2016 Election Thread

[Vanimal46]

Very simplistic approach to this election as told by Mike Rowe. 

Some highlights: 

"Last week, three old friends – people I’ve known for years - each requested to be “unfriended” by anyone who planned on voting for Trump. Honestly, that was disheartening. Who tosses away a friendship over an election? Are my friends turning into those mind-numbingly arrogant celebrities who threaten to move to another country if their candidate doesn’t win? Are my friends now convinced that people they’ve known for years who happen to disagree with them politically are not merely mistaken – but evil, and no longer worthy of their friendship?" 

I've seen this, and I'm sure you have too. That's a very sad thing - someone who's so heated and distraught that they're willing to block out people they've known for years out of their lives. Because of what? A stupid election race?  

[Mike Sixel]

Mike Rowe has never struck me as understanding of the other side....but he also never struck me as mean, and someone to be unfriended.

 

And yes, I have heard of this.....sad.

[TheLeviathan]

The irony of Portland liberals rebelling to the election in the name of minorities is almost too rich.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

A link to a 538 article about how the polls were so wrong about the Michigan primary, and a county-by-county map of Democratic primary results. Bernie is the green. the map foretells the general, IMO 

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-polls-missed-bernie-sanders-michigan-upset/

 

 

 

 

 

[nicksaviking]

 

Very simplistic approach to this election as told by Mike Rowe. 

Some highlights: 

"Last week, three old friends – people I’ve known for years - each requested to be “unfriended” by anyone who planned on voting for Trump. Honestly, that was disheartening. Who tosses away a friendship over an election? Are my friends turning into those mind-numbingly arrogant celebrities who threaten to move to another country if their candidate doesn’t win? Are my friends now convinced that people they’ve known for years who happen to disagree with them politically are not merely mistaken – but evil, and no longer worthy of their friendship?" 

I've seen this, and I'm sure you have too. That's a very sad thing - someone who's so heated and distraught that they're willing to block out people they've known for years out of their lives. Because of what? A stupid election race?  

 

I agree it's stupid to throw away friendships like that. I don't think we'd be having social unrest and broken relationships if it had been Bush or Kasich or Graham or Rubio that won however. This wasn't some ordinary election won by a Republican. I'm not saying it's accurate, but plenty of people see Trump as someone closer to Hitler than George W Bush on the scale of terrible leaders.

 

People who aren't white males have every reason to be afraid based on Trump's rhetoric and actions alone. People aren't protesting because a Republican won, they are protesting because someone who is legitimately frightening, someone who continually used his status as a rich white man to intimidate and bully women and minorities won. This seems like it should be pretty clear, but based on people's indignation regarding the unrest, I don't think it is.

[Craig Arko]

I am a white middle-class middle-aged (or so) male and I'm horrified of where this is heading. Sometimes history is a harsh taskmaster.

[flpmagikat]

Call me crazy but I am a HELL of a lot less concerned with these protests than that this man-who just ran the most racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, outright hateful and devoid of anything resembling anything like empathy, logic, or depth, the most toxic(and that is really saying something) campaign- has put together his team with people possibly even more spiteful and vindictive than himself. And they have the full backing of a bats hit crazy congress in both chambers, and may well determine the next 3 sc justices. People who would love nothing, nothing more than to undo any bit of good that has come from the past 8 years and replace it with whatever in their sadistic minds has deemed fitting. Yeah, I'm disgusted by donald trump, really many people aren't to whatever extent. But people like gingrich and rudy and bannon and a slew of others who's names aren't as recognizable scare the blank out of me. And please don't try to convince me that Paul Ryan, who by most accounts seems like a fine enough man whom i don't agree with much on politically, and mitch mcconnell, who doesn't seem that fine anyway, have them "under control'. They won by being terrible. Not sure how the reasonable can not assume that they intend to stay that way.  

