US Elections: Apocalypse Now

[ummester]

54 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

is the Democratic party really that lost and the Republicans so secure?   Because, honestly, I'm kind of thinking a Trump presidency will get pretty old pretty quick even to a lot of his supporters, who will find that there won't be any winning, there will be tangible losing, and America might decide fairly soon that demagogue outsiders aren't the way to go.  

It's happening across the entire West, with different manifestations. The anti establishment movements are gathering, not softening. Populous demagogues and isolationism is the foreseeable future for the West - that, or war. Neolibralism and globalisation are being given their marching orders everywhere.

[The Anti-Targ]

Interesting article

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/86359708/im-a-muslim-a-woman-and-an-immigrant-i-voted-for-donald-trump

Quote

I'm a Muslim, a woman and an immigrant. I voted for Donald Trump

Not because I think this person made a well reasoned and rational decision. But because people are so prepared to vote against what they believe in, because they have such disdain for Hillary Clinton. Her sins were so beyond the pale that it rendered Trump's sins unimportant, and the Democratic policy platform irrelevant. And the assumption that the "system" would put the brakes on the most egregious of Trump's campaign proposals.

That's quite a risk to take for someone with her expressed ideological views. Noting that this person is a self professed progressive and seems like she would probably have voted for any other Democrat over Trump. Ultimately as a resident of Virginia her vote didn't actually harm Clinton's chances, but also clearly she is one of many social and economic progressives who voted for Trump because of real or imagined personal issues for Clinton. At best I think these voters may wind up feeling their vote for Trump was a mistake on balance. At worst I think there will be a severe case of buyer's remorse among an ECV changing number of people.

It will be fascinating to watch how things play out in the minds of these people over the next 2 years at least (while all elected branches are red and the SCOTUS becomes more conservatively inclined). Maybe they think there is a ballot box remedy in two years if control of the Sentate can go back to Democrats (could the House ever go back to Democrats?). But for progressives who voted for Trump there is a lot of damage that can be done for their progressive interests that will not be able to be undone by putting a Democratic majority into the Senate.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

16 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Acceptance, apparently, has many shades of grey.

https://www.change.org/p/electoral-college-electors-electoral-college-make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19?recruiter=11194405&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition

You know there are states who have already passed this law?  

Quote

The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions possessing 165 electoral votes—61% of the 270 electoral votes necessary to activate it, including four small jurisdictions (RI, VT, HI, DC), three medium- size states (MD, MA, WA), and four big states (NJ, IL, NY, CA). The bill has passed a total of 33 legislative chambers in 22 states—most recently by a bipartisan 40–16 vote in the Arizona House, a 28–18 vote in the Oklahoma Senate, a 57–4 vote in New York Senate, and a 37–21 vote in Oregon House

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation

[mcbigski]

Lets stop the whining about the electoral college.  Clinton won the popular vote by 1% or so but that's like having the highest dead lift in the 800m.  I mean its nice and all but probably means you focused on the wrong things.  PA.  WI.  MI.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Hello darkness my old friend...

 

[Tempra]

2 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Lets stop the whining about the electoral college.  Clinton won the popular vote by 1% or so but that's like having the highest dead lift in the 800m.  I mean its nice and all but probably means you focused on the wrong things.  PA.  WI.  MI.

You'd think from all the whining that the electoral college allowed 10,000,000 white men impose Trump on a nation of 300,000,000.  In reality, both Trump and Hillary got nearly identical amounts of votes.

 

(The popular vote is meaningless becomes it only represents how many people voted in the Electoral College voting system, not a true popular vote).

[Martell Spy]

Ah some great news. The master is back.

Howard Dean: I'm running for DNC chair

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/howard-dean-im-running-for-dnc-chair-231208

[Altherion]

This is hilarious:

Quote

 

On Thursday, Democratic Party officials held their first staff meeting since Hillary Clinton’s stunning loss to Donald Trump in the presidential race. It didn’t go well.

Donna Brazile, the interim leader of the Democratic National Committee, was giving what one attendee described as “a rip-roaring speech” to about 150 employees, about the need to have hope for wins going forward, when a staffer identified only as Zach stood up with a question.

“Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this?” he asked, according to two people in the room. “You backed a flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain and yourself.”

 

Thank you, Zach with no known last name, for saying to her face what a whole lot of people are probably thinking.

[TheKitttenGuard]

1 minute ago, Martell Spy said:

Ah some great news. The master is back.

Howard Dean: I'm running for DNC chair

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/howard-dean-im-running-for-dnc-chair-231208

Bernie is backing Ellison so it maybe something to be seen with the way.

I am fine with Dean but somewhat concern of another retread.  Still do think he has much of a stench and it looked he was pushed out for DWS IIRC so it that can be a positive.

[ummester]

39 minutes ago, Mr Fixit said:

Also, some prophetic words from Bernie, August 2015.

"Let me be very clear. In my view, Democrats will not retain the White House, will not regain the Senate, will not gain the House and will not be successful in dozens of governor’s races unless we run a campaign which generates excitement and momentum and which produces a huge voter turnout. 
 
With all due respect, and I do not mean to insult anyone here, that will not happen with politics as usual. The same old, same old will not be successful. 
The people of our country understand that — given the collapse of the American middle class and the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality we are experiencing — we do not need more establishment politics or establishment economics. 
 
We need a political movement which is prepared to take on the billionaire class and create a government which represents all Americans, and not just corporate America and wealthy campaign donors. 
In other words, we need a movement which takes on the economic and political establishment, not one which is part of it." 

