|
A lot of people right now are devastated and afraid. They are wondering what happened and they are wondering how this happened and I just want to use this thread to talk a bit about what happened and about what might happen now. I'm going to start by talking about what I think happened. This has been called a whitelash, and whites are being blamed. They turned away from Democrats and Liberalism and chose someone different. Many people are saying this is in reaction to the first black president or that this is a reaction to the potential of the first woman president and perhaps all of that has some merit. But here's where it all kinda stands, as far as I'm concerned. Election after election Democrats have been promising the white poor, working and middle class that they would take care of them and look out for their interests. And whIle some headway and many attempts to do so were made Democrats, for many reasons, largely failed to deliver on those promises as far as the white poor, working and middle class were concerned. They really did not see much improvement in their lives and they got tired of being strung along and turned towards someone who swore he could restore their livelihood and way of life and that he could bring prosperity back to them. They were fed up with the establishment and disconnected career politicians who they felt did not care about them. And the Democrats decided to take up the issues of minorities and the underprivileged and promised to address the massive problems plaguing their lives. I believe they genuinely tried to do so and statistics show that, unlike white voters, minority voters largely stuck with the Democrats this election. But the lives of minorities and the underprivileged haven't really gotten much better either. But, as has been proven in this election and many others, having the support of minorities alone cannot win you the election. They are called minorities because they are a minority of the population. Which means that even if you get 100% of the minority vote (which did not happen) you will not have the numbers or concentration of population to sway the vote in your favor. In a democracy, you need to appeal to, garner the support of, and win the votes of a significant portion of the majority to win elections. The Republicans have proven, time and time again, that you can completely neglect, alienate, and spit on minorities and still win elections so long as you have the majority. I remain incredibly confused as to why so many women voted for Trump. To be honest I have no idea why they did so and I have no answers for you there. But regardless of that, over the years, by focusing on the majority, the Republicans have been successfully claiming and maintaining a majority of government positions in local, state, and federal branches. And they have done things like gerrymandering and voter suppression to make sure they keep those positions. And for whatever reason it doesn't matter that the Republicans have also largely failed to deliver on their promises to the white poor, working and middle class because they will still vote for them unlike the Democrats. I don't know why it works like this, I'm sorry. It is, to be frank, quite depressing. Especially when showing them facts and data that show that their candidate and their plans are terrible and proving that their chosen candidate is a liar does not matter to them because, for some reason, they are willing to believe the lies and are immune to facts. And I'm honestly not sure why. I don't want to be one of those liberals that just blame racism because I want to believe there's more to it. And calling people bigots and racists, no matter how true it is or isn't, does not stop them from voting for the person that appeals most to them. So it seems that liberal ideals, plans, and agendas largely failed to resonate with the majority while conservative ideals, plans, and agendas did. And Republicans were able to claim and maintain a stranglehold on the government. And they have been doing this for years while Democrats have been being increasingly pushed out and swept under the rug. And now Democrats are, at this point, pretty much done. Because in order to get back into relevance we have to find messages and agendas that strongly appeal to and resonate with the majority. We have to find a way to get a foothold in strongly red districts that are that way either by having a naturally concentrated population of dedicated conservatives or by being gerrymandered into safe districts protected and perpetuated by voter suppression. And I'm not sure how we can do that or what those messages and agendas could be. Especially when facts and data do not appear to matter to them or influence them in any way. So that's what happened, the Democrats failed the white majority and they abandoned them. They have actually been failing and losing ground and influence for a very long time and we just refused to accept/believe it. And we can blame the Republicans for digging their heels in and refusing to work across the aisle and obstructing us at every turn (thus keeping us from fulfilling our promises to the white majority) but they got into the position to block us so effectively in the first place by winning over the majority while we we failed to do the same. We have to take responsibility for that. So, this is reality now. This is what the majority wanted and, with complete control of all branches of government, the Republicans have an uninhibited path to implement every plan they have with no checks or balances. I have no idea what they'll replace the Affordable Care Act with. I have no idea what is going to happen. And it is easy to be fatalistic. It is easy to believe they will strip back all the progress we have made. It is easy to believe terrible things will happen and that everything will turn to poo poo. I know many liberals are expecting and are maybe even hoping that everything gets super hosed so the majority runs back into the Democrats arms. However, call me a traitor if you must, but I am choosing to hope that the Republicans' plans actually do what they think/believe they'll do and that they will actually, somehow, make America better. I don't want another recession or depression. I don't want a catastrophe. I do not want retaliation. I do not want people to suffer so that my team has a better chance of regaining power in upcoming elections. I want everyone to do well, I want everyone to thrive, and I want everyone safe and taken care of. I don't care who does it and I don't care who's responsible for it or who takes the credit. I just want it done. And so I hope that things will go well. I do not want anything terrible to happen, I do not want people to pay for or regret their decision this election or any other election. My side should win, not because the other side is bad and has hosed up, but because my side is better, has the right ideas, wants to do the right thing (and then does it) and is more appealing. I am not going to say everything is going to be fine. And I don't know what the future of the Democratic Party is or will be. I don't know where we go from here. I don't know how we can win back when we have been being strangled out for years and have beeb destroyed so thoroughly. But, that appears to be what has happened.