[ashbury]

A link to a 538 article about how the polls were so wrong about the Michigan primary, and a county-by-county map of Democratic primary results. Bernie is the green. the map foretells the general, IMO 

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-polls-missed-bernie-sanders-michigan-upset/

 

I don't see what instruction it gives. If you are saying the green foretells the losses in Michigan and West Consin, then why doesn't the yellow foretell wins that were seemingly in reach for Clinton in Flada and No' Ca'lina*? Or, conversely, why doesn't green foretell bad results in Washington and Oregon, while yellow does foretell Virginia being pretty much as solid as expected?

 

^{* _{My brother used to like to joke that NC residents pronounced the name of their state as approximately three syllables in all, while they (or at least their preachers) pronounce the word God with about five. Of course, they would remind him, "no, we don't talk funny, y'all do."}}

[Pardon My Dinger]

Congress passes tax and spending, not POTUS......it almost doesn't matter what POTUS wants, as we've seen for the last 6 years...

THANK YOU!!!

[Craig Arko]

Tailgunner Newt.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/newt-gingrich-house-un-american-activities-committee/

[Pardon My Dinger]

Follow up: my two cents, if I may...

 

Symbolically, this is a major blow. Like a huge ugly blemish on our American experience and international appearance. But, we're truly no more stupid or racist as we ever were. Having a house and a senate and a president looking to turn the clock back is a pretty scary three-headed monster. But I dunno. I think we'll get through it.

 

I have been a non-voter for years. That won't happen again. Surely there are plenty more like me to flip the switch of progress back on.

[stringer bell]

My final comments about the election of 2016:   Trump won, Clinton lost. I am shocked that this would happen, but I am not going into the streets to protest. The man won fair and square. The reasons I believe he won are depressing IMHO. He appealed the disaffected, the angry, nativists, racists, and 2nd amendment zealots. The Republican party allowed this man to advance through the primaries despite his lack of knowledge and experience and a history of comments that wouldn't allow him to be a bus driver for a public school.

 

Clinton was flawed and unliked. She still is going to end up with a plurality of about a million votes. Is that going to become a thing? We can't undo this election, but perhaps we can find a way to have the president represent a plurality of the voters.

 

The Democratic party has a lot to do. They can't win elections in most of the United States. They need to again in some respect represent the "little guy (or gal)" as was thought from the Depression through probably the 70s. Finally, voter turnout was the lowest in 20 years. We need to keep making voting easy and people need to see that their votes can make a difference.

[ashbury]

I was one of those that thought Sanders couldn't win. I have no clue now though because I thought Trump couldn't win either. I thought too many base and moral Republicans wouldn't turn out as they'd be too embarrassed to be associated with him.

I'm almost tired of the Sanders tangent, but not quite. Ran across this quote from Steve Bannon, the Breitbart guy who shaped Trump's strategy and whose views should be give some credence:

 

"“This is not the French Revolution,” says Bannon. “They destroyed the basic institutions of their society and changed their form of government. What Trump represents is a restoration—a restoration of true American capitalism and a revolution against state-sponsored socialism. Elites have taken all the upside for themselves and pushed the downside to the working- and middle-class Americans.”

 

IMO he laid out there the message they would have used against Sanders, even more heavily than they did against Clinton. It would have worked no less well, probably better.

 

I'm going to start posting this link in response to some of my Bernie bro Facebook friends.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-10/trump-s-data-team-saw-a-different-america-and-they-were-right

[Craig Arko]

My final thought for this thread.

 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

It's a continuing mission, Jean-Luc

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I'm almost tired of the Sanders tangent, but not quite. Ran across this quote from Steve Bannon, the Breitbart guy who shaped Trump's strategy and whose views should be give some credence:

 

"“This is not the French Revolution,” says Bannon. “They destroyed the basic institutions of their society and changed their form of government. What Trump represents is a restoration—a restoration of true American capitalism and a revolution against state-sponsored socialism. Elites have taken all the upside for themselves and pushed the downside to the working- and middle-class Americans.”

 

IMO he laid out there the message they would have used against Sanders, even more heavily than they did against Clinton. It would have worked no less well, probably better.

 

I'm going to start posting this link in response to some of my Bernie bro Facebook friends.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-10/trump-s-data-team-saw-a-different-america-and-they-were-right

One of the worst things about this result is that the Trump camp, such as it is, gets to look like the campaign geniuses now.

