In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
1. I'm not that worried about the Supreme Court. He's going to replace Scalia with another Scalia and it just goes back to the old status quo where plenty of liberal stuff still got through. I fully expect Ginsberg to tough out four more years and wait for the next Democratic president.
2. I'm a little relieved to see that Hillary at least won the popular vote. It can serve as a reminder that the conservatives who run the government now don't have a complete mandate.
3. On that point the conservatives now control all three branches or the federal government and a majority of state governments. If there was ever a time to see how their plans work for America this is it. And they better do it fast because with changing demographics the current build of the conservative party and its members won't be viable for much longer.
4. How about Back to the Future 2? That movie got within one year of correctly predicting the Cubs winning the World Series and also a Trump presidency since Biff in that movie was based on Trump.
On November 10 2016 03:39 dAPhREAk wrote: not going to read 750 posts, but market has already recovered. not even sure i can tax loss harvest, or whether its worth it to buy stock outside my normal cycle. where are the doom and gloom idiots now?
If I understand most of the "doom and gloom" arguments correctly, they're mostly about the digression from social and economic progress once Trump actually becomes president (in January) and once all three branches of government are Republican-controlled. As in, the doom and gloom predictions aren't relevant yet.
I think the scarier question to ask is this: what happens if Trump fails the people who just elected him?
I don't even know what Trump supporters' expectations of Trump are. To those who understand or voted for Trump, what would a "successful" Trump presidency look like? Because there's a 0% chance that Trump's biggest platform- building that Mexico border wall and making Mexico pay for it- will actually happen... however, I don't think that Trump supporters will actually care about that. I think they care about the perception that we're safer (even if nothing has changed over the past 4 years), the perception that America is getting whiter and less diverse (even if the opposite happens), and the fact that they voted into office a non-establishment non-politician to the White House (which has happened, regardless of whether or not that ends up being good for the country over the next four years). So I don't know how Trump supporters could actually feel disenfranchised or disillusioned by Trump. In their minds, I think that the mission is already accomplished.
On November 10 2016 02:44 Jormundr wrote: Also this is probably the most realistic explanation of this election I've seen so far. Point #3 hits very close to home.
extremely well written article. Recommend everyone to read it.
So the question going forward is--if a Trump presidency is an expression of rural America's discontent, then how will a Trump presidency fix that discontent?
Rural America has been left behind by the rest of the country. But this is not an easy problem to solve, and certainly not one that's solvable by even the best possible president. Were things better for them in the 50s and 60s? Probably. But we can't go back to the 50s and 60s. The rest of the world isn't going to shift back in time for us. What we have to be doing is coping with how technology and the rest of the world are changing America, and that unfortunately also means a huge shift in America's economy toward urban centers. No amount of protectionist trade policy is going to be able to reverse that shift.
I understand that rural America is discontent with the way things are in 2016, but it's not clear to me where the way forward is, especially with their deeply-ingrained aversion toward far-left progressive welfare reform. Maybe someone with a better understanding of these things has a clearer understanding of where we go from here and can explain it to me (preferably with the smallest possible amount of condescension or right-wing rose-tinted glasses).
I would also like to understand how rural America votes for a billionaire with friends such as Mnuchin and Icahn, and doesn't see the irony.
He spoke to the issues they wanted addressed in a way no one else did and for that they were willing to look past everything else.
Yeah, it always astonishes me how the GOP not only gets away with talking to working class Americans whilst being on the board of Chevron/Halliburton at the same time, but also thrives from it. You have to admire these marketing skills.
You think Hillary's the one to make sure the GOP doesn't get away with it? The Dems were uniquely unqualified to criticize, with a lawyer that hitched her wagon to a rising star and made millions in a time she remembers being dead broke. So Trump doing the plain-talk schtick on reality TV did cement his image as friend of the working class. How more removed can you get from rural america than mincing words about the plight of victim groups A-G?
I was referring to a long-term tendency that harks back to at least Dick Cheney, not just this election. Just be gracious in victory.