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:44 |
|
|
How come liberals never account for crab mentality or envy or just generally think of them, as they are very damaging to struggling communities, not just to individuals? I mean I like Beyonce too, but she is rich as gently caress and does not give a poo poo about coal workers or poor rural whites. That is literally the argument i read on social media the most these past two days. You have to agree that Hilary is really bad with optics. Her leaked wall street speeches only made things worse. Also, how can polls tell people are lying? I know that has been tradition for british politics. Pajser fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
"Make America Great Again!" "Stronger Together" Slogans aren't the end-all, be-all of a candidate's appeal or viability, but in hindsight, the two above might reveal something. Trump's slogan does two things: it's a call to make being an American mean something again (and mean something great), while Hillary's is a call for a unified vision. Already, then, we run into problems. Because Trump's slogan demands nothing of those who it appeals to; America will be made great, and you will be great with it. You don't have to do anything but elect Trump, and he'll work to make it happen. He'll shoulder the burden, because he loves America (and you, by extension) just that much. Clinton's slogan, on the other hand, asks something of the audience it is appealing to. You have to join with Hillary, you have to join with other people you may not like or care for, and then? There's no promise of a payoff in the end from it. You'll be "stronger", but what that means is actually rather tricky. To generalize (but gently caress it), Trump voters already believed themselves to be strong. Strong, and right, and stifled by a society, media, economy, and government that is out-of-touch and non-responsive at best, if not actively degenerate and hostile to their interests. By a situation that began in the 1960s "with the hippies" gettting their claws in and steamrolling things to this point, abandoning values and views "known to work" along the way for decadent liberalism, post-modernism, political correctness, and a thousand other buzzword bogeymen. It has been, in their view, the uplifting of the sick and weak (morally, socially, and economically, but aren't those all kind of intertwined?) upon the backs of and over the healthy, vigorous, and strong. It's no particular secret that today's right-wing man (and plenty of right-wing women) have a worldview based in a practice of and affiliation with machismo and hyper-masculinity (see video game and gun ads); they already view themselves as paragons of vigor, roped down and constrained from natural greatness by bureaucratic red tape, by having to censor themselves for the sake of women and "womenly weak" groups such as religious and sexual minorities, the poor, and the like, by having to pay taxes. I haven't really red Nietzsche, but from the bit I've read, it'd probably be in line with a certain amount of the Nietzschean world view - there's a natural order to things, and it's futile to exalt the weak and sickly as virtuous and uphold their interests if it means constraining the greatness of the ubermensch. The ubermensch will prevail, regardless, and must prevail - so support the drat ubermensch and gently caress those that can't hack it. It's why the "Again!" was in Trump's slogan, and it's significant as hell. It implies a fall from grace and glory (compare with right-wing pining for "the good old days" and covert hearkening to the cultural myth of an immediate post-WWII/1950s-era American "Golden Age"), of "greatness" degraded and lost up to this point. Witness Trump's brashness and the concept in the minds of the electorate of him as an upheaver, a reformer, a sweeper come to wipe clean all the accumulated dust and filth and cobwebs of neglect from past decades. Trump's going to oil the gears of the American machine, replace the parts that need replacing, improve the process, and put shiny gold knobs and levers on it. Get it purring like a kitten, no more jerryrigging or duct tape or restrictions on its optimum ability to output...what? Who knows, worry about that later! Maybe it can output anything you dream it can! Clinton's slogan, by contrast, just suggests everyone coming together, agreeing that the machine has problems, and continuing the duct taping, the jerryrigging, the regulations and constraints that allow it to continue outputting goods and services. But fewer, and maybe not enough, and there's no talk of a dramatic overhaul of the machine, even if some of the people in this group, together, kind of mumble and whisper that the machine can and should be overhauled to ensure that more people have access to goods and services. And this, to swing away from the tortured analysis of two ultimately meaningless slogans, is what the election came down to. There were far more people who wanted the machine of America to be overhauled and revamped, to be big and bold and beautiful again just like they were taught and believed in for decades, than there were people who could summon the enthusiasm for maintaining the same kind of semi-functional but kind of tepid status quo that had been in effect for decades. And while racist motivations and the like no doubt played a role, I also think they're too easy to pin the motivations of the Trump voter base on. Don't get me wrong; I don't think they have good motivations or were operating from a sincere if misguided desire to actually improve the country for everyone. But while it's easy to see their surface power gestures of complaining about blacks on welfare and Latino border hoppers and liberal SJW faggots and the like as their sole motivating principle, I think many are also in a state of angst and a tempestuous internal tizzy over, well, the world in general. Can't stand still and catch your breath, can't run to keep up, no stable economic or social platform for yourself / your kids / your nieces and nephews / your grandchildren. You're aware that there might be something unfair and unseemly about banks and the like being bailed out while you're underwater on a mortgage and up to your eyes in credit card debt and no one seems to care. When you hear and try to ignore that young people are moving back home and working low-wage jobs despite having degrees, and there's no job security, and you're 40 going on 50 and secretly scared of what would happen if you got laid off. And you feel frustrated and angry, because you're in this state of unstable middle-class living that you might be one bad year or medical condition away from having slip out of your fingers, despite doing everything right and