2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:30 am UTC

I don't think Clinton would actually win in that case. I mean, it'd be litigated to hell and back, but presumably the Republican-nominated electors from the electoral college would just vote in Pence.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:32 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I'd like the Dems to clean house of the anti-science crowd. The anti-vaxxers, the anti-gmos, the anti-nukes. Let the Republicans have the monopoly on the stupid.



They'd have to alienate their critical theory-affirming pomo humanities major college undergrad base. Which ain't happening.

They use science only when it suits them and when they can accuse the opposition of being scientifically illiterate. Both of course are scientifically illiterate on top of being innumerate, but that will not stop them from feeling so smug about their inteligence relative to the opposition.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:35 am UTC

Welp! I feel pretty nauseous, now.

The next four years are going to be 'interesting', and by 'interesting' I actually mean terrifying.

EDIT: To anyone who said Obama's election ended racism, guess what you guys, racism's back!

It's going to be pretty fucking upsetting to see white nationalist movements and the alt-right cheering, tomorrow.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:50 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
sardia wrote: Democrats can probably roll over on guns, but what does that get you? Libertarians? I'd take a green voter over a libertarian any day. It's worth twice as much, aligns closely with Democrats, and much more relevant to the national discussion. You need either a crap ton of minorities, a la Obama + Jesus, or white people. There's just no way around it...*


Johnson's pulling a lot more votes than Stein. Probably more relevant.

Not that I think appealing to Libertarians is enough. It might be a start, but there's honestly not that many of us, really. Not when pedal hits the metal for voting.

Yea, that's what I meant about libertarians. Harmless guys, but not many of them. Clinton tried getting the intellectual GOP vote, but that's wasnt persuasive.

Data on voter suppression is limited in the modern era. Nate says it's about 2%, not counting Jim Crow levels off suppression. The bigger issue is redistricting and self sorting by party. Being an urban party makes their voters really inefficient.

White people, like always, are the key. Maybe do something for college educated voters, or get the labor union coalition of old going again. Which is all easier said than done. Maybe mandate holidays and voting in cities on future election days?
Democrats don't have a lot of options here, States can overrule cities. The only places any strats work are already blue. You can grass roots a few pure as the driven snow angel bills, but overall the Democrats are just gonna lose out legislatively. Even assuming the GOP blows up, I don't know how that affects the Democrats.
... Here be dragons.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:52 am UTC

New York Times has called the election for Trump with wins in Pa and Wis.

[edit]Hillary has conceded.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:55 am UTC

*sigh* you had one job america. Well I give something truly catastrophic only a few percent and mostly expect shitty things for the USA that don't affect me directly. What worries me more is that with people electing Trump I doubt there is a lower border for the president you might elect. And of course the GOP will hardly change strategies now. Anyway I will just stop paying attention to your politics for a few years and see the next result in 4 years.

User avatar
Deva
Has suggestions for the murderers out there.
Posts: 1944
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:18 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Deva » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:56 am UTC

Checked local elections. Remembered one candidate. Dropped out a few months ago. (Passed the deadline for official withdrawal. Remained on the ballot.) Received one-third of the vote in a two-person race, regardless. Did not denote political party either.
Changes its form depending on the observer.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:57 am UTC

PeteP wrote:*sigh* you had one job america. Well I give something truly catastrophic only a few percent and mostly expect shitty things for the USA that don't affect me directly. What worries me more is that with people electing Trump I doubt there is a lower border for the president you might elect. And of course the GOP will hardly change strategies now. Anyway I will just stop paying attention to your politics for a few years and see the next result in 4 years.
Trump doesn't strike me as the sort of President who's gonna let anyone stop paying attention to him.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:02 am UTC

I admit it will probably be hard.

You know what worries me, too? We saw some upswing in the uk of racist violence, I expect racist this to bolster them too. (And it is not like they would be wrong in seeing it as a signal that large parts of the country think like them.)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:22 am UTC

I've never been much of an optimist, but I try hard to stop short of being a cynic. I try very hard not to think of people as banal, witless, or cruel. I like to think that, given enough opportunity, most people will show you that they're creative, clever, and -- most importantly -- capable of tremendous kindness.

Now the nation has elected a misogynistic, racist, islamophobic buffoon as President. A man who's business ventures have almost all failed spectacularly. A man who advocates literal war-crimes, is very likely guilty of sexual assault (which we were very aware of before the election), and wants to build a wall between us and Mexico (and make Mexico pay for it). A man who is such an obviously, blatantly, absurdly bad candidate that if you tried to parody him, it'd come off as trying way too hard.

