I am *so* glad I took the day off, both from work and from here. I can already see what is going to happen, though. When the Democrat nominee wins the election in 2020 (whoever that might be) people on the other side are going to hold protests, make signs saying NotMyPresident, scrawl obscene and/or racist graffiti on buildings, and so on and so forth. The genie is now out of the bottle and the pendulum in gaining in momentum--it will swing back a little more wildly next time.
You have to be kidding. Are you seriously suggesting this didn't happen last time?? They spent the last 8 years trying to paint Obama as not being eligible for President. That was, literally, Donald Trump's initial foray into politics, the leader of the birther movement. Did you forget the Tea Party?? But yes, by all means, Democrats and liberals are just supposed to sit back and take it when, for the 2nd time in 16 years, the winner of the popular vote is denied the Presidency. And it's only happening to one side. And that is because if California had the same proportion of Electoral votes as Wyoming or North Dakota, it would have 199 of them instead of 55. The system is rigged, just not in the way everyone says it is.
People are on the streets because, in the end, Hillary Clinton is going to win the popular vote in this country by a million or more. Likely ending up at 52%. And her opponent, who not just a plurality of voters, but a MAJORITY of voters, opposed, is going to take the office. And yes, the Electoral College is the rule, but it is an archaic, ridiculous institution that has subverted the actual will of the people twice in the last 16 years. There is no such thing as the "popular vote" in any other Western country. It's just called "the vote".
I don't like the result but those were the rules when the campaign started and they aren't going to be changed now. Donald Trump won for a number of reasons, Hillary Clinton lost for a number of reasons. The protests now are not helping because they are only providing TV ads for the next election cycle and making it more likely Republicans will be re-elected.
A lot of people voted for Donald Trump despite his public flaws because they felt he would break the flawed system in a way Hillary would not. I don't know if he will or not, but if he turns out to be a crap sandwich then we will vote him out in 4 years. These protests are going nowhere because they are being done for no actual reason yet. If they had waited until his TrumpU trial and something really bad came out of it..., but then Pence is much much worse and that is what would happen. Hillary is not ever going to be President. I wish she had won and been able to keep some of the hard won progress, but Trump is not even in the office yet so I as a liberal do not support these protests, sorry. If you want to talk about changing the election process for next time though, I am interested in listening.
I am *so* glad I took the day off, both from work and from here. I can already see what is going to happen, though. When the Democrat nominee wins the election in 2020 (whoever that might be) people on the other side are going to hold protests, make signs saying NotMyPresident, scrawl obscene and/or racist graffiti on buildings, and so on and so forth. The genie is now out of the bottle and the pendulum in gaining in momentum--it will swing back a little more wildly next time.
You have to be kidding. Are you seriously suggesting this didn't happen last time?? They spent the last 8 years trying to paint Obama as not being eligible for President. That was, literally, Donald Trump's initial foray into politics, the leader of the birther movement. Did you forget the Tea Party?? But yes, by all means, Democrats and liberals are just supposed to sit back and take it when, for the 2nd time in 16 years, the winner of the popular vote is denied the Presidency. And it's only happening to one side. And that is because if California had the same proportion of Electoral votes as Wyoming or North Dakota, it would have 199 of them instead of 55. The system is rigged, just not in the way everyone says it is.
People are on the streets because, in the end, Hillary Clinton is going to win the popular vote in this country by a million or more. Likely ending up at 52%. And her opponent, who not just a plurality of voters, but a MAJORITY of voters, opposed, is going to take the office. And yes, the Electoral College is the rule, but it is an archaic, ridiculous institution that has subverted the actual will of the people twice in the last 16 years. There is no such thing as the "popular vote" in any other Western country. It's just called "the vote".
I don't like the result but those were the rules when the campaign started and they aren't going to be changed now. Donald Trump won for a number of reasons, Hillary Clinton lost for a number of reasons. The protests now are not helping because they are only providing TV ads for the next election cycle and making it more likely Republicans will be re-elected.
A lot of people voted for Donald Trump despite his public flaws because they felt he would break the flawed system in a way Hillary would not. I don't know if he will or not, but if he turns out to be a crap sandwich then we will vote him out in 4 years. These protests are going nowhere because they are being done for no actual reason yet. If they had waited until his TrumpU trial and something really bad came out of it..., but then Pence is much much worse and that is what would happen. Hillary is not ever going to be President. I wish she had won and been able to keep some of the hard won progress, but Trump is not even in the office yet so I as a liberal do not support these protests, sorry. If you want to talk about changing the election process for next time though, I am interested in listening.
I agree these protests are meaningless, but if one cannot understand the emotion behind them, I can't convince you to. I don't think Hillary is magically going to be sworn in. I never said the Electoral College wasn't the rule. It is. He's been elected. That doesn't mean there isn't a serious, serious problem when 52% of the country votes one way and the other person takes office. It is not sustainable.