 

"Socialist" would have been a tough accusation, but who knows. Maybe Bernie recasts the S word as "Safety net" and hammers away at Trump's cheating and criminality. Too many unknowns.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I don't see what instruction it gives. If you are saying the green foretells the losses in Michigan and West Consin, then why doesn't the yellow foretell wins that were seemingly in reach for Clinton in Flada and No' Ca'lina*? Or, conversely, why doesn't green foretell bad results in Washington and Oregon, while yellow does foretell Virginia being pretty much as solid as expected?

 

^{* _{My brother used to like to joke that NC residents pronounced the name of their state as approximately three syllables in all, while they (or at least their preachers) pronounce the word God with about five. Of course, they would remind him, "no, we don't talk funny, y'all do."}}

The map is supposed to show that the Midwest or Rust Belt areas that preferred Sanders to Clinton were the same that preferred Trump to Clinton. Not Ohio for whatever reasons, but Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, even Illinois and Minnesota, rural Pennsylvania, the Democrats in these places preferred Sanders. Unless everything we know about the rural Midwest is wrong and all those small towns are actually teeming with 19 year old Bernie Bro college kids who are politically active as Democrats. Highly unlikely! That narrative should have been dropped long ago, in my opinion. The 538 article was unrelated, sorry.

 

^{* _{I'm practicing saying God with five syllables. It doesn't sound right.}}

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'm almost tired of the Sanders tangent, but not quite. Ran across this quote from Steve Bannon, the Breitbart guy who shaped Trump's strategy and whose views should be give some credence:

 

"“This is not the French Revolution,” says Bannon. “They destroyed the basic institutions of their society and changed their form of government. What Trump represents is a restoration—a restoration of true American capitalism and a revolution against state-sponsored socialism. Elites have taken all the upside for themselves and pushed the downside to the working- and middle-class Americans.”

 

IMO he laid out there the message they would have used against Sanders, even more heavily than they did against Clinton. It would have worked no less well, probably better.

 

I'm going to start posting this link in response to some of my Bernie bro Facebook friends.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-10/trump-s-data-team-saw-a-different-america-and-they-were-right

 Of course they would have had a plan to paint Sanders as a socialist elite.  That much is obvious.  But would it work? 

 

With Trumps overt ties/praise of Russia, and his own Billionaire status, his decries of elitism and even socialism stand a pretty good chance of falling flat against Sanders.   I also think you're underestimating how reviled Clinton really was for the supposed corruption, not to mention the lack of enthusiasm from her own base (which low turnout corroborates).  

 

So, in your opinion, the Dems need to get more pro-capitalist, more centrist in order to win? I really don't think that's the lesson to derive from the results of this election.

 

The question about whether Sanders could have one isn't so much about hindsight analysis but carving a way forward as liberals and Democrats.  I'm done with risk-adverse, calculated, liberal-is-a-dirty-word Democrats, and I hope the rest of the liberals are too.   

[twinsnorth49]

"A revolution against state sponsored socialism"...........that is true comedy.

[stringer bell]

Clinton had the Obama coalition minus Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa. Thank you Big Ten.

[TheLeviathan]

So, in your opinion, the Dems need to get more pro-capitalist, more centrist in order to win? I really don't think that's the lesson to derive from the results of this election.

 

It's possible the lesson from this cycle was that it was unwinnable for the Dems. I'm not sure what direction liberals should take beyond going as far away from "elitist" and established as possible.

 

Someone your average rural American likes as a person (or doesn't vehemently dislike ) may be the key. It's more about the person than the platform.

[D. Hocking]

I wish I would have remembered this thread last Tuesday.  It might have made the evening a little more bearable.  This board always has some interesting opinions.  I am tempted to go back and read everyone's thoughts, but I think I need a little more time to pass first.

 

I am old enough to remember my Dad saying, Reagan will never be elected - more form than substance.  This seems like that but on steroids.

[ashbury]

So, in your opinion, the Dems need to get more pro-capitalist, more centrist in order to win? I really don't think that's the lesson to derive from the results of this election.

