2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah.

Well, honestly this is more or less the same lesson a lot of people should have learned in 2000. I don't blame Nader for running in 2000, and I don't blame people for thinking Al Gore was farther to the right than they'd like... but it really would not have taken that many people flipping to put Gore in charge of the country.

In which case, in all likelihood, the entire Iraq War would have never happened. Afghanistan, yes; Iraq? Very likely not.

It turns out that "protesting" a center-left candidate in a way that increases the likelihood of a far-right candidate winning the election is a fool's game. Who knew?

...

Of course, there are multiple overlapping lessons here.

The lesson for voters with left-wing leanings is: do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good, because you have no damn clue just how horrible and rotten the alternatives are. It really is important to look at who's running, really look. And unless you really, REALLY hate poor people and brown people, there's probably voices in an American election cycle that you want to vote against.

The lesson for the Democratic Party is: run candidates who have the ability to make people love them, because you can lose to the most comically, obviously, grotesque louse of a man possible if you bungle things. It's sad, but true.

Obama had that. And Third Term Obama, or for that matter Freshman Senator Obama from 2008, would have mopped the floor with Trump's toupee.

[Vendetta]

It's a bit like witnessing a slow moving wreck, you know, logically, that it's happening, but there's still utter disbelief in your mind as you witness it happening.

No, the wreck hasn't started yet. This is the part where the 18 wheeler is careening out of control. At some point this cabinet will try some personal pet policy that will potentially harm the reelection chances of a number of Republican congresspeople and it will die in the house, and that's when the wheels will fall off because almost nobody in the executive has any real allies within the legislature, but they do have a direct line to everyone following the president on Twitter.

[Wild Zontargs]

By Ryan Holiday • 12/13/16 1:46pm

The embracing of all the things we ought to have previously and unequivocally said “nope” to is upon us.

In 2015, Jon Ronson wrote an important and sobering book about the epidemic of public shaming brought on by social media.

It was a criticism of our cultural tendency to collectively gang up on and punish supposedly aberrant behavior like an offensive remark, a marital affair, an embarrassing photo, unacceptable beliefs or a lapse in judgment. It was undoubtedly a crisis for the last several years of social media—we were too strict, too united and too quick to enforce the social norms with disproportionately severe, life-altering punishments.

Does it not strike you, however, two years or so after publication, how quaint this criticism seems?

Because it occurs to me here on the cusp of 2017 that the idea of enough people in society agreeing on something being far enough ‘over the line’ to warrant real, shared outrage is more or less an impossibility. If a celebrity other than Alec Baldwin was caught calling a paparazzi photographer a ‘cocksucker,’ this afternoon, what are the chances that anyone would get that upset? Would we nearly drive them out of show business for being politically incorrect? If a young female PR executive was flying to South Africa next week and tweeted an offensive, poorly written joke about AIDS, I do not suspect that there would be life-changing consequences for her.

As absurd as those reactions were and as much as those impulses needed to be curbed, I’m not sure our new normal is any better. Because today we seem to be beyond shame—and beyond expressing joint opinions in even the clearest and most non-partisan of situations.

I’m no proponent of public shaming—I think the response to the Justine Sacco incident in 2013 was embarrassing and cruel. I’m just curious about what would transpire if the event happened today. Certainly, some people would find it in poor taste and be upset. But I also wonder whether a significant group of people, in response to those who tried to shame her, would take her remark literally and decide they actually support Sacco and. If she was so inclined, could she skip hiding out, fan the controversy and join the alt-right ranks? I half-suspect social media trolls might be floating theories about whether the photographer Alec Baldwin slandered really was a cocksucker or not. Instead of faux-outrage, we’d be looking at faux-intellectualizing—rationalizing, embracing the very thing that would have disgusted almost every reasonable person not long ago.

Instead of doing something about our public shaming problem, we’ve just balanced it out with trolling.

At least the paradigm of public shaming that Ronson captured and criticized so eloquently in his book relied on a set of shared beliefs. That some things weren’t OK. That there was a way to behave. That there were things people should not do. One shouldn’t give the middle finger at Arlington Cemetery. One shouldn’t run a prostitution ring out of a Zumba studio. One shouldn’t plagiarize or fabricate stories for attention or profit. One shouldn’t have an affair with the president (and one shouldn’t have an affair with a young intern). And as a general day-to-day rule, one should not berate other people in public, and then film it and post it online as though they’re some brave activist.

It’s hard to say that a visceral negative reaction to that kind of behavior is anything but natural and normal. The problem was what people did after. The problem was when journalists and mobs, desensitized by online tools, attacked the perpetrators without mercy until, in some cases, the victims nearly killed themselves. That’s not OK either. In fact, it was a punishment worse than the crime in many cases (especially since very little investigation or due process was involved in convicting the ‘criminals’ in the first place).

Today, I’m not sure that’s our problem. In 2007, internet audiences cruelly mocked Miss Teen South Carolina for her gibberish answer to a basic civics question. You could tell, even as it was happening, that she was embarrassed and knew it wasn’t going well—and later revealed that her time in the news cycle drove her to contemplate suicide. Last week, a sincere woman told a stunned CNN anchor that she believes millions of people voted illegally in California, which is laughably and demonstrably dumb. Like the Miss Teen USA moment, the clip went viral and and an alarming amount of people rudely mocked her. But the tone in that video feels distinctly different—the woman is almost smugly ignorant. She had little to fear in the way of embarrassment, because plenty of other people would and did rush to embrace the nonsense she spewed. Whether they were trolls or emboldened fellow idiots, the lack of any sort of consensus about the absurdity of an event that is a new development.

It’s a nihilistic post-shame world. It was bad enough when we bullied people for being stupid—but swinging back towards not even acknowledging what constitutes stupid might be even worse.

