Short takes on a busy day
One of the aftermaths of this election is that there’s so much to absorb, and so much to think about, that I could read and write 24 hours a day and only cover a small fraction of it.
Today I have a particularly busy day, and so the 100+ posts I would otherwise write will have to wait for another time. Today I’ve already published one longer post, but for this present post I’m just going to do a series of quick takes on topics I’ve been thinking about and might cover more fully another time.
Consider this also an open thread for post-election chatting.
—When I flip around the cable news channels, I see that the transition is being discussed a lot. Here’s a website I haven’t hardly begun to explore, but it looks very interesting. It’s fun to speculate on who our favorite draft picks would be for the new government.
—I really wanted Hillary to lose the popular vote, too. It looks right now as though that won’t happen. I believe the Electoral College is a good system, and is congruent with our being a republic and not a pure democracy. But it’s easy for me to say that when it just so happens that the two times the loser won the popular vote in my lifetime, the Republican was the winner. I think that a disparity between the popular and electoral votes makes for a more difficult sense of division among the people, and the sense of division is already enormous enough.
—People on the right, even many of those who fully supported Trump, are still pinching themselves. Funny post here.
—The color purple.
“Exit polling shows that Trump improved the GOP showing by 16 points with voters making less than $30,000 per year and by six points with voters making between $30,000 and $50,000, which more than offset Democrat gains with the middle class.” – VDH
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442039/voters-reject-progressive-agenda-rightward-shift-historic
If trump did not hit Romney’s numbers, despite a growing electorate, and he gained in this category of voters, then it must mean that trump lost a significant amount of voters too.
If it wasn’t for the EC us flyover people would be completely irrelevant.
NE (like Maine) splits its EC votes. Very stupid and divisive.
“I think that a disparity between the popular and electoral votes makes for a more difficult sense of division among the people, and the sense of division is already enormous enough.” – Neo
Some states award ec votes based on popular vote, and the rest via congressional district wins. On this basis, trump probably would have still had a massive gain over clinton in PA. But, any loss there would be made up in CA, as some cds there were GOP.
Overall, the results might come closer to reflecting popular sentiment vs over stating an ec vote advantage.
Big Maq – true. Good pickup.
As to the popular vote, the number is not only irrelevant legally but statistically. If popular vote were the goal, all candidates would campaign differently. Especially, they would try to increase turnout in their strongest areas, with the most bang per buck in population density. That would likely favor third-party candidates also.
There is also a small diminution of the count of Republican votes. Where the margin of victory is greater than the number of absentee ballots, some states to not bother to count the latter, as they would not change the outcome even if they were 100% for one candidate. Republican votes used to dominate in absentee ballots about 60-40. I don’t know if that is still true. But in a state like CA, they are often not even counted. That would increase the Trump count if they were all tallied. Not enough to move the electoral votes, but it would close or even eliminate the current popular vote gap.
We don’t total up who got the most runs in seven games of the World Series and declare them the winner. If we did, strategies would be different.
“NE (like Maine) splits its EC votes. Very stupid and divisive.”
One can argue that is more reflective of the desires of the citizens in those states.
Stupid it is not. Different it is.
BTW, I’m not advocating that we do so, only saying what the effects might be (above).
“As to the popular vote, the number is not only irrelevant legally but statistically. If popular vote were the goal, all candidates would campaign differently.”
The UK parliamentary system is more reflective of a popular vote approach.
The Prime Minister is one of the candidates who won, through popular vote, their district (almost always the identified party leader) from the party with the most seats won.
They represent their district as well as the country.
The PM is MUCH more beholding to party platform than we see here with a POTUS.
“But in a state like CA, they are often not even counted” – AVI
Didn’t know this and find that surprising. No doubt those absentee voters would find it so, as well, especially in CA, where there are all kinds of ballot initiatives, etc. that may have different dynamics.
The problem with the electoral college is that students are no longer taught what it is and why it came into being. Without it the populous states would rule without input from the small states and the small states wouldn’t have joined the union.
An interesting take, and perhaps more realistic view, of how to handle trump from a GOP Congress:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442067/donald-trump-congressional-republicans-negotiations
“the president can unilaterally muck up NAFTA and other trade agreements, and he can do a great deal to reorient our military posture. But if he wants a real, long-term shift in trade policy, he is going to need Congress. If he wants real immigration reform, he is going to need Congress. If he wants real tax reform, he is going to need Congress.
…
Trump’s victory should be appreciated for what it is – but for no more than that. Republicans controlled Congress, the majority of governorships, and the majority of state legislatures before he came along. The nature of the presidency may make Trump the negotiating partner with the upper hand in many of these negotiations, but congressional Republicans keep the most important bargaining chip there is: The power to say no. They didn’t say no enough in the Bush years, but they got better at it during the Obama era. (Goodbye, Merrick Garland.) They should be ready to keep it up.”
I wasn’t as sure Trump was going to lose as Ace was- my prediction going in was that he might actually win the popular vote by 1-2%, but lose the electoral college.
I went into the evening count with two early things I would be looking for- first the turnout and margins in KY, IN, and VT. If Trump had a chance to win, I thought he needed to demonstrate bigger margins than Romney got in KY and IN, and run closer to Clinton in VT than Romney did to Obama. I was watching the returns at the county and town levels. It was clear within the hour of those states’ poll closings that Trump was going to accomplish all those things I was looking for. In addition, at the county level it was clear that Clinton’s biggest declines in regards to 2012 were in the metropolitan areas with the highest numbers of African-Americans- such as Louisville, KY and Gary, IN. At that point, I had pretty much decided that Trump would indeed win all the states Romney won and add FL and OH. Also, when the first returns began coming in for FL, OH, and NC, I could actually confirm that Trump was running better in 2016 than Romney did in 2012 against their respective opponents.
At the point above, I then turned to the state I thought the election hinged on- Virginia. Obama had won Virginia by the same margin he won the national vote (3.9%), but I thought the state might still be just slightly red-leaning, but I was worried because Republicans had been losing statewide elections pretty regularly after 2009, though ending up much, much closer than polls were indicating. So, I thought the polls were probably overestimating Clinton’s edge, and I thought it was a strategic error for Trump to not really contest the state (and he didn’t). However, I thought his not contesting it might not matter (I was hoping). When the first VA returns began coming in, he was running quite a bit better than Romney did, and so my hopes were rising that Trump was going to pull it off, but the earlier returns were from the western and Shenandoah parts of the state, with relatively fewer returns from the DC suburban counties (same thing happens every VA election). However, I could also see that the population growth in the DC area was almost all of Virginia’s population growth, and most of the rest was in the other blue counties with UVA, VT, and the state capital and Roanoke. However, once the vote totals got to a certain point in Fairfax county, I could see that Trump wasn’t going to gain anywhere near enough to win the state. At about the 60% precinct count, I estimated he would end up losing the state by 2% with >95% confidence.