virtuously. And that bolded part is the key. It's how right-wingers see themselves, why they're so keen on "bootstraps" and charity taking over matters of social welfare and why they're often so evangelical and authoritarian / hierarchical in their views. It's supposed to be a just world, where you follow the rules and get rewarded for it, where you don't suffer. What those rules are is the rub, of course, but it's the basic gist. And it's why you vote Republican, because the party platform is supposed to enshrine that narrative, by cutting welfare benefits, by supporting the military and its strength (since military strength = national security = a virtue reward for that support), by supporting business so that the invisible hand of the market and economy will reward and punish those businesses and workers that have shone themselves to either have the merit to succeed or the fecklessness to fail. It's all a psychological defense against fear - the fear that they aren't masters of their destiny, that they are just as subject to random fuckovers by fate, that they are just as likely to be as weak as anyone else if the wheels of the world turn in the right alignment. And when that certainty begins to become eroded (as it has been for many in America, as globalism and income inequality and the like spread), then the right-winger will look for answers. And they'll see a system that (as mentioned before) is not responsive to them, if not actively hostile to them in their minds. It serves somebody, for sure, but not them. And here's the key: since their worldview is virtue-based, and they see themselves as exhibiting virtues of self-reliance, hard work, bootstrapping, whatever the hell, then their conclusion is that it is the system that is the problem. And if this is what has been hammered home to them for decades with right-wing media, if the slow passage of time vindicates what Rush Limbaugh was saying, and the mercury in their internal thermometer reaches the critical point...well, we get Trump. His gambit (or that of his handlers) isn't just that he's the man of this particular hour; he's the man they've been waiting for who will come and clear the deck, come what may, and restore the world to a virtuous order. Thus, while liberals and progressives might be aghast at this notion of chaotic upheaval being appealing to half the electorate of this country, it's not surprising. After all, in the mind of the Trump voter, they either have it made already or are "made of the right stuff" to stride forward and weather the storm. Not just weather it, but come out the other end clean and resplendent into a golden sunshine for themselves and their children. It is a reckoning, in their minds, to set the world right and if it hurts you in the process, then that's sad, but tough turkey! Better to get through the pain now than let it fester any longer and let the country swirl down the toilet, taking everyone with it. I voted for Hillary, though it was more of a defensive vote than one I was wholeheartedly for. I'm sad and upset that Trump won; not out of partisan party politics, but because he's such a clown, a buffoon, so painfully unpresidential and ridiculous and probably in over his head. I wouldn't be happy if someone like Ted Cruz had run and won, either, but I could at least accept it, since I think he at least had a ratfuck's political competency. And this had better be a lesson to the Democrats for the elections ahead - they need to give the gently caress up on trying to keep pace with the Republicans as the "moderate" option and forge a new path focused heavily on what they will do for the American people, as Americans, and what that actually means (other than some bureaucratic technicality). Reform the justice system, shrink economic inequality or at least do more to mitigate it, uphold the civil rights of all, and probably a million other little things that this country needs and would benefit from. Energize people, because likely just as many people didn't vote at all ("The parties are basically the same and its the same result for me either way, so why bother?" - sound familiar?) as were "swayed" to vote for Trump (as opposed to actually having a predisposition to him from day one). They'll be called pinkos and handout givers and everything. It might cost them elections in the short-term. But you know what? It needs to be done, regardless of the political consequences for the immediate future, because right now the electoral system is like a cushion on a giant water balloon. You might be the party on the cushion and push down one side and pat yourself on the back for it, but it'll just swell up from another. The only solution is to keep the balloon from getting so full, or just pop it and accept the wetness for a bit and then get your bearings on stable ground. The Democrats need to be a strong and stubborn opposition more than ever, both to counter the immediate state of Congress and the presidency as best as they can, and to lay the groundwork for the future. Clinton's loss to Trump is a signal that the status quo is awry, for better or for worse. It's a period of pain, but it's also a period of opportunity if they treat it as such. Hopefully they will.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
I've been thinking and reading a good deal over the last day. I thought a Trump win was possible, but not likely; it's telling that even within his own party, Trump has been a bit of a pariah. But there are several obvious factors contributing to the win. 1. Gerrymandering. Clinton actually appears to have taken the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote, making her the second Democratic presidential nominee to do so in my lifetime. The electoral college is, and always has been, a terrible system. FPTP is a terrible system. Even in the best-case scenario, you're probably only going to be serving the will of about half the people who showed up to vote (and in this case, slightly less than half). Until you can convince the populace at large to totally overhaul a system that's been all but deified since at least the 1950's, it will continue to function this way. I am certain it will not be fixed in my lifetime. 