US Elections: Apocalypse Now

[Jaxom 1974]

10 hours ago, mormont said:

57 minutes ago, Mexal said:

It will until everything he has promised them won't happen. Then they'll criticize him too. That's how politics works.

Sorry about the wonkiness of the quote function...

Mex, I get what you're saying, but this feels so very different.  Trump is not seemingly capable of losing or being considered a loser.  If he doesn't make good on promises within the the next year, will he allow his base and those who want, demand, a wall, Muslims banned, Hillary in jail, the ACA gone...does he allow them to criticize him and his lack of follow through, or does he use any impotency on promises made on his part to see senators and congressmen who don't help him to be primaried with a triple down? Because it isn't that he doesn't want to do these things, it's that the establishment of Washington won't let him...and we slide further into a Trump state of totalianism or fascism?

It feels different.  And I'm likely wrong, but this is what worries me.

[Tempra]

Looks like Democrats are leaning towards Keith Ellison as next DNC Chair. This is the guy that compared Bush to Hitler and believes he caused 9/11.  I guess Democrats believe the way to beat crazy is with crazy?  Yikes.

[Mexal]

2 minutes ago, Tempra said:

Looks like Democrats are leaning towards Keith Ellison as next DNC Chair. This is the guy that compared Bush to Hitler and believes he caused 9/11.  I guess Democrats believe the way to beat crazy is with crazy?  Yikes.

More like they believe that they need to move left to win, similar to how the Republicans doubled down on moving right. Not sure any of this is good for our country. The partisan split is about to get deeper than it already is and it's already really really deep.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

54 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/blacklivesmatter-leader-deray-lives-home-owned-by-soros-connected/

Its organizers are

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2016/07/15/the-white-elites-who-fund-black-lives-matter/

Okay, but that wasn't the question.

 

/And what socio-political movement isn't funded? 

 

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I am more curious, of what the dissection of this election on the DNC side will bring to light. 

I mean, HRC lost to the worst candidate in ages. And she lost traditional Democrat stronghold liks Wisconsin on her way to crash and burn. And the simple explanation, that well over 40% of the voting public are either racist or sexist will not do.

And there are some really interesting questions.

Would Sanders have fared better?

My first guess, possibly. He might have lost the white blue collar voters on the same scale Clinton did. And his base seemed way more enthuastic than hers. In addition, he had way less baggage than secretary Clinton. Whether that baggage was placed unfairly up on her through years of smearing, or not does not matter, her favorability rating was never good. And I don't think it's implausible to assume millenials would have shown up in bigger numbers at the polls for him, than for her.

Was Tim Kaine a bad VP pick for Clinton? And related to that was her strategy to aim for disgruntled Republicans a terrible idea?

Both seems to be case, hindsight is 20/20. 

Why was the turnout within the AA community not as good, as it should have been? Same question for the millenials?

Was it disappointment with the Obama administration? Was her groundgame bad? Did people take this election for granted?

 

[Fez]

Something important to keep in mind about Sanders hypotheticals is that if he had won the nomination, Bloomberg almost certainly would've jumped in the race. And its hard to say how much support Bloomberg would get, but he'd probably pull a lot more from Sanders than Trump. Trump would probably still win in that 3-way race.

[Jaxom 1974]

Would Bloomberg have run if Uncle Joe had joined in?  I kinda wish Uncle Joe had run.

[Chaircat Meow]

Any ideas why Trump did not lose as much of the Hispanic vote as supposed? The exit polls seem to suggest he did no worse than Romney with that group and better than expected with Hispanic men in particular. Is this because of Hillary?

[Frog Eater]

Just now, Chaircat Meow said:

Any ideas why Trump did not lose as much of the Hispanic vote as supposed? The exit polls seem to suggest he did no worse than Romney with that group and better than expected with Hispanic men in particular. Is this because of Hillary?

possibly because despite the media screaming racism because he wanted to build the wall, they saw through the subterfuge?

 

[butterbumps!]

 

2 hours ago, Ariadne23 said:

What I've been reading in the media is less this, and more the idea that in appealing to Wall Street money and seeking moderate business-class Republican votes and endorsements, the left abandoned "main street" working class concerns. As Michael Moore wrote over the summer:

People are more vulnerable to the devil on their shoulder that is irrational scapegoating when their legitimate concerns are not being addressed. And globalist economic policies do not address the concerns of Rust Belt America.

I've been seeing that too, and it also concerns me a little in the sense that it gets a bit too close to letting the bigotry off the hook.  It comes too close to a kind of appeasement/ vindication of this bloc for my comfort, in the sense that it legitimizes the "economic concerns" narrative as the primary or sole driver without confront the social anxiety root propelling it.   

I need to locate and link this, but I remember seeing a study or two that showed that racial bias grew between 2008-2012, and I think again from 2012-2015, as a kind of backlash to Obama's presidency and the social changes that took place, independently of Trump.   

 

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don't know that the Democrats have been particularly confrontational.  They want people to vote for them.  Even the "Deplorables" moment wasn't really that bad.  I'm not sure where to go with this.  

Mormont,

No, people don't like to have bigotry pointed out.  Yes, they react with anger when it is pointed out.  Which is why I think such engagements taking place on an emotional level is a dangerous road to traverse.  

When people attempt to engage others on an emotional level they are likely to get an emotional response.  What the person attempting an emotional engagement is seeking is an empathetic response.  What they may get is an angry "Fuck you! How dare you say I'm a bigot!" response. 

I'd love to know if there are any studies that ask if emotional or rational engagement is more or less likely to change minds.