When I was convinced he had lost VA, I thought his only chance to win the election was to win Michigan (I gave him zero chance to win PA, and Wisconsin wasn’t even on my internal radar, same as the Clinton Campaign). Also, I didn’t give him more than a 10% chance to win Michigan. I had been following the comments on a thread at Ann Althouse’s blog, and someone posted a link to the NYTimes predictor, so I opened it up, read over its provenance, and it was showing Trump’s chances rising (this was after PA had closed its polls and the counts began coming in)- the first time I looked at it, Trump’s chances had crossed the 45% level and it showed PA almost dead even, though the total vote count at that time was heavily in Clinton’s favor (she was up about 15% if memory serves). Since I didn’t have anything else to do, I decided to see if I could figure out whether or not the NYTimes predictor was just full shit and started looking at the PA returns at the county level and precinct leve, and sure enough, it did seem that Clinton was badly underperforming compared to 2012 and Trump was overperforming pretty much everywhere in PA- that was what the predictor was designed to pick up on and use in the algorithm. As the returns in PA got over the 50% precinct report, the NYTimes predictor showed it more likely that Trump would win PA than Clinton would based on what was left to count, and I could actually confirm that it wasn’t impossible or even semi-implausible. At that point, the dial had swung to showing Trump was >60% to win. It was also at that point that WI and MI started to count, and Trump’s chances soon hit >80%. Like Ace, I didn’t want to get my hopes up too much, but I had actually been looking at the underlying vote counts, so I had probably more faith than he did. At that point, I decided I would just follow PA the rest of the night at the county level, and I was pretty sure that if Trump ever took the lead, he would not surrender based simply on what was left to count in the rest of the state.
In any case, I had also turned on the television for the first time and put it on CNN. At the point I started watching, the NYTimes predictor had already pushed past the 50% level for a Trump victory, and the panic and disbelief were readily read on the faces of Tapper, Blitzer, and others. The only person on CNN that seemed mentally function was John King, and though I don’t think he was happy about what was happening, his analyses of the various counties in OH, PA, and elsewhere showed me his brain still functioning, and I think it pretty obvious he knew Clinton was going to lose- he wasn’t trying to find outrageous comeback scenarios, even though some of the panelists kept pressing him to find a way for Clinton to win.
After the NYTimes predictor hit 90% Trump victory, I started to surf between FoxNews, NBC, ABC, and MSNBC. At some point, I probably was in danger of overdosing on schadenfreude. When Trump finally overtook Clinton in PA, Fox had already called Wisconsin for Trump, and though I didn’t think Clinton could win Arizona, I knew that she still had a path to win if she could just hold onto PA and MI- and I warned the commenters at Althouse that the election might not be callable until Arizona was called- PA and MI might both be close enough for a recount. However, when the first returns for Arizona started coming in, I was almost 100% sure Trump would hold the state, and by that time it was pretty certain PA was Trump’s beyond the 1/2% margin. I knew at that point that Trump had won.
I returned to CNN who, at that point still hadn’t called Wisconsin or PA, and they were still pleading with the gods and John King to find some rationale for a Clinton comeback. It was both sad and hilarious all at the same time. When Podesta came out and sent everybody home, I had decided to call it a night, but then it was rumored Trump was going to address the crowd at Trump Tower, so I sat with my mother and waited to hear what he would say. Then one of the CNN panelists said she had some information and wanted a moment to confirm it. A minute later, she said Clinton had called Trump and conceded the election. Only at the moment did CNN concede WI to trump.
All in all, the very best election night of my life.
Big Mac
If Nebraska can’t be one state from Omaha to Ogallala, then we are screwed.
In a few days, if I can, I will either find the analysis or construct it myself to determine what would happen if you awarded electors by congressional district, and the other two by the state vote. If you awarded them that way, the two by state (and DC) would have been Trump 60 Clinton 42. I would guess that the Congressional electoral votes break down roughly the same way the House itself does- 238-200.
This is important because the above is the only electoral college change that can be done both legally and politically, and even that isn’t likely to happen in my lifetime.
“If Nebraska can’t be one state from Omaha to Ogallala, then we are screwed.”
Come on!
That’s like saying “if NYC cannot be one city from Little Neck to Tottenville then we are screwed”.
As if beliefs, opinions and concerns are all uniform across any geography.
Incidentally, Ogallala is significantly closer to Denver than Omaha. Why should it necessarily be any more uniform with Omaha than with Denver?
Say you had a very close popular vote and no Electoral College. Everything is on the line with the vote count, in thousands of precincts, all across the country, every vote being vital. Don’t you think the “loser” would challenge the vote? There are always irregularities and mishaps in the voting process. Look how long it took to recount one close state in 2000. It would be a national nightmare.
@roc scssrs – excellent point.
Look at the red-blue voting map. Without the EC, the huge, Democrat-controlled Leftist fiefdoms would determine every election.
Every one.
Totalitarian: 100% of the land mass controlled by ~10% of the land area? We have that problem in DC now, to a certain extent.
The EC was brilliantly conceived in 1787. Before the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, before the acquisition of the Southwest and California in 1848.
The Founders could not anticipate the future, but they understood the corruptibility of men (and women too, Neo). God bless them. A pure democracy is eventually a form of mob rule.
The EC must stand.
It’s not the state fiefdoms, it is city fiefdoms. Meaning, Hillary has the popular vote because of the massive populations in urban Leftist plantations, living mental lives similar to slaves back on plantations. The Masta will provide.
Social media, Tea Party support from Palin/Cruz, Alt Right propaganda backup, even some mainstream conservatives or libertarians like Reynolds or Victor DH, all got together and got so many votes, that even when they lost the popular vote the electoral college got into play.
Voter fraud requires volunteers, mostly Bernie sanders voters who went for Trum, as well as urban centers.
It does look like their computer cracking setup isn’t working yet, or perhaps Russia counter cracked the setup as Trum suggested.
Remember that 30% of the Alt Right, the eugenics Christian Nationalist sorts at least, don’t believe in the US Constitution or Experiment any more.
Thus your Electoral College is not something they find much use for. They aren’t conservatives, as many would attest, but Alt Right. And the Alt Right doesn’t need to conserve much of anything from the US Constitution, including the EC.
Ace’s night was very similar to mine. My wife and I spent a couple of hours watching two episodes of The Crown on NetFlix. We then shut off the tv to go to bed about 10 pm. Before I turned off the lights I pulled up Drudge on my iPad and surprise, there was a long list of states with Trump up and Drudge was crowing. By accident I then clicked the link to the NYT and found the same little nifty meter Ace found. It was registering a 58% probability of a win for a Trump. Huh? And this is in the NYT? Really? This seemed to be anomalous, after all wasn’t Hillary supposed to win? A quick trip to FiveThirtyEight.com, home of Nat Silver the forecasting “genius”, and the prediction was still HRC with 300 Electoral votes. Bummer, but I’d already resigned myself to the awful result of Madam President. Lights out and to sleep.
For some unknown reason I woke up at 11:30 and decided to look at the NYT meter on my iPad. Trump at 68%! Wow! It now became impossible to sleep, so downstairs to watch the networks. I haven’t watched network TV in years so my first reaction was shock. That’s George Stephanopolous? That’s the cute guy who used to get Bill Clinton jail bait by dragging $5 bills through trailer parks? Martha Raditz? I’ve seen dead people who were more lifelike. And then there were the anchors who were sort of familiar but were very very ancient. I guess the networks don’t have compulsory retirement, but they clearly have compulsory embalming.
The next couple of hours were nothing but delicious schadenfreude. Martha in tears was good for a laugh, but the absolute high point was Andrea Mitchell in tears and nearly hysterical, reciting, word for word, an HRC speech from March about how terrible and dangerous Donald Trump would be as President.
