Hey guys, been a while since I was a regular on this site. Glad to see so many of you still around. The following is a rambling set of observations on my part as to why Trump won and what to make of it. These are my opinions only, hence the lack of citations and hard statistics. --- Thousands (millions?) of words have been typed discussing how these two candidates were remarkable in their lack of appeal. In “normal” years, either candidate would or should have been demolished. Trump is an impulsive boor who has said plenty of things publicly that would normally require self-imposed exile and lashings at the town square to recover from. Hillary has deliberately obstructed justice, flaunted our nation’s laws, and would lose a personality context to HAL 9000. This race has offered us countless surface-level discussion points between these two very different candidates. However, we shouldn’t immediately presume that the results of this race speak only to the contest of Trump versus Hillary, Republican versus Democrat, or Right versus Left. Sure, some observations can be made in that regard (like how “the women” don’t vote as a hivemind groupthink) but I think something more interesting can be gleaned. In my opinion, I believe that society is beginning to see progressivism as the statist, established position in the hierarchy of power. I think that’s why young people flocked to Trump in ways we haven’t seen before. Take Reddit, for example. Reddit is predominantly populated by young people. Reddit had to revise its entire ranking algorithm to preclude r/The_Donald from owning the front page every day (it still does). Trump’s following on Facebook, Twitter, and all forms of social media outstripped Hillary to a degree I’m not sure we’ve seen before, especially in the context of Trump being a Republican stereotype (rich, old, white dude who doesn’t care about women / minorities, etc.) versus Hillary as a historic (female) major party candidate. Fundamentally, Trump appealed to the rebel in this race which is the first time (that I’m aware of) that the “Right” has been seen as worthy of the moniker in quite some time. Now to be fair, I think that the majority of people in this country either support or don’t strongly care about most progressive issues. Unfortunately, as the message of progressivism gains traction and support in the public sphere, very little has been done to curtail the excesses of the backlashes against those to who dare to disagree. For example, plenty of folks who disagreed with Clinton on critical issues were told that their disagreement was inextricably tied to racism, misogyny, or xenophobia. That’s the rub. Progressivism has gained in power and influence (see BLM, movements on college campuses, Vanity Fair’s cover of Jenner, etc.) and is beginning to act like most institutions which dominate social discourse. Violators, you will be punished. If you disagree, we will chastise you. If you resist, you will be overwhelmingly beaten down. If you support strong borders, it’s not because you think a nation should know who is coming in and out but instead it’s because you hate brown people. If you feel that Hillary’s disregard for the FBI’s orders disqualifies her to lead the country, it’s because you actually believe women should be subservient to men. So forth. And so on. Not all leftists approach the issues that way but far too many do (and those who don’t seem to be awfully quiet in opposing nonsense from their own side). In that sense, I tend to agree with Ben Shapiro on this one matter. Ben believes that when someone calls you a racist or misogynist without proof, the correct response isn’t to cite facts that prove you aren’t but rather to call the person a butthole. After all, accusing someone of being racist / misogynist / whatever-ist without solid proof is a butthole-y thing to do. So what now? Well, it would be simple (easy?) for the left to assume that the results of this race boil down to superficial things like “this country is racist,” “this country is sexist,” or “Comey sunk Hillary.” Those statements may not be totally inaccurate – this country does have room to improve re racism, sexism, etc. – but they miss why this happened now. The possibility of a Trumpian rise occurred because the left, quite frankly, has allowed too many (though not all) of its members to respond to dissent with overt bullying. Don’t agree with Obama? You are racist. Don’t like Hillary? Sexist. Support strong borders? Xenophobe. As it turns out, there are plenty of reasonable people who fit each of those categories and are - to use a tired phrase - sick and tired of being made to feel like buttholes for disagreeing with the popular opinion. In that vein, if the left is wise, it will temper its rhetoric and pull some of its more vocal members away from SJW-ing and focus them instead of active improvements to the lives of the less fortunate. Less crucifying of free speech on college campuses and more feeding the homeless, please. If the right is wise, it will recognize that this election wasn’t necessarily a rousing endorsement of its positions but rather a pushback of bullying tactics by the currently dominant social institution (who wears that mantle can change quite quickly). Both sides have plenty of work to do. But, after seeing a Donald Trump this morning who was gracious, humble, and kind in victory, I’m feeling optimistic enough to believe that we can take the necessary, difficult, and challenging steps to find some common ground, treat each other with respect, and maybe even Make America Great Again.