2. Clinton herself. This is actually probably not the largest factor, but Clinton has been the target of Republican ire her entire career. She has been smeared her entire professional life. And I hate to admit it, but she is a woman in a position of power and based on personal experience and polling results, I suspect that more than half of the nation has a problem with that (women included, incredibly enough). People who don't follow politics at all still talk about 'Benghazi' and 'emails' even though they're the most tepid possible conspiracy theories. Clinton is an incredibly competent politician, but a lesson the democrats seemed to fail to learn from Republican floundering during their primaries going up against Obama is that image is really super important in the presidential election, and it does not matter nearly as much if you can even string together coherent sentences or have any experience at all. People elect celebrities to political posts all the time. Clinton lacked that positive appeal, probably because she isn't a sex symbol since that seems to be the only reliable way to attract any attention as a female politician. I'm not sure the Democrats had anybody who could truly fill that role. Biden was possibly their best bet, but he, understandably, wasn't in a position to move on it after the long and difficult life and career he's had. He's personable, likes his car, smiles easy, and, well... He's an old white dude. A big portion of Americans go for that. Not enough of them were registered Democrats to elect Bernie in the primaries, apparently, but it seems unlikely Bernie would have done appreciatively better against Trump. 3. Trump himself. As laughable as he might be in debates, as utterly self-contradictory as everything he says is, despite his ability to bankrupt nearly every business he's touched, there's a reason Trump has continued to wield power his entire life through, and a big part of that reason is that he's schmoozy and has a greasy charm that endears a lot of people. He's confident, reassuring, and talks big even if he has no substance behind it. He is, in essence, a con-man. He will promise you the moon and then ditch you to sell to the next rube in line, and he's very good at it, as he has had a lifetime of practice. It was a mistake to under-estimate him, and I've been wringing my hands over his utter lack of policy the entire election cycle. Commit to nothing and you leave no solid surfaces onto which criticism can latch. Trump is, in spite of all his temper tantrums and insanity, probably the biggest contributor to his own success this election, because he was different than the lifeless logs the Republicans had been shoving out onto stage in the previous years, and he's not afraid to talk very openly about the fears and divisiveness that Republicans have, until now, tried to be discrete about. Republicans at large were initially very skittish of this strategy, and it polled abysmally, but, well, that's how secret ballot voting works. A failure to recognize Trump's abilities and suitably counter them may be the Democratic party's biggest failing in this election, and with a thoroughly and completely Republican-controlled government now operating without meaningful opposition means that the Democrats of today are probably toast. 4. The vacant SCJ seat. This appears to have drawn evangelicals out in droves, and probably accounted for a good deal of the Congressional votes as well. The appeal of clinching all three branches of government in one swoop was probably more than enough to drive higher-than-average voter turnout. I suspect this is a bigger factor than many realize, because while the average voter may not be intricately familiar with the federal government, they know very well the power the Supreme Court has, and the media hasn't shied away from talking about Republican obstruction of the appointment. 5. The media. Probably the least to blame, but show after show and moderator after debate moderator treated the presidential campaign as a fascinating ratings drive more than a serious issue into which the average American would lack meaningful insight, so it's a bit frustrating none the less. It was a perfect storm of frustration, desperation, fear, and sleaze, and with no real information to go on throughout that process the Democrats were probably doomed from the start. If we're lucky, the Republican government will operate with a modicum of self-control, if only due to internal conflicts after the fastball of Trumpism shatters the party's unity. If that is not the case, if laws are passed banning religious beliefs, banning abortion, removing taxes from the wealthy, punishing the poor and the minorities, then the only thing that can be done is what has always been done; resist, educate others, protest, argue in favor of equality in our laws and our economics, and for justice for all. I've never been a big fan of the Democrats; they're simply an outgrowth of a very flawed political system. Overall, though, I feel their policies were more conducive to optimizing universal happiness. I am not sure what is next for the party, but it would probably have to involve insinuating themselves more at a local politics level the way Republicans have been very successful at, and barring a major military defeat or Dust Bowl level famine, I doubt they're going to be in a position to bounce back by the next general election. This portends poorly for the legal rights of minorities in the US, and overall, I suspect, will not optimize universal happiness. Factors I DON'T believe actually had a huge effect: 1. Crabs in a bucket. I know people bring this up frequently, yes, Pajser, but I think it's a deflection. Even when they are being inherently selfish, most people likely care more about their in-group's success than an out-group's failure. I understand that some studies show people actively prefer dragging others down over improving their own successes, but I don't actually think that translates into votes. That's such a nebulous and abstract association ('I'll lose less with this candidate than someone else will, therefor I'll vote for them'), that I don't think it would drive the sort of voter turnout seen this election, especially if it has failed to do so in the previous two cycles. I suspect that some combination of the above factors drove the mystery voter turnout. Crabs in a bucket is often used as a thoroughly dismissive explanation for why some people can't be reached with an argument for greater equality, but, as frustrating as it may be, we have seen and are now seeing that plenty of people have had a visceral reaction to being told they are wrong over and over again. If Trump reached this crowd, it is probably less that he made them hope for someone else's failure than he made them feel unexpectedly good about themselves. 2. Clinton's 'scandals'. The dirt that Republicans had to throw at Clinton was thin and insubstantial. See above on the issue of Clinton; I think the more likely problems are that she is a lady and the US is still kind of terrible about that, and the Republicans have been chipping away at her image for decades. The Republicans could have thrown literally anything at Clinton so long as it kept the idea of a scandal prominent in peoples' minds. As for what to do going forward: Well, if you were championing human rights before, no reason to stop now. Just expect things to get a little shittier for a while. Stay safe. If you're a Democrat looking for political strategy, uh...good loving luck?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