I finally went to bed when a network info-babe at Clinton headquarters reported that a very large donor told her that it was over, Trump was going to be the President. How satisfying.
My 13 year old niece lives in Virginia and my brother is really worried about her. She’s panicking and hysterical. She believes the world is at an end, that Trump is literally Hitler and everyone who voted for him is evil.
Almost everyone I know is in pretty much in the same condition as my niece. As is the family in Massachusetts and Maine.
I’m not a Trump voter, though I’m afraid if I say anything placating, hopeful, or even say nothing, to anyone, they might attack me like crazed wolverines.
But, my New Jersey family is fine.
Esther:
Tomorrow I’m planning to write a post that deals with that sort of phenomenon.
Neo, that’s great, I’m looking forward to reading your insights.
“Thus your Electoral College is not something they find much use for. They aren’t conservatives, as many would attest, but Alt Right. And the Alt Right doesn’t need to conserve much of anything from the US Constitution, including the EC.”
Yep, noticed that.
One last thing, what do you think Hillary’s reaction was when the 3am call came in making the loss dead certain? Are there any reports leaking out?
This was the first time in my memory when the loser didn’t come out and congratulate the winner almost immediately, there was just the phone call reported by Trump. It was weird.
Paul in Boston:
I read a report (somewhat suspect) that she was crying and could barely speak for a long time. It’s easy to see that, if that’s true, she would want to compose herself before an official appearance. She seemed very in control the next day when she gave her speech, which could not have been easy.
The vitriolic protests and violence that have occurred in NYC, Chicago, Seattle, and elsewhere by the “Love Trumps Hate” crowd make it clear that the hard left has poisoned the minds/spirits of millions of people. Its all about the narrative of the victims versus the MAN; aka the racist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic masters that have ruled America from the founding.
I wish there was a fund I could contribute to that would offer one way tickets to their imaginary paradises in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and Oceania. I would gladly contribute $100,000.
clinton had the wherewithal to call trump. If she was crying and sniffling and otherwise inconsolable, suspect that might be something that would have leaked out of the trump camp.
I think it was more a “fog of war” given the shock of it all going to pot when expectations were exactly opposite.
Imagine the disarray and debate that would have gone on… Concede vs Fight.
And clinton is more deliberative than decisive, if my impression is correct.
A liberal’s frank view of what went wrong – clinton!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/donald-trump-white-house-hillary-clinton-liberals?utm_campaign=Newsletter&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=37321034&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–tEP_mdmIJzsdMlIlJVtw5ymEIXpEtblynuWVfbyVQxgbH4x-
I just came across this response on Quora, and I thought a lot of you might appreciate reading it, too.
Especially those of you with Democrat friends and family who are still reeling over the results. This might help them gain a little perspective.
And it’s well worth your time, too.
The guy did a nice job.
How did Donald Trump win the 2016 US Presidential Election?
Yet another reason why “winning the popular vote” is meaningless: Many voters do understand the electoral system, and would vote differently if the president were elected by direct popular vote. How many voters in deep blue or deep red states, who voted “third party” or didn’t vote, would have voted for one of the major candidates if they thought their vote mattered?
Purple = the color of being beaten up. Very fitting.
Big Maq
Nebraska was admitted to the Union with borders. We are bound together. Yes, the Panhandle is closer to Denver than to Omaha but we are all one state. The Panhandle people consider themselves as Nebraskans. I have friends in Scottsbluff and Ogallala. The University of Nebraska and Creighton are big unifying institutions.
Dividing the state based upon EC votes only creates division. We don’t need more division.
Aside. The Dems in our “non partisan” unique Unicameral tricked the spineless GOP to pass this bill as a favor to a Lincoln Senator. Vote trading.
Still stupid.
Cornhead,
I have martial arts friends in Omaha and Lincoln, good friends, but mildly to the left. We agree to disagree. I have a childhood friend in Scottsbluff who is as red as anyone can be, a woman who trains burrows to be pack bearers, is a mosaic artist, and a grandmother of six. She is salt of the earth. I also have a childhood friend who as lived near Saratoga, WY for decades. He is a retired carpenter, also salt of the earth.
We enjoy driving across Nebraska to Wyoming and the gradual topological transition as we cross your state . Ogallala is where we feel we are truly in the Great Plains and almost on Mountain Time. All hail Nebraska.
Leonard Cohen, R.I.P.
http://www.leonardcohen.com/leonard-cohen
A terrible loss. The world is a smaller place tonight. RIP.
I’m glad I got to see him live once.
“Dividing the state based upon EC votes only creates division. We don’t need more division. “ – Cornhead
I just don’t see that a process like that necessarily creates “more division”, as there are so many more factors that go into how people vote than their state boundary.
The NeverTrumpers gave her the popular vote. Some of them, like Claire Berlinksi of all people, even voted for her.
My favorite from Leonard Cohen – Hallelejah
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttEMYvpoR-k
Paul in Boston: “That’s George Stephanopolous? That’s the cute guy who used to get Bill Clinton jail bait by dragging $5 bills through trailer parks? Martha Raditz? I’ve seen dead people who were more lifelike. And then there were the anchors who were sort of familiar but were very very ancient. I guess the networks don’t have compulsory retirement, but they clearly have compulsory embalming.”
Priceless, just priceless. 🙂
Mike K – you won, you won. Leave us neverTrumpers alone 🙂
Cornhead: “If Nebraska can’t be one state from Omaha to Ogallala, then we are screwed.”
Can I propose a deal please? I’ve spent months on this blog listening to ever Trump voter tell me we were all gonna die if Hillary was elected. And now you’ve won! (I had a half win I guess – couldn’t stand either one but relieved she’s not the President-Elect). So can we have at least a short moratorium on the “we’re screwed” talk? Just a few days, do me a solid.
By the way, Cornhead, you called it – one of the most accurate predictions I read. We disagreed on Trump, but … respect.
Parker – my Nebraska joke (my parents are from the western panhandle).
A guy is talking to a Buddhist…
Guy: So what’s your goal as a Buddhist?
Buddhist: To reach Nirvana
G: What’s “Nirvana”?
B: It’s the state of Perfect Nothingness
G: Oh, you mean Nebraska.
B: No, No. Not Nebraska! It’s nothing. It’s Nowhere!
G: Yeah, right outside of Ogallala!
Good night 🙂
Bill
Or Gene Hackman in “Unforegiven”
“I thought I was dead too, but I was just in Nebraska.”
A lot of history north of Ogalla. We visited Ash Hollow 30 miles north where there’s a bridge over a ravine carved out by wagons on the Oregon Trail 150 years ago. Also, you can see the wagon ruts still visible on a hill past it. It was particularly interesting to me because by mother’s grandfather passed there on his way from Independence, MO to Oregon in 1947 at age 17. He left home with a pony, hard tack biscuits, and a gun.
Here’s Ash Hollow today:
http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/omaha.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/c/02/c02557d4-df89-5873-bf80-1300461b4026/553fbc9fac2c5.image.jpg?crop=1072%2C688%2C0%2C0
Yancey Ward: “I gave him zero chance to win PA, and Wisconsin wasn’t even on my internal radar, same as the Clinton Campaign”
Biggest stunner for me was the way Trump swept the industrial heartland – PA, OH, MI (probably, still being counted) and WI. Most of them have been voting Dem for decades. It wasn’t all about Hillary’s e-mail or “alt-right”. This has been the backbone of America for a long time and they are trying to tell us something. We better listen.