I also have no interest in listening to these people anymore. I grew up with them in a rural community. I know how they think. They were my friends and neighbors through the formative years of my life. The "economic anxiety" meme is pure BS. I am no better off than any of them. I am, myself, by definition, a "blue-collar, working class white". And I'm ashamed of what my demographic has wrought.
@jjstraka34 Let me just post some numbers from another thread here
Approximately 50 % of eligible voters bothered to vote in the first place. And of those, only 52.5 % voted not Trump. Hence, 26 % of eligible voters voted against Trump and 24 % for Trump. In conclusion, 74 % of the voting public were not upset enough to oppose Trump.
Unfortunately in the spirit of truth 52 % of the country did not vote one way.
Low voter turnout doesn't mean people were okay with either candidate. A lot of folks who don't vote have opinions about politics; they just don't think their vote matters.
Hillary is not going to end up with 52% of the popular vote. There just aren't that many votes left. Neither Hillary nor Trump garnered a majority of support from those who voted.
That doesn't mean the system isn't deeply, fundamentally flawed. Personally I'd advocate for a combination of direct vote and ranked ballots; that would give everyone an opportunity to cast not only a vote that counts (instead of disenfranchising minority-party voters from state to state), but a vote with nuance that can be effectively tabulated.
We have no way of knowing what 46.9% of the US thinks. We have no idea if Stein's or Johnson's supporters would have voted for Trump or Hillary. We have no way of knowing how many of Hillary's or Trump's supporters were only voting for their candidate because they were afraid of the alternative.
That information is important, and we don't have it, and I suspect it's at the root of the problem.
The results of this election aren't going to change. But we should be working to change the system that allowed this result to occur, so that in the next election, there will be no doubt as to which candidate the country prefers.
@jjstraka34 Let me just post some numbers from another thread here
Approximately 50 % of eligible voters bothered to vote in the first place. And of those, only 52.5 % voted not Trump. Hence, 26 % of eligible voters voted against Trump and 24 % for Trump. In conclusion, 74 % of the voting public were not upset enough to oppose Trump.
Unfortunately in the spirit of truth 52 % of the country did not vote one way.
We can't really have a discussion about the people who didn't vote. Decisions are made by those who show up. It's impossible to extrapolate, though higher turnout always favors Democrats. I know that Hillary Clinton had her issues. Some of them real, most of them a total hit-job for forces as wide-ranging as the American media, Russia, and the frickin' FBI. She was, like most of us, a person with serious flaws, but a dedicated, competent public servant. The other candidate admitted to sexual assault on tape, and purposefully ran a campaign centered on white nationalism. If someone was forced to choose an ailment to be afflicted with, any rational person would choose the common cold or the flu (Hillary Clinton) over lung cancer (Trump). Politics is a zero-sum game. There were two choices, and one was infinitely better than the other, despite her myriad of flaws. Instead, a malignant narcissist who lost the popular vote by a substantial margin is taking office. How anyone can't view that with extreme trepidation blows my mind.
Hillary is not going to end up with 52% of the popular vote. There just aren't that many votes left. Neither Hillary nor Trump garnered a majority of support from those who voted.
That doesn't mean the system isn't deeply, fundamentally flawed. Personally I'd advocate for a combination of direct vote and ranked ballots; that would give everyone an opportunity to cast not only a vote that counts (instead of disenfranchising minority-party voters from state to state), but a vote with nuance that can be effectively tabulated.
We have no way of knowing what 46.9% of the US thinks. We have no idea if Stein's or Johnson's supporters would have voted for Trump or Hillary. We have no way of knowing how many of Hillary's or Trump's supporters were only voting for their candidate because they were afraid of the alternative.
That information is important, and we don't have it, and I suspect it's at the root of the problem.
The results of this election aren't going to change. But we should be working to change the system that allowed this result to occur, so that in the next election, there will be no doubt as to which candidate the country prefers.
There are a massive amount of votes on the West Coast yet to be counted, nevermind absentee and provisional ballots. Every one of those states is deep in the blue column.
Hillary is not going to end up with 52% of the popular vote. There just aren't that many votes left. Neither Hillary nor Trump garnered a majority of support from those who voted.
That doesn't mean the system isn't deeply, fundamentally flawed. Personally I'd advocate for a combination of direct vote and ranked ballots; that would give everyone an opportunity to cast not only a vote that counts (instead of disenfranchising minority-party voters from state to state), but a vote with nuance that can be effectively tabulated.
We have no way of knowing what 46.9% of the US thinks. We have no idea if Stein's or Johnson's supporters would have voted for Trump or Hillary. We have no way of knowing how many of Hillary's or Trump's supporters were only voting for their candidate because they were afraid of the alternative.
That information is important, and we don't have it, and I suspect it's at the root of the problem.
The results of this election aren't going to change. But we should be working to change the system that allowed this result to occur, so that in the next election, there will be no doubt as to which candidate the country prefers.
There are a massive amount of votes on the West Coast yet to be counted, nevermind absentee and provisional ballots. Every one of those states is deep in the blue column.