 

The question about whether Sanders could have one isn't so much about hindsight analysis but carving a way forward as liberals and Democrats.  I'm done with risk-adverse, calculated, liberal-is-a-dirty-word Democrats, and I hope the rest of the liberals are too.   

The Hillary Democrats are calibrated well enough* on their economics to win an election IMO.

 

As for the second paragraph quoted, I plan to vote for McGovern in 2020, by whatever name he or she is nominated, just like I voted for Ms. Humphrey this year. I just don't think enough of my fellow citizens will join me, to prevent a landslide that compounds the disaster of 2016.

 

^{* _{Well, nobody including myself has what I consider a working economic philosophy that confronts the late 20th Century state of relative abundance and massive global leveraging we continue to be in, while still serving to illuminate Adam Smith style economics in times of scarcity, so my comment is modulo that}}

[ashbury]

I'm not sure what direction liberals should take beyond going as far away from "elitist" and established as possible.

That is the lesson I'm taking from this presidential election too, and I don't think it involves very much change in the platform, only the messaging. Hillary's Deplorables crack was deplorable for the way she didn't own up to it and explain it afterward (full-throatedly and for the rest of the campaign) so that Middle America understood she wasn't giving the finger to them, but begging them not to lie down with the dogs so they don't get up with fleas.

[D. Hocking]

 

 I plan to vote for McGovern in 2020.

 

Since you can raise the dead - I might go with a FDR/Humphries ticket, unless zombie FDR would have to count the terms served while alive.  In that case, I would maybe go for Wellstone for a more liberal candidate.

[Mr. Brooks]

It's possible the lesson from this cycle was that it was unwinnable for the Dems. I'm not sure what direction liberals should take beyond going as far away from "elitist" and established as possible.

 

Someone your average rural American likes as a person (or doesn't vehemently dislike ) may be the key. It's more about the person than the platform.

Except there is no way that your average rural American likes Donald Trump the person.

At least, I have to believe that or we are truly doomed.

 

I don't think it is about the person OR the platform, so much as the message.

 

The Democrats have completely abandoned their base.

 

LGBT rights are extremely important, but that isn't the base.

 

Protecting minorities and Muslims is important, and necessary. But again, not the base.

 

The base of the DFL has always been the white working class.

 

I reluctantly voted for Hillary.

Donald was never an option for me. He crossed lines, that to me could never be overlooked.

 

But, I live in rural America, and I know several people who voted for Trump.

 

Only one of these people, and I know most of them quite well, would I consider to be a racist, or sexist, or xenophobe.

 

My brother voted for Trump, and he is one of the most compassionate, respectful, open minded people I've ever known.

 

His reason was the inverse of mine.

Hillary was simply not an option to him, so he held his nose and voted for Trump.

 

I agree with you that this election was not winnable for Hillary, but I don't agree that it was unwinnable for the Dems.

 

Trump tapped into a sector of the country that has felt ignored, condescended, and looked down upon for quite a while now.

 

People will follow almost anyone if they feel it's their only hope.

 

Those on the left (not you Levi) who want to insist that close to half the country is racist, sexist, xenophobic, whatever, and that is why Trump was elected need to wake up.

I'm not saying anyone here feels that way, but some might, and in reading and watching the news outlets, most of those same out of touch elites still are.

If they go down that path, we might never recover from this.

Talking down to people, judging people, generalizing people, all that does is further galvanize them in their F you stance.

 

The good news for Dems is that if us, and the planet can survive these next four years, then they have a chance to come out of this stronger than ever.

 

But if that is to happen, they need to completely change the way the party as a whole, and people associated with the party (Hollywood, msnbc, huff post, etc.) treat, and speak of this sector of people.

 

When a white, working class American turns on cable news, they don't see any representation of them. None, ever. Not even a squeak.

 

When they read an article on buzzfeed, or HuffPost, or Slate, or name your favorite liberal newsfeed, they don't read anything speaking for them.

 

Every article or story is BLM, or trans rights, or immigration issues, or the war on women.