I think Podesta was sent out because Clinton decided, or was convinced by Podesta to not concede. I suspect someone with math sense cornered her and explained there was no path to overturning enough states to win.
Michigan and New Hampshire haven’t been called because they are the only two states with margins which can be overturned by the uncounted absentee and provisional votes (the election offices know the absolute number of outstanding ballots). Every state has some of these votes that either weren’t counted on election night and/or had simply not wended their way through the mail to the counting stations. It is usually a couple of week before the counting is officially shut down and the final total. I would estimate, based on the 2012 election that there are upwards of five million votes that could still be added to the final turnout number.
Yancey Ward – “I would estimate, based on the 2012 election that there are upwards of five million votes that could still be added to the final turnout number.”
Yes it takes some time to dig up all those dead voters.
I would give up the EC when Boston, NY, DC, and Chicago let town councils from Wyoming, North Dakota, and West Virginia plan and manage their public transport systems. Why bother about local knowledge when you can make such pretty plans at a Boston Starbucks.
Sci am before it went Marxist and destroyed its rep did a great analysis of the electoral college system showing his it was actually more fair than the other ideas which people put forth without a real analysis… Except dens who did do it and found changes allowed then to take things and win
Thanks to Yancey Ward for the run down of the election night experience. I had the luxury of following it from Western Australia which is 13 hours ahead of East Coast time making it about 11 AM Wednesday when things got interesting back east. I just didn’t believe it was possible despite the apparent Trump strength. I too hit on going to 538 and saw that Nate Silver was increasing Trump’s chances of winning which told me it wasn’t just an ephemeral early lead. I shook it off. It couldn’t be, but it kept getting better. Then Nate blogged ‘The AP just called PA for Trump which means they just called the election for Trump.’ I couldn’t get any of the US networks from here even through a VPN so I missed out on the best schadenfreude.
@Neo, glad you are going to cover Trump panic. Here in Western Australia Trump’s victory is regarded as a disaster. My sister in law who works for a family support service reported tears and prayer. There were less hysterical prayers at my evening prayer service but real fear about what Trump would do over immigration and gay issues. One thing needs to be said though. They all feel they are subject to what happens in America and tend to say: “But at least you get a vote.” In fairness Americans are neither effected by nor even aware of Australian election results. Because the world press paints all Republicans as scary right wingers people really panic indiscriminately. Intelligent and well informed people think that Roe v Wade is a prime Trump target and have no sense that if Cruz had won then it might indeed have been a priority. Or how the supreme court appointment process works and that Trump can only initially restore the balance as it existed before Scalia died. In my own family there is panic that Trump will adversely effect the employment prospects of my grand children and the healthcare of relatives already on Medicare. I think one of the things Trump is likely to succeed at is to increase job prospects and I don’t think he will greatly disturb Medicare. I think he will find it hard to unravel the ACA but maybe buying insurance across state lines will lower costs. Maybe.
“Voters are giving the GOP one chance to deliver on the change it has promised, and the party can’t afford easy mistakes.
The risks are obvious: First is the threat of internecine warfare. Mr. Trump has promised to “drain the swamp” that is Washington, D.C. But if he chooses to battle his own caucus–which, after years of primaries and turnover, is far more reformist than even a few years ago–he risks alienating his core supporters. Similarly, if GOP purists in Congress decide to ride herd on their leaders and on Mr. Trump, demanding perfection over progress, Republicans will look even more ineffective than they did out of power. …
The other obvious risk is that Mr. Trump might try to fix all of the Obama mess, all at once. That’s a recipe for a muddle. Republicans could do nothing smarter in the coming weeks than agree to prioritize a few sweeping, key initiatives–say, health care and tax reform–that would immediately boost the economy. Earning public trust with big, early victories will buy time for more reform down the road. “ – Kimberly Strassel
http://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-secret-weapon-obama-1478824383
Let’s hope!
To those of you predicting doom and gloom and full of negatives; would it hurt to just take a break and see what actions Trump takes next? At least give him a chance to show you that he’s not, or at least will no longer be, the person so raged against during the election. Too much negativity can prevent the types of change that you want him to make.
Let’s see a little hope for the future and save the doom and gloom until after he does stupid things. Who knows, you might start to see the things the people who elected him saw. But it will only happen if he’s given a chance to succeed. You may be convinced he’s going to fail but it’s to your benefit to help prevent that.
It would be enlightening to tally up how many military votes were somehow returned too late to be counted. Those local, county and state election boards controlled by the Marxist Party are well known for deliberately delaying sending out their ballots beyond the statutory deadlines, and the Obama DOJ grants them perfunctory waivers to do so for any reason whatsoever.
Irv,
I’m praying that Trump will lead wisely and to good purpose, and will continue to do so – praying for his good and our country’s good.
I have some family members who are really concerned and I’m trying to counsel them that he hasn’t actually done anything yet – it’s a blank slate.
I’m in a weird head-space – simultaneously very relieved HRC is not president while disappointed we didn’t get a different GOP president. But I’m going to, of course, give Trump the benefit of the doubt.
That doesn’t erase his past, his past statements, etc. But he’s never been president and hasn’t done anything wrong as President. I hope he’s a much better president than he is a man.
One thing I vainly wish – I wish the rhetoric on both sides would calm down. Look, I don’t like Democrat party policies any more than any of you (really), but all this talk about Marxism, the purposeful destruction of the country, no more elections, Civil War II. . . Can we have some peace for a few? Do you actually personally know any Democrats who think that way?
“Do you actually personally know any Democrats who think that way?”
Irv, that was a question kind of out into the air, not specifically directed at you. In re-reading my comment I realize it could misconstrued.
You’ve been actually very centered and fair in your assessments, I think, although I think you were also (if memory serves) in “the Republic is finished if she wins” camp 🙂
Luckily, we won’t find out if that’s true.
@Esther
My leftist cousins on Facebook are completely unhinged. One of their siblings, a conservative Catholic priest who opposed Trump, has posted mild, comforting thoughts only to be attacked in a very nasty way. Yes, like “crazed wolverines.”
Well, if Hillary had won, a lot of people on our side would have been freaking out as well (albeit, I believe, without the rioting and flag burning)
SHOCKING VIDEO: California High School Student BRUTALLY BEATEN For Supporting DONALD TRUMP!! .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfJenokrmb4
Bill – I absolutely was in that camp. I’ve posted this link before but let me post it again because to me it perfectly explains how I think about this election:
https://spectator.org/39326_americas-ruling-class-and-perils-revolution/
It’s not that I think people were out for the destruction of the country. (Although I do believe that a few were of the mind that if they could create enough chaos then they could rebuild in the manner they wished with them in charge.) It’s that the policies they espouse are so destructive in the long run. They don’t mean them that way but they have a tendency to do what makes them feel good at the moment without regard for the long term consequences of them.
For example; making people who are dependent on welfare, even more dependent, may make you feel good because their lives are better in the short term. But the long term damage is that it encourages permanent dependency, to their ultimate detriment.
That’s where the road to destruction of our society comes from; not from people with bad hearts but with good hearts and bad policies. The road to hell really is paved with good intentions. As in the prayer I quoted once before, “Lord, I can handle my enemies….but please protect me from my friends.”