We've just finished the election for the most powerful office in the world. And we picked a reality TV star.

You cannot make this shit up.

I'm trying not to think of America as a bunch of doltish, frightfully self-oblivious bullies. I'm trying to imagine I don't live in a country filled with -- and run by -- Biff fucking Tannen.

Right now, it's extremely hard.

elasto
Posts: 3102
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:24 am UTC

I'm not mad, just disappointed. Actually, I'm mostly just flabbergasted.

I think the worst effect of both Brexit and this isn't the immediate policy choices, it's the effect it will have on the rhetoric used in future election campaigns.

We get the politicians we deserve, and we are apparently an awful, awful electorate.

[The Great Hippo: That's pretty much exactly how I felt when I heard the Brexit result]
Last edited by elasto on Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:32 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18638
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:28 am UTC

I'm speechless, and very very disappointed.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3541
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby EdgarJPublius » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:31 am UTC

Am I reading these poll numbers correctly? It looks like Trump is on track to win 300+ electoral votes, and yet he could still lose the popular vote to Clinton.

What an amazing result that would be, it's almost better than I could have imagined (if I had been creatively bankrupt and incapable of imagining a candidate who isn't fundamentally repugnant actually getting nominated by a major party and winning the election).
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
Koa
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:20 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Koa » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:34 am UTC

Samik wrote:Honest question from someone who is, as yet, mostly politically uninformed: as an atheist, should I be concerned? If so, how concerned?

I'm mildly concerned about Pence more than Trump in that respect.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2466
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:59 am UTC

Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin.

All these are states (by the figures so far available to me, at least) where Third Party votes exceeded the difference between the top two candidates. Either direction. Might be interesting to know.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3541
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby EdgarJPublius » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:09 am UTC

From the moment he was announced as the running mate, Pence reminded me of nothing so much as Josh Freeh, the VP pick from Transmetropolitan who was grown in a vat by the Fascist wing of The Smiler's party in exchange for the nomination. One theory I've heard is that the Republicans might set Trump up for impeachment and be more willing to live with Pence in office.

Clinton keeps narrowing the gap in the popular vote. I'm not sure how many votes are left to count, but it's not gonna take much more to put her over Trump in the popular vote.

Soupspoon wrote:Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin.

All these are states (by the figures so far available to me, at least) where Third Party votes exceeded the difference between the top two candidates. Either direction. Might be interesting to know.


The vast majority of those are for Johnson, who is generally more likely to be a spoiler for Trump than Clinton, though there are some number of Berners who defected to the libertarians when Bernie didn't get the nom. I doubt that 3rd party votes significantly impacted the outcome, but it'll take better data than we currently have to call it for sure.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

SineNomen
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:40 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SineNomen » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:16 am UTC

I think Randall's "I'm with her" comic has brought out some more conservative readers to comment, myself one of them.

Reading the last few posts, I'd like to ask you all if you can fathom some non derogatory reasons why someone would vote for Trump. Or, in your minds, there are only the most terrible of reasons to pick him?

I can understand why people would vote for Hillary. She's a known quantity with well known postions, and associates with her who would do predictable things. In general as a Democrat she would support their core beliefs, such as larger government involvement in the provision of welfare of citizens, greater legal protections for minority groups, and in general a more centralized approach to problems. There are good arguments for her and her side.

As a conservative I can see why people vote against my own patterns. But it is disturbing to see that isn't reflected on the other side of the asile. I do not think you are horrible people for voting against what I hold dear to my heart. I still respect you as fellow Americans. What this election has shown more than anything else is the breakdown of dialog between extremes. Before I could talk some politics at work. Now I have to hide my beliefs for fear of losing my employment, getting ostracized by friends, and getting virtually tarred and feathered on social media. Everything has taken a nasty direction so quickly!

In the next few days, try to at least understand the other side as people, not -ists with their -isms, phobias, or other perceived psychological flaws. Maybe then it will both soften the election result, as well as prevent a future one like it if your ideas are actually good and you can share them without vitrol.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:29 am UTC

I can think of valid reasons to vote for Pence. I can think of valid reasons to vote for Romney. I can think of valid reasons to vote for McCain.

I can't think of valid reasons to vote for Trump. If you voted for Trump, you're not voting Republican; you're voting for Horrible.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:30 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

elasto
Posts: 3102
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:30 am UTC

The only 'silver lining' here is that I'm still not sure Trump actually stands for anything. Pre-primary, he espoused so many left-of-centre policies, realistically he made a better fit as a Democrat than a Republican. I am not convinced he actually believes anything he said during the campaign.