The embracing of all the things we ought to have previously and unequivocally said “nope” to is upon us: Think about the New York Giants re-signing a kicker who admitted to abusing his wife (and they stood by him and their decision making process after the scandal became public!) We just had an election where a candidate was caught on tape talking about grabbing women by the pussy, where a convention speech was plagiarized, and Gold Star parents were treated as fair political game. Try to wrap your head around the fact that there are serious allegations that this country’s election was tampered with by a foreign power and people just aren’t quite sure what to think about it.

Regardless of your politics, it’s impossible to honestly look at 2016 and not see that the old “line” was not only crossed, but obliterated.

Here’s an interesting experiment: If we exclude heinous crimes like murder or child abuse, can you think of any behavior or remarks that you could guarantee would be considered truly beyond the pale for a political or cultural figure right now? What’s the most offensive, career-ending, banished-from-society thing that someone could do in 2016? And are you positive it would actually have the effect you think?

If Bill O’Reilly called Barack Obama the n-word, is it still conceivable that there would be effective pressure to force him to resign? Would that be enough for Fox to push him out the door? If Steph Curry spit on a homeless person in the Mission District, would it last more than a day or two in the news cycle? If it was discovered that it was actually The Rock who killed Cecil the Lion, what would happen? If Mark Zuckerberg used the resources of the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation to stage a leftist coup in a small South American nation?

Honestly, is there anything we might all get mad about together anymore?

While that might seem like a strange thing to be forlorn about, it is in fact frightening to imagine a society in which shame is no longer a governor on behavior.

My question is whether this is temporary or a sign of what is to come? Because the prospects for a world permanently without a concept of a ‘line’ is scary. Perhaps after living in media and social media environment where for several years outrage was deliberately provoked and then weaponized, the adrenal glands are tapped. The nerves are deadened. The shared moral standards which once transcended political and socioeconomic borders is temporarily missing.

Or, it’s gone forever. And that’s why we can’t even stipulate basic facts anymore. Even in cases where we might otherwise be inclined to agree when it has been crossed, reality itself seems to be in dispute. Most people would not argue that trafficking in pedophilia would be anything but outrageous and disgusting. Yet here we are grappling with the so-called “Pizzagate” scandal. Where different people once may have come together in condemnation, in fact, they’re arguing again—not over whether it was wrong, but whether it even exists (in fact, there is zero evidence that it does). And course, the party who is convinced it happened is also convinced that the other side is so calloused that they’re ignoring the obvious (and in between are the trolls).

We’re so fatigued about shame that we’ve apparently decided it serves no purpose whatsoever. We’ve become so exhausted policing and shouting down every uncouth weirdo who disagrees with us that we’ve decided to dispense with social law and order all together.

I always thought online mobs were scary and dangerous. But this new normal seems just as scary.

[Flagg]

Yeah.

Well, honestly this is more or less the same lesson a lot of people should have learned in 2000. I don't blame Nader for running in 2000, and I don't blame people for thinking Al Gore was farther to the right than they'd like... but it really would not have taken that many people flipping to put Gore in charge of the country.

In which case, in all likelihood, the entire Iraq War would have never happened. Afghanistan, yes; Iraq? Very likely not.

It turns out that "protesting" a center-left candidate in a way that increases the likelihood of a far-right candidate winning the election is a fool's game. Who knew?

...

Of course, there are multiple overlapping lessons here.

The lesson for voters with left-wing leanings is: do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good, because you have no damn clue just how horrible and rotten the alternatives are. It really is important to look at who's running, really look. And unless you really, REALLY hate poor people and brown people, there's probably voices in an American election cycle that you want to vote against.

The lesson for the Democratic Party is: run candidates who have the ability to make people love them, because you can lose to the most comically, obviously, grotesque louse of a man possible if you bungle things. It's sad, but true.

Obama had that. And Third Term Obama, or for that matter Freshman Senator Obama from 2008, would have mopped the floor with Trump's toupee.

Well that's the problem, we shouldn't need to have rock star Obama type politicians to beat semi-people with major personality disorders like Trump. People can blame Clinton and her campaign all they want, ultimately it was the voters who decided that the guy who rapes teenagers and goes on Twitter to make a fool out of himself was a more desirable executive than the woman who was more qualified than the last 2 presidents were when they got elected.

[Tribble]

Yeah.

Well, honestly this is more or less the same lesson a lot of people should have learned in 2000. I don't blame Nader for running in 2000, and I don't blame people for thinking Al Gore was farther to the right than they'd like... but it really would not have taken that many people flipping to put Gore in charge of the country.

In which case, in all likelihood, the entire Iraq War would have never happened. Afghanistan, yes; Iraq? Very likely not.

It turns out that "protesting" a center-left candidate in a way that increases the likelihood of a far-right candidate winning the election is a fool's game. Who knew?

...

Of course, there are multiple overlapping lessons here.

The lesson for voters with left-wing leanings is: do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good, because you have no damn clue just how horrible and rotten the alternatives are. It really is important to look at who's running, really look. And unless you really, REALLY hate poor people and brown people, there's probably voices in an American election cycle that you want to vote against.

The lesson for the Democratic Party is: run candidates who have the ability to make people love them, because you can lose to the most comically, obviously, grotesque louse of a man possible if you bungle things. It's sad, but true.

Obama had that. And Third Term Obama, or for that matter Freshman Senator Obama from 2008, would have mopped the floor with Trump's toupee.

Well that's the problem, we shouldn't need to have rock star Obama type politicians to beat semi-people with major personality disorders like Trump. People can blame Clinton and her campaign all they want, ultimately it was the voters who decided that the guy who rapes teenagers and goes on Twitter to make a fool out of himself was a more desirable executive than the woman who was more qualified than the last 2 presidents were when they got elected.