We need less enabling and more ‘tough love.’ What many don’t realize is that ‘tough love’ really is a form of love. But then it’s so easy to demagogue actions in that vein.
@Irv – Bill’s statement 9:53 am reflects much of my thinking as well.
Maybe I missed it, but I don’t see what in this comments section are “predicting doom and gloom” wrt trump.
I’ve long expressed that there is serious downside risk with trump, and, if that turns out true, I doubt that Congress will have the wherewithal to stop him, particularly in areas the president has a free hand from Congress on.
Right now, I want a successful conservative agenda to be implemented. But, a lot of that depends on how trump and his cabinet navigate through the challenges he will face in doing so.
.
There has been awfully hot hyperbolic rhetoric on BOTH sides. I believe that represents a minority on each side.
For those voices on our side, it is critically important to realize that a mandate has NOT been won to follow through with those rhetorical positions.
The white working class, particularly in the rust belt, had a “traditional” home with the dems, but the dems lost them by following the rhetorical positions their side voiced.
We’ve been given a “gift” of holding majorities in all three points of our government.
.
I am hoping that the thin possibility that the trump we saw on the campaign trail is not the one we see as president, and that the expectation of “good” that the trump supporters here expressed comes to fruition.
When I see comments here, after the win, talking about having our own “Pinochet”, it gets me sick. I doubt they really know any better what those folks in the rust belt were voting for. I very much doubt they want a “Pinochet”, deportation of every last illegal immigrant, prosecution of clinton, etc., etc..
If that becomes trump’s primary focus, then, indeed, we will have trashed that “gift”.
This is perhaps a good rundown of what we saw…
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442105/obama-hillary-clinton-2016-defeat-democrats
“Everyone is focusing on Trump’s success at winning outsized numbers of white working-class voters. Left unexamined is the fact that these voters were gettable by any Republican, even a maverick like Trump.
The white working class is the historic backbone of the Democratic party. Republicans, including Barry Goldwater, always won a majority of college-educated whites. But the Joe Sixpack and Charlie Lunchbucket voters are the ones who gave us the New Deal, the Great Society, and the Democratic party as we know it. And Trump took them out of the Democratic column.”
We need less enabling and more ‘tough love.’ What many don’t realize is that ‘tough love’ really is a form of love. But then it’s so easy to demagogue actions in that vein. – Irv
I wonder how the working class in the rust belt think about that?
I am hopeful that the hopes expressed by several here over the months that a President Trump will be forced to abide by separation of powers and will not double-down on the Obama way of “pen and phone” authoritarianism will turn out to be true.
I think many here were overwrought and overstated in their fear of the mighty MSM and the government-controlling leftists. There’s a good argument to be made that HRC lost because the press covered her email issues and the government itself (the FBI) brought the issue to the fore.
It works the other way too – the MSM won’t keep Trump in check as easily as many think because (and I’ve said this over and over) the MSM isn’t a monopoly anymore. I’d argue that most people here spend very little time watching the MSM in favor of news and opinion services more tailored to their own philosophy. Heck, I do the same thing, although I am trying to listen to a diversity of voices more and more.
I agree w Big Maq – the Republicans have been given a gift. Don’t blow it. And I’m in favor of Kelly Anne Conway being given a high ranking position because she seemed to be able to crack the code on how to restrain Trump’s worst impulses (she actually gained control of his twitter, although obviously lost it briefly last night for awhile).
I’m going to be hopeful until there’s reason not to be.
Bill Says:
“…all this talk about Marxism…”
Bernie Sanders is a self-proclaimed socialist, right?
ConservativeReview.com, based on voting records, rates Sanders and Warren as the two most conservative Democrats in the Senate. The others are much further left.
Obama was steeped in two ideologies his entire life – Islam and Marxism. His mentor during his teenage years, Frank Marshall Davis, was an actual card-carrying member of the CPUSA. In his autohagiography, Obama himself says he sought out the Marxist professors. He taught Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals to ACORN. Black Liberation Theology, the “religion” preached by Jeremiah Wright while Obama sat in his church for two decades, is based on Marxist precepts, as is radical feminism.
Hillary is also a great admirer of Alinsky.
Political Correctness has infected our entire society and culture, to the point where lives and careers can be, and are, easily destroyed for perceived violations. It was started by Marxists, embraced by the radical New Left (which took over the Democrat Party and subsequently forced out all the moderates) over four decades ago. It’s purpose is to radically transform the human thought process itself to prevent badthink and thoughtcrime, and is the basis for “hate crimes” legislation and state “civil rights” commissions’ enforcement and punishment.
Our children our indoctrinated their entire lives in our “educational” institutions that capitalism, competition and our Constitution are evil, and that United States imperialism has raped all the world’s poor.
I’m sorry you don’t like all this fuss about Marxism and stuff. Maybe we could call it “rainbows and unicorns” instead; oh, wait, that’s what the nomenklatura call it now.
geokstr,
“I’m sorry you don’t like all this fuss about Marxism and stuff. Maybe we could call it “rainbows and unicorns” instead; oh, wait, that’s what the nomenklatura call it now.”
I don’t like it. I think it’s propaganda.
Of course, evidently it works, so go for it. You decried Alinsky. Trump played the Alinsky card very well. So it works. Keep it up.
“Our children our indoctrinated their entire lives in our “educational” institutions that capitalism, competition and our Constitution are evil, and that United States imperialism has raped all the world’s poor.”
I raised my children. Children usually pick up their attitudes and beliefs from their parents. Do you know any college students? I know a ton of them. I have lots of hope for the future whenever I’m around them.
I’m not saying there aren’t dangers. What I am saying is there is a LOT of propaganda, on both sides, demonizing everyone. I don’t think this is healthy. I really hate that the conservative (can I still use that word) side of the aisle has decided that propaganda works, and it is now awash in it.
Our country is nowhere near Marxism. Obama didn’t lead as a Marxist. Here’s what Obama did – he pushed through an unpopular and ultimately unworkable health care program that was probably constitutional in key elements. Guess what, it’s going to be repealed and replaced. He lost the war in Iraq and gave rise to ISIS. He spent far too much time (as many modern presidents have) ruling via executive orders and memoranda than through legislation.
So he was a bad president. I don’t remember him being a Marxist in office.
All that will now be undone, very possibly, which means our system works and corrects itself (even if I’m not a fan of the guy who’s representing my “side”) Based on how many of you have talked over the past few months this is amazing. I thought it was all too late and we were screwed, because our country is full of wild-eyed Marxists who want to put us all into gulags. North Korea. All this fever-swamp stuff was talked about right here on this site’s comments threads during the election. And you accuse me of wanting rainbows and unicorns? What I want is the truth. Do you guys even know any Democrats? Do you ever sit down and talk (and listen) with a person in an ethnic minority? Or do you just get all your info from Rush, Coulter and Hannity?
I don’t like Trump and didn’t vote for him, but looks like the all-powerful left, the all-powerful MSM, and all of our brainwashed children weren’t enough to keep Trump out of office. Because most people really just want to be able to make a living, be left alone, and people obviously wanted a change. The number of true ideologs in this country is very small.
Yeah, I’m a little tired of all the “othering”. I don’t think long term it’s healthy for our Republic. I know it’s fun. It’s fun to assume your political opponent is not just wrong, but is evil. Democrats have done that for a long time. I always thought it was funny and would say “Republicans think Democrats are wrong. Democrats thing Republicans are evil”. But now both sides think the other is the end of the world.