Unfortunately though, he's just such a horrible, horrible person... An impulsive, misogynistic narcissist who, in practice, is most likely extremely easily to manipulate.
Last edited by elasto on Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:35 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:35 am UTC

Like...
SineNomen wrote:In the next few days, try to at least understand the other side as people, not -ists with their -isms, phobias, or other perceived psychological flaws. Maybe then it will both soften the election result, as well as prevent a future one like it if your ideas are actually good and you can share them without vitrol.
How do you even respond to Trump politely? "No, Mr. Trump, I *don't* think we should murder the children, parents, and spouses of terrorists. I also don't believe we should "build a wall" and "make Mexico pay for it"."

If we're at a point where we have to coddle people calling for this so as not to prompt them to do terrible things, I think we're already doomed.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:38 am UTC

SineNomen wrote:I think Randall's "I'm with her" comic has brought out some more conservative readers to comment, myself one of them.

Reading the last few posts, I'd like to ask you all if you can fathom some non derogatory reasons why someone would vote for Trump. Or, in your minds, there are only the most terrible of reasons to pick him?

I can understand why people would vote for Hillary. She's a known quantity with well known postions, and associates with her who would do predictable things. In general as a Democrat she would support their core beliefs, such as larger government involvement in the provision of welfare of citizens, greater legal protections for minority groups, and in general a more centralized approach to problems. There are good arguments for her and her side.

As a conservative I can see why people vote against my own patterns. But it is disturbing to see that isn't reflected on the other side of the asile. I do not think you are horrible people for voting against what I hold dear to my heart. I still respect you as fellow Americans. What this election has shown more than anything else is the breakdown of dialog between extremes. Before I could talk some politics at work. Now I have to hide my beliefs for fear of losing my employment, getting ostracized by friends, and getting virtually tarred and feathered on social media. Everything has taken a nasty direction so quickly!

In the next few days, try to at least understand the other side as people, not -ists with their -isms, phobias, or other perceived psychological flaws. Maybe then it will both soften the election result, as well as prevent a future one like it if your ideas are actually good and you can share them without vitrol.



I don't think there's been a single recent election where the Democrats have not floated "racist/sexist/misogynistic" label, and conversely Republicans use similar identity politics with "anti-Christian, traitor".

When you keep telling people that the reason they voted how they voted is not because of what they believe to be important to them (economics), but because they're racist/misogynistic (66% of white women voted for Trump)/ x-phobic, they just decide to turn on you and live up to your boogeyman because they know you will use those words to castigate them for policy differences (immigration being one of them, being against illegal immigration= racist, not even the correct term xenophobe, because xenophobe is not as poisonous politically as racist).

Identity politics is a scourge on the political process.

Unfortunately for Democrats, they bet on some grand coalition of minorities that could not overcome the grand coalition of the majority demographic in this country, whom they alienated at enough numbers.

It's kind of shitty that Hillary didn't even have the decency to show up for her despairing supporters and thank them for their efforts as she conceded. Obama and Romney ran a much cleaner campaign.

More importantly, the Democrats might want to consider why those voters that turned out for Obama did not turn out for Hillary, instead of how come all the "racists" voting this election to keep a woman out.

This election was decided with a 30% voter turn out, that's pathetic. And we'll see just how well the target demographics of Democrats turned out to vote. How many African Americans voted for Hillary vs. Obama? How come 30%+ of Latinos voted for Trump this time around? What happpened to the yuppies pearl clutching on twitter and how many of them actually voted?

It's much like the Brexit results, the biggest complainers were also one of the lowest turn out demographics.

I was never a fan of Clinton, but I feel bad for the poor woman. Losing badly not only first to some newcomer from Illinois but then getting savaged a second time by TRUMP, a woman of such carefully cultivated career must come out of this with a rather bruised ego.
Last edited by Lucrece on Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:44 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:43 am UTC

I agree that 'racist' and 'misogynist' get thrown around way too much in American politics, but I think Trump is unique in just how much effort he's put into earning those labels.

EDIT: Like, when the head of the Republican party is even saying 'yeah okay that's pretty racist', I think Democrats are allowed to say 'yeah that's pretty racist'.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7300
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:53 am UTC

I also don't believe we should "build a wall" and "make Mexico pay for it"."


@Hippo, isn't the wall a good example of dialogue breakdown? After all, the US has actually built that wall already, both under democratic and republican administrations. The debate was never about the wall, the question was whether the wall gets build quietly with regret-faces, or loudly with fuck-you faces. Perhaps you personally oppose the wall entirely, but that was never on the menu.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:53 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I agree that 'racist' and 'misogynist' get thrown around way too much in American politics, but I think Trump is unique in just how much effort he's put into earning those labels.