 

And I believe that this sector of people are sympathetic to those causes.

But they also think they face problems too, can't one or two articles speak for them occasionally?

 

Trump is an awful human, even those I spoke to who voted for him think as much.

But he made these people feel like he is on their side, like he has their back.

And, that is a powerful feeling.

 

We all know it's BS, he isn't capable of having anyone's back but his own. But it's hard to see that when you feel ignored, and looked down on by half the country.

 

Many people will say that it was selfish and short sighted to vote for Trump.

That, I can agree with.

 

I even told my brother, if this man leads this country into a dark place - nuclear war, irreversible climate damage, rounding up of Mexican immigrants, reversal of LGBT rights, violent or oppressive treatment of Muslims, a war on women, anything like that- then he's going to have blood on his hands.

Nobody will be able to say they didn't see it coming.

My brother says he rolled the dice that his words are just campaign bluster and negotiating tactics. But if he's wrong, after the things Trump has said and done, there is literally no place that Trump can lead us that his supporters can claim couldn't have been predicted.

That accountability, I think is fair.

Judging, and insulting the half of Americans who voted for him, that is not fair, or at least is not helpful.

 

Sorry for the long post, I've read every word in this thread over the last 4 days. It's taken me 13 hours to do so and I've observed a lot throughout the thread.

I thought it was great. A lot of logical, intelligent, almost entirely civil debate.

Thank you all for that.

 

Oh, and finally, Levi you crushed this thread. That is why I quoted you.

Not just on your foresight of the issues that kept Trump in, and ultimately delivered him the win, but also on the other subtopics as well. Particularly gun control.

Well done sir!

[TheLeviathan]

Thank you, your long post was an insightful read as well!

[Mr. Brooks]

And just in case anyone wants a reason for their stomach to turn, and I swear this isn't from The Onion (though it should be).

A couple of early cabinet considerations at this point:

 

Secretary of the interior: Sarah Palin

Secretary of Education: Ben Carson

 

Yikes! Elections have consequences indeed.

[glunn]

Lots of great posts in this thread. I appreciate that TD is a place where we can discuss all of this with mutual respect.

 

Personally, I am not happy with the outcome and I fear that Trump will be a disaster. However, fate is unpredictable and sometimes what seems bad at the time turns out to be good over the long run.

 

What bothers me the most is the electoral college. Because I have always lived in a state that was overwhelmingly biased in favor of one party, my vote for President has always seemed irrelevant to the outcome. I would like to see candidates campaign in all 50 states, not just swing states, and I would like everyone's vote to have a direct impact on the outcome. It seems to me that this would increase turnout and accountability.

 

Obviously, the Republicans will fight to the death to preserve the electoral college. But it seems to me that this battle is worth fighting and that even conservative voters in deep red states might see some benefit from a system where everyone's vote counts equally in every election. If i were chair of the DNC, I would try to build consensus for a constitutional amendment that could be introduced in every state legislature and I would fight for this in every possible way.

 

My more realistic side tells me that such an effort is doomed to fail in the short run, but some things that are worthwhile can eventually materialize if people fight hard for them for decades.

[biggentleben]

Multiple states have enacted legislation that triggers at 200 electoral votes going by popular vote that their state's electoral votes would go with the winner of the national popular vote, not the way their state voted. I do think that would add some checks and balances into it. (It's more nuanced than that, and I've been up all night with a teething baby, so forgive me for not looking up the link). I believe the total electoral votes in states with this legislation passed now is roughly 150, so another 50 need to be found for it to trigger in every election.

 

The thing on the electoral college that is just beyond me is how electors are assigned. A vote in Wyoming is worth more than anywhere else in the country due to the ratio of eligible voters to electors in Wyoming. If you were to put electors based on the same formula as the House of Representatives, Trump would not be the president currently. Instead, every vote in California is worth about 1/7th of a Wyoming vote. I just don't see how that makes any sense. I live in a small state, and in no way do I want my state's voice not heard, but I believe it should be heard in an equitable way to the amount of persons that are contributing to the tax base of the country.