A lot of our media personalities make a LOT of money keeping this going. I remember Shawn Hannity when he first hit the scene – he was thoughtful, balanced, even had a nightly debate with a flaming liberal. Now he’s completely unhinged. Unhinged makes money. Thoughtful and balanced doesn’t.
I’m sick of propaganda. But it does work, so I expect it to continue.
Big Mac and Irv,
It’s not about enabling vs tough love. It’s about telling people the truth and showing them ways to control and improve their lives. When I worked in Philly for the welfare dept in the late sixties, there was an older (about 40) black man in my unit. One day he came to me after visiting clients and said he had done somethin awfu.l When he was preparing his cases before the visits, he noted that it was the 25th anniversary of her being on welfare. She was six or seven when her parents first applied. Anyway, when she opened her door to him he congratulated her, and he then felt awful for embarrassing her. About two or thre weeks later he came back to me and said the woman had just called him to say she had found a job and didn’t need anymore welfare. She said that before his comment she had never thought about what she wanted for her life.
That incident has obviously stuck with me for a long time. If you tell people the truth, you actually enable them to make their own decisions and feel proud of their own accomplisments. It is our job to recognize their efforts and accomplishments and not look down on them because they haven’t reached the 1%.
BTW, that was the good old days when you could talk about shared experiences and not, as Holder wants, talk about race. The radical chic helped close that opportunity.
““Everyone is focusing on Trump’s success at winning outsized numbers of white working-class voters. Left unexamined is the fact that these voters were gettable by any Republican, even a maverick like Trump.” – Big Maq
I disagree.
The Republican party has become the globalist free-trade, Chamber of Commerce party, which is exactly what Trump ran against.
The Republican agenda has enriched the investor class to the detriment of the working class. It has promised cheap stuff in exhange for third-world wages. At least the democrat party promises free money to buy the cheap stuff.
“Make America Great Again” and “Morning in America” appealed to middle America, Democrat and Republican. These people still believe America is an honorable country, an exceptional country, a great country whose reputation has been sullied by a leftist education system that is more interested in making sure their pupils, our children, know how to condomize a cucumber than know the remarkable set of principles that were forged from conflict and tempered in contentious debates.
The left has magnified every stain in American history to a blot that covers the nation and leaves it worthless. And our penance is fundamental transformation to a multicultural social democrat progressive society.
Nationalists have been trying to warn us about the damage this will do, but their message has been lost in the white supremacist undercurrent we reject.
But nationalism, pride in your country, believing that the values that made our country great are worth preserving, protecting and proclaiming is an honorable endeavor. It’s considered passe by our intellectual betters who have sneered at such simplistic ideas as patriotism. Didn’t their critical studies classes teach them otherwise?
It’s declared racist and xenophobic of hand, without examining what the effect of the opposite is.
Trump is a rear guard action. Until education is wrested from the leftist education union, this generation and the next and the next will vote for a progressive utopia. They will march proudly to their own slavery and proclaim it freedom. So yes, demographics aren’t on our side. But it’s not just the demographics of ethnicity that will be our undoing.
But first things first.
“Our country is nowhere near Marxism. Obama didn’t lead as a Marxist.” – Bill
You must have missed the part about fundamental transformation.
When it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck…
Brian E:
Please see this discussion. I believe the distinction is being made between Marxism and socialism (or Communism and socialism). Some think the two are the same, and some argue otherwise.
“I don’t like Trump and didn’t vote for him, but looks like the all-powerful left, the all-powerful MSM, and all of our brainwashed children weren’t enough to keep Trump out of office.”
Bill, you forgot the “Establishment”, the “Donor Class”, the “Elites”, etc. who have this great power over everything who have kept pushing down the “Will of the People”.
I was going to comment again in regards to the NR article, but Brian E covered it for me.
I will just reiterate- show me a Republican from the candidate field that could have carried MI, PA, and WI. None of them had gone Republican in the presidential since 1988, and that election was won by the Republican with a 5%+ margin.
You don’t have to like it, I suppose, but Trump expanded the reach of the party. It remains to be seen if future Republicans can build on it. I am reasonably hopeful that Trump will be a very successful president.
“You must have missed the part about fundamental transformation.”
Every president promises change.
This is a dumb discussion, no? 🙂
“I will just reiterate- show me a Republican from the candidate field that could have carried MI, PA, and WI. None of them had gone Republican in the presidential since 1988, and that election was won by the Republican with a 5%+ margin.”
This is, of course, a very good point. I’m as surprised as anyone. I don’t like him but no one can suggest that Trump didn’t accomplish something remarkable.
I don’t like how the tent was widened to include the alt-right and I’m watching very carefully what happens. I think that what we normally considered conservatism (limited government primarily) has been defeated. Trump doesn’t represent the kind of conservatism that I grew up with and many of his followers (in this thread as well as elsewhere) have rejected that as well.
What has won is nationalism. I am really hoping that it isn’t white nationalism that has won, or big-government nationalism – I’m not going to jump to any conclusions. Trump is an interesting mix of obvious liberal beliefs, authoritarian impulses, pragmatism, etc. I have no idea what’s going to come out of all that.
“It’s not about enabling vs tough love. It’s about telling people the truth and showing them ways to control and improve their lives.” – expat
Right. We conservatives get wound up on the side of personal responsibility, that we get rather dismissive of the real obstacles out there in bringing that about, and of the people who “obviously” made bad choices.
I believe conservative principles can be sold, need to be sold, to folks who are not yet under our “tent”. They will be happier. We will be happier.
Truth is a big part of that.
Hyperbole, reverse snobbery, and identity politics ought to be jettisoned. Anyone still listening to those in the “conservative” media that still peddle in this?
“What has won is nationalism. I am really hoping that it isn’t white nationalism that has won, or big-government nationalism — I’m not going to jump to any conclusions. Trump is an interesting mix of obvious liberal beliefs, authoritarian impulses, pragmatism, etc. I have no idea what’s going to come out of all that.”
Bill, our first clue will be with who trump puts on his cabinet and in his closest advisory positions.
Yancey Ward:
It’s impossible to prove anything about what the other GOP candidates would have done, because we don’t have an alternate history. So we could argue about this ad nauseam
But I’ll just state that I think almost all of them could have won those states, and why.
(1) In many ways this election was a referendum on Hillary, Obama, and the Democrats, and none of them was popular at this point in these states.
(2) Whatever special appeal Trump had to rust-belt Democrats, Reagan Democrats, whoever it was that gave him his slight edge in those states—it would have been more than offset by the fact that there wouldn’t have been many third-party votes or abstentions on the part of conservative voters in those states who were specifically turned off by Trump. So the other GOP candidates would have gotten a lot of disaffected Democrats and Independents sick of Hillary, the Democratic Congress, and Obama, and ready to vote for change, and also would have gotten almost all of the conservative and/or moderate non-Trump-voting Republicans, too.
@Brian E – you disagreed, followed up by a long discussion that didn’t address the item you disagreed with.
@Neo – I’d add…
2b) There are millions who stayed home just because the electorate grew by 10M voters, so that should represent ~5M voters in the GOP column – more, if GOP take a majority. They didn’t show up probably because of trump.
I don’t think there was any upside for clinton, by comparison, lest anyone tries to argue that would have been offset by her ~5M (why? because they didn’t show up anyway despite the left’s vitriol on trump).