I agree that they shouldn't have to, but IMO if the Democrats try to run another Clinton type candidate next election they might as well give up now because they'll lose it for sure.

[The Romulan Republic]

I can't say I necessarily agree with that.

I think it would be a mistake to run a Clinton-style candidate, and I'd prefer a Bernie-style challenge. But let's remember that a) Clinton won the popular vote by a fairly wide margin, b) she only barely lost the three states that ultimately cost her the Electoral College, c) after a few years of Trump, a lot of voters may be having buyer's remorse and want a "normal" centrist candidate, in contrast to the anti-establishment wave of last year, and d) their really isn't anyone in Clinton's unique position- she lost not because she was a centrist candidate (I firmly believe that Obama or Biden could have won in her place), but because of her own personal baggage.

Its too early to say for sure, of course- their are many factors that could change between now and election day 2020, not least among them the various ways in which Republicans will almost certainly heavily rig an election via voter suppression, gerrymandering, and crackdowns on the press and political demonstrations. It may require a landslide to beat Trump in the face of that sort of suppression and trickery, and I doubt someone like Clinton (if by that you mean a centrist career politician) would be able to generate the necessary enthusiasm, or provide a strong enough contrast with Trump.

But at the same time, I think its a mistake to read too much into this year's outcome.

[Tribble]

I can't say I necessarily agree with that.

I think it would be a mistake to run a Clinton-style candidate, and I'd prefer a Bernie-style challenge. But let's remember that a) Clinton won the popular vote by a fairly wide margin, b) she only barely lost the three states that ultimately cost her the Electoral College, c) after a few years of Trump, a lot of voters may be having buyer's remorse and want a "normal" centrist candidate, in contrast to the anti-establishment wave of last year, and d) their really isn't anyone in Clinton's unique position- she lost not because she was a centrist candidate (I firmly believe that Obama or Biden could have won in her place), but because of her own personal baggage.

IMO one has to be careful with that line of thinking because it is too easy to fall into the trap of "well Clinton was a one-off and it wasn't really our fault, so we don't need to change." I don't think running another establishment figure with a lot of baggage would be a good idea.

Its too early to say for sure, of course- their are many factors that could change between now and election day 2020, not least among them the various ways in which Republicans will almost certainly heavily rig an election via voter suppression, gerrymandering, and crackdowns on the press and political demonstrations. It may require a landslide to beat Trump in the face of that sort of suppression and trickery, and I doubt someone like Clinton (if by that you mean a centrist career politician) would be able to generate the necessary enthusiasm, or provide a strong enough contrast with Trump.

That's precisely what the Democrats must assume is going to happen going forward if they want to win the next election. They have to prepare for the worst-case scenario, not naively think that Clinton was a one-off.

But at the same time, I think its a mistake to read too much into this year's outcome.

Perhaps. But this year's outcome shouldn't have come as a surprise; the writing was on the wall the moment Trump decided to run and all the media attention started focusing on him. In a popularity contest (let's be honest most elections are little more than this), it's usually a good idea to run with someone who is popular.

Similar thing happened in Canada with Trudeau. Once he became Liberal leader it was obvious that he was going to win the next election; he was young, wealthy, appeared to be anti-establishment, came with a celebrity name, and was willing to say whatever is took to win- Muclair and Harper stood no chance.

[Flagg]

The problem is that the media treated Trump like he deserved to even be considered for the office by serious people when if he weren't born with a silver spoon up his ass he wouldn't be able to get the same treatment by a parole board. When laughable bullshit about emails is treated on the same level as serial rape we have a deep seated cultural issue, not a one off fluke of an election.

[The Romulan Republic]

By all rights, if things worked the way they ought to, Trump should have had a warrant for his arrest as soon as the tape of him confessing to (and bragging about) sexual assault aired).

[Flagg]

By all rights, if things worked the way they ought to, Trump should have had a warrant for his arrest as soon as the tape of him confessing to (and bragging about) sexual assault aired).

Odds are it was in NYC (I don't recall which shitty tabloid he made the comments at, but IIRC they were shot in NYC) and if so the statute of limitations has long since passed. Hell, they had a 5 year statute of limitations for "full penatration beat the shit out of woman" rape not that long ago. I also don't know if it actually implicated him in the sexual assault of a particular woman or women. He could have said "I'm a serial killer!" but without specifying who he'd killed the authorities couldn't do shit.

[Channel72]

^ yeah, I mean - the tape doesn't give authorities much to work with, regardless of any statute of limitations. He basically said "I pop a tic-tac in my mouth and then just start immediately kissing women, and they don't resist because I'm such an awesome celebrity." Then he suggested that celebrity status would even enable someone (implicitly Donald Trump himself) to actually grab their crotch with no consequences. That's not... exactly sufficient material for a prosecutor to do anything with, because there's not even a specific victim.

There would have been a better chance for some kind of legal charges to arise when actual victims came forward, but Trump seems to have successfully deflected the charges by smearing their credibility, somehow changing the subject to Bill Clinton, and/or probably just quietly paying off any particularly problematic victims.

But whatever, the reality we need to deal with is that over 50% of white women voted for Trump - so the factors that actually motivated female voters seem to be more correlated with race than gender here, despite the leaked tape.

[The Romulan Republic]

By all rights, if things worked the way they ought to, Trump should have had a warrant for his arrest as soon as the tape of him confessing to (and bragging about) sexual assault aired).

Odds are it was in NYC (I don't recall which shitty tabloid he made the comments at, but IIRC they were shot in NYC) and if so the statute of limitations has long since passed. Hell, they had a 5 year statute of limitations for "full penatration beat the shit out of woman" rape not that long ago. I also don't know if it actually implicated him in the sexual assault of a particular woman or women. He could have said "I'm a serial killer!" but without specifying who he'd killed the authorities couldn't do shit.

Yeah, I guess it would depend, in part, on weather he specified a particular person.