And he earns them, I don't disagree. But the smugness to which that spreads to his supporters is a good way to make sure they dig in. When you're looking for why people voted for Trump, don't assume. There's a reason his anti-free trade, nationalist perspective resonated so much with working class whites and even college educated whites. Most of them didn't sit with anticipation at the deportation of all Mexicans. Most of them likely voted because of a perceived benefit to their wallet (whether it's true or not doesn't matter, it's whether the message they get about economic policies appeals to them).

The fucking John Olivers, Lena Dunhams, Stephen Colberts, Seth Myers, and pretty much the whole school of of " dismissive satire as a substitute for thoughtful political commentary and journalism" that Jon Stewart and Bill Maher pioneered only helped to hurt Clinton. It made her look like not a candidate of the people, but one anointed by the elite (as if she needed more of that, with the whole Wallstreet crony schtick the Bernie camp was accusing her of).

You don't win elections by marginalizing large sectors of the population as unimportant because they're "stupid" or "privileged". In any case, intelligence is in large parts an innate factor that doesn't merit discrimination just like race. Stupid people matter, because stupid people have the right to vote. And you (general you, not personal one) just don't get to laugh them away. Everyone gets to participate in democracy, and if we don't want to deal with that, then we can have a conversation about alternatives to democracy (which I argue gets dangerously close to history given the whole "only land owners can vote" comes to mind when we start making decisions for who can and cannot vote).

I haven't thought it through much, but I do think Australia's obligatory voting becomes more attractive the more elections I work in and see abysmal turn-out's for. And that will involved mandatory time off for voting for employees.

It's surreal 30% of the country decides the long term effects for the entire population.
Last edited by Lucrece on Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:00 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Mutex
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:59 am UTC

The rhetoric from republican voters towards dems has been horrific for years, it's hardly one way. Apparently republicans are much thinner skinned though. They elected the right leader then...

PS the national popular vote is level pegging right now. Clinton lost because of the weird way your voting system works.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:03 am UTC

Mutex wrote:The rhetoric from republican voters towards dems has been horrific for years, it's hardly one way. Apparently republicans are much thinner skinned though. They elected the right leader then...



Oh, please. Both sides do it, but don't pretend only one side gets scandalized when a simple phrase as "bad hombres" triggers a meltdown (and I say this as Latin American born and raised, not some pseudo "Latino" born in the US who can barely speak Spanish suddenly acting offended in behalf of a demographic he's only inherited by blood; the likes of Eva Longoria and Jennifer Lopez are about as Latina as a Bostonian is actually Irish -- not).

Reminds me when the museum did an exhibit that allowed the wearing of kimonos and its Japanese coordinator was yelled at by US born activists about its offensiveness while Japanese citizens questioned about it didn't find it remotely offensive.
Last edited by Lucrece on Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:05 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

elasto
Posts: 3102
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:04 am UTC

Spoilered by Zamfir for length
Spoiler:
Donald Trump has fought a presidential campaign like no other. He has mocked opponents for their looks, belittled women, disparaged war heroes, damned ethnic and other minorities in crude, bigoted language, jeered at disabled people, beaten his chest with bellicose promises of state-sponsored violence that would trample on the US constitution and trigger a third world war, and told dozens and dozens of lies every day. While his opponent has offered detailed and substantive policy prescriptions, those have barely got a mention: Trump’s knack for hogging media attention, usually by saying or tweeting something jaw-droppingly outrageous, has left no room. In the four-and-a-half hours of formal presidential debates between Trump and Hillary Clinton, climate change was discussed for not one minute.

But Trump does not bear the blame alone. Also shamed by the 2016 campaign are those institutions and individuals who failed to stand up to him. Some understood the danger he represented, seeing in him a would-be dictator – “I alone can fix this!” – whose contempt for basic democratic norms, from the importance of a free press to the need to respect the outcome of a democratic election, suggested a lurch towards fascism. That small handful will be remembered with admiration. But, whatever the outcome today, historians of the American republic will judge harshly those who did not stop Trump when they could. It will damn those who indulged, pampered and enabled him to reach this moment: where polls still show him with a path, albeit narrow, to the White House.