Gore and Kerry are at least as good of, if not better examples of, candidates that had issues being the alternative for the supposedly fatcat GOP names. It doesn't take marketing when it's Bush vs Gore back in the days when white males didn't split so strongly and unions still had great influence for Dems.
I've been reading my twitter feed of the least self-reflective Clinton supporters I can possibly imagine. They tell me the problem was Americans, not Hillary. After about the hundredth slam on dumb inbreds electing a Hitler-Mussolini-Nixon orange Frankenstein, the grace takes a bit of a hike for the next guy that says he pulled the wool over our eyes. Let's hear it for a return of inward criticism before playing the Trump card and blaming your version of China for electoral losses.
I'm trying to understand what in the hell has happened really rather than being partisan ( no US passport myself, no skin in that game ). All the prediction models I've read with Hillary 80%+ chance were mathematically okay, Drew Linzer's in particular. This means the input data was wrong. I don't believe in generalized sampling error. It either means there is a turnout anomaly, or people say one thing and then vote for another ( the infamous 'shy Trump' vote ). It's fascinating to try and understand what happened there - there doesn't have to be an issue with Americans if the 'fringe' candidate had circa 30% of total votes just like in every other country, but they all showed up.
On November 10 2016 04:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: and the fact that they voted into office a non-establishment non-politician to the White House (which has happened, regardless of whether or not that ends up being good for the country over the next four years)
Again, looking at Trump's administration shortlist, the "non-establishment" part of that really gets called into question.
The non-establishment part is the frst part of Trump's campaign that's proving to be a lie. He hasn't even taken office and his thin veil of being anti-establishment is already crumbling.
On November 10 2016 03:57 Danglars wrote: He's got Pence, Sessions, and hopefully the people that told him to pick Pence in the administration. Thats the slim hope for the future.
If Jeff Sessions is supposed to be my hope for the future, that's a pretty fucking grim future.
Well, go win the next election with your *better* hopes for the future. In my book, Sessions if one of the brightest stars in the GOP Senate and I agree with nearly all his policy prescriptions. And Obama handed us the House, Senate, and Presidency in eight years.
On November 10 2016 03:39 dAPhREAk wrote: not going to read 750 posts, but market has already recovered. not even sure i can tax loss harvest, or whether its worth it to buy stock outside my normal cycle. where are the doom and gloom idiots now?
If I understand most of the "doom and gloom" arguments correctly, they're mostly about the digression from social and economic progress once Trump actually becomes president (in January) and once all three branches of government are Republican-controlled. As in, the doom and gloom predictions aren't relevant yet.
I think the scarier question to ask is this: what happens if Trump fails the people who just elected him?
Of the people who just elected him not many are actual supporters, most were anti-Clinton votes. But even among his most fervent supporters I wouldn't expect anything 'scary' from being disillusioned, it would hardly be the first time someone had an enthusiastic base and failed to deliver.
On November 10 2016 03:23 oneofthem wrote: that she didn't talk about climate change was her recognizing the importance of the rust belt vote. it just wasn't enough.
the regular army (media) got surrounded by the guerrillas (internet), and the regular army was in a bubble all this time.
I find it unsettling that a presidential candidate has to choose between an honest discussion about one of the most important global issues we're facing right now, and appeasing enough voters to get elected.
Under a Trump administration, especially with a Republican-controlled Congress, the climate change conversation will all but end. The only thing related to climate change that I'd expect Trump to do is try to impose a tax on China for fabricating the whole thing.
Pretty much expect a whole lot of deregulation...at the very least.
While Trump has called for eliminating the EPA, he has more recently modified that position, saying in September that he’ll “refocus the EPA on its core mission of ensuring clean air, and clean, safe drinking water for all Americans.”
Myron Ebell, a climate skeptic who is running the EPA working group on Trump’s transition team, is seen as a top candidate to lead the agency. Ebell, an official at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has come under fire from environmental groups for his stances on global warming. Venture capitalist Robert Grady is also a contender.
Other potential candidates: Joe Aiello, director of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s Division of Environmental Safety and Quality Assurance; Carol Comer, the commissioner of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, who was appointed by Pence; and Leslie Rutledge, attorney general of Arkansas and a lead challenger of EPA regulations in the state.