It was all part of the plan: Step 1: Obstruct and use control of the House to (*)(*)(*)(*) up the economy. E.g. Create as much uncertainty as possible by threatening to cause the US to shut down the government, default on its obligations, and wreck the economy. Add 700,000+ people to the unemployment lines by eliminating government jobs. Block every single proposal by the President to create jobs. Force austerity cuts in Govt spending to prevent or limit economic growth. Step 2: Blaaaaame Obaaaaaamaaaaaa and count on the sheeple being ignorant and misinformed or simply blaming whoever is president. The plan worked. Middle class folks are mad because they rightly feel they've been left behind in a system that favors the privileged and rich over the common guy. That is why Donald won states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The Republican plan to undermine the economy did the trick. The ignorant and uneducated (i.e. the great majority) blamed the President and his party. Donald's populist message of blaming the brown skinned folks (the supposed millions pouring over the border) or foreigners (trade) and the Democrats (Hillary hasn't done anything for 30 years!) were all designed to resonate with that anger. The vast majority of folks are just too stupid to realize that the same folks who have kept them down, are the same folks they just put back into office. It's no coincidence that Donald likes them uneducated that the vast majority of uneducated whites voted for Donald.
Dude.... did you read my post? Your response is exactly why Trump won. If you want the right to keep winning, keep responding in this fashion. I've conversed with you in the past. I've seen you handle matters better than this before.
Yeah, I read your post. I disagree with it for reasons I stated in mine. This election had nothing to do because progressives weren't nice enough. Do you really think the people who supported Donald give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about that?
I think you make some very good points. I'd add that the economic factors are very different between urban versus rural Americans. Urban areas have problems that come along with population density, like higher crime rates, gentrification, and a high cost of living. However, the rural areas have been decimated by the loss of manufacturing jobs, that were in rural areas, simply because they had a ready supply of cheap, uneducated labor. When a plant leaves a rural area, and another one doesn't fill the void, entire communities are destroyed. Local small businesses, doctors and rural hospitals, service industry jobs, and the infrastructure provided by taxes all collapse, because the plant workers no longer have a salary to spend and the tax base collapses. The displaced workers are trapped with hometown family obligations, mortgages for houses they can't sell, few job skills (because they had a good job at the plant,) so they can't move to find other employment. Even if they could, they lack money to relocate. The economic progress experienced during Obama's two terms happened mostly in cities. Those in rural areas still feel the pain of the 2008 economic collapse, partnered with the loss of manufacturing jobs, and little hope for anything different in the near future. Looking at the electoral map from this election, the divide between urban and rural is as plain as the red and blue states. The numbers and statistics may tell the tale of how the economy has actually improved, but the voters in red states haven't felt the improvement. Thus they voted for change. I'm certainly no Trump fan, but I do live in a suburban area of a ruby red state, and that's how things are here. If Trump hadn't decided to run, another "change" candidate would have won my state. The only candidate that wouldn't have won, would be one representing status quo, IMO.
Yes, I think what pushed Trump from sure defeat to small-but-significant victory is the nuclear approach taken by lefties who promote a political discourse based on "if you are republican, you are either a fat, lazy, backwards slob or a greedy, soulless tyrant." It turns out that people don't like being told stuff like that all the time. Right now, the dominant social presence is the left. And as long as the left employs these tactics, rebels like most of those found on r/The_Donald will support the underdog.
You're pissing in the wind if you think they will change. They have a sense of moral superiority that will never dissipate.
Maybe. I doubt, however, my ideas appear as silly as the notion of a Trump victory seemed even 26 hours ago. By all means though, I’m sure that there are plenty of folks on the right who hope you and the majority of leftists continue to think this is silly.