“but Trump expanded the reach of the party.” – Yancy
True if you only focus on one area of the electorate.
But, he also simultaneously reduced the reach of the party in other parts of the electorate – see above from Neo and I.
@Brian E — you disagreed, followed up by a long discussion that didn’t address the item you disagreed with. – Big Maq
—
We may think the conservative message of personal responsibility and limited government is heard and understood, but I maintain that’s not what democrat voters hear.
What they hear is that Republicans support international trade that favors corporations. A corporation is likely to move production, in fact is duty bound to, to maximize profits, but that is of no benefit to the worker.
Why do I think other Republican candidates could not have won over those blue-collar democrats? Because the same Republican arguments hadn’t won them over in previous elections.
—
Neo,
I’ll concede that Obama’s fundamental transformation is more socialist than marxist.
I personally try and avoid the use of the term Marxist, since it brings baggage with it. Duly noted.
I would argue those people rioting right now fit the Marxist ideology of class revolution, even though most of them haven’t a clue.
The end results of Socialism and Marxism are similar– government control of the means of production. Yes, there is a subset of socialism that allows for private ownership for the benefit of the public good.
But when defending capitalism, the distinctions between socialism and communism are irrelvant, IMO.
While I’ll agree that Clinton was a truly unpopular and unlikable candidate, the same was often said about Trump. There’s one thing that propelled the electorate more than anything else I think……the gender bathroom situation!
Before you climb all over me let me say what I mean by that. The ordinary working-class people who go to work every day and pay very little, if any, attention to politics are the ones who defeated Clinton.
What was in their minds was a government that was starting to intrude into their daily lives with a message that they resisted with everything they had. The message was that the ruling elite knew better how the working class should be living their lives than they did.
All of a sudden they couldn’t ignore the government and get on with their lives. The government was in their schools and ruining them. It was in their religions and denying them the right to practice as they saw fit. It was in their cars and driving up the cost of energy and everything that went with it. It was in between them and their doctors, whom they no longer had the freedom to choose. It was in their jobs as policies drove industry after industry either into bankruptcy or to other countries. It was in their news media as they were about to impose the “fairness” rule, which actually meant the opposite. It was in their day to day safety with the demonstrations/riots and anti-police attitudes.
Clinton did not lose this election; the ruling elite lost. They lost the same way they lost with Brexit and the same way Angela Merkle is about to lose in Germany.
Ordinary people had never cared all that much about politics because it had very little effect on their daily lives. When the liberals got in, that was no longer the case so they threw them out. That’s the real story of this election. Trump and Clinton were just the bit players who happened to be center stage when it happened.
Irv – hammer->nail.
Well done.
irv,
i’m not so sure about Merkel losing. People will ave to look closely at the other parties who might be in an opposing coaltion, and there are some real nuts in those parties. And once a coalition partner takes over a ministerium, they get pretty much free reign in that area, which means tere nuttiest policies can be pursued.
Merkel has been pretty good as a straddler. If she can look tougher on the immigrant issue, which she is now trying to do, people may want to keep her. I sure wouldn’t te Leftt Party to be involved with Putin’s Russia.
It’s not about Merkle, it’s about the ruling elite, of which she is a charter member. Her policies are having strong negative effects on the daily lives of ordinary German. They won’t stand for that much longer.
I spent 3 years in Germany and still have friends there. What I hear from them is that they are appalled by both Trump and Merkle; Trump because that’s all they hear in their left-wing press and Merkle because she’s ruining their country. Who’s running against her is less important than that.
Sorry, I keep typing Merkle instead of Merkel.
BigMaq — I guess you missed the news that Trump did better among blaxks, Hispanics, and as well among women women as Romney did.
Richard Saunders:
Of course Trump did slightly better among blacks and Hispanics. So what? He also did considerably better with rust belt blue collar whites who usually vote Democrat. That’s because until 3 or so years ago he was a Democrat and many of his proposals are in line with their beliefs. Government works projects. Health care for all. The dream of bringing back all those lost factory jobs. And he played to not only class resentment but found a scapegoat in illegals who are “stealing into our country and stealing our jobs.” Round ’em up, send ’em back. Simple, solves THAT problem.
I hope he will at least nominate a conservative to the Supreme Court. He promises to expand energy production. At the very least he’ll clean house at the EPA and Justice Department. All good things. What he can’t do anything about is our aging population and lopsided entitlement situation. Nor does have any apparent desire to cut overall government spending. If anything his tax proposals and works projects will expand borrowing, driving us into more debt. Didn’t he say he loves debt?
Years ago in a college Econ class I opted to debate instead of submit a term paper. The topic was FDR Got Us Out of the Depression true or false. I took the side that he didn’t, that the advent of WW2 was the driving factor in ending the depression. I won the debate hands down. Government works projects are almost always boondoggles. Not to say that building dams and interstate freeways aren’t necessary, but in a capital scarce economy they are built at the expense of real money making endeavors.
It boils down to the fact that Trump is no conservative. Of course he got Dem votes because basically he is one.
@Irv – That is certainly the conservative view of the world. However, I don’t think that explains the millions who did not vote for clinton.
Nor, do I think it the motivation for the rust belt working class to abandon the dems in favor of the GOP. Theirs is probably much more a “pocket book” issue. That kind of fits in with what you are saying, but then you end it with what sounds like ideological reasons (they threw the liberals out).
These are people who are looking for government action on their behalf, not about getting government out of their hair (except for maybe the coal industry). dems left them in the cold, and trump promised to get them jobs and keep the entitlements.
@Richard – to add to Other Chuck’s retort…
You might have a case if trump had, indeed, grew the votes beyond what might be expected just from population growth.
There should have been 10M more votes on top of the votes in 2012, just from increase in population.
Not only did those votes not show up, trump had fewer overall votes than Romney.
This election result wasn’t a testament to how great a campaign trump had, nor how there was massive buy-in to what trump was selling. He won because so many people stayed home, a minor shift in some votes (white working class in the rust belt) pushed him over.
As Neo said elsewhere, it was a small wave – just enough to wet the sand – nothing more.
She’s panicking and hysterical. She believes the world is at an end, that Trump is literally Hitler and everyone who voted for him is evil.
If HRC had won, I dare say some Trump voters would have been equally as depressed although not quite as hysterical.
The problem with people who take on faith their own victory due to predictions such as the false Adventist proclamations of the Rapture, is that when it does not happen, their faith and belief is crushed. To sustain a war, however, people can’t merely give up on minor setbacks like that.
BigMaq – I guess you missed the news that Trump did better among blaxks, Hispanics, and as well among women women as Romney did.
Based on what, the same kind of polling methodology Nate Silver and the other MSM propagandists use?
Why is one accurate but not the rest?
Still, Trum making gains amongst White Women and White Men, isn’t that hard to believe. They are, after all, Democrats who would have voted Yellow Dog Democrat even a year ago. O Care and all these riots, probably scared them into voting Republican. The way Southerners voted for Reagan over Carter.
I will just reiterate- show me a Republican from the candidate field that could have carried MI, PA, and WI. None of them had gone Republican in the presidential since 1988, and that election was won by the Republican with a 5%+ margin.
Any candidate would have been capable of that with propaganda support from the Alt Right, equaling 5-10 pts.