Same source as link in my previous post.
Thanks for sharing If he doesn't eliminate the EPA, that would be pretty fortunate. I'd take that as a small silver lining, compared to what some other Republicans would do in Trump's shoes.
On November 10 2016 02:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So the only hope this country has right now is if Trump sends Pence on tedious VP jobs and not allow him any sort of power base while Trump becomes a moderate technocrat.
Sure as hell won't happen with Bannon who describes himself as a Leninist out to destroy the state...
Trump has shown himself to be completely unable to let even the most minor grudges/offenses go so I'm mostly expecting Trump to constantly fall into the trap of doing things just to spite other people that happened to disagree with him recently.
Either way the one thing the country deserves is for Trump to have full access to his Twitter account again.
My country is screwed
I don't want to venture too far off topic but I can't help but find some irony in posh British politicians being offended at the idea of closed borders.
On November 10 2016 02:44 Jormundr wrote: Also this is probably the most realistic explanation of this election I've seen so far. Point #3 hits very close to home.
extremely well written article. Recommend everyone to read it.
So the question going forward is--if a Trump presidency is an expression of rural America's discontent, then how will a Trump presidency fix that discontent?
Rural America has been left behind by the rest of the country. But this is not an easy problem to solve, and certainly not one that's solvable by even the best possible president. Were things better for them in the 50s and 60s? Probably. But we can't go back to the 50s and 60s. The rest of the world isn't going to shift back in time for us. What we have to be doing is coping with how technology and the rest of the world are changing America, and that unfortunately also means a huge shift in America's economy toward urban centers. No amount of protectionist trade policy is going to be able to reverse that shift.
I understand that rural America is discontent with the way things are in 2016, but it's not clear to me where the way forward is, especially with their deeply-ingrained aversion toward far-left progressive welfare reform. Maybe someone with a better understanding of these things has a clearer understanding of where we go from here and can explain it to me (preferably with the smallest possible amount of condescension or right-wing rose-tinted glasses).
I would also like to understand how rural America votes for a billionaire with friends such as Mnuchin and Icahn, and doesn't see the irony.
He spoke to the issues they wanted addressed in a way no one else did and for that they were willing to look past everything else.
Yeah, it always astonishes me how the GOP not only gets away with talking to working class Americans whilst being on the board of Chevron/Halliburton at the same time, but also thrives from it. You have to admire these marketing skills.
You think Hillary's the one to make sure the GOP doesn't get away with it? The Dems were uniquely unqualified to criticize, with a lawyer that hitched her wagon to a rising star and made millions in a time she remembers being dead broke. So Trump doing the plain-talk schtick on reality TV did cement his image as friend of the working class. How more removed can you get from rural america than mincing words about the plight of victim groups A-G?
I was referring to a long-term tendency that harks back to at least Dick Cheney, not just this election. Just be gracious in victory.
Gore and Kerry are at least as good of, if not better examples of, candidates that had issues being the alternative for the supposedly fatcat GOP names. It doesn't take marketing when it's Bush vs Gore back in the days when white males didn't split so strongly and unions still had great influence for Dems.
I've been reading my twitter feed of the least self-reflective Clinton supporters I can possibly imagine. They tell me the problem was Americans, not Hillary. After about the hundredth slam on dumb inbreds electing a Hitler-Mussolini-Nixon orange Frankenstein, the grace takes a bit of a hike for the next guy that says he pulled the wool over our eyes. Let's hear it for a return of inward criticism before playing the Trump card and blaming your version of China for electoral losses.
I'm trying to understand what in the hell has happened really rather than being partisan ( no US passport myself, no skin in that game ). All the prediction models I've read with Hillary 80%+ chance were mathematically okay, Drew Linzer's in particular. This means the input data was wrong. I don't believe in generalized sampling error. It either means there is a turnout anomaly, or people say one thing and then vote for another ( the infamous 'shy Trump' vote ). It's fascinating to try and understand what happened there - there doesn't have to be an issue with Americans if the 'fringe' candidate had circa 30% of total votes just like in every other country, but they all showed up.
the contrast between internet and in-person interview is instructive for this one. although, i think there are different dynamics at play in rural vs suburban.