Fair enough, but if you're expecting the margin of victory to be a million, that's not enough to break 50%, much less 52%.
Hillary is not going to end up with 52% of the popular vote. There just aren't that many votes left. Neither Hillary nor Trump garnered a majority of support from those who voted.
That doesn't mean the system isn't deeply, fundamentally flawed. Personally I'd advocate for a combination of direct vote and ranked ballots; that would give everyone an opportunity to cast not only a vote that counts (instead of disenfranchising minority-party voters from state to state), but a vote with nuance that can be effectively tabulated.
We have no way of knowing what 46.9% of the US thinks. We have no idea if Stein's or Johnson's supporters would have voted for Trump or Hillary. We have no way of knowing how many of Hillary's or Trump's supporters were only voting for their candidate because they were afraid of the alternative.
That information is important, and we don't have it, and I suspect it's at the root of the problem.
The results of this election aren't going to change. But we should be working to change the system that allowed this result to occur, so that in the next election, there will be no doubt as to which candidate the country prefers.
There are a massive amount of votes on the West Coast yet to be counted, nevermind absentee and provisional ballots. Every one of those states is deep in the blue column.
Fair enough, but if you're expecting the margin of victory to be a million, that's not enough to break 50%, much less 52%.
Fair enough....however, nearly everything I said still stands. A million vote margin in the popular vote is massive compared to past elections, including Kennedy and Nixon's first-term. We have to get rid of the Electoral College.
I am *so* glad I took the day off, both from work and from here. I can already see what is going to happen, though. When the Democrat nominee wins the election in 2020 (whoever that might be) people on the other side are going to hold protests, make signs saying NotMyPresident, scrawl obscene and/or racist graffiti on buildings, and so on and so forth. The genie is now out of the bottle and the pendulum in gaining in momentum--it will swing back a little more wildly next time.
You have to be kidding. Are you seriously suggesting this didn't happen last time?? They spent the last 8 years trying to paint Obama as not being eligible for President. That was, literally, Donald Trump's initial foray into politics, the leader of the birther movement. Did you forget the Tea Party?? But yes, by all means, Democrats and liberals are just supposed to sit back and take it when, for the 2nd time in 16 years, the winner of the popular vote is denied the Presidency. And it's only happening to one side. And that is because if California had the same proportion of Electoral votes as Wyoming or North Dakota, it would have 199 of them instead of 55. The system is rigged, just not in the way everyone says it is.
People are on the streets because, in the end, Hillary Clinton is going to win the popular vote in this country by a million or more. Likely ending up at 52%. And her opponent, who not just a plurality of voters, but a MAJORITY of voters, opposed, is going to take the office. And yes, the Electoral College is the rule, but it is an archaic, ridiculous institution that has subverted the actual will of the people twice in the last 16 years. There is no such thing as the "popular vote" in any other Western country. It's just called "the vote".
I don't like the result but those were the rules when the campaign started and they aren't going to be changed now. Donald Trump won for a number of reasons, Hillary Clinton lost for a number of reasons. The protests now are not helping because they are only providing TV ads for the next election cycle and making it more likely Republicans will be re-elected.
A lot of people voted for Donald Trump despite his public flaws because they felt he would break the flawed system in a way Hillary would not. I don't know if he will or not, but if he turns out to be a crap sandwich then we will vote him out in 4 years. These protests are going nowhere because they are being done for no actual reason yet. If they had waited until his TrumpU trial and something really bad came out of it..., but then Pence is much much worse and that is what would happen. Hillary is not ever going to be President. I wish she had won and been able to keep some of the hard won progress, but Trump is not even in the office yet so I as a liberal do not support these protests, sorry. If you want to talk about changing the election process for next time though, I am interested in listening.
I agree these protests are meaningless, but if one cannot understand the emotion behind them, I can't convince you to. I don't think Hillary is magically going to be sworn in. I never said the Electoral College wasn't the rule. It is. He's been elected. That doesn't mean there isn't a serious, serious problem when 52% of the country votes one way and the other person takes office. It is not sustainable.
I also have no interest in listening to these people anymore. I grew up with them in a rural community. I know how they think. They were my friends and neighbors through the formative years of my life. The "economic anxiety" meme is pure BS. I am no better off than any of them. I am, myself, by definition, a "blue-collar, working class white". And I'm ashamed of what my demographic has wrought.
I do understand the emotion behind it, but that emotion needs to be channeled into something that actually has a chance to make a difference in 2 years and 4 years rather than perpetuating the problem by providing images for ads to be used by the people in power to remain in power by keeping them scared of "angry liberals". Again, I agree the system could use some changes. Our representative democracy has had issues scaling up to 320 million people.
Not listening to these people is one of the reasons why they voted against Hillary and for Trump. Not listening means the divide will increase, not shrink. Not listening means we don't know what they are thinking and thus...the morning after.