As to statute of limitations, though, we really, really shouldn't have those for sexual assault cases. Like I said, "if things worked the way they ought to".

[Flagg]

^ yeah, I mean - the tape doesn't give authorities much to work with, regardless of any statue of limitations. He basically said "I pop a tic-tac in my mouth and then just start immediately kissing women, and they don't resist because I'm such an awesome celebrity." That's not... exactly sufficient material for a prosecutor to do anything with.

But whatever, the reality we need to deal with is that over 50% of white women voted for Trump - so the factors that actually motivated female voters seem to be more correlated with race that gender here, despite the leaked tape.

I have to will myself to not wanting to physically assault people who bitched about Clinton having all these ties to Wall Street, acknowledge that by not voting for her they might as well have voted Trump, but then act like they are "above it all". They are almost universally white male middle class hipster douchenozzels who won't be seriously affected by Trumps policies unless there's a draft, in which case they will have to spend a day in total getting out of it.

People generally voting against their interests no longer surprises me except for women voting Trump. I mean I expect a certain amount of people voting against their interests and then going back home to the trailer park, but this idea that you have to "like" the candidate you vote for is just alien to me. I fucking hate Hillary Clinton, but she had these things called "qualifications" that apparently don't matter as much as whether or not you want to have an alcoholic beverage or sit in a canoe fishing with.

Grow the fuck up, America. Idiots.

[Channel72]

I have to will myself to not wanting to physically assault people who bitched about Clinton having all these ties to Wall Street, acknowledge that by not voting for her they might as well have voted Trump, but then act like they are "above it all".

Yeah, I mean... Clinton's ties to Wall Street.... Jesus Christ, Trump's entire campaign was mostly funded by a Hedge Fund CEO, and now most of his staff is ex-Goldman Sachs guys. But you know, lock her up! Etc!

[Simon_Jester]

By Ryan Holiday • 12/13/16 1:46pm

The embracing of all the things we ought to have previously and unequivocally said “nope” to is upon us...

As absurd as those reactions were and as much as those impulses needed to be curbed, I’m not sure our new normal is any better. Because today we seem to be beyond shame—and beyond expressing joint opinions in even the clearest and most non-partisan of situations.

Instead of doing something about our public shaming problem, we’ve just balanced it out with trolling...

It’s a nihilistic post-shame world. It was bad enough when we bullied people for being stupid—but swinging back towards not even acknowledging what constitutes stupid might be even worse.

The embracing of all the things we ought to have previously and unequivocally said “nope” to is upon us: Think about the New York Giants re-signing a kicker who admitted to abusing his wife (and they stood by him and their decision making process after the scandal became public!) We just had an election where a candidate was caught on tape talking about grabbing women by the pussy, where a convention speech was plagiarized, and Gold Star parents were treated as fair political game. Try to wrap your head around the fact that there are serious allegations that this country’s election was tampered with by a foreign power and people just aren’t quite sure what to think about it.

Regardless of your politics, it’s impossible to honestly look at 2016 and not see that the old “line” was not only crossed, but obliterated...

While that might seem like a strange thing to be forlorn about, it is in fact frightening to imagine a society in which shame is no longer a governor on behavior...

Or, it’s gone forever. And that’s why we can’t even stipulate basic facts anymore. Even in cases where we might otherwise be inclined to agree when it has been crossed, reality itself seems to be in dispute. Most people would not argue that trafficking in pedophilia would be anything but outrageous and disgusting. Yet here we are grappling with the so-called “Pizzagate” scandal. Where different people once may have come together in condemnation, in fact, they’re arguing again—not over whether it was wrong, but whether it even exists (in fact, there is zero evidence that it does). And course, the party who is convinced it happened is also convinced that the other side is so calloused that they’re ignoring the obvious (and in between are the trolls)...

I always thought online mobs were scary and dangerous. But this new normal seems just as scary.

Yeah. This article does a great job of explaining why shame, outrage, and the shared sense that there are political lines you don't cross are important. And why trying to live without them is scary, because it means that there are basically no limits on just how horrible powerful people can be. And no limits on what ordinary citizens may well do, in an attempt to imitate them.

Donald Trump grabbing women by the pussy is a problem. Ten million men thinking that Donald Trump's victory gives them a license to do the same is a disaster.

And yet, thanks to a post-shame environment that I think is in large part driven by the "crush the Ess-Jay-Double-Yous" movement, that's the world we may be living in for the next several years.

Well that's the problem, we shouldn't need to have rock star Obama type politicians to beat semi-people with major personality disorders like Trump. People can blame Clinton and her campaign all they want, ultimately it was the voters who decided that the guy who rapes teenagers and goes on Twitter to make a fool out of himself was a more desirable executive than the woman who was more qualified than the last 2 presidents were when they got elected.

Yes, which is why I just said there were multiple lessons here you silly person.

[takes deep breath]

The people who actually, God help them, voted for Trump need to learn a lot of lessons. Lessons about basic American civics, and about the importance of picking people who are at least slightly trustworthy for public office. And about how a man who would realistically not hesitate to rape his servants will certainly not hesitate to rape his country. Hopefully, some of that group of people will be learning those lessons over the next four years.

Those lessons will be learned more effectively if they are taught and reviewed effectively by the press, and by the political center and left.

To teach and review effectively, the political center and left will need to learn some lessons of their own. Lessons about how to communicate ideas, lessons about how to successfully emphasize the importance of character and of facts-based politics. Lessons about how, yes, to electrify people rather than just talking to them.

Complaining that these lessons should not have to be learned is pointless. Because winning and whining may have a lot of letters in common, but they don't have a lot of practices in common.

The problem is that the media treated Trump like he deserved to even be considered for the office by serious people when if he weren't born with a silver spoon up his ass he wouldn't be able to get the same treatment by a parole board. When laughable bullshit about emails is treated on the same level as serial rape we have a deep seated cultural issue, not a one off fluke of an election.