I can get behind the gist of this write-up; it's probably better-reasoned than my own after the relative lack of sleep I've had, at any rate.  That said, I really don't know if there IS much opportunity for the Democrats as a party. They'll have to forge their own opportunities, and it's likely to be slow and ugly unless this whole mess causes enough angst to be a blowout in the other direction the next two and four years, which, admittedly, is not impossible after the surprises this year brought. The simple fact of the matter is that the rich will look after their own interests, and have more means by which to convince the poor that that's in their own best interest as well; it's an uphill battle. It always has been. Maybe the internet will make organization slightly easier and slightly more likely, but that's what people said about my generation and as to how that turned out, well, lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
What happened? Every empire must fall; America has been edging into its decline. Sorry folks but America had its time as a great empire and now it is collapsing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
I wonder if the women who voted for Trump convinced themselves to ignore and accept his misogyny the same way women in general are socialised to accept misogyny in men. It is a sad state of affairs but it's hardly news.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
What happened is that Humanity is a species which is flawed and that extermination of them is the right just thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
I'd love it if that ridiculous 'Calxit' thing I've seen in some newsfeeds gets some legs and California actually legit makes overtures of secession. That's probably not the right or best thing, but I sometimes wonder if the US is simply too loving large and divisive to actually function. Also, Extreme0 posted:What happened is that Humanity is a species which is flawed and that extermination of them is the right just thing to do. Admittedly some days, I can definitely feel this one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Shady Amish Terror posted:I'd love it if that ridiculous 'Calxit' thing I've seen in some newsfeeds gets some legs and California actually legit makes overtures of secession. That's probably not the right or best thing, but I sometimes wonder if the US is simply too loving large and divisive to actually function. I get a weird feeling that the right is going to claim this as a reason to declare California treasonous while conveniently forgetting that Texas periodically does exactly the same thing. It's probably bad for California to try to break off, really; it's better to be a part of a huge nation rather than a tiny sliver right next to one. As big as the state is it's a tiny sliver on the coast as far as the rest of the States is concerned. Granted the crazier parts of the right have been itching for Civil War Part II so who the hell knows what they're going to try to do at this point. Granted the establishment right realizes how bug gently caress insane Trump's campaign was and will hopefully keep him on a leash.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I get a weird feeling that the right is going to claim this as a reason to declare California treasonous while conveniently forgetting that Texas periodically does exactly the same thing. It's going to be...interesting seeing what Trump government looks like. It will also probably be quite depressing, but I'm just not sure I can even envision it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Granted the establishment right realizes how bug gently caress insane Trump's campaign was and will hopefully keep him on a leash. They most certainly cannot. The establishment are going to be his heels and he will only bring about more of him and his ilk. He will work to foster republicans that are LIKE him. He will smother the tea partiers and moderates in one go. This is a new and strange beast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Shady Amish Terror posted:It's going to be...interesting seeing what Trump government looks like. It will also probably be quite depressing, but I'm just not sure I can even envision it. He's literally appointing a climate change denier as head of the EPA, so yeah. Re: the majority, Trump's actually predicted to lose the popular vote by 1.3%, once it's all counted. That's a bigger margin than George W in 2000. http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/9/13572112/trump-popular-vote-loss
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
My impressions of this largely come from my own home area, a part of rural NC that was formerly textile-heavy and now, obviously, in pretty bad shape. The thing that always jumps out at me when older folks talk is that while work and healthcare come up a lot, it's wrapped in a desire to go directly back to a certain status quo. They want the factories to open back up, for social order to be rigidly about church and family. There's also a growing feeling of resentment (in the "this was good enough for me, what's your problem" sense) at young people leaving the area, whether it's for culture, jobs, or safety. I don't really have any idea how to- in terms of personal outreach or political movement- how to get people to buy into economically progressive points and leave behind the desire to return to the regressive social norms they hold as part of a nostalgic ideal. (That also deliberately leaving aside the well being poisoned with the likes of prosperity gospel or white supremacy.) the yeti fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Pajser posted:
You can't even get rich whites to give a gently caress about poor whites, forget about beyonce man
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Shady Amish Terror posted:I'd love it if that ridiculous 'Calxit' thing I've seen in some newsfeeds gets some legs and California actually legit makes overtures of secession. That's probably not the right or best thing, but I sometimes wonder if the US is simply too loving large and divisive to actually function. I think that is a part of it. People aren't even living in the same reality as each other. The media deserves a huge share of the blame, both for Trump winning as well as the fractured reality. They chased ratings until the last moments of the campaign. They gave Trump $3 billion in free airtime just during the primary. They kept airing his speeches at rallies from end to end until the last day. What will the final tally be? $10 billion would put it right just from a time perspective. The Talking Head culture perpetuated by the media deserves a special look. Journalists are either too dumb or too lazy to put on shows about issues and policy. So if they cover "policy" they cover it in the form of two people yelling at each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