First in this roll-call of shame is the Republican party. Among those hanging their heads should be the 16 rival candidates who allowed themselves to be steamrollered by a reality TV host and serially bankrupted businessman. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and the others had no idea how to deal with Trump. They collectively made a strategic error by failing to realise their primary task was to take him out. Instead, they fought each other, each hoping to emerge as the sole, anti-Trump candidate around whom Republicans would unite. That proved a delusion.

As Trump’s poll lead increased in late 2015 and early 2016, his rivals grew ever more frightened of taking a shot at him, anxious that they might alienate his supporters or, worse, that he might train his fire back on them. So while, say, Chris Christie mocked Rubio on a TV debate stage in New Hampshire in February, Trump could literally step back and watch – only to emerge as the winner in that state’s Republican primary a few days later.

Perhaps the Republicans cannot be blamed for the weakness of the field that fought Trump for their party’s nomination. Perhaps no traditional politician – no senator or governor – could take on Trump when the Republican grassroots, so furious at the political establishment, were hungering for an outsider. (Although, of course, this anti-establishment fervour, this loathing of all things Washington, was itself stoked for years by Republicans and their allies on Fox News and in the rest of the conservative political-media-entertainment complex. In losing their party to Trump, the Republicans were burned by a fire they themselves had started.)

But what shames them is their conduct afterwards. Even as Trump made clear what kind of man he is – calling Mexicans “rapists”, suggesting African-Americans are too lazy to work, that Jews see everything through the lens of money, calling women “dogs” and “pigs”, threatening violence against protesters, endorsing torture and the murder of the families of suspected terrorists, calling for a foreign power (Russia) to hack into emails belonging to his political rival, arguing that women who have abortions should “face some sort of punishment”, and being exposed as a proud perpetrator of sexual assault, a man whose approach to women is to “grab them by the pussy” – even after all this and so much more, most senior Republicans of note stood by him.

To be sure, they condemned him occasionally, when the extremity of their standard bearer’s behaviour left them no alternative. Paul Ryan, who serves as speaker of the House of Representatives, rightly called it the “textbook definition of a racist comment” when Trump said that Judge Gonzalo Curiel could not be impartial in handling the lawsuit against the so-called Trump University because Curiel was “Mexican”. In fact, the judge was a US citizen, born in Indiana. Ryan cold-shouldered Trump again, after the release of the Access Hollywood tape in which Trump boasted of his attacks on women. But he never repudiated him fully. Ryan never said Trump was unfit to be president of the United States and that he would not vote for him.

The same was nearly true of Senator John McCain, tortured for five and a half years in a Hanoi cell and yet derided as “not a hero” by Trump (who said he preferred those who were not captured). McCain swallowed that, along with Trump’s promise to ban Muslims and to deport 11 million undocumented migrants – only withdrawing his endorsement last month, after the notorious tape.

Until then, McCain, like most of his fellow Republicans, clung to the fiction that Trump would transform himself into a new creature: sober, presidential and, above all, capable of being tamed by the Republican establishment – even though there was not a shred of evidence, bar a very occasional willingness on the candidate’s part to read prepared lines from a teleprompter, to support that fantasy.

That puts them on a moral plane only slightly above that occupied by Trump’s trio of enablers: Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie and Newt Gingrich. Those three horsemen of the Republican apocalypse conspired in the lie that a snake-oil salesman was fit to be president – and destroyed what remained of their reputations in the process. As Hillary Clinton pointed out, Giuliani used to prosecute tax-dodgers. In this campaign, he praised Trump’s failure to pay income tax for at least two decades as evidence of his “genius”.

And that is to omit the fourth horseman: A Wet Rag Stuffed Into a Tailpipe, the defender of family values who has served as the running mate of a thrice-married, serially adulterous, self-confessed grabber of women. When the 2005 “grab them” tape emerged, Pence went into seclusion. Some thought he might emerge to announce he was quitting the Republican ticket. He did no such thing. Instead, he examined his conscience, found it pristine and continued to act as a character witness to a man who cheats his taxes, cheats on his wives and lies every time he opens his mouth.

It’s easy to attack the spineless “leaders” of the Republican party. Easy but incomplete. It’s a rule of political combat that no one ever, ever, attacks the voters – a rule Clinton unwisely broke when she deployed an odd metaphor to describe half of Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables”. But that rule only applies to candidates for office. Any truthful assessment of a campaign has at least to include those doing the voting.

Some blame surely attaches to the Americans who let Trump keep up the bullying and the bigotry and voted for him anyway. There is no escaping the fact that north of 40% of the US electorate have been prepared to vote for Trump despite everything that he has said and done. One poll found 22% of Trump’s own supporters believed he would start a nuclear war. They thought that, but were prepared to vote for him anyway. None of them will be able to say: “We didn’t know.”