Oh yeah and I'm curious to see if all these votes for legalizing marijuana are wasted time and efforts. If Giuliani or Christy become the Attorney General as we expect then they will send me clamp down on all of that stuff.
On November 10 2016 04:02 On_Slaught wrote: I have a few things to say after sleeping on it:
1. I'm not that worried about the Supreme Court. He's going to replace Scalia with another Scalia and it just goes back to the old status quo where plenty of liberal stuff still got through. I fully expect Ginsberg to tough out four more years and wait for the next Democratic president.
2. I'm a little relieved to see that Hillary at least won the popular vote. It can serve as a reminder that the conservatives who run the government now don't have a complete mandate.
3. On that point the conservatives now control all three branches or the federal government and a majority of state governments. If there was ever a time to see how their plans work for America this is it. And they better do it fast because with changing demographics the current build of the conservative party and its members won't be viable for much longer.
4. How about Back to the Future 2? That movie got within one year of correctly predicting the Cubs winning the World Series and also a Trump presidency since Biff in that movie was based on Trump.
On your Number 3, I've been saying that for a while as well. But if turnout can be so poor in THIS election, who's to say that changing demographics will actually have an impact on elections? White people turned out in droves to vote for their racist overlord, while everybody else stayed home. Certainly most of that blame can be placed on Hillary Clinton by being the worst candidate the democrats have ever propped up, but I'm not convinced anymore that changing demographics will actually have a significant impact on the Republican party.
EDIT: As far as marijuana, as someone in Colorado who participates, I do hope that Trump and Co. just leave it alone. The revenue streams are incredible and there is no evidence that it has had a negative impact on Colorado after almost 3 years of recreational availability. But who knows.
On November 10 2016 02:44 Jormundr wrote: Also this is probably the most realistic explanation of this election I've seen so far. Point #3 hits very close to home.
extremely well written article. Recommend everyone to read it.
So the question going forward is--if a Trump presidency is an expression of rural America's discontent, then how will a Trump presidency fix that discontent?
Rural America has been left behind by the rest of the country. But this is not an easy problem to solve, and certainly not one that's solvable by even the best possible president. Were things better for them in the 50s and 60s? Probably. But we can't go back to the 50s and 60s. The rest of the world isn't going to shift back in time for us. What we have to be doing is coping with how technology and the rest of the world are changing America, and that unfortunately also means a huge shift in America's economy toward urban centers. No amount of protectionist trade policy is going to be able to reverse that shift.
I understand that rural America is discontent with the way things are in 2016, but it's not clear to me where the way forward is, especially with their deeply-ingrained aversion toward far-left progressive welfare reform. Maybe someone with a better understanding of these things has a clearer understanding of where we go from here and can explain it to me (preferably with the smallest possible amount of condescension or right-wing rose-tinted glasses).
I would also like to understand how rural America votes for a billionaire with friends such as Mnuchin and Icahn, and doesn't see the irony.
He spoke to the issues they wanted addressed in a way no one else did and for that they were willing to look past everything else.
Yeah, it always astonishes me how the GOP not only gets away with talking to working class Americans whilst being on the board of Chevron/Halliburton at the same time, but also thrives from it. You have to admire these marketing skills.
You think Hillary's the one to make sure the GOP doesn't get away with it? The Dems were uniquely unqualified to criticize, with a lawyer that hitched her wagon to a rising star and made millions in a time she remembers being dead broke. So Trump doing the plain-talk schtick on reality TV did cement his image as friend of the working class. How more removed can you get from rural america than mincing words about the plight of victim groups A-G?
I was referring to a long-term tendency that harks back to at least Dick Cheney, not just this election. Just be gracious in victory.
Gore and Kerry are at least as good of, if not better examples of, candidates that had issues being the alternative for the supposedly fatcat GOP names. It doesn't take marketing when it's Bush vs Gore back in the days when white males didn't split so strongly and unions still had great influence for Dems.