So, it seems to be clear at this point, based on the numbers, that this election wasn't the result of Trump getting an unusually high turnout; in fact, he got fewer votes than Romney in 2012. My guess as to the reason for the discrepancy between polls and what happened is that - rather than the "silent Trump voter" effect - many voters, due to a combination of Hillary not being a very appealing candidate and projections of an almost-definite Hillary victory, just decided not to bother voting. These people may have supported Hillary in polls, but there just wasn't enough motivation for a lot of them to go to the polls. Since Hilary's loss seems more related to her dearth of votes than people voting for Trump, this seems more likely than the "tons of rural people that didn't show up in polls voted for Trump" hypothesis. One idea that I definitely disagree with is that the media helped get Trump elected by not being hard enough on him. The media in this election was more strongly against Trump than it's been against any other presidential candidate in decades (if ever). While it certainly would have been nice if the media had more frequently called out Trump on his bullshit I don't think that was a deciding factor. (I should mention that obviously poo poo like voter ID laws also had a huge role. I'm just limiting my post to why there was a discrepancy between projections and outcome.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
the yeti posted:My impressions of this largely come from my own home area, a part of rural NC that was formerly textile-heavy and now, obviously, in pretty bad shape. The thing that always jumps out at me when older folks talk is that while work and healthcare come up a lot, it's wrapped in a desire to go directly back to a certain status quo. They want the factories to open back up, for social order to be rigidly about church and family. This is huge, because I don't even know how you get through to them. Even if you want to help them and figure out new ways forward, they're just not open to the fact that the jobs aren't coming back no matter what anyone says. They want to hear that the jobs are coming back because then everything will be like the old days. That's all. They aren't open to talking about how to structure safety nets to account for an economy that can't provide full employment. They don't want to hear about new and different models that might help relieve poverty. They just want the jobs back. And Trump told them he'd bring them back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:So, it seems to be clear at this point, based on the numbers, that this election wasn't the result of Trump getting an unusually high turnout; in fact, he got fewer votes than Romney in 2012. My guess as to the reason for the discrepancy between polls and what happened is that - rather than the "silent Trump voter" effect - many voters, due to a combination of Hillary not being a very appealing candidate and projections of an almost-definite Hillary victory, just decided not to bother voting. These people may have supported Hillary in polls, but there just wasn't enough motivation for a lot of them to go to the polls. Since Hilary's loss seems more related to her dearth of votes than people voting for Trump, this seems more likely than the "tons of rural people that didn't show up in polls voted for Trump" hypothesis. If Trump hadn't screwed the media on the birther thing they would have been sucking his cock right until the end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:So, it seems to be clear at this point, based on the numbers, that this election wasn't the result of Trump getting an unusually high turnout; in fact, he got fewer votes than Romney in 2012. My guess as to the reason for the discrepancy between polls and what happened is that - rather than the "silent Trump voter" effect - many voters, due to a combination of Hillary not being a very appealing candidate and projections of an almost-definite Hillary victory, just decided not to bother voting. These people may have supported Hillary in polls, but there just wasn't enough motivation for a lot of them to go to the polls. Since Hilary's loss seems more related to her dearth of votes than people voting for Trump, this seems more likely than the "tons of rural people that didn't show up in polls voted for Trump" hypothesis. The problem is that the media offered nothing positive for Hillary even though it was against Trump. Trump had sound bites that actually said something about him. Hillary had nothing. The Hillary team's media strategy was all wrong and probably affected by the hubris that hosed her campaign over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Kthulhu5000 and Jenner, thank you so much for your essays. Those were both fantastic reads and helped so much with understanding this nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
I think this election just proves what I've been saying since 2008: baby boomers suck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:I think this election just proves what I've been saying since 2008: baby boomers suck. Everyone wants a super easy way out with no room for self reflection or critique of their lives. Baby Boomers are the absolute worst about this but millennials are not much better either. Our society is full of people who can only think about themselves and those close to them. We are not a forward thinking species, we cannot plan for the future or think ahead more then 5 minutes and it is going to lead us to ruin.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
So should I laugh when Trump inevitably fails to bring jobs back to rural America or should I feel bad for these people?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The problem is that the media offered nothing positive for Hillary even though it was against Trump. Trump had sound bites that actually said something about him. Hillary had nothing. The Hillary team's media strategy was all wrong and probably affected by the hubris that hosed her campaign over. Yeah, this is a good point. Even if the media wasn't positive towards Trump, it wasn't exactly that positive towards Hillary either (with the possible exception of print media, though that isn't nearly as important or influential as television).