I am *so* glad I took the day off, both from work and from here. I can already see what is going to happen, though. When the Democrat nominee wins the election in 2020 (whoever that might be) people on the other side are going to hold protests, make signs saying NotMyPresident, scrawl obscene and/or racist graffiti on buildings, and so on and so forth. The genie is now out of the bottle and the pendulum in gaining in momentum--it will swing back a little more wildly next time.
You have to be kidding. Are you seriously suggesting this didn't happen last time?? They spent the last 8 years trying to paint Obama as not being eligible for President. That was, literally, Donald Trump's initial foray into politics, the leader of the birther movement. Did you forget the Tea Party?? But yes, by all means, Democrats and liberals are just supposed to sit back and take it when, for the 2nd time in 16 years, the winner of the popular vote is denied the Presidency. And it's only happening to one side. And that is because if California had the same proportion of Electoral votes as Wyoming or North Dakota, it would have 199 of them instead of 55. The system is rigged, just not in the way everyone says it is.
People are on the streets because, in the end, Hillary Clinton is going to win the popular vote in this country by a million or more. Likely ending up at 52%. And her opponent, who not just a plurality of voters, but a MAJORITY of voters, opposed, is going to take the office. And yes, the Electoral College is the rule, but it is an archaic, ridiculous institution that has subverted the actual will of the people twice in the last 16 years. There is no such thing as the "popular vote" in any other Western country. It's just called "the vote".
I don't like the result but those were the rules when the campaign started and they aren't going to be changed now. Donald Trump won for a number of reasons, Hillary Clinton lost for a number of reasons. The protests now are not helping because they are only providing TV ads for the next election cycle and making it more likely Republicans will be re-elected.
A lot of people voted for Donald Trump despite his public flaws because they felt he would break the flawed system in a way Hillary would not. I don't know if he will or not, but if he turns out to be a crap sandwich then we will vote him out in 4 years. These protests are going nowhere because they are being done for no actual reason yet. If they had waited until his TrumpU trial and something really bad came out of it..., but then Pence is much much worse and that is what would happen. Hillary is not ever going to be President. I wish she had won and been able to keep some of the hard won progress, but Trump is not even in the office yet so I as a liberal do not support these protests, sorry. If you want to talk about changing the election process for next time though, I am interested in listening.
I agree these protests are meaningless, but if one cannot understand the emotion behind them, I can't convince you to. I don't think Hillary is magically going to be sworn in. I never said the Electoral College wasn't the rule. It is. He's been elected. That doesn't mean there isn't a serious, serious problem when 52% of the country votes one way and the other person takes office. It is not sustainable.
I also have no interest in listening to these people anymore. I grew up with them in a rural community. I know how they think. They were my friends and neighbors through the formative years of my life. The "economic anxiety" meme is pure BS. I am no better off than any of them. I am, myself, by definition, a "blue-collar, working class white". And I'm ashamed of what my demographic has wrought.
I do understand the emotion behind it, but that emotion needs to be channeled into something that actually has a chance to make a difference in 2 years and 4 years rather than perpetuating the problem by providing images for ads to be used by the people in power to remain in power by keeping them scared of "angry liberals". Again, I agree the system could use some changes. Our representative democracy has had issues scaling up to 320 million people.
Not listening to these people is one of the reasons why they voted against Hillary and for Trump. Not listening means the divide will increase, not shrink. Not listening means we don't know what they are thinking and thus...the morning after.
As I said, I'm well aware of what they think. They are my best friend's dad. They are the people I stood in line with at lunch in school. I KNOW these people. And their reasons are petulant BS.
I am *so* glad I took the day off, both from work and from here. I can already see what is going to happen, though. When the Democrat nominee wins the election in 2020 (whoever that might be) people on the other side are going to hold protests, make signs saying NotMyPresident, scrawl obscene and/or racist graffiti on buildings, and so on and so forth. The genie is now out of the bottle and the pendulum in gaining in momentum--it will swing back a little more wildly next time.
You have to be kidding. Are you seriously suggesting this didn't happen last time?? They spent the last 8 years trying to paint Obama as not being eligible for President. That was, literally, Donald Trump's initial foray into politics, the leader of the birther movement. Did you forget the Tea Party?? But yes, by all means, Democrats and liberals are just supposed to sit back and take it when, for the 2nd time in 16 years, the winner of the popular vote is denied the Presidency. And it's only happening to one side. And that is because if California had the same proportion of Electoral votes as Wyoming or North Dakota, it would have 199 of them instead of 55. The system is rigged, just not in the way everyone says it is.
People are on the streets because, in the end, Hillary Clinton is going to win the popular vote in this country by a million or more. Likely ending up at 52%. And her opponent, who not just a plurality of voters, but a MAJORITY of voters, opposed, is going to take the office. And yes, the Electoral College is the rule, but it is an archaic, ridiculous institution that has subverted the actual will of the people twice in the last 16 years. There is no such thing as the "popular vote" in any other Western country. It's just called "the vote".
I don't like the result but those were the rules when the campaign started and they aren't going to be changed now. Donald Trump won for a number of reasons, Hillary Clinton lost for a number of reasons. The protests now are not helping because they are only providing TV ads for the next election cycle and making it more likely Republicans will be re-elected.