Notable among that group are Christian evangelical voters, people who used to say that character mattered, that the personal conduct of a candidate was crucial. Five years ago, only 30% of white evangelicals believed that a person guilty of “immoral” personal behaviour could behave ethically in a public role. Now that figure stands at 72%, a remarkably rapid shift. It means people of supposedly deep moral convictions have been prepared to junk those beliefs just to accommodate Trump.


More at the link.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:09 am UTC

That brilliant link is from the guy who retweeted this:

The numbers don't lie: If you voted for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, you voted for Trump. You were told. Don't ever tell yourself different.


As if a libertarian who was more likely to have republican votes (as libertarians have always been, thoroughly despised by progressives and anyone who would vote Bernie) favored Trump, or "Dr." Anti-Vax/GMO Stein, whose vote count was more than anemic.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Mutex
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:14 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:
Mutex wrote:The rhetoric from republican voters towards dems has been horrific for years, it's hardly one way. Apparently republicans are much thinner skinned though. They elected the right leader then...


Oh, please. Both sides do it, but don't pretend only one side gets scandalized when a simple phrase as "bad hombres" triggers a meltdown (and I say this as Latin American born and raised, not some pseudo "Latino" born in the US who can barely speak Spanish suddenly acting offended in behalf of a demographic he's only inherited by blood; the likes of Eva Longoria and Jennifer Lopez are about as Latina as a Bostonian is actually Irish -- not).


There you go then, both sides do it. So why did it lose the election for the liberals? Why is this a factor according to you? It just sounds like "stop being mean about me" while not caring what republicans say about dems.

elasto
Posts: 3102
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:15 am UTC

Image

The Simpsons foresaw it...

(Oops. They did predict it in 2000, but those actual images were from 2015. Shame!)
Last edited by elasto on Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:21 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Koa
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:20 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Koa » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:16 am UTC

SineNomen wrote:Reading the last few posts, I'd like to ask you all if you can fathom some non derogatory reasons why someone would vote for Trump. Or, in your minds, there are only the most terrible of reasons to pick him?

Single-issue voters who know that Clinton won't oblige, and are betting on the unknown. That's all I've got.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:33 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:@Hippo, isn't the wall a good example of dialogue breakdown? After all, the US has actually built that wall already, both under democratic and republican administrations. The debate was never about the wall, the question was whether the wall gets build quietly with regret-faces, or loudly with fuck-you faces. Perhaps you personally oppose the wall entirely, but that was never on the menu.
Trump is talking about a literal wall that literally spans the entire length of Mexico's boundary with America. And he literally intends to make Mexico pay for it.

I'm using "literally" a lot here to emphasize that this isn't a discussion about increasing border security, or improving the walls that already exist, or expanding those walls; this is a discussion with a man who has pictures of a wall he wants to build across the length of the Mexican border (which Mexico will pay for).

That's the discussion Trump was having. There was no subtext, no metaphor, no communication breakdown; he made it clear several times, he was talking about a literal wall (and again, he even supplied pictures of it).

How do you even engage with that? How do you even begin?

@Lucrece: Stephen Colbert, Stewart, and Oliver rarely mocked the constituency; their focus was and has been largely on the candidates and the media that covers them. If these voters are so thin skinned that they can't handle commentators mocking even the people they *vote* for, the only way they're going to be happy is if we get rid of the democracy and just let them pick all the leaders.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:35 am UTC

Mutex wrote:
Lucrece wrote:
Mutex wrote:The rhetoric from republican voters towards dems has been horrific for years, it's hardly one way. Apparently republicans are much thinner skinned though. They elected the right leader then...


Oh, please. Both sides do it, but don't pretend only one side gets scandalized when a simple phrase as "bad hombres" triggers a meltdown (and I say this as Latin American born and raised, not some pseudo "Latino" born in the US who can barely speak Spanish suddenly acting offended in behalf of a demographic he's only inherited by blood; the likes of Eva Longoria and Jennifer Lopez are about as Latina as a Bostonian is actually Irish -- not).


There you go then, both sides do it. So why did it lose the election for the liberals? Why is this a factor according to you? It just sounds like "stop being mean about me" while not caring what republicans say about dems.



Um, it just cost Romney and McCain the elections in case your memory is that short. The whole "Kenyan socialist" and Romney's brands of "anti-religious, incompetent President" turned off voters.


Though if it makes you feel better, feel free to condescend to them. I'm sure that will get you different resutls on Brexit or this election.