The crap? I've been lurking/ light posting on these forums for years and I don't remember you! Welcome back! I don't know where you are on the political spectrum, but I know that a lot of what your are saying would resonate with some rebubs here on PF, regardless of where you are, you do seem genuinely concerned that Demo's lost their way/ or aren't acknowledging the reality of the situation. I think I agree that now, for dems - this time for reflection and assessment. as I see it, We, (the progs) need to be be like the republicans et large- , we have to evolve, we have to adapt and we must not continue to feed at the hand of the ineffectual establishment. Instead, we must see our flaws, look them in the eye and conquer them. We must seek out the bold and vital amongst us and lift them to possitions of power. We must be willing to cast aside the shackles of "Democrat" and instead push towards a glorious (though peaceful) revolution. In so doing we will redefine "demorcrat" or perchance find a new nomenclature. The important take away, the raison d'être is that we will forge our own anti-establishment progressive party. @ Iriemon I've been watching your posts and liking your comments since I started @ PF, please tell me you are going to look long and hard at both sides of the spectrum and find reasons why we are now enjoying Pres. Elect Trump; Its a sad day for Progs, but not one wholly outside of our own making
Thanks. I was a mod here many years (9ish?) ago and had been a fairly active user. Im somewhere between libertarian and classic liberal with a little dose of conservative mixed in. I am concerned for both parties. Everything I said of the left could be said of the right. I wasnt talking Left versus Right. I was talking establishment v underdog. Right now, the Left controls social norms and what is moral far more than it used to. Many people who would otherwise be ok or indifferent to that resent that any disagreement is met with the same response as outright intolerance or KKK-style overt racism. My point isnt that the Right is Good and the Left is Bad. My point is that the left seems to be missing why they lost. If they continue to miss this, our political discourse will continue to sink further and further into the morass of Kardashian-style reality rhetoric. Donald Trump is not that great of an orator. He isnt very inspiring. He is shallow, oafish, and a bit of a buffoon. But he tapped into a sense of disgruntlement with the establishment that forces obedience to the groupthink while overlooking the needs of its subjects. Thats powerful. I think both parties would do themselves good to police themselves to the same degree they are willing to chastise the other group. Get the log out of your own eye first and all that. Plus, it appears to me that the left has taken good things like appreciation for different cultures and getting along with folks who dont look like you and elevated these ideals to unhealthy levels. Theres nothing wrong with encouraging people to be tolerant to everyone. There is something wrong with promoting multiculturalism to the degree that you focus more on cultural appropriation than you do on feeding the poor. There is something wrong with focusing more on generating a rally for a person shot by the police than you do with dealing with body after body of innocent, helpless folks killed by gang warfare. I dont have a problem with the vast majority of the lefts stated objectives (though I generally feel government should be the tool of last resort) but I do have a problem with the hypocrisy of focusing on a minority of issues while overlooking politically inconvenient crises.
Now, given all that you stated here... How do you think those same unemployed, economically devastated, families think about Obama? Obama who spent $108 Billion importing 100s of Thousands of Muslims with absolutely no skills, or education, or assemelation... And gave those imports a CBO verified $256K in "Getting Started Funds" as well as an additional average of $65K per person per year in welfare and other government "Special" benefits. And Hillary promised to not only keep that practice going, but to more than DOUBLE the numbers of imported Muslims! She made that promise during the Campaign, and thought that it would lead to her election victory??! WHY? And then it comes out, that Omar Sareef, the same guy who funded Osama Ben Laden, and the 911 attacks, gave 32 Million to the Hillary campaign? Start to see a pattern here? I assure you, Rural, Working, White America saw it! -
Exactly. This is just what happens when when Madonna threatens to blow people https://twitter.com/JoeDeVitoComedy
So you really think there were scores of thousands of voters out there who were going to vote for Clinton, but then thought she just wasn't nice enough, and so decided to vote for Donald because, after all, he and his supporters have shown time and again what a really nice guy he is. Does that fairly summarize your argument? Sorry. IMO that is incredibly naive. - - - Updated - - - Exactly proving my earlier post.