A lot of people voted for Donald Trump despite his public flaws because they felt he would break the flawed system in a way Hillary would not. I don't know if he will or not, but if he turns out to be a crap sandwich then we will vote him out in 4 years. These protests are going nowhere because they are being done for no actual reason yet. If they had waited until his TrumpU trial and something really bad came out of it..., but then Pence is much much worse and that is what would happen. Hillary is not ever going to be President. I wish she had won and been able to keep some of the hard won progress, but Trump is not even in the office yet so I as a liberal do not support these protests, sorry. If you want to talk about changing the election process for next time though, I am interested in listening.
I agree these protests are meaningless, but if one cannot understand the emotion behind them, I can't convince you to. I don't think Hillary is magically going to be sworn in. I never said the Electoral College wasn't the rule. It is. He's been elected. That doesn't mean there isn't a serious, serious problem when 52% of the country votes one way and the other person takes office. It is not sustainable.
I also have no interest in listening to these people anymore. I grew up with them in a rural community. I know how they think. They were my friends and neighbors through the formative years of my life. The "economic anxiety" meme is pure BS. I am no better off than any of them. I am, myself, by definition, a "blue-collar, working class white". And I'm ashamed of what my demographic has wrought.
I do understand the emotion behind it, but that emotion needs to be channeled into something that actually has a chance to make a difference in 2 years and 4 years rather than perpetuating the problem by providing images for ads to be used by the people in power to remain in power by keeping them scared of "angry liberals". Again, I agree the system could use some changes. Our representative democracy has had issues scaling up to 320 million people.
Not listening to these people is one of the reasons why they voted against Hillary and for Trump. Not listening means the divide will increase, not shrink. Not listening means we don't know what they are thinking and thus...the morning after.
As I said, I'm well aware of what they think. They are my best friend's dad. They are the people I stood in line with at lunch in school. I KNOW these people. And their reasons are petulant BS.
And yet the result was a total shock, was it not? Did you know that it was going to happen or were you sure Hillary was going to win?
My main issue with drumphf is the racism, misogyny, he's a bs artist, a conman, and multiple time failed businessman. I guess if the left puts forward a candidate like that in 2020 the alt right can riot. But yeah they never would.
We the people handed the vast majority of state governments, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, the Presidency to one party that favors big business over the individual. No checks and balances!
Hopefully this will be the last gasp of the baby boomers and in 2018 and beyond millennials and gen xers will be a much more significant factor in the vote. We will have to undo the unchecked legislation that is about to be passed by climate change deniers who are about to burn the planet, undo education reform by evolution deniers, reverse voter and rights suppression for minorities and lgbtq that will be passed, and restore or expand social programs that will be cut in favor of big business and tax cuts for the wealthy.
These policies that will soon be pushed incidentally won't help in any way the rust belt states that flipped red this time at all but will likely make things worse in those states. Who will the hateful alt right media blame without Obama to kick around? The whole mess is theirs. I'm sure they'll find some scapegoat.
I am *so* glad I took the day off, both from work and from here. I can already see what is going to happen, though. When the Democrat nominee wins the election in 2020 (whoever that might be) people on the other side are going to hold protests, make signs saying NotMyPresident, scrawl obscene and/or racist graffiti on buildings, and so on and so forth. The genie is now out of the bottle and the pendulum in gaining in momentum--it will swing back a little more wildly next time.
You have to be kidding. Are you seriously suggesting this didn't happen last time?? They spent the last 8 years trying to paint Obama as not being eligible for President. That was, literally, Donald Trump's initial foray into politics, the leader of the birther movement. Did you forget the Tea Party?? But yes, by all means, Democrats and liberals are just supposed to sit back and take it when, for the 2nd time in 16 years, the winner of the popular vote is denied the Presidency. And it's only happening to one side. And that is because if California had the same proportion of Electoral votes as Wyoming or North Dakota, it would have 199 of them instead of 55. The system is rigged, just not in the way everyone says it is.
People are on the streets because, in the end, Hillary Clinton is going to win the popular vote in this country by a million or more. Likely ending up at 52%. And her opponent, who not just a plurality of voters, but a MAJORITY of voters, opposed, is going to take the office. And yes, the Electoral College is the rule, but it is an archaic, ridiculous institution that has subverted the actual will of the people twice in the last 16 years. There is no such thing as the "popular vote" in any other Western country. It's just called "the vote".
I don't like the result but those were the rules when the campaign started and they aren't going to be changed now. Donald Trump won for a number of reasons, Hillary Clinton lost for a number of reasons. The protests now are not helping because they are only providing TV ads for the next election cycle and making it more likely Republicans will be re-elected.