The Great Hippo wrote:
@Lucrece: Stephen Colbert, Stewart, and Oliver rarely mocked the constituency; their focus was and has been largely on the candidates and the media that covers them. If these voters are so thin skinned that they can't handle commentators mocking even the people they *vote* for, the only way they're going to be happy is if we get rid of the democracy and just let them pick all the leaders.



Please, Bill Maher's basket of deplorables comments is just one example. Jon Stewart gave way to Oliver/Samantha Bee "gotcha" journalism and feature multiple interviews cherry picking dumb people to film as representatives for a political position to make that position look bad.

They were a pox to politics, where people started taking them as a substitute for political commentary in lieu of serious journalists.

And the criticism isn't that you're mocking voters or candidates, merely that mockery is not a substitute for substantive policy discussions. Sarcasm makes people feel good about sticking it to someone, but it's of little use otherwise in promoting a position. You're just creating an echo chamber.
Last edited by Lucrece on Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:41 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

maybeagnostic
Posts: 600
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby maybeagnostic » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:40 am UTC

I am honestly not sure what to think about the results. On the one hand Trump is a pretty despicable person and I never would have voted for him (not that I have the right to vote in US elections). On the other hand the democratic supporters have been so vicious and petty throughout this campaign that I am happy their tactics didn't work out. Maybe they will finally stop the name calling and thought policing long enough to try and understand why they lost so badly... but then again, maybe not. Now I am sure there are the same kind of people on the republican side but the marvelous nature of the social bubble means I was only exposed to a constant stream of messages like "The only reason not to support Hilary is sexism" and "The only reason to support Trump is racism" for the last few years.

There is a chance this all comes out better for the United States in the long term although it is definitely going to be a rocky several years.

And now for some quote sniping from the last few pages...
sardia wrote:White people have been lied to by politicians for decades. They'll fall for the next lying politician too. Just gotta use that fact for good.

Are you saying people's skin color affects how much critical thought they put into choosing who to vote for?

Liri wrote:I think voters are just stupid and sexist and racist. They didn't give a shit about determining the actual beliefs of Hillary Clinton, they just believed the drivel fed to them by right-wing media.
It's certainly easier to think that than to try and understand people's actual motivations.

omgryebread wrote:I think Democrats need to court corporate money, especially since money is just going to get more and more important in politics. Democrats need a astroturfing game like the Republicans have to start winning statehouses and legislatures.
At least the presidential side of this election was a very clear demonstration of the failing of money alone. How many orders of magnitude more money did Clinton blow on the campaign and for what? Money can certainly make a huge difference in local elections but just as a way to make people aware of the upcoming election and candidates.

CorruptUser wrote:I'd like the Dems to clean house of the anti-science crowd. The anti-vaxxers, the anti-gmos, the anti-nukes. Let the Republicans have the monopoly on the stupid.
Maybe I am missing something but aren't all these people firmly in the democratic camp along with the rest of the New Age anti-science flavors? The Republicans only get the anti-evolution & anti-climate change brands.

Mutex wrote:There you go then, both sides do it. So why did it lose the election for the liberals? Why is this a factor according to you? It just sounds like "stop being mean about me" while not caring what republicans say about dems.
And I've seen this so many times the last year- "We aren't being any worse than Trump so we get the moral high ground!" It really doesn't cut it.

P.S.
The Great Hippo wrote:@Lucrece: Stephen Colbert, Stewart, and Oliver rarely mocked the constituency;
Oliver generally steers clear of election stuff in general but Colbert's whole shtick for years was mocking Republican voters with the exaggerated character he played. Not to get into shows like the recent Full Frontal which consist almost entirely of vitriol.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:43 am UTC

Yeah, it'd be swell if Americans realized politics are not football.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Mutex
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:45 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:
Mutex wrote:
Lucrece wrote:
Mutex wrote:The rhetoric from republican voters towards dems has been horrific for years, it's hardly one way. Apparently republicans are much thinner skinned though. They elected the right leader then...


Oh, please. Both sides do it, but don't pretend only one side gets scandalized when a simple phrase as "bad hombres" triggers a meltdown (and I say this as Latin American born and raised, not some pseudo "Latino" born in the US who can barely speak Spanish suddenly acting offended in behalf of a demographic he's only inherited by blood; the likes of Eva Longoria and Jennifer Lopez are about as Latina as a Bostonian is actually Irish -- not).


There you go then, both sides do it. So why did it lose the election for the liberals? Why is this a factor according to you? It just sounds like "stop being mean about me" while not caring what republicans say about dems.