In what way do we need to be more like Republicans? Do we need to support massive tax cuts for m/billionaires and trust fund babies and pander the richest at the expense of the middle class? Do we need to support massive spending increases on the military? Do we need to support polluting our environment so big energy company can make bigger profits? Do we need to start scapegoating and demonizing blacks, browns, and foreigners? Do we need to start intentionally harming the economy for political purposes? Do we need to start lying all the time? Maybe we should. It seems to be a successful strategy. I explained my basic reasoning in this post: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=483756&p=1066809319#post1066809319 It is a basic, and base, human characteristic (at least for many) that when something goes wrong or not the way you planned, the instinct is to blame someone else, and especially blame those who are not part of your "group." This scapegoating instinct has been used time and again by demogouges and dictators to muster support by focusing the anger of people against others, often on racial grounds. I'm sure you can come up with many examples on your own. Donald effectively appealed to this base emotion of so many who felt anger at being disenfranchised because their lot has stagnated or declined. He effectively channeled this anger against brown skinned immigrants (the rapist and criminal Mexican immigrants), blacks (his tweets with false statistics about black crime and flirting with white supremist groups), foreigners (Chinese who "take advantage" or trade, NATO allies who don't pay enough of the cost), and Democrats (Obama crappy economy, 40% unemployment, Clinton hasn't done anything in 30 years). This populist appeal, which is basically and extension of what RW propaganda media like Fox News and Breitbart have been messaging for years, was extremely popular with those who were more than ready to blame browns and foreigners, whether overtly or subconsciously. It was simplistic and makes sense to those (vast majority) who are completely clueless as to economics. Trump, a charlatan and con man whose whole persona is based on a sales pitch, effectively positioned himeself as "anti-establishment" delivered this "blame others" message very effectively. You saw how people lapped it up in threads here. On the other hand, Clinton was an imperfect candidate. Aside from the baggage she carried, she was unable to effective counter Donald's populist message. She never explained the Democratic view of the economy to counter Donald's populist appeal to base instincts. So people perceived her position as "more of the same". Further, her position was undermined by Sanders painting her as a corporate tool, which Republicans used to great advantage. The result was the remarkable situation where many viewed Trump (the billionaire who's policies are explicitly designed to make the billionaires like himself ever richer at the expense of the middle class), as the anti-establishment man of the middle class, while Clinton (whose policies are designed to build the middle class and reduce income inequality) as the establishment candidate of the billionaires and wall street. Neither Clinton nor Obama have done a good job of defending and explaining Democratic positions. Clinton should of been hammering again and again how she and Obama have worked and passed laws to help the middle class (everything from minimum wages to jobs programs to education loans to health care availability to extended unemployment to unions) and it has been the Republicans who have pampered the billionaires and obstructed their efforts to help the middle class again and again and again. Instead, you heard almost nothing about this. And as a result, you had the absurd situation where hundreds of thousands of angry middle class folks in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania and Ohio voting for the very guy who is most establishment and whose policies are going to enrich the billionaires like himself even more, at the expense of those same folks who are voting for him. The Democrats need a candidate that can explain and defend Democratic economic policies and explain why they help the middle class and Republican billionaire pandering hurts it. A candidate who can explain why income inequality hurts the economy. Who can explain why a reasonable MW increase is good for the economy. Who can explain how unions benefit the middle class workers and the economy. Why we need broader overtime laws. Why we need to cut FICA taxes and eliminate the caps. Why having such a huge discrepancy between investment taxes and earned income taxes incentives speculative investing over earning and production. Why we need to increase taxes on m/billionaires. Why Democratic policies we promote are good for America and Republican policies are only good for the m/billionaires. And why Republican actions, obstruction, and "trickle down" policies are why middle class workers have been left behind for the past 30 years. Neither Obama nor Clinton were effective in making that message. Maybe Elizabeth Warren will be. So, yes, I agree that Clinton's remarks about half of Donald's supporters being deplorable, while completely accurate, was not a good tactical thing to do. But Democrats did not lose the election because people perceived that Donald was such a nice guy compared to Clinton. They lost it because they lost the message war to those middle class workers.
