and while all are bad, I'm not sure that calling out every level of this as though the offender is card carrying member of the KKK is terribly helpful.  In fact, I think that might make them rationalize their bigotry as "nothing like that, ergo, I'm not bigoted."  So anyway, on that front I'm all for coming up with some other way to address this with them.    

[TheKitttenGuard]

11 minutes ago, Fez said:

To expand on a point I saw Ross Douthat make on Twitter, Trump is authoritarian but holds seemingly heterodox policy views, Republican Congressional Leadership hold stale Reaganite policy views but can be constitutional conservatives. Trump and Congress will be debating/fighting/negotiating over these two domains of governance.

1) If we wind up with authoritarianism and stale Reaganism (Trump lets Ryan do most things, and instead focuses on expanding executive power and pursuing grievances), the next four+ years are going to be a nightmare.

2) If we wind up with constitutional conservatism and stale Reaganism (Trump doesn't do anything at all on his own), we're in for a retread of the W. Bush years, though much moreso.

3) If we wind up with constitutional conservatism and heterodox policies (Trump actually pushes on the vague populist statements he's made, but Republicans don't let him undermine democratic norms), things might not be so bad.

4) If we wind up with authoritarianism and heterodox policies (Trump gets whatever he wants), we're in for one wild ride and there's no telling how it ends.

I hope for 3) but expect 1); 2) would be near as bad 1) but at least there's a good chance Democrats could win in 2020; and 4) is the wild card to make everyone afraid.

It's 4

Buckle-up Buckaroo

[James Arryn]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

Fair enough. I've fully admitted that I was completely wrong about the election, like most people were. The data we had just wasn't right, and almost no one fully understand just poorly white rural voters now feel about the Democratic party.

Difference now is, I'm not making any predictions, just pointing out what can happen; which is broadly one of those scenarios. Either Trump dominates Congress; Congress runs the country because Trump doesn't care; or Trump and Congress come to an understanding, which could either be terrible or maybe not so bad (depending on what Trump actually wants).

Lol, just poking man. Hitler was right; you feel better when you have someone to blame!

[Castel]

26 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?

Possible explanation: Clinton locked up the internal support before the email scandal was seen as an eternal problem and there was no one really that strong for a general that wanted to contest it. Biden for example lost his son. That puts a damper on the election.

Elizabeth Warren is beloved amongst progressives but does that translate to a general? IIRC we saw Bernie doing much worse with older African-Americans,and voters in general iirc.  It's also worth keeping in mind that, at the time, it was unclear who was running. You don't necessarily want to go totally to the left if the GOP manage to find someone who could conceivably appeal to the middle of the country.

And, frankly, she's highly qualified. It's not an insane bet that that would carry you through. 

[Maithanet]

6 minutes ago, Fez said:

Fair enough. I've fully admitted that I was completely wrong about the election, like most people were. The data we had just wasn't right, and almost no one fully understand just poorly white rural voters now feel about the Democratic party.

My prediction was almost as bad as yours.  What is odd is that my hopes were almost entirely staked on Florida and North Carolina (and Nevada I guess), where polling seemed most consistently in favor of Clinton.  Once it was obvious she wasn't going to win either of the big southern prizes (which was pretty early), I totally expected her firewall to fail. 

[Ariadne23]

16 minutes ago, Fez said:

To expand on a point I saw Ross Douthat make on Twitter, Trump is authoritarian but holds seemingly heterodox policy views, Republican Congressional Leadership hold stale Reaganite policy views but can be constitutional conservatives. Trump and Congress will be debating/fighting/negotiating over these two domains of governance.

1) If we wind up with authoritarianism and stale Reaganism (Trump lets Ryan do most things, and instead focuses on expanding executive power and pursuing grievances), the next four+ years are going to be a nightmare.

2) If we wind up with constitutional conservatism and stale Reaganism (Trump doesn't do anything at all on his own), we're in for a retread of the W. Bush years, though much moreso.

3) If we wind up with constitutional conservatism and heterodox policies (Trump actually pushes on the vague populist statements he's made, but Republicans don't let him undermine democratic norms), things might not be so bad.

4) If we wind up with authoritarianism and heterodox policies (Trump gets whatever he wants), we're in for one wild ride and there's no telling how it ends.

I hope for 3) but expect 1); 2) would be near as bad 1) but at least there's a good chance Democrats could win in 2020; and 4) is the wild card to make everyone afraid.

Excellent breakdown.

I'm expecting #4. What signs point in any other direction?

[Mr Fixit]

36 minutes ago, Altherion said:

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?

This may be a simplistic answer, but I believe there is some truth to it. Because the current US party elites are a lot like mafia: exclusive elite clubs networked and connected by big money, special interests, and political favors traded back and forth within the group. Hillary was one of the top dogs in such a constellation of power and got the opportunity to capitalize on it. 

This is also one of the reasons why many people who have no love for the Republicans seem not too bothered by this turn of events. They probably see the Democratic disaster as a chance to tear down the corrupt DNC machine and rebuild the party along the more grassroots line. Truth be told, it's not a crazy thought.

[HoodedCrow]

It's so easy to hate women.

[Castel]

54 minutes ago, 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?

They'll never answer. They come up with the same talking point and, when asked to face the actual demographic reality they prefer to ignore it for this bs. It's been going on since the fucking primaries. 

People will literally find any explanation but what the actual demographics say.

[The guy from the Vale]

1 hour ago, JoeyBanana said:

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.

Pretty much. Compare the conservative reaction to Merkel to the reaction to, e.g., Andrea Nahles, Claudia Roth or Renate Künast. It is indeed a one-way street. Even my left-leaning, usually feminist father tends to get a quite visceral reation to seeing Nahles give any kind of interview. And it got nothing to do with either her positions (which he mostly shares) or anything tangible. 

[illrede]

10 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

Excellent breakdown.

I'm expecting #4. What signs point in any other direction?

The collapse of the Never Trumpers was predicated on an assumption of 2 or 3. But it' would take effort.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

14 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

Excellent breakdown.

I'm expecting #4. What signs point in any other direction?

I think 4# sounds fairly likely as well, followed by 3. It is time to stop underestimating Trump. He has just hijacked one major political party, destroyed the other, and as of yesterday became the most powerful man in the world. All this in a little over one year's time, with no prior political experience, and against the wishes of most of the political and medial establishment of his country. He is clearly very effective at getting his way, think what you will about his methods or views. 

[James Arryn]

1 minute ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

I think 4# sounds fairly likely as well, followed by 3. It is time to stop underestimating Trump. He has just hijacked one major political party, destroyed the other, and as of yesterday he became elected the most powerful man in the world. All this in a little over one year's time, with no prior political experience, and against the wishes of most of the political and medial establishment of his country. He clearly is very effective at getting what he wants, think what you will about his methods or views. 

Or he's of his moment, a Savanarola for modern America.