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:So should I laugh when Trump inevitably fails to bring jobs back to rural America or should I feel bad for these people? you can do both trump will not bring jobs back to rural america, it is not possible without robust government involvement we have a wage economy, if you cannot find gainful employment you are 100% hosed without a safety net the safety net in large portions of america has been dismantled on a state level, the consequences of which are then blamed on the distant federal government people are rightfully terrified of the reality of living in a low-job, no-safety net area whether or not they had anything to do with bringing it about no matter if fed up trumpites are ignorant, spiteful, unlucky, or just stuck for some reason in a crap area, their lives suck just the same
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
Legitimate question here: I saw someone post that Trump got 1-2 million fewer votes than Romney and Clinton got 5-6 million fewer votes than Obama. Are there any estimates as to how much of that was voter apathy vs deliberate voter suppression like what was done in North Carolina?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:So should I laugh when Trump inevitably fails to bring jobs back to rural America or should I feel bad for these people? God of Evil Cows posted:Legitimate question here: I saw someone post that Trump got 1-2 million fewer votes than Romney and Clinton got 5-6 million fewer votes than Obama. Are there any estimates as to how much of that was voter apathy vs deliberate voter suppression like what was done in North Carolina?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
I'm going to copy and paste this form the main election thread:Skex posted:What the gently caress is it with people not being able to understand basic math?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
There's a lot of reasons but it seems like the big theme is that a lot of Obama voters decided to stay home instead of vote for Clinton. Trump did worse than Romney and McCain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:So should I laugh when Trump inevitably fails to bring jobs back to rural America or should I feel bad for these people? I mean, I personally feel empathy for hundreds of thousands of people who have watched the American Dream die and have been very deliberately sealed into an information bubble that tells them the blacks and the Mexicans killed it. Its sad but in the same way that an rear end in a top hat father who's dictatorial parenting drove away his kids and so he spends all of his holidays completely alone is sad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
What can people do to help fix the broken DNC and put a stop, or at least lower chance to this happening again? There's always voting progressive in primaries but this is a very infrequent opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Shady Amish Terror posted:I can get behind the gist of this write-up; it's probably better-reasoned than my own after the relative lack of sleep I've had, at any rate. Thanks. It is up in the air as to what the Democrats can do and how successful they will be at it; thinking that if they just do A, B and C and things will suddenly work out is magical thinking or whatever. But they shouldn't be taking this loss as yet another "gentleman's fair trouncing"; it'd be one thing if the Republican candidate was someone like Ted Cruz (who, like him or hate him, at least seems to have political savvy and know-how), but when a candidate like Clinton loses to a freak like Trump, then it's obvious that business as usual no longer applies and we're in new territory that demands new action. It should be taken as a humiliation and embarrassment, and the only way to overcome that is by being brazen and giving-no-fucks. Being timid and trying to go along as usual, or trying to fake that it doesn't bother them, is just going to make it happen again and again. And in a depressing way, it makes a certain sort of sense that this happened in light of the above. The Republican party went through phases of change during the 1990s through to today, while I think the Democrats just became kind of complacent and steadfast as the sane option for too long. nyerf posted:I wonder if the women who voted for Trump convinced themselves to ignore and accept his misogyny the same way women in general are socialised to accept misogyny in men. It is a sad state of affairs but it's hardly news. It's probably a female version of the virtuous behavior / applicable reward mindset I mentioned in my big ol' text wall above (no shame if you didn't read it). Men who vote right-wing believe that their correct actions will be recognized and they will receive a reward for it; women who vote right-wing might think the same way, with a dose of slut-shaming and self-aggrandizement tossed in ("He might have treated those women that way because they're loser skanks, but I'm a strong woman and he'll respect that".) the yeti posted:My impressions of this largely come from my own home area, a part of rural NC that was formerly textile-heavy and now, obviously, in pretty bad shape. The thing that always jumps out at me when older folks talk is that while work and healthcare come up a lot, it's wrapped in a desire to go directly back to a certain status quo. They want the factories to open back up, for social order to be rigidly about church and family. I think this kind of touches on what I'm talking about. I think many Trump voters would agree with a hearkening back to a mythical "simpler" time where you did your 40 hours a week, got a decent wage for it, your wife didn't have to work, and you would reliably build up your life one pay period at a time. Of course, contingent in that lack of complication is not having to deal with uncouth minorities and weirdos and major socio-political disagreements and the like right in your own community. A world where you just do, rather than have to think all the time about what you're doing because everyone is on the same page, knows their place, and has obviously earned that place (in their minds). The results of virtue (including the virtuous conduct of not causing strife) sewn right into a constant pattern of social fabric, rather than a bunch of patchwork quilting that just makes things look scrappy and messy and doesn't really hold together. The money is perhaps one issue; another is just, well, they live in a community that is probably beyond even the faded glory of its past economic vitality and has nothing defining it except the people living there and the physical reminders of its ongoing economic decrepitude. This backdrop would provide some explanation for at least the contingent of Trump voters like those in your home area. Betrayed economically (by economic winds and corporate offshoring) despite "doing it right" and working hard, one can see where the prosperity gospel stuff comes into play (since it's a merger of the socio-religious ideal that virtue is rewarded with the economic ideal that God himself will reward you materially for it), along with the bolstering of white supremacist views. If your OK-enough job making textiles and the like is now being done in various Central American nations or places like Bangladesh because the labor there is cheaper and more pliable, then it sets up a mental framework that foreigners (predominantly non-whites) have no sense of pride or fairness and are