I agree with Mormont's comments on the matter, that the problem people have with being called out for bigotry is the simple fact that they are confronting their wrongness about something.   People have a hard time with this even when it's done very rationally and neutrally.  

5 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Any ideas why Trump did not lose as much of the Hispanic vote as supposed? The exit polls seem to suggest he did no worse than Romney with that group and better than expected with Hispanic men in particular. Is this because of Hillary?

A lot of people who are legal immigrants are against illegal immigrants.   And that bloc tends to be conservative on social issues, like abortion.  

[Fez]

5 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Would Bloomberg have run if Uncle Joe had joined in?  I kinda wish Uncle Joe had run.

Probably not. And Biden absolutely would've run if his son hadn't died, he almost did anyway. Its really hard to guess how a Clinton-Biden-Sanders primary goes though. I don't think Clinton wins it, but I don't know if its Biden or Sanders who comes out on top.

I think Biden would've beaten Trump though if he got the chance.

[Little Scribe of Naath]

7 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Any ideas why Trump did not lose as much of the Hispanic vote as supposed? The exit polls seem to suggest he did no worse than Romney with that group and better than expected with Hispanic men in particular. Is this because of Hillary?

Guessing it's the Cuban Americans who voted for Trump, in FL, due to Obama's decision to relax the embargo on Cuba:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article112080317.html

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

butterbumps,

 

I agree with Mormont's comments on the matter, that the problem people have with being called out for bigotry is the simple fact that they are confronting their wrongness about something.   People have a hard time with this even when it's done very rationally and neutrally.

That is true.  How much worse is it when it is an activist getting in your face and calling you a terrible person in no uncertain terms for saying "Hello"?   

I, the eternal advocate of the "Golden Mean", am wondering if the degree of coverage of more "aggressive" activism has prompted the MFV?  

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Fez said:

Something important to keep in mind about Sanders hypotheticals is that if he had won the nomination, Bloomberg almost certainly would've jumped in the race. And its hard to say how much support Bloomberg would get, but he'd probably pull a lot more from Sanders than Trump. Trump would probably still win in that 3-way race.

Are you sure? 

There are two hypotheticals in there.

Let's start with the first. Would he really have run, or was Trump properly scary enough for him to stay his hand. He toyed with the idea quite early, but I am not 100% convinced he would have followed up on this idea with the consequence of being regarded as Trump enabler for all eternity.

I am also not sold on the second notion, that his run would have spoiled Sanders campaign. The political climate is not too kind to third party runs. So would Bloomberg have have fared significantly better (or better at all) than Gary Johnson? All the big money donors Clinton had, seemed to have a rather negative effect on her in the rust belt (interpretation on my part). So are there enough White Collar Democrats in those key states that they actually could have harmed Sanders? This is again rather looking at Michigan. 

But I guess we will have to wait for the post mortem to get the answer to that.

[Castel]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

butterbumps,

 

 

That is true.  How much worse is it when it is an activist getting in your face and calling you a terrible person in no uncertain terms for saying "Hello"?   

I, the eternal advocate of the "Golden Mean", am wondering if the degree of coverage of more "aggressive" activism has prompted the MFV?  

MFV?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Eponine said:

Do you think it's more effective to point out the humanity of the people they're bigoted against? 

Clearing quote

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Castel said:

MFV?

"Middle Finger Voter" or "Middle Finger Vote".

[Chaircat Meow]

14 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

A lot of people who are legal immigrants are against illegal immigrants.   And that bloc tends to be conservative on social issues, like abortion.  

Yeah, I understand that. I'm still surprised Trump didn't do at least some damage to himself with the Hispanic vote though ... It looks like the dems misread those groups quite badly. They seemed confident with the narrative that Trump had wrecked GOP support there. GOP might not be facing demographic doom after all.  

[Castel]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

"Middle Finger Voter" or "Middle Finger Vote".

Thank you for explaining.

[butterbumps!]

24 minutes ago, Notone said:

I am more curious, of what the dissection of this election on the DNC side will bring to light. 

I mean, HRC lost to the worst candidate in ages. And she lost traditional Democrat stronghold liks Wisconsin on her way to crash and burn. And the simple explanation, that well over 40% of the voting public are either racist or sexist will not do.

And there are some really interesting questions.

Would Sanders have fared better?

My first guess, possibly. He might have lost the white blue collar voters on the same scale Clinton did. And his base seemed way more enthuastic than hers. In addition, he had way less baggage than secretary Clinton. Whether that baggage was placed unfairly up on her through years of smearing, or not does not matter, her favorability rating was never good. And I don't think it's implausible to assume millenials would have shown up in bigger numbers at the polls for him, than for her.

Was Tim Kaine a bad VP pick for Clinton? And related to that was her strategy to aim for disgruntled Republicans a terrible idea?

Both seems to be case, hindsight is 20/20. 

Why was the turnout within the AA community not as good, as it should have been? Same question for the millenials?

Was it disappointment with the Obama administration? Was her groundgame bad? Did people take this election for granted?

 

Something that really stressed me out most of this stupid election is how devastatingly bad of a self-promoter Hillary is.  Her branding is atrocious.  She does stand for a lot of things-- good things that would appeal to tons of people-- but that never came across.   Her catchphrase was incredible lame.   I don't think she needed to be a cult of personality to win, but no one was enthusiastic to vote for her whatsoever.   

Honestly, I think she needed to drum up just a little more enthusiasm by tightening up a more consumable brand and could have won.   People who voted for Trump are an issue to be sure, but the people who'd normally vote for a Democrat seem to have had a kind of malaise, which I think is partially due to everyone taking for granted she'd win anyway, and more so the fact that her candidacy was mindnumbingly lackluster.   She's all substance, no style.