 

Smart man who understands that the world doesn't revolve exclusively around identity politics.

I was talking to some other Ozzies about why Trump got through in the US and Bernie didn't. It's actually nothing to do with identify politics and PC stuff at all - it's cultural.

Down under, we have tall poppy syndrome - it's in our culture to try and tear down the successful. We probably would have voted Bernie in as our anti establishment representative. The US is culturally opposite to this - in the US people idolise success and celebrity. So Trump was an easier anti establishment pill for the US to swallow than Bernie.

[Ariadne23]

So, if I can ask a question that's going to make me sound pretty dense, what does the phrase "identity politics" really mean? Is it a derogatory term always? Or no? I've asked a few friends, read the Wiki and some other stuff, and I really don't get it. I understand that it has to do with group membership, and evidently specifically LBGT issues, but why are we using the word "identity" and not "social progressivism" or something like that? 

[The Marquis de Leech]

Look at it this way.

In November 1974, the Republicans had been crushed at all levels of government. Then they lose their last remaining foothold (the White House) in 1976 to an anti-Establishment type. We know what happened.

If Bill Clinton was the Democratic Eisenhower, and Obama the Democratic Nixon (in terms of voter coalition), perhaps Trump will end up as the Republican Jimmy.

[Tempra]

28 minutes ago, Altherion said:

This is hilarious:

Thank you, Zach with no known last name, for saying to her face what a whole lot of people are probably thinking.

Great start.  Donna Brazile should be banished from the DNC and any media gig.  

 

Maybe then we can go back to pretending that the media is unbiased and did not collude with a political party.

[Mindwalker]

Hello, fellow sufferers... I have another question. I'm not in the US. What exactly is a filibuster in connection with the nomination of supreme court judges? (I recently watched the old British House of Cards series, so I thought I learned what a filibuster is, but that took place in parliament, so...)

[Altherion]

Just now, Mindwalker said:

Hello, fellow sufferers... I have another question. I'm not in the US. What exactly is a filibuster in connection with the nomination of supreme court judges? (I recently watched the old British House of Cards series, so I thought I learned what a filibuster is, but that took place in parliament, so...)

According to the Constitution, only a simple majority (i.e. 50 Senators) is required to approve a nominated judge. However, the Senate made its own rules which effectively raises the requirement to 60 Senators because if it's fewer than that, all debate on the issue can be blocked. This rule was eliminated for most appointments (but not Supreme Court judges) by the Democratic Senate during the Obama Administration. There is now talk of the Republicans finishing it off and eliminating it even for the Supreme Court.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Just now, Mindwalker said:

Hello, fellow sufferers... I have another question. I'm not in the US. What exactly is a filibuster in connection with the nomination of supreme court judges? (I recently watched the old British House of Cards series, so I thought I learned what a filibuster is, but that took place in parliament, so...)

Filibuster is the process by which Senate debate is prolonged (in the old days, it used to be via lengthy speeches. Now it's just refusal to vote to close the debate). You need 60 votes to close the debate before actually putting things to a vote.

This allows a party with 41-49 Senators to block the majority.

[ummester]

11 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

So, if I can ask a question that's going to make me sound pretty dense, what does the phrase "identity politics" really mean? Is it a derogatory term always? Or no? I've asked a few friends, read the Wiki and some other stuff, and I really don't get it. I understand that it has to do with group membership, and evidently specifically LBGT issues, but why are we using the word "identity" and not "social progressivism" or something like that? 

I think it just means forming political opinions, groups and alliances around social identities, like LBGT issues.

Personally, I think its a neoliberal trick, to give people something emotive to focus on as they rip society off economically.

[Mindwalker]

Thank you altherion and Roose Bolton's Pet Leech!

[Mr Fixit]

21 minutes ago, ummester said:

Down under, we have tall poppy syndrome - it's in our culture to try and tear down the successful. We probably would have voted Bernie in as our anti establishment representative. The US is culturally opposite to this - in the US people idolise success and celebrity. So Trump was an easier anti establishment pill for the US to swallow than Bernie.

I can't presume to talk about Australians, but if you're anything like us Europeans, you exhibit a healthy dose of scepticism toward power and have a pronounced contrarian streak. You are right that people here don't idolize or value success (however we may define it) to nearly the same extent the Americans seem to. On the other hand, the extreme rigidity of the US system of government, which makes it very difficult to influence from the outside, may also have instilled a form of anti-establishment futility among the voters. Maybe that's why there are ridiculously low percentages for third party candidates.

That said, I don't think Trump was an easier anti-establishment pill to swallow. As Mormont is eager to remind me, early polls are of limited value, but they did consistently show that Bernie was better suited to run against Trump. I think there's a much simpler explanation for why Trump won the Republican primary as opposed to Bernie in his party: Republican leadership and party elites have been in disarray for quite some time which made it easier for a populist outsider like Trump to waltz in and hijack the party. Dems, on the other hand, had a relatively popular president supporting Hillary, not to mention the Clinton party machine that by all accounts is a force to be reckoned with.

[Ariadne23]

22 minutes ago, Tempra said:

Great start.  Donna Brazile should be banished from the DNC and any media gig.  

Maybe then we can go back to pretending that the media is unbiased and did not collude with a political party.

Oh he wasn't finished:

Quote

Brazile began to answer, but Zach had more to say.

“You are part of the problem,” he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for Trump’s victory by siding with Clinton early on.

"You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”

On the question of media bias, it's a bit of a strange year for that question what with one candidate threatening the press and all that.