willing to gently caress you over by debasing themselves for pennies. So you need to be wary of them and strike hard in some form to keep them from doing that and taking the job that you had/have/need. Add in a dash of cultural chauvinism and fear of the strange, backup up by the perception of minorities being willing to play dirty, debase themselves to "stick it to the white man", and be sneaky and stealthy about their intents...and yeah, you can get some pretty odious views. But why no strong and directed ire at the companies that make these offshoring decisions or the capitalist system that allows, encourages, and rewards it? I would say there is some, under the guise of right-wing anti-globalism, but it's probably not so apparent because the whole corporate apparatus might as well be in the clouds and unassailable. Some company in New York or wherever contracts out T-shirt production to some factory god knows where overseas, and "rains" them down into anonymous distributors, warehouses, and then into retail channels. The whole setup is made up of disparate and long-distance components across international borders, and making sense of it is beyond most people's ken. Add in that such voters believe that these jobs are their due, that they need them for personal definition, and that the only way they will realistically have them is to either appeal to or force companies to reestablish them in their towns, and there's a resistance to pissing off these companies "too much". It's the bitterness at work of balancing a sense of justice with the need to grovel. It's also why Trump, despite being a billionaire, is a people's champion of sorts in their eyes. Because who better to tackle putting the conceptually hazy fat cats and globalists and the like that are responsible for their misery in their place, than their own brash (and brass) billionaire Titan, Trump? He'll go into the halls of Olympus and start swinging a cudgel, because he's the only one with a cudgel big enough to do it. All of the above is what makes it a difficult question to answer as to what to do about them economically. I guess the big issue to grapple with is that any economic policies have to feel like they're building up the community, and aren't just a handout. It's not just foolish pride that would make them think this way; they probably know and fear that any social welfare scheme could be just vulnerable to being cut off after a few years, and that mere handouts will just weaken and hurt themselves in the end if the community's economic engines, or spirit, or whatever aren't also jumpstarted and reinvigorated. Basically, the policies have be focused not just on the material, but also on the "spiritual" revival of communities into functioning social units and places of pride, not just utilitarian conglomerations of boxes to live in. This might be possible for big cities and metropolitan areas, but figuring it out for small, insular, and disconnected rural communities is another bucket of fish. I said come in! posted:Kthulhu5000 and Jenner, thank you so much for your essays. Those were both fantastic reads and helped so much with understanding this nightmare. Appreciate it, thank you! Writing this stuff out is as much my own way of trying to make some sense of this whole mess, personally, as it is to just comment. If it helps others, that's a great side effect in my book.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:So should I laugh when Trump inevitably fails to bring jobs back to rural America or should I feel bad for these people? Both, honestly; they really did bring it upon themselves. I'm from rural PA and the anger these people feel is legitimate. They have a ton of genuine, real grievances that are totally justified. Neither party has been kind to them at all and the rampant, crushing poverty is causing all sorts of problems. Really they have every right to be furious at the system right now. Conversely their absolute refusal to vote for anybody that isn't an increasingly insane right winger is destroying them. They were given promises of prosperity by the GOP in light of bringing jobs back thanks to deregulation and tax cuts. When they failed to materialize they blamed the Democrats. Democrats, for their part, have done gently caress all to reach out to these people. And really who can blame them? The Democratic party represents a secular, tolerant future where they can't create their little pocket theocracies. The right has done such a good job of courting the religious right and single-issue voters (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) that there isn't much point in Democratic reach there. As soon as you say "yup, gay marriage is fine" you lose massive swathes of rural Americans. They are people drowning in a river who won't accept help except from certain groups. It's crazy. Meanwhile drug addiction is as rampant as poverty. Their lives are increasingly awful and they have little or no way out. Their jobs are vanishing. Their retirement funds evaporated 8 years ago. The last decade has been incredibly difficult; much longer in some areas. The Rust Belt in particular has been suffering something fierce since the 80's. I'm feeling a mix of schadenfreude and pity right now. Whether I like it or not they're my people; that's where I came from. I grew up in the woods and in the decay right smack dab in one of the nastiest casualties of the state. I felt the same anger they did when I originally signed up to vote as a Libertarian, really. Neither party gave a single rat's rear end about us. Every time a factory closed the message was "well that's unfortunate, but..." The dismal recovery after the recession was met with a message of "well that's unfortunate, but..." The American establishment has failed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Both, honestly; they really did bring it upon themselves. I'm from rural PA and the anger these people feel is legitimate. They have a ton of genuine, real grievances that are totally justified. Neither party has been kind to them at all and the rampant, crushing poverty is causing all sorts of problems. Really they have every right to be furious at the system right now. Conversely their absolute refusal to vote for anybody that isn't an increasingly insane right winger is destroying them. They were given promises of prosperity by the GOP in light of bringing jobs back thanks to deregulation and tax cuts. When they failed to materialize they blamed the Democrats. This makes me feel as if the blame for this predicament is on the republicans. Democrats aren't going to be motivated to help these people if they're not going to vote for democrats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Democrats aren't going to be motivated to help these people if they're not going to vote for democrats. This is horrifying to think about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
yall got corncobbed That's what happened.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
Xae posted:I think that is a part of it. This is all pretty much complete nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
tsa posted:This is all pretty much complete nonsense. Yeah, I think if anything this election proved the news media doesn't have much power when it comes to elections.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:44 |
|
|
Practically the entire American establishment went full retard on open borders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 04:46
|
|