Yes. And this is one of the lessons the media needs to learn. Namely, that behaving as if someone like this is a serious candidate has consequences. Like such a person winning, which is bad for all journalists who didn't secretly aspire to be hookers when they grew up.

I think what has somehow been forgotten by left-center America is that elections have consequences. That both primary and general elections have consequences. That there is a very real difference between the world as the far left would run it, the world as the center would run it (what we've seen under Bush and Obama being slight variations on this theme), and the world as the far right would run it. That while there are some serious drawbacks to the beige status quo, that doesn't mean just anything is going to be better than the Great Beige.

And that everyone involved in the process has a responsibility to not act in ways that indirectly lead to the whole system going to hell in a handbasket.

[Flagg]

Give it a generation or three and we may have an electorate and media that understand and utilize things like "reason" and we may be halfway towards what you describe. And even then...

The single most harmful thing in American culture revealed by our most recent fuckletion is the ability for entire segments of our population to live their entire lives within the bubble of whatever ignorant ideology of their choosing. I don't see this changing any time soon, if ever. And yes, I'm talking about the center left and the outright left as well as the right.

Russian hacking Preventing "voter fraud", real or imagined (I don't care) is how why Trump stole won the election and there are people who will believe that until their dying day while others know for a fact believe that it was white people real Americans "taking their country back" from insert racial/cultural/political invective here the great OTHER.

And you can believe either of those, some amalgam of both, or The Reptillians did it, and find a bubble reinforcing such notions to live in. I don't see how to possibly pop those bubbles.

[Channel72]

The people who actually, God help them, voted for Trump need to learn a lot of lessons. Lessons about basic American civics, and about the importance of picking people who are at least slightly trustworthy for public office. And about how a man who would realistically not hesitate to rape his servants will certainly not hesitate to rape his country. Hopefully, some of that group of people will be learning those lessons over the next four years.

I doubt it. As we all know at this point, it's now being widely discussed and reported that the Rust Belt states that voted for Trump had economic grievances that transcended any issues with Donald Trump's character. This seems really hard to accept and understand for liberals, myself included. You see, I spend most of my time in a liberal, Democratic bubble, so I just assumed that the usual fly-over states would vote Trump, but for the most part the changing demographics we've been hearing about for so long would kick in and Trump would probably lose Florida, and the Rust Belt would vote Democrat as usual, especially considering how Obama basically saved GM. I never even considered the possibility of both Pennsylvania and Michigan flipping red. (Really, Pennsylvania?) But at least some people had been prophetically sounding the alarm well before November.

Many of the people in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania (and by "many" I mean enough to constitute a substantial voting bloc and flip former blue states) literally do not give a single shit about Trump's sexual antics - and would probably not even understand how the word "rape" even applies to what Trump said. They're not all fanatic right-wingers either, since apparently many actually voted for Obama in 2012. To them, Trump's brazen rhetoric about doing um ... things... huge and tremendous things, I guess, at least sounded like something was going to change. He was also the only candidate (besides Sanders) who regularly railed about international trade agreements being bad for American workers. He didn't offer any real solutions, obviously, but he talked in a confident way that indicated he'd at least do something. That this actually persuaded millions of people is pretty baffling, but it did.

So I think the biggest takeaway for all left-leaning individuals is that we didn't quite understand what we were dealing with here. Democrats should adjust accordingly. If they thought the hot-mic tape with Billy Bush was some kind of ultimate October surprise that would bury Trump, they need to recalibrate their expectations. Obama seemed to get this - he was a brilliant campaigner, and he spent a lot of time in rural Illinois and other places that are now Trump territory. But all the talk about Trump being misogynist and a rapist had very little effect on undecided voters, not to mention white women voters (of whom over 50% voted for Trump). These observations indicate that the Democratic party, and especially very liberal minded people like the majority of SD.net, simply are not in touch with the realities on the ground and therefore would probably suck at campaigning for Hillary Clinton - especially a campaign that is bound by the rules of this national gerrymandering scheme we call the "Electoral College", where crucial voting blocs are comprised of people who don't really think pussy-grabbing is a big deal and just want their factory jobs back so they don't have to work at Walmart anymore.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think the idea that Clinton lost because Democrats just don't get rural and working class voters is false, or at least badly exaggerated. As is the idea that sometimes accompanies it, that we need to stop trying to stand up for women and minorities if we want to win. That last would be a catastrophic blunder, not only morally but practically- we will never out-bigot the Republicans, but we might piss away the support we currently do have from minorities by trying to distance ourselves from social justice issues and so-called identity politics.

It is worth remembering, again, that Clinton won the popular vote, and really very narrowly lost the Electoral College. Frankly, I think that had someone run with Clinton's platform, prominence, and strategy, but without her baggage and personality issues, they probably would have taken it. No guarantees, but I'd say its a pretty good chance. Hell, just remove the one factor of last-minute FBI fuckery, and it might have been a different outcome.

Ultimately, we lost because Hillary Clinton personally was a severely compromised candidate, and because our electoral system and certain of our government institutions are horribly corrupt, to a degree that I think most people, including myself, still don't fully grasp.

That is not to say, as previously discussed, that it would be a good idea to keep running Clinton-style centrist candidates. We do need to reach out to rural and working class voters (not by throwing women and minorities under the bus, but by seriously addressing income inequality and poverty, as Bernie does). It should never have been close enough, against a man like Trump, that Clinton's personal defects made the difference.

But if their's one lesson to take from Trump's win, its that personality, or the public's perception of personality, unfortunately matters more right now than platform or political experience (indeed, political experience can be a liability). So its less a matter of needing a drastic shift in our platform (though I would like a more progressive platform) than needing stronger candidates.