Um, it just cost Romney and McCain the elections in case your memory is that short. The whole "Kenyan socialist" and Romney's brands of "anti-religious, incompetent President" turned off voters.


Though if it makes you feel better, feel free to condescend to them. I'm sure that will get you different resutls on Brexit or this election.


Moving goalposts. You were talking about dem voters and commentators being smug or whatever (and even directing this attack at me, now). The hateful torrent of abuse from Trump supporters towards dems has been constant throughout this election, so I'm still wondering what makes you think it was a factor against the dems.

Lucrece wrote:And the criticism isn't that you're mocking voters or candidates, merely that mockery is not a substitute for substantive policy discussions.


Apparently it is.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:48 am UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:Oliver generally steers clear of election stuff in general but Colbert's whole shtick for years was mocking Republican voters with the exaggerated character he played. Not to get into shows like the recent Full Frontal which consist almost entirely of vitriol.
That was a satire of a Fox news commentator, not Republicans. If republicans couldn't tell the difference between someone satirizing a political pundit vs satirizing themselves, then I think the problem is deeper than Colbert.

And whatever you think of Full Frontal, that vitriol is *well-earned*.

Mutex
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:50 am UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:
Mutex wrote:There you go then, both sides do it. So why did it lose the election for the liberals? Why is this a factor according to you? It just sounds like "stop being mean about me" while not caring what republicans say about dems.
And I've seen this so many times the last year- "We aren't being any worse than Trump so we get the moral high ground!" It really doesn't cut it.


Read the whole post, this is such a strawman. It's not about moral high-ground, it's about why would doing the same thing as the rep voters (in Lucrece's own words) would count against the dems and not reps.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:59 am UTC

I don't even know how to parse this argument. Who really thinks the *comedians* are the problem with American politics? Or even *part* of the problem?

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:00 am UTC

Mutex wrote:
Lucrece wrote:
Mutex wrote:
Lucrece wrote:
Mutex wrote:The rhetoric from republican voters towards dems has been horrific for years, it's hardly one way. Apparently republicans are much thinner skinned though. They elected the right leader then...


Oh, please. Both sides do it, but don't pretend only one side gets scandalized when a simple phrase as "bad hombres" triggers a meltdown (and I say this as Latin American born and raised, not some pseudo "Latino" born in the US who can barely speak Spanish suddenly acting offended in behalf of a demographic he's only inherited by blood; the likes of Eva Longoria and Jennifer Lopez are about as Latina as a Bostonian is actually Irish -- not).


There you go then, both sides do it. So why did it lose the election for the liberals? Why is this a factor according to you? It just sounds like "stop being mean about me" while not caring what republicans say about dems.



Um, it just cost Romney and McCain the elections in case your memory is that short. The whole "Kenyan socialist" and Romney's brands of "anti-religious, incompetent President" turned off voters.


Though if it makes you feel better, feel free to condescend to them. I'm sure that will get you different resutls on Brexit or this election.


Moving goalposts. You were talking about dem voters and commentators being smug or whatever (and even directing this attack at me, now). The hateful torrent of abuse from Trump supporters towards dems has been constant throughout this election, so I'm still wondering what makes you think it was a factor against the dems.

Lucrece wrote:And the criticism isn't that you're mocking voters or candidates, merely that mockery is not a substitute for substantive policy discussions.


Apparently it is.


I was talking about Trump voters being entrenched and compelled to turn out to vote as a result of that smugness which manifested in a pretty much long concerted effort by multiple media personalities in trying to tell people to vote against Trump because all he stood for was hate and racism.

"The hateful torrent of abuse toward dems" is a pretty generalized description of a voting block, and arguing whether you perceive it as a constant is not particularly of much use to me, so I'll leave the conversation at that.

Not gonna waste a whole thread trying to explain to people why deeming yourself to be the only moral actor leads to frustrated experiences in politics.

I grant Trump voters that they do what they do in good faith just as I do for those who voted Hillary. They each think they're doing right by their country and answering their interests appropriately.

The Great Hippo wrote:I don't even know how to parse this argument. Who really thinks the *comedians* are the problem with American politics? Or even *part* of the problem?


"Who even thinks a celebrity running for president is the problem with American politics? Or even part of the problem?"

They're not just there to make people laugh. Colbert has testified in Congress, he obviously cares for influencing people's opinions on political matters.

How many times did they need to address the Trump/Clinton race in their show? Certainly far more than the amount of shows they dedicated to Romney/Obama or Obama/McCain.
Last edited by Lucrece on Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:05 am UTC, edited 3 times in total.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: firechicago and 15 guests