I've been reading my twitter feed of the least self-reflective Clinton supporters I can possibly imagine. They tell me the problem was Americans, not Hillary. After about the hundredth slam on dumb inbreds electing a Hitler-Mussolini-Nixon orange Frankenstein, the grace takes a bit of a hike for the next guy that says he pulled the wool over our eyes. Let's hear it for a return of inward criticism before playing the Trump card and blaming your version of China for electoral losses.
I'm trying to understand what in the hell has happened really rather than being partisan ( no US passport myself, no skin in that game ). All the prediction models I've read with Hillary 80%+ chance were mathematically okay, Drew Linzer's in particular. This means the input data was wrong. I don't believe in generalized sampling error. It either means there is a turnout anomaly, or people say one thing and then vote for another ( the infamous 'shy Trump' vote ). It's fascinating to try and understand what happened there - there doesn't have to be an issue with Americans if the 'fringe' candidate had circa 30% of total votes just like in every other country, but they all showed up.
Even if the 80% probabilities were accurate, there's still a 1 in 5 chance of Trump winning. It's not zero. Even in 538's prediction timeline there were margins of error that easily accounted for Trump winning the electoral college- even when Hillary was at like 75% win chance.
On November 10 2016 03:07 BigFan wrote: [quote] extremely well written article. Recommend everyone to read it.
So the question going forward is--if a Trump presidency is an expression of rural America's discontent, then how will a Trump presidency fix that discontent?
Rural America has been left behind by the rest of the country. But this is not an easy problem to solve, and certainly not one that's solvable by even the best possible president. Were things better for them in the 50s and 60s? Probably. But we can't go back to the 50s and 60s. The rest of the world isn't going to shift back in time for us. What we have to be doing is coping with how technology and the rest of the world are changing America, and that unfortunately also means a huge shift in America's economy toward urban centers. No amount of protectionist trade policy is going to be able to reverse that shift.
I understand that rural America is discontent with the way things are in 2016, but it's not clear to me where the way forward is, especially with their deeply-ingrained aversion toward far-left progressive welfare reform. Maybe someone with a better understanding of these things has a clearer understanding of where we go from here and can explain it to me (preferably with the smallest possible amount of condescension or right-wing rose-tinted glasses).
I would also like to understand how rural America votes for a billionaire with friends such as Mnuchin and Icahn, and doesn't see the irony.
He spoke to the issues they wanted addressed in a way no one else did and for that they were willing to look past everything else.
Yeah, it always astonishes me how the GOP not only gets away with talking to working class Americans whilst being on the board of Chevron/Halliburton at the same time, but also thrives from it. You have to admire these marketing skills.
You think Hillary's the one to make sure the GOP doesn't get away with it? The Dems were uniquely unqualified to criticize, with a lawyer that hitched her wagon to a rising star and made millions in a time she remembers being dead broke. So Trump doing the plain-talk schtick on reality TV did cement his image as friend of the working class. How more removed can you get from rural america than mincing words about the plight of victim groups A-G?
I was referring to a long-term tendency that harks back to at least Dick Cheney, not just this election. Just be gracious in victory.
Gore and Kerry are at least as good of, if not better examples of, candidates that had issues being the alternative for the supposedly fatcat GOP names. It doesn't take marketing when it's Bush vs Gore back in the days when white males didn't split so strongly and unions still had great influence for Dems.
I've been reading my twitter feed of the least self-reflective Clinton supporters I can possibly imagine. They tell me the problem was Americans, not Hillary. After about the hundredth slam on dumb inbreds electing a Hitler-Mussolini-Nixon orange Frankenstein, the grace takes a bit of a hike for the next guy that says he pulled the wool over our eyes. Let's hear it for a return of inward criticism before playing the Trump card and blaming your version of China for electoral losses.