The obsessive attachment of nearly the entire Democratic Party establishment to Hillary Clinton as the "inevitable" candidate must be considered one of the greatest political blunders of recent history.

[Wild Zontargs]

Yeah. This article does a great job of explaining why shame, outrage, and the shared sense that there are political lines you don't cross are important. And why trying to live without them is scary, because it means that there are basically no limits on just how horrible powerful people can be. And no limits on what ordinary citizens may well do, in an attempt to imitate them.

Donald Trump grabbing women by the pussy is a problem. Ten million men thinking that Donald Trump's victory gives them a license to do the same is a disaster.

And yet, thanks to a post-shame environment that I think is in large part driven by the "crush the Ess-Jay-Double-Yous" movement, that's the world we may be living in for the next several years.

While (as you might suspect) I personally put a good chunk of blame on the "everything is -ist and -phobic" crowd watering down words for things that almost everybody agreed were actual problems in modern society (and generating a lot of spite-votes for Trump), there's plenty of blame to go around, and I had rather overestimated the general public's willingness/ability to agree on basic facts and norms. I expected half the US population to go "well, that sucks" and then carry on regardless of the results of the election, not for both sides (and half the rest of the world) to go batshit fucking loony in about 12 different directions, depending on which "bubble" they live in.

We've got Literally Hitler over here, Pizzagate over there, politicians and pundits suddenly switching positions on whether Russia is the Red Menace or not and whether or not the Iraqi WMD assessments were valid.... Then there's the "fake news" mess where "it's only bad when THEY do it" is being spouted by damn near everyone. There's an awful lot of politically-motivated reasoning everywhere, and nobody is having much success in bridging the gap (assuming anyone of note is trying at all).

With the American situation in particular, I suspect we're mostly seeing a pre-existing division of two (or more) cultures who had to live together, but now have their own news sources and filter bubbles (ain't the internet grand?) completely ignoring/rejecting the other side's worldview, complete with whatever facts are inconvenient for their side. Both sides have valid grievances (I largely agree with Channel72's breakdown of why people voted for Trump even when they agree he's an asshole, and despite lurking in God-Emperor Trump fanboy Safe Spaces (TM) I don't see anyone advocating pussy-grabbing), but generally can't/won't acknowledge those of the other side.

I wouldn't start screaming about Civil War 2.0 or anything just yet, but this doesn't bode well for everyone settling their differences and carrying on more-or-less as before.

[Simon_Jester]

I doubt it. As we all know at this point, it's now being widely discussed and reported that the Rust Belt states that voted for Trump had economic grievances that transcended any issues with Donald Trump's character...

See, that's kind of my point. Because if people who voted that way pay attention for the next four years, they are going to get a very expensive but very informative education in why character matters. And why voting for a blowhard who talks big while having a poorly concealed track record of being morally (and financially) bankrupt, corrupt, and irresponsible is a bad idea.

Because this is a guy who can promise to save American jobs, then turn around and pick a "fuck the workers" CEO for Secretary of Labor. Gasp, who could have predicted this? Uh... anyone who realized that prior to this election cycle, Donald Trump's most famous catchphrase was "you're fired." Character matters.

Why does his behavior towards women matter? Not just in and of itself. Not because "he's a sexist, that makes him Hitler." But because it's the canary in the coal mine. This is how he treats people he has power over, when they have something he craves. He treats them as disposable objects, he hurts them, and he is willing to see them threatened and silenced if they try to call him out on it. Based on that... do you want him to have power over you? A lot of people said "yes," and I really, really hope that in the next few years they learn the answer should have been "no." Character matters.

And none of this is, or ought to be, a left-wing/right-wing ideological thing. There were Republicans who called Donald Trump out on his profound moral bankruptcy during the primary campaign. They did a lousy job of it, but they were there.

Many of the people in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania (and by "many" I mean enough to constitute a substantial voting bloc and flip former blue states) literally do not give a single shit about Trump's sexual antics - and would probably not even understand how the word "rape" even applies to what Trump said. They're not all fanatic right-wingers either, since apparently many actually voted for Obama in 2012. To them, Trump's brazen rhetoric about doing um ... things... huge and tremendous things, I guess, at least sounded like something was going to change. He was also the only candidate (besides Sanders) who regularly railed about international trade agreements being bad for American workers. He didn't offer any real solutions, obviously, but he talked in a confident way that indicated he'd at least do something. That this actually persuaded millions of people is pretty baffling, but it did.

Yeah, I get that. What I'm saying is, everyone who expected Trump to actually make America great again, and for whom 'great' wasn't something other than just a proxy for 'xenophobic,' is going to be disappointed by the next four years.

Those voters need to be reached, but they also need to be convinced. Appealing to them is not enough, they should be recruited, to be the consistent supporters of a party that will reliably appoint competent, dedicated people willing to go to bat for them, for the interests of the American middle and lower classes, against the oligarchy of the 0.1%.

Which means recognizing both that those voters have made a truly epic mistake of the "vote against my interests" kind, and that the political party best positioned to go to bat for them have made truly epic mistakes of other kinds.

These observations indicate that the Democratic party, and especially very liberal minded people like the majority of SD.net, simply are not in touch with the realities on the ground and therefore would probably suck at campaigning for Hillary Clinton - especially a campaign that is bound by the rules of this national gerrymandering scheme we call the "Electoral College", where crucial voting blocs are comprised of people who don't really think pussy-grabbing is a big deal and just want their factory jobs back so they don't have to work at Walmart anymore.

What I'm trying to get across is actually not that far from this- but with a different emphasis

There are millions of people who voted for Trump because they want the factory jobs back. They're going to be disappointed.

Ideally, they will walk away from that disappointment having learned a lesson about the dangers of voting for right-wing mock-populist blowhard narcissists.