A lot of people voted for Donald Trump despite his public flaws because they felt he would break the flawed system in a way Hillary would not. I don't know if he will or not, but if he turns out to be a crap sandwich then we will vote him out in 4 years. These protests are going nowhere because they are being done for no actual reason yet. If they had waited until his TrumpU trial and something really bad came out of it..., but then Pence is much much worse and that is what would happen. Hillary is not ever going to be President. I wish she had won and been able to keep some of the hard won progress, but Trump is not even in the office yet so I as a liberal do not support these protests, sorry. If you want to talk about changing the election process for next time though, I am interested in listening.
I agree these protests are meaningless, but if one cannot understand the emotion behind them, I can't convince you to. I don't think Hillary is magically going to be sworn in. I never said the Electoral College wasn't the rule. It is. He's been elected. That doesn't mean there isn't a serious, serious problem when 52% of the country votes one way and the other person takes office. It is not sustainable.
I also have no interest in listening to these people anymore. I grew up with them in a rural community. I know how they think. They were my friends and neighbors through the formative years of my life. The "economic anxiety" meme is pure BS. I am no better off than any of them. I am, myself, by definition, a "blue-collar, working class white". And I'm ashamed of what my demographic has wrought.
I do understand the emotion behind it, but that emotion needs to be channeled into something that actually has a chance to make a difference in 2 years and 4 years rather than perpetuating the problem by providing images for ads to be used by the people in power to remain in power by keeping them scared of "angry liberals". Again, I agree the system could use some changes. Our representative democracy has had issues scaling up to 320 million people.
Not listening to these people is one of the reasons why they voted against Hillary and for Trump. Not listening means the divide will increase, not shrink. Not listening means we don't know what they are thinking and thus...the morning after.
As I said, I'm well aware of what they think. They are my best friend's dad. They are the people I stood in line with at lunch in school. I KNOW these people. And their reasons are petulant BS.
And yet the result was a total shock, was it not? Did you know that it was going to happen or were you sure Hillary was going to win?
Hard not to think so when the polls have been correct for the last 20 years (more or less) and all available data pointed to her winning. I believe in math. That said, while state polls were VERY off, in the end, the national polls are going to be right where they showed it to be. Hillary winning by 1-2%.
The issue is very clear, now more than ever. We are two countries that want absolutely nothing to do with each other. And it is a nearly unanimous urban/rural divide.
The scapegoat will be whoever the current president is. Its always the current administrations fault, even if the problem was caused by any number of the previous administrations.
*EDIT* I disagree with the sickness comparison above as well. I think Trump is more a sickness we don't know. He has said so many contradictory things, and everything he does seems to be for his benefit alone, that we can't really trust anything he says, and have no real way to know what he will actually try to do. I feel Hilary is more the lung cancer. She is the embodiment of the all powerful state that has spent the last several administrations systematically dismantling the constitution and robbing Americans of their rights.
There are still checks and balances. Congress will check the President and Supreme Court; the President will check the Supreme Court and Congress; and the Supreme Court will check the President and Congress. It's just that the people in charge of all three are going to be Republicans. The Constitution forbids individual people from holding multiple positions, but it does not prevent political parties from controlling multiple branches of government.
It might seem like the same thing, but as long as Republicans aren't literally clones of each other, there are still checks and balances in our government.
There are still checks and balances. Congress will check the President and Supreme Court; the President will check the Supreme Court and Congress; and the Supreme Court will check the President and Congress. It's just that the people in charge of all three are going to be Republicans. The Constitution forbids individual people from holding multiple positions, but it does not prevent political parties from controlling multiple branches of government.
It might seem like the same thing, but as long as Republicans aren't literally clones of each other, there are still checks and balances in our government.
Those checks don't exist when you give power to one party. Right now, the ONLY check on Trump and the Republicans is the filibuster (and there is at least a 50/50 chance McConnell will nuke it) and the current make-up of the Supreme Court (and let's not forget that the Republicans have essentially STOLEN a Supreme Court pick from Obama and handed it to Trump, a move unprecedented in the history of the Republic). The only thing we can hope now is that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an 83-year old cancer survivor, can hold on for another 4 years.
@jjstraka34: I was referring to the structural thing. Democrats don't have a check on Republicans, but Republicans do have a check on other Republicans--who do not always share same goals or policies.
Our system was never designed to divide power among parties; it was designed to divide power among individuals. A lot of the Founding Fathers despised the very concept of political parties. There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates that the Democratic party (or any party) needs to have a check on the GOP, or vice versa.
The Supreme Court can still rule a law unconstitutional; the President can still veto a law; and Congress can still override a veto. Just because I don't control those checks and balances doesn't mean they don't exist.
The people entitled to those checks and balances are the ones who won the election. That has not changed.
But yes... the GOP has indeed effectively stolen a Supreme Court pick from Obama. No one has ever refused to even hold a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee. Not even when the President was a lame duck. Not even when President and Congress belonged to opposing parties. It was a blatant GOP power grab--no less than FDR's infamous "court packing" scheme.
Nor has anyone pledged to block any nominee for four years, as McCain promised if Clinton was elected. The Republican party's obstructionism isn't a matter of interpretation; it's been their official, explicit, public policy since Obama was elected.