I'm trying to understand what in the hell has happened really rather than being partisan ( no US passport myself, no skin in that game ). All the prediction models I've read with Hillary 80%+ chance were mathematically okay, Drew Linzer's in particular. This means the input data was wrong. I don't believe in generalized sampling error. It either means there is a turnout anomaly, or people say one thing and then vote for another ( the infamous 'shy Trump' vote ). It's fascinating to try and understand what happened there - there doesn't have to be an issue with Americans if the 'fringe' candidate had circa 30% of total votes just like in every other country, but they all showed up.
the contrast between internet and in-person interview is instructive for this one. although, i think there are different dynamics at play in rural vs suburban.
Yes thanks, I'm sure this is going to be discussed at length in the coming days, or the whole polling industry is out of a job. Any data/link on this would be welcome.
On November 10 2016 02:44 Jormundr wrote: Also this is probably the most realistic explanation of this election I've seen so far. Point #3 hits very close to home.
extremely well written article. Recommend everyone to read it.
So the question going forward is--if a Trump presidency is an expression of rural America's discontent, then how will a Trump presidency fix that discontent?
Rural America has been left behind by the rest of the country. But this is not an easy problem to solve, and certainly not one that's solvable by even the best possible president. Were things better for them in the 50s and 60s? Probably. But we can't go back to the 50s and 60s. The rest of the world isn't going to shift back in time for us. What we have to be doing is coping with how technology and the rest of the world are changing America, and that unfortunately also means a huge shift in America's economy toward urban centers. No amount of protectionist trade policy is going to be able to reverse that shift.
I understand that rural America is discontent with the way things are in 2016, but it's not clear to me where the way forward is, especially with their deeply-ingrained aversion toward far-left progressive welfare reform. Maybe someone with a better understanding of these things has a clearer understanding of where we go from here and can explain it to me (preferably with the smallest possible amount of condescension or right-wing rose-tinted glasses).
I would also like to understand how rural America votes for a billionaire with friends such as Mnuchin and Icahn, and doesn't see the irony.
He spoke to the issues they wanted addressed in a way no one else did and for that they were willing to look past everything else.
Yeah, it always astonishes me how the GOP not only gets away with talking to working class Americans whilst being on the board of Chevron/Halliburton at the same time, but also thrives from it. You have to admire these marketing skills.
You think Hillary's the one to make sure the GOP doesn't get away with it? The Dems were uniquely unqualified to criticize, with a lawyer that hitched her wagon to a rising star and made millions in a time she remembers being dead broke. So Trump doing the plain-talk schtick on reality TV did cement his image as friend of the working class. How more removed can you get from rural america than mincing words about the plight of victim groups A-G?
I was referring to a long-term tendency that harks back to at least Dick Cheney, not just this election. Just be gracious in victory.
Gore and Kerry are at least as good of, if not better examples of, candidates that had issues being the alternative for the supposedly fatcat GOP names. It doesn't take marketing when it's Bush vs Gore back in the days when white males didn't split so strongly and unions still had great influence for Dems.
I've been reading my twitter feed of the least self-reflective Clinton supporters I can possibly imagine. They tell me the problem was Americans, not Hillary. After about the hundredth slam on dumb inbreds electing a Hitler-Mussolini-Nixon orange Frankenstein, the grace takes a bit of a hike for the next guy that says he pulled the wool over our eyes. Let's hear it for a return of inward criticism before playing the Trump card and blaming your version of China for electoral losses.
I'm trying to understand what in the hell has happened really rather than being partisan ( no US passport myself, no skin in that game ). All the prediction models I've read with Hillary 80%+ chance were mathematically okay, Drew Linzer's in particular. This means the input data was wrong. I don't believe in generalized sampling error. It either means there is a turnout anomaly, or people say one thing and then vote for another ( the infamous 'shy Trump' vote ). It's fascinating to try and understand what happened there - there doesn't have to be an issue with Americans if the 'fringe' candidate had circa 30% of total votes just like in every other country, but they all showed up.
I suggest you consider the possibility that Clinton was more of a fringe candidate than even Trump. Check the exit polls on what factors most influenced the voter's decision. A week of solid study of primary sources apart from secondary journalism editorial will do you more good than the partisans in the thread and the people you suspect of being too partisan to be helpful. American politics and political center (call it heart & soul if you wish) is very much different than Europe's, and so too is our fringe.