I want them to learn that lesson.

I want them to learn that the guy who wants to take away health insurance from poor people probably is not a reliable guarantor of the rights of poor people. I want them to learn that people who want to throw the immigrants under the bus probably aren't that interested in keeping factory workers out from under the wheels, either. I want them to learn that men who do whatever the hell they want with whomever the hell they want aren't going to turn around and start doing what the voters want when it's a matter of public policy.
These are people I do not despise and do not want to ignore. They are not stupid about what they want. But if they don't learn what will and will not work in order for them to get it, America is in a lot more trouble than it should have to be.

It is going to be up to the Democratic Party to convince this target demographic of the lesson they need to be convinced of. A lesson some of them have already learned- which, for those individuals, will be the reason they didn't vote for Trump, even if they also didn't vote against him.

Which is where we turn around and start talking about the lessons the Democrats need to learn.

Yeah. This article does a great job of explaining why shame, outrage, and the shared sense that there are political lines you don't cross are important. And why trying to live without them is scary, because it means that there are basically no limits on just how horrible powerful people can be. And no limits on what ordinary citizens may well do, in an attempt to imitate them.

Donald Trump grabbing women by the pussy is a problem. Ten million men thinking that Donald Trump's victory gives them a license to do the same is a disaster.

And yet, thanks to a post-shame environment that I think is in large part driven by the "crush the Ess-Jay-Double-Yous" movement, that's the world we may be living in for the next several years.

While (as you might suspect) I personally put a good chunk of blame on the "everything is -ist and -phobic" crowd watering down words for things that almost everybody agreed were actual problems in modern society (and generating a lot of spite-votes for Trump), there's plenty of blame to go around...

I'd sort of figured you put a large chunk of the blame that way. I'm not sure I understand why, though.

I mean, ultimately, I am responsible for my own actions. If I do something dumb and self-destructive in order to spite the people who I think are too quick to criticize others... That's my responsibility. If I yell "FUCK YOU" and start an avalanche of fuck-you-ism that backlashes against accusations of sexism, and inspires others to ignore accusations of sexism, and then the ignorers do something dumb and self-destructive, that is also my responsibility. It's on me. Not on the people I was backlashing against.

The South Park-ish "Lol, they're all rats and everyone is equally shitty, so it doesn't make any difference who you support" attitude is a major source of the problem here. That mindset does a lot more to strip away our ability to distinguish between good and evil, or between truth and lies, than does having people yell "LIAR! EVIL!" louder than necessary.

This in turn makes people very vulnerable to being fooled by an evil liar who's good at pretending to care about real problems, regardless of whether he actually has the talent or the inclination to do anything about those problems.

You can't go around saying "social justice must be destroyed," and then be surprised when a lot of the people who agree with you turn out to have a very high tolerance for loathsomeness. Or when those people turn out to be cheerfully willing to support a candidate who shows every sign of planning to wreck the country with a massive shitstorm of corruption. Because lol, it shows those SJWs their place. And that's what REALLY matters, right?

[Dragon Angel]

You can't go around saying "social justice must be destroyed," and then be surprised when a lot of the people who agree with you turn out to have a very high tolerance for loathsomeness. Or when those people turn out to be cheerfully willing to support a candidate who shows every sign of planning to wreck the country with a massive shitstorm of corruption. Because lol, it shows those SJWs their place. And that's what REALLY matters, right?

It's especially ironic in that the quote in his signature is from a renowned white nationalist. Which, putting into context with this:

While (as you might suspect) I personally put a good chunk of blame on the "everything is -ist and -phobic" crowd watering down words for things that almost everybody agreed were actual problems in modern society (and generating a lot of spite-votes for Trump),

There's an awful lot of politically-motivated reasoning everywhere, and nobody is having much success in bridging the gap (assuming anyone of note is trying at all).

With the American situation in particular, I suspect we're mostly seeing a pre-existing division of two (or more) cultures who had to live together, but now have their own news sources and filter bubbles (ain't the internet grand?) completely ignoring/rejecting the other side's worldview, complete with whatever facts are inconvenient for their side. Both sides have valid grievances (I largely agree with Channel72's breakdown of why people voted for Trump even when they agree he's an asshole, and despite lurking in God-Emperor Trump fanboy Safe Spaces (TM) I don't see anyone advocating pussy-grabbing), but generally can't/won't acknowledge those of the other side.

...makes me wonder if I'm being told "I should sympathize with the neo-Nazis more". Because after all, I'm not giving "the other side" a chance.

It's one thing to say "perhaps we should've taken a closer look at the economic problems of the Rust Belt". This is something that has certainly been missed with disastrous consequences, having been built up for decades. It's another thing to imply "perhaps we should take the racists' concerns a little more seriously". There are positions in political discourse that are verboten for a reason, and I refuse to consider the viewpoints of xenophobic nationalists.

It does not make me closed-minded, and it does not make me intolerant. I just simply reject such a heinous viewpoint that has robbed and murdered the powerless over centuries of human history. Attempting to golden mean extremism with what should be common sense does not make for a logical solution whatsoever. I will never support bridging the gap with people who believe in the ideology of a dictator who murdered millions of Jews and other "undesirables".

[Wild Zontargs]

I'd sort of figured you put a large chunk of the blame that way. I'm not sure I understand why, though.

Long version lives here. Short version boils down to "taking stupid stands which are later shown to be invalid demonstrably makes people more likely to reject your position entirely." It's self-sabotage. It sucks, and you can liken it to "victim blaming" if you want, but that's what it does.

If everything is -ist, then nothing is -ist, because -ism just is. -ism is, -ism was, -ism ever shall be. No need to worry about it anymore.