Of course not. You would save time / energy if you responded to what I actually said rather than creating a new position and debating it. Scores of thousands of voters *who normally don't vote at all* were so turned off by the perpetual over-assault by the left that they decided to do something about it. Perhaps a few thousand nation-wide who were truly debating between Clinton & Trump were turned to Trump due to the apparent attack on white folks who happened to not automatically support Obama / Clinton.
I'm sorry to have miscontrued you. So you really think that "thousands of voters *who normally don't vote at all* were so turned off by the perpetual over-assault by the left that they decided to do something about it", and voted for Donald? Because he was such a much nicer guy about the whole thing than Clinton? Does that now fairly summarize your argument? Sorry. IMO that is incredibly naive.
I'm going to cut from your quote in a few spots to demonstrate my point. I've pulled some of your comments out because you are still missing the point. Do these comments apply to a very small percentage of those who voted for Trump? Certainly. I could find similarly idiotic reasons why certain people voted for Hillary, up to and including the fact that they are misandrist and voted for a person who had the right genitalia in their own minds. However, to assume that because your arguments are true for a very small subset means they are also true for the population as a whole is both a logical fallacy and quite stupid. Your argument is built on the notion that Trump won the election because the people who voted for him were just worse than the people who voted for Clinton. You presume that an entirely significant % of the vote boiled down to "I'm gunna support that there guy that will kick the brown folks out of 'Murica!!!" This type of self-delusion is why your side lost. At the end of the day, the Left lost because it presumed that most of the people who disagreed with the Left were either racist or stupid or both. Sorry, the world isn't binary. When you lose all respect for your opponent and continually underestimate them, you weaken your message and yourself. - - - Updated - - - I don't think they thought Donald was a nicer guy than Clinton. I think the vast majority of people agree that both candidates were not charming, nice, or even close to morally decent people. You still miss my point which is sad.
No, I don't believe they do. I believe the number is significantly larger. You haven't been here for a while so maybe you have not noticed the significant increase in racist/bigotted threads, claims, posters, and people who have obviously been embolden to display racist positions by Donald's success. Polls show that about half of the entire Republican party are birthers, believing Obama was born outside the US. And more believe he is a secret muslim. Now they don't all come out and admit they are racists, yet. And I'm not saying that every Donald supporter is a racist. Some support him because they are establishment elites who know his tax cuts will net them huge amounts of money. I know some people like that. Some are RW religious fanatics whose sole criteria is abortion. I know some people like that. But Trump's populist appeal was based on scapegoating brown people and foreigners and blaming them for our problems. I gave you examples of that, there are many more. You need only see the posts here (had you been around) to notice that. I mean, look at the things he said about browns and blacks and foreigners and women, and most of his supporters *loved* him for that. I didn't say a word about misogynists, though I certainly could have. Have you seen the avalanche of posts by Trump supporters and the crude, vulgar demeaning ways? I know some people for whom that was an issues as well. I said no such thing. Though you could imply that if you believe that people who are birthers and scapegoat brown and foreigners are worse. Again, I disagree. 1) I do believe that the number of Donald supporters who fall is that category is significant, and polls bear me out, as do behavior you seen on boards like this one. 2) I don't see any evidence that any significant number of people who voted for Trump would have voted for Clinton but just thought Dems were too mean. 3) You are looking at this in a binary way. If you are going to posit that more voted for Trump because Clinton and the Dems were too mean, then how to you excuse of factor in all the mean-spirited, ugly things Donald and his supporters have said and down about people? Why didn't that cause would be Donald supporters to go to Clinton? You're barking up the wrong tree. People didn't vote for Donald because they thought Clinton was too mean. They voted for him for the reasons I explained. I didn't miss your point. I just think you are sadly naive about what is going on.