@jjstraka34: I was referring to the structural thing. Democrats don't have a check on Republicans, but Republicans do have a check on other Republicans--who do not always share same goals or policies.
Our system was never designed to divide power among parties; it was designed to divide power among individuals. A lot of the Founding Fathers despised the very concept of political parties. There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates that the Democratic party (or any party) needs to have a check on the GOP, or vice versa.
The Supreme Court can still rule a law unconstitutional; the President can still veto a law; and Congress can still override a veto. Just because I don't control those checks and balances doesn't mean they don't exist.
The people entitled to those checks and balances are the ones who won the election. That has not changed.
But yes... the GOP has indeed effectively stolen a Supreme Court pick from Obama. No one has ever refused to even hold a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee. Not even when the President was a lame duck. Not even when President and Congress belonged to opposing parties. It was a blatant GOP power grab--no less than FDR's infamous "court packing" scheme.
Nor has anyone pledged to block any nominee for four years, as McCain promised if Clinton was elected. The Republican party's obstructionism isn't a matter of interpretation; it's been their official, explicit, public policy since Obama was elected.
@jjstraka34: I was referring to the structural thing. Democrats don't have a check on Republicans, but Republicans do have a check on other Republicans--who do not always share same goals or policies.
Our system was never designed to divide power among parties; it was designed to divide power among individuals. A lot of the Founding Fathers despised the very concept of political parties. There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates that the Democratic party (or any party) needs to have a check on the GOP, or vice versa.
The Supreme Court can still rule a law unconstitutional; the President can still veto a law; and Congress can still override a veto. Just because I don't control those checks and balances doesn't mean they don't exist.
The people entitled to those checks and balances are the ones who won the election. That has not changed.
But yes... the GOP has indeed effectively stolen a Supreme Court pick from Obama. No one has ever refused to even hold a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee. Not even when the President was a lame duck. Not even when President and Congress belonged to opposing parties. It was a blatant GOP power grab--no less than FDR's infamous "court packing" scheme.
Nor has anyone pledged to block any nominee for four years, as McCain promised if Clinton was elected. The Republican party's obstructionism isn't a matter of interpretation; it's been their official, explicit, public policy since Obama was elected.
Except the court packing scheme failed. This worked. What Obama SHOULD do is make a recess appointment in the lame duck. He won't, but that is EXACTLY what he should do. The GOP has taken dynamite to any sort of respected political norms, and you can't expect to beat them by playing fair.
I wish the Democrats had used all that time and money to campaign actively in EVERY state. The obsession with micro-targeting is not broadening the whole pool and I think needs to have a less proportionate effort next time if the Democratic party is to have better success.
I wish the Democrats had used all that time and money to campaign actively in EVERY state. The obsession with micro-targeting is not broadening the whole pool and I think needs to have a less proportionate effort next time if the Democratic party is to have better success.
Moore is making himself the figurehead of the anti-Trump movement during the transition period, and it needs one. I absolutely agree. Democrats were successful in '06 and '08 because of the 50 state strategy of Howard Dean. They got complacent in their victories and always, ALWAYS underestimate how bloodthirsty Republicans are. It was Obama's biggest fault that he tried to get along with them for his first-term when they were out to destroy him. I am not a Democrat because I am in love with how they do things. They are far too conservative on most issues for me. I am a Democrat because the alternative is the lunacy of the American Right.
We really need to find a way to get some sort of better alternative to these two parties. They are both steeped in corruption and playing the American people like a fiddle.
He makes some good points, but then contradicts those very points mere seconds later. He says attacks don't work any more, but is in the middle of a 6 minute long rage-gasm against the "left", assigning ALL blame to the "left". Major Fail because there is no single "left". Extra bonus fail for not mentioning a single other cause like talk radio or corporate media.
He set up a strawman and knocked it down most effectively. Clap.... clap..... clap.
His solution of talking to people is correct, I completely endorse that, but I feel he discredited himself as a messenger with this spit-flying rage-gasm.
Bernie lost because of the corruption in the primary election process of the Democratic Party, but I believe he would have won against Trump. Clinton hit up all the superdelegates and won by a landslide, even though Bernie and Hillary were neck and neck the majority of the time. If you think the electoral college is messed up, you should learn about how superdelegates works within the Democratic Party. Pretty disgusting, in my opinion. (Not that the Republican Party doesn't have its own share of disgusting corruption as well.) They shot themselves in the foot with their own corruption this year. Such a shame.
Comments
A lot of people voted for Donald Trump despite his public flaws because they felt he would break the flawed system in a way Hillary would not. I don't know if he will or not, but if he turns out to be a crap sandwich then we will vote him out in 4 years. These protests are going nowhere because they are being done for no actual reason yet. If they had waited until his TrumpU trial and something really bad came out of it..., but then Pence is much much worse and that is what would happen. Hillary is not ever going to be President. I wish she had won and been able to keep some of the hard won progress, but Trump is not even in the office yet so I as a liberal do not support these protests, sorry. If you want to talk about changing the election process for next time though, I am interested in listening.