You can't go around saying "social justice must be destroyed," and then be surprised when a lot of the people who agree with you turn out to have a very high tolerance for loathsomeness. Or when those people turn out to be cheerfully willing to support a candidate who shows every sign of planning to wreck the country with a massive shitstorm of corruption. Because lol, it shows those SJWs their place. And that's what REALLY matters, right?

Oh yay, the association fallacy. "Hitler liked dogs" isn't an argument against the SPCA, and "loathsome people also dislike SJWs" isn't an argument against calling SJWs out on their shit.

It's especially ironic in that the quote in his signature is from a renowned white nationalist.

Second verse, same as the first. Hitler used to metabolize sugar, y'know. Better stop that before you turn into a nazi.

[Soontir C'boath]

TL;DR: This election called for a populist candidate. On one side, it was Trump and the other was Bernie Sanders. We decided instead it was her time, and the Democratic Party was punished for it. End of story. Hell, forget populism and Bernie even. Run Biden and I would have bet a trillion dollars he would have won against Trump. Hillary was a dead robotic candidate from the start.

[Flagg]

I'd sort of figured you put a large chunk of the blame that way. I'm not sure I understand why, though.

Long version lives here. Short version boils down to "taking stupid stands which are later shown to be invalid demonstrably makes people more likely to reject your position entirely." It's self-sabotage. It sucks, and you can liken it to "victim blaming" if you want, but that's what it does.

If everything is -ist, then nothing is -ist, because -ism just is. -ism is, -ism was, -ism ever shall be. No need to worry about it anymore.

You can't go around saying "social justice must be destroyed," and then be surprised when a lot of the people who agree with you turn out to have a very high tolerance for loathsomeness. Or when those people turn out to be cheerfully willing to support a candidate who shows every sign of planning to wreck the country with a massive shitstorm of corruption. Because lol, it shows those SJWs their place. And that's what REALLY matters, right?

Oh yay, the association fallacy. "Hitler liked dogs" isn't an argument against the SPCA, and "loathsome people also dislike SJWs" isn't an argument against calling SJWs out on their shit.

It's especially ironic in that the quote in his signature is from a renowned white nationalist.

Second verse, same as the first. Hitler used to metabolize sugar, y'know. Better stop that before you turn into a nazi.

Yeah, I'm sure you don't want to be forced to accommodate people you hate, but we all (those of us possessing empathy) put up with your ilk, be it racists, homophobes, or just plain nihilists. Might want to quit while only one foot is ankle deep in shit.

[Terralthra]

The people who actually, God help them, voted for Trump need to learn a lot of lessons. Lessons about basic American civics, and about the importance of picking people who are at least slightly trustworthy for public office. And about how a man who would realistically not hesitate to rape his servants will certainly not hesitate to rape his country. Hopefully, some of that group of people will be learning those lessons over the next four years.

I doubt it. As we all know at this point, it's now being widely discussed and reported that the Rust Belt states that voted for Trump had economic grievances that transcended any issues with Donald Trump's character. This seems really hard to accept and understand for liberals, myself included. You see, I spend most of my time in a liberal, Democratic bubble, so I just assumed that the usual fly-over states would vote Trump, but for the most part the changing demographics we've been hearing about for so long would kick in and Trump would probably lose Florida, and the Rust Belt would vote Democrat as usual, especially considering how Obama basically saved GM. I never even considered the possibility of both Pennsylvania and Michigan flipping red. (Really, Pennsylvania?) But at least some people had been prophetically sounding the alarm well before November.

Many of the people in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania (and by "many" I mean enough to constitute a substantial voting bloc and flip former blue states) literally do not give a single shit about Trump's sexual antics - and would probably not even understand how the word "rape" even applies to what Trump said. They're not all fanatic right-wingers either, since apparently many actually voted for Obama in 2012. To them, Trump's brazen rhetoric about doing um ... things... huge and tremendous things, I guess, at least sounded like something was going to change. He was also the only candidate (besides Sanders) who regularly railed about international trade agreements being bad for American workers. He didn't offer any real solutions, obviously, but he talked in a confident way that indicated he'd at least do something. That this actually persuaded millions of people is pretty baffling, but it did.

So I think the biggest takeaway for all left-leaning individuals is that we didn't quite understand what we were dealing with here. Democrats should adjust accordingly. If they thought the hot-mic tape with Billy Bush was some kind of ultimate October surprise that would bury Trump, they need to recalibrate their expectations. Obama seemed to get this - he was a brilliant campaigner, and he spent a lot of time in rural Illinois and other places that are now Trump territory. But all the talk about Trump being misogynist and a rapist had very little effect on undecided voters, not to mention white women voters (of whom over 50% voted for Trump). These observations indicate that the Democratic party, and especially very liberal minded people like the majority of SD.net, simply are not in touch with the realities on the ground and therefore would probably suck at campaigning for Hillary Clinton - especially a campaign that is bound by the rules of this national gerrymandering scheme we call the "Electoral College", where crucial voting blocs are comprised of people who don't really think pussy-grabbing is a big deal and just want their factory jobs back so they don't have to work at Walmart anymore.

The "economic grievance" argument is largely bullshit. There is still plenty of manufacturing going on in the US. Trade agreements didn't take away their factory jobs. Automation (mostly) eliminated their jobs, and the conservative legislatures took away the unions that made factory jobs so desirable. No one actually wants to work in a factory that badly; they want what a factory job in the 50s, 60s, and 70s represented: well-paid work with decent benefits, stability, and opportunity for promotion. There's nothing inherently manufactuary about such jobs: the distinction is that factory workers largely were represented by unions, and those unions got them better working conditions and pay.

The people you're talking about believe things about economics and employment that literally aren't true, and their beliefs are driven by listening to the very people who are actually to blame for their Wal-Mart jobs being so awful.

Not to mention that the average Trump voter made more money than the average of any other candidate and suffered less economic uncertainty. I dunno why "we have a major problem with racism" is so hard to say out loud.