The Left can elect rapist Clinton, twice, as well as Hussein, twice, using similar methods, plus fake votes.
“Any candidate would have been capable of that with propaganda support from the Alt Right, equaling 5-10 pts.”
What exactly is the evidence that the “Alt Right” – whatever that means – has that much influence?
60,933,504 was Romney’s total vote when the final count was finished in December of 2012. As of last night, Trump had 700,000 less, but we won’t know the final count until late this month at the earliest. I think it almost certain that Trump eventually ends up with 62-63 million votes. However, all of this beyond the real point- he out-polled Romney yuugely in the states that mattered. So, he got less in the deep red states- who gives a shit.
It boils down to the fact that Trump is no conservative. Of course he got Dem votes because basically he is one.- The Other Chuck
—–
OK, he’s no conservative. Was George Bush a conservative? His agenda was a mix of conservative to very liberal.
Trump is showing all signs that he will promote policies from the traditional conservative to liberal, or at least not traditional conservative positions.
I think you can make the case they are very conservative if viewed in the context that free trade is a very globalist/internationalist/one world position.
What is very bizarre is that Trump is a president that doesn’t owe allegiance to Wall St. I can only hope draining the swamp includes placing a dyke around Washington to keep some of Wall St. out money out.
“context that free trade is a very globalist / internationalist / one world position” – Brian E
Vehemently disagree.
What is not being “globalist”? Must be a world of huge trade barriers, then.
Closing up our borders to trade makes about as much sense as a farmer being completely self sufficient – neither selling his goods, nor buying any goods with anyone else.
Think just how much would that farmer be able to produce without the tools, chemicals, etc, and without the time, as they’d need to make their own clothes and tools.
It’s not hard to see that the farmer and his family would be rather impoverished.
Maybe it is not “globalist” to want businesses to offer up to us citizens the cheapest goods they possibly can, in a competitive (i.e. capitalist) society – we are all measurably far better off than that thoroughly self-sufficient farmer.
.
It is infinitely easier to “see” the downside of trade vs the benefit to trade.
Why?
Because we see jobs that may have been lost (though much has been mis-attributed to free trade rather than the real cause – technological change), but can never see the other world of the absence of trade.
Ask yourself, how much would an iPhone cost if it was 100% domestically produced? Could it be produced at a price that Apple could even profit at – IOW would Apple even still exist, let alone be in any way the economic size (and high paying job producer) that it is?
Multiply that out trillions of times to get a picture of what trade restrictions mean (i.e. the opposite of “globalist” free trade)?
It is extremely unlikely to help anyone but a few, and the most well connected to DC.
The good folks in the rust belt won’t see one bit of benefit, unless they are lucky enough to be where a crony gets some special deal from DC to place an operation nearby.
For all the rest, if taken to the extreme, they will pay through the nose.
.
The REAL issue is that in a dynamic economy change is bound to happen and will have uneven impacts (Notice the rust belt are also areas where dems have had heavy influence in governing – e.g. Detroit).
The REAL question is do we take the hard line that people should be personally responsible for themselves and should, on their own, seek the training, or move to qualify for the new jobs, etc.?
Or, should government be involved to help them transition? If so, what should that be?
“Ask yourself, how much would an iPhone cost if it was 100% domestically produced? Could it be produced at a price that Apple could even profit at — IOW would Apple even still exist, let alone be in any way the economic size (and high paying job producer) that it is?” -Big Maq
Estimates are it would raise the price $100 to be domestically produced. Yes Apple could still profit. Apple could also sell the product for less money and be profitable, though it’s stock price would be lower. Skeptics say it wouldn’t add that many jobs since much of it is automated.
I don’t think anyone is saying there shouldn’t be trade, and trade isn’t going to end if NAFTA is re-negotiated. Same with China. A tariff on Chinese imports wouldn’t stop imports from China, and I suspect the goal would be to lower trade barriers to China, rather than punitive tariffs on Chinese goods.
I know Japan places trade barriers to imported goods that are subtle, but make entry difficult.
So let’s keep the debate on actual facts, not hyperbole. I’ll try and dial it down also.
The 15% corporate income tax would be a good first start helping American manufacturers competitive.
Unions have not helped their workers by negotiating wage/benefit packages that make them uncompetitive globally. Where should that wage be? Japanese have found it profitable to manufacture some cars here and offer good wages in non-union areas of the company.
We can’t, nor should we, save all jobs in the rust belt. I’d rather see those jobs move to lower cost of living regions of the country, rather than overseas.
@Brian – at least provide a link if you are going to say the price rises by $100.
Also, you may be thinking of today’s snapshot to arrive at your $100, but that misses a big aspect of the point. How the product comes to be to begin with.
What about how this affects a future innovation, as innovative as the iPhone has been?
.
So, you are advocating “some” tariffs, or “some” other trade barriers to curb “unfair trade practices”, which includes “reciprocal market access”.
Is this a fair statement?
.
Yes, let’s get real, and tone down the hyperbole – until you get a little more targeted in what you mean, it is hard to argue anything but the general idea.
Please explain your limiting principle on tariffs and/or barriers?
Don’t be so general that any industry could argue that they are facing “unfair” trade practices. What industries wouldn’t be able to make such a case?
What do the rust belt voters get out of it, if the jobs go to these “lower cost of living regions of the country”?
.
I believe that it wouldn’t take us going much deeper into this before it starts to sound like a leftist argument, yet, that is one of the key things we hate about the dems!?
Big Maq,
Didn’t realize this thread was still going.
Here’s a link to the $100 price.
https://9to5mac.com/2016/06/13/iphone-made-in-usa-cost/
Or here if you prefer to have MIT parse it. Naturally there answer is more technical.
As long as Apple buyers are willing to pay Apples inflated prices, it won’t affect innovation. Would another $100 be the tipping point? Possibly, don’t know.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601491/the-all-american-iphone/
Now as to oil price supports or tariffs as a way to stabilize prices.
The boom and bust cycle of oil is disruptive to the America economy. If we could stabilize prices around $60, the majority of American oil producers would make money, and the economy could absorb the increase without disruptions to most other sectors. I say most, because you will no doubt find a energy sensitive sector that can’t pass on the increased costs.
Even the Saudis, I think, recognized in the last bubble that there is a maximum oil price the world can tolerate and it was exceeded. Blert thinks the price Saudis need long term is $100.
They are in financial straits with the current price of oil, which makes you wonder why they don’t cut production if they are desperate for increased revenue.
And if you think we should sit helplessly by because we’re waiting for the market to correct, the Saudis are doing something akin to dumping. Punitive tariffs are a normal form of penalizing a company for that practice.
We recently placed a 500% tariff on Chinese steel when they were found to be dumping. We certainly didn’t sit around waiting for the market to correct.
I’m sitting in a former B-52 hanger, in an arid region of the state, all because of government intervention.
It’s hard to be an economic purist. What should be the limits of intervention?
When Eisenhower pushed the interstate road system, he was met with criticism.
It’s messy, but currently industries have redress when there is direct evidence of unfair market practices. Some though are more subtle and hard to police.
We’re on the same page that some of the over-regulation by past administrations can be rescinded and have a positive effect on the economy including the rust belt. Lowering the corporate income tax (or doing away with it entirely) would help.
I would reserve punitive tariffs on the most egregious examples. I do think we could establish a list of sectors that are vital to our national interests / survival that would be worth protecting, if necessary.