I also have no interest in listening to these people anymore. I grew up with them in a rural community. I know how they think. They were my friends and neighbors through the formative years of my life. The "economic anxiety" meme is pure BS. I am no better off than any of them. I am, myself, by definition, a "blue-collar, working class white". And I'm ashamed of what my demographic has wrought.
Approximately 50 % of eligible voters bothered to vote in the first place. And of those, only 52.5 % voted not Trump. Hence, 26 % of eligible voters voted against Trump and 24 % for Trump. In conclusion, 74 % of the voting public were not upset enough to oppose Trump.
Unfortunately in the spirit of truth 52 % of the country did not vote one way.
Hillary is not going to end up with 52% of the popular vote. There just aren't that many votes left. Neither Hillary nor Trump garnered a majority of support from those who voted.
That doesn't mean the system isn't deeply, fundamentally flawed. Personally I'd advocate for a combination of direct vote and ranked ballots; that would give everyone an opportunity to cast not only a vote that counts (instead of disenfranchising minority-party voters from state to state), but a vote with nuance that can be effectively tabulated.
We have no way of knowing what 46.9% of the US thinks. We have no idea if Stein's or Johnson's supporters would have voted for Trump or Hillary. We have no way of knowing how many of Hillary's or Trump's supporters were only voting for their candidate because they were afraid of the alternative.
That information is important, and we don't have it, and I suspect it's at the root of the problem.
The results of this election aren't going to change. But we should be working to change the system that allowed this result to occur, so that in the next election, there will be no doubt as to which candidate the country prefers.
Not listening to these people is one of the reasons why they voted against Hillary and for Trump.
Not listening means the divide will increase, not shrink.
Not listening means we don't know what they are thinking and thus...the morning after.
We the people handed the vast majority of state governments, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, the Presidency to one party that favors big business over the individual. No checks and balances!
Hopefully this will be the last gasp of the baby boomers and in 2018 and beyond millennials and gen xers will be a much more significant factor in the vote. We will have to undo the unchecked legislation that is about to be passed by climate change deniers who are about to burn the planet, undo education reform by evolution deniers, reverse voter and rights suppression for minorities and lgbtq that will be passed, and restore or expand social programs that will be cut in favor of big business and tax cuts for the wealthy.
These policies that will soon be pushed incidentally won't help in any way the rust belt states that flipped red this time at all but will likely make things worse in those states. Who will the hateful alt right media blame without Obama to kick around? The whole mess is theirs. I'm sure they'll find some scapegoat.
The issue is very clear, now more than ever. We are two countries that want absolutely nothing to do with each other. And it is a nearly unanimous urban/rural divide.
*EDIT* I disagree with the sickness comparison above as well. I think Trump is more a sickness we don't know. He has said so many contradictory things, and everything he does seems to be for his benefit alone, that we can't really trust anything he says, and have no real way to know what he will actually try to do.
I feel Hilary is more the lung cancer. She is the embodiment of the all powerful state that has spent the last several administrations systematically dismantling the constitution and robbing Americans of their rights.
It might seem like the same thing, but as long as Republicans aren't literally clones of each other, there are still checks and balances in our government.
Our system was never designed to divide power among parties; it was designed to divide power among individuals. A lot of the Founding Fathers despised the very concept of political parties. There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates that the Democratic party (or any party) needs to have a check on the GOP, or vice versa.
The Supreme Court can still rule a law unconstitutional; the President can still veto a law; and Congress can still override a veto. Just because I don't control those checks and balances doesn't mean they don't exist.
The people entitled to those checks and balances are the ones who won the election. That has not changed.
But yes... the GOP has indeed effectively stolen a Supreme Court pick from Obama. No one has ever refused to even hold a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee. Not even when the President was a lame duck. Not even when President and Congress belonged to opposing parties. It was a blatant GOP power grab--no less than FDR's infamous "court packing" scheme.
Nor has anyone pledged to block any nominee for four years, as McCain promised if Clinton was elected. The Republican party's obstructionism isn't a matter of interpretation; it's been their official, explicit, public policy since Obama was elected.
Interesting comments by Michael Moore. Love him or hate him, he was prophetic this time around. http://www.ew.com/article/2016/11/09/michael-moore-trumpland
I saw that yesterday and he is absolutely spot-on, like holy crap. His accent is also very pleasant to listen to.
Major Fail because there is no single "left". Extra bonus fail for not mentioning a single other cause like talk radio or corporate media.
He set up a strawman and knocked it down most effectively. Clap.... clap..... clap.
His solution of talking to people is correct, I completely endorse that, but I feel he discredited himself as a messenger with this spit-flying rage-gasm.
If you think the electoral college is messed up, you should learn about how superdelegates works within the Democratic Party. Pretty disgusting, in my opinion. (Not that the Republican Party doesn't have its own share of disgusting corruption as well.)
They shot themselves in the foot with their own corruption this year. Such a shame.