On November 10 2016 04:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: and the fact that they voted into office a non-establishment non-politician to the White House (which has happened, regardless of whether or not that ends up being good for the country over the next four years)
Again, looking at Trump's administration shortlist, the "non-establishment" part of that really gets called into question.
The non-establishment part is the frst part of Trump's campaign that's proving to be a lie. He hasn't even taken office and his thin veil of being anti-establishment is already crumbling.
Oh I completely agree, but I'm sure that the vast majority of voters voted based on Trump vs. Hillary, rather than Trump + his cabinet vs. Hillary + her cabinet.
On November 10 2016 03:30 CosmicSpiral wrote: He wasn't part of the "establishment" in Washington, and so passed off his wealth as proof he wouldn't be paid off or influenced by lobbyists in Washington. Rural America doesn't hate the rich, more the social and cultural associations with having money + urban attitudes.
If any of the following is true, then this shortlist shows they have been completely duped.
On November 10 2016 02:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So the only hope this country has right now is if Trump sends Pence on tedious VP jobs and not allow him any sort of power base while Trump becomes a moderate technocrat.
Sure as hell won't happen with Bannon who describes himself as a Leninist out to destroy the state...
Trump has shown himself to be completely unable to let even the most minor grudges/offenses go so I'm mostly expecting Trump to constantly fall into the trap of doing things just to spite other people that happened to disagree with him recently.
Either way the one thing the country deserves is for Trump to have full access to his Twitter account again.
I don't want to venture too far off topic but I can't help but find some irony in posh British politicians being offended at the idea of closed borders.
On November 10 2016 03:30 CosmicSpiral wrote: He wasn't part of the "establishment" in Washington, and so passed off his wealth as proof he wouldn't be paid off or influenced by lobbyists in Washington. Rural America doesn't hate the rich, more the social and cultural associations with having money + urban attitudes.
If any of the following is true, then this shortlist shows they have been completely duped.
Newt Gingrich (possibly Sec State) Rudy Giuliani (AG???) Chris Christie (isn't this guy under investigation????)
like those three alone shoots the anti-establishment thing out of the water.
Sessions/Talent for DoD Sarah Palin for Interior (!!!)
This can't be real, it's the absolute worst of the GOP. Even Cruz would have a saner team
What do you mean it can't be real? These are precisely the people he surrounded himself with during his campaign, and who advised him on everything. This list is infinitely more likely than any other, and the reason why these pissants sucked up to him throughout the campaign.
On November 10 2016 02:44 Jormundr wrote: Also this is probably the most realistic explanation of this election I've seen so far. Point #3 hits very close to home.
extremely well written article. Recommend everyone to read it.
So the question going forward is--if a Trump presidency is an expression of rural America's discontent, then how will a Trump presidency fix that discontent?
Rural America has been left behind by the rest of the country. But this is not an easy problem to solve, and certainly not one that's solvable by even the best possible president. Were things better for them in the 50s and 60s? Probably. But we can't go back to the 50s and 60s. The rest of the world isn't going to shift back in time for us. What we have to be doing is coping with how technology and the rest of the world are changing America, and that unfortunately also means a huge shift in America's economy toward urban centers. No amount of protectionist trade policy is going to be able to reverse that shift.
I understand that rural America is discontent with the way things are in 2016, but it's not clear to me where the way forward is, especially with their deeply-ingrained aversion toward far-left progressive welfare reform. Maybe someone with a better understanding of these things has a clearer understanding of where we go from here and can explain it to me (preferably with the smallest possible amount of condescension or right-wing rose-tinted glasses).
I would also like to understand how rural America votes for a billionaire with friends such as Mnuchin and Icahn, and doesn't see the irony.
He spoke to the issues they wanted addressed in a way no one else did and for that they were willing to look past everything else.
Yeah, it always astonishes me how the GOP not only gets away with talking to working class Americans whilst being on the board of Chevron/Halliburton at the same time, but also thrives