The US Presidential Election 2016

From: milko11 Nov 2016 08:30
To: Harry (HARRYN) 48 of 85
Hi Harry, I don't much want to know how you voted, I just wanted to be clear I wasn't personally attacking you with my post; it seemed as I wrote that it could easily be read that way. I think our own so-called democracy has much the same problem as yours at the moment, as Xen describes.
From: ANT_THOMAS11 Nov 2016 08:31
To: Harry (HARRYN) 49 of 85
It is only this year that I realised that was the case for the primaries in California, very odd system.
From: milko11 Nov 2016 08:37
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 50 of 85
Ok, we agree on plenty there. I'm not so forgiving of people of people being taken along in the mainstream/allowing themselves to be used to push that agenda, at the moment.
From: ANT_THOMAS11 Nov 2016 08:40
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 51 of 85
I think the view that racists voted for Brexit/Trump but not all of Brexit/Trump voters are racist holds true. By voting for those things you are at fault for legitimising them, much like we would be continuing to vote for a neoliberal left.

I don't think this is necessarily the case for Trump (based on the income demographic break downs I've seen, unless I've read them wrong), but for Brexit it was heavily backed by the traditional working class low income people who feel "left behind" or totally unrepresented by the current mainstream parties. In a lot of people's eyes things can't get any worse so why not vote for an alternative new option, a vote for change and hope it works. I suppose many people with literally no money can't see how it's possible to have less (it definitely is possible when austerity bites even more, but they already feel like they have no hope).

From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)11 Nov 2016 08:44
To: milko 52 of 85
More or less forgiving than of us continuing to vote for these parties who favour an economic system which relies on working poor people elsewhere, including children, to death so we can have cheap stuff; bombing civilians if it looks like it might be vaguely maybe possibly in our economic interests; systematically alienating and at times brutalising minorities; destroying the economies of entire nations to prevent our currency from losing a few % of value etc. etc..

We've been voting for this shit for *years* and because they offered us the exact same lie: "we'll make it all better and keep you safe, we promise".

 
From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)11 Nov 2016 08:52
To: ANT_THOMAS 53 of 85
Exactly, yeah, and yeah it applies to Trump too.
From: milko13 Nov 2016 20:48
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 54 of 85
Well indeed, I don't try to excuse us of that. I'm just not sure voting to make everything universally worse for all (except, somewhat ironically, the elite top few % generally) is a good answer. To blame things like migrants from places that the aforementioned system has caused to fail (or simply blown it up). I struggle even with applying 'understandable' to it, honestly, and I don't actually see much value in this thing I'm seeing all over the place post-Trump and saw a lot of post-Brexit where we must try to understand and sympathise. That seems to be being done in really shit ways, like putting Le Pen on telly for a soft interview, giving Farage a bit more air time, an opinion column from some white middle-classer saying Trump might not be so bad really, that sort of thing. Fuck it!

I don't buy it at all. People should be grouping together for better change more inclusively, not falling for this fascist shit yet again.
From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)14 Nov 2016 10:08
To: milko 55 of 85
Nobody's making that argument though. No one's saying that all of this means that voting Trump/Brexit is in any way good.

It's just not fundamentally worse than what we've been doing for decades. People voting in what they mistakenly perceive to be their own self-interest and/or wilfully ignoring the damage the ideology they're validating does to others.

Neoliberal policy has done immense damage to the world, including but definitely not limited to paving the way for Brexit and Trump. We swallowed it because we believed we were getting incremental progress, but we weren't really, not meaningfully. It was ok for us, we were comfortable, but everyone else (besides the wealthy, who were benefiting disproportionately more than us) was getting fucked.

We don't get to be angry at the people who voted Trump/Brexit for being tricked in exactly the same way we've been tricked for the last 60 years just because their racism is slightly less sophisticated than ours (and is really given life by our own complacent acceptance of a decade of racist rhetoric).

We should be angry at the centre-left - labour and the lib dems, for abandoning the only possible counter-narrative. At the media for happily stirring the shit so long as they made money and reducing political discourse to inane, artificially polarised superficial drivel because it made their work easier. At the political class in general for deserting democracy.

And that anger should be directed at the actual enemy, the ones who actually caused all this and who benefit no matter who's in power because all politicians are selling their ideology - the wealthy and big business. If we fight amongst ourselves, they're fucking laughing.





 
From: milko14 Nov 2016 10:40
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 56 of 85
I AM angry at the centre left! I'm angry with all of it and all of them! But I'm not persuaded that means I should be less pissed off with people going along with it. I don't believe that they're that easily ignorant of what's happening here.
EDITED: 14 Nov 2016 12:34 by MILKO
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)14 Nov 2016 10:41
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 57 of 85
Righteous!
From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)15 Nov 2016 20:25
To: ALL59 of 85
From: milko15 Nov 2016 22:50
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 60 of 85
It's Monbiot innit, when he's right, he's pretty good at it. I wonder if his book goes on to explore what he's talking about in the final paragraph at all, because that seems like the hard bit.
From: fixrman17 Nov 2016 22:54
To: ANT_THOMAS 61 of 85
I didn't visit here during the "event" because I figured it would be you lot against me.
 
Quote: 
Is it really just a giant douche vs a turd sandwich?
From: ANT_THOMAS18 Nov 2016 08:49
To: fixrman 62 of 85
You're probably right there, but it still good to see the opposite view if it's properly justified.
From: Manthorp18 Nov 2016 16:21
To: fixrman 63 of 85
One thing is for sure: the next four years will be fascinating. I think he may stabilise relationships with Russia (though at the expense of the people of Syria, Georgia and the Ukraine).  I think he will increase domestic inequality, which is good if you are in the higher income brackets. Having said that, if he does actually introduce international trade barriers it's just possible that he may raise blue-collar pay packets, though at the cost of higher prices and inflation.  Russia notwithstanding I think he will be a disaster for the international standing of the US.  I'm sure that he will erode the rights of any citizens who aren't male, heterosexual and/or white.

Buckle in! 
From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)18 Nov 2016 18:16
To: ALL64 of 85
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)18 Nov 2016 18:55
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 65 of 85
Quote: 
Trump made gains among blacks. He made gains among Latinos. He made gains among Asians. The only major racial group where he didn’t get a gain of greater than 5% was white people.



I think this is (or may be) misleading. From what I understand the black voter turnout was considerably less than for Obama, so although Trump may have got a higher percentage of votes cast by blacks than Romney, this in itself does not indicate heightened black enthusiasm for Trump (don't know about Latinos/Asians).

Most voters vote straight along party lines regardless of the candidate(s), so the key to winning elections is to get your side to actually turn out and vote. Hillary failed at this, but perhaps the outcome was preordained anyway:
 

Quote: 

Allan Lichtman says he can predict the outcome of any U.S. presidential election. He often does it months or even years ahead of time. Oh, and his predictions have been right in every presidential election since 1984.

But Lichtman, a distinguished professor of history at American University, doesn’t use polling, demographics or sophisticated analysis of swing states. He makes his predictions based on 13 true/false statements that he says indicate whether the incumbent party will retain the White House or lose it in a given election.

Lichtman and Russian scientist Volodia Keilis-Borok came up with the keys — a series of true/false statements — in the early 1980s. The idea is that if more than half of the keys are true, the incumbent party will stay in power, and if more than half are false, the challenging party will win the White House.

The keys, which are explained in depth in Lichtman’s book “Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House 2016” are:

  1. Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
  2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
  3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
  4. Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
  5. Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
  6. Long-term economy: Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
  7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
  8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
  9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
  10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
  11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
  12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
  13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.



 

From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)18 Nov 2016 19:46
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX) 66 of 85
>the key to winning elections is to get your side to actually turn out and vote. Hillary failed at this

I agree with that, yeah.
From: fixrman22 Nov 2016 01:23
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 67 of 85
OK, so what about Hillary Clinton?

Is it possible that the problem with Hillary Clinton is that she is Hillary Clinton? For all of the Trump analysis, how about some good analysis on HRC as a candidate, person, politician.

For all the support she got from the media and the star-power types, she should have been a shoo-in. Katy Perry, Bruce Springsteen - hell, Madonna promised oral attention to males who voted for Clinton (she swallows and maintains a lot of eye contact, according to her).

For those who criticise Trump on having no plan: Well, Hillary has no plan, because her plan is Obama's plan and the Obamas and the Clintons HATE each other.

Isn't it possible that Hillary's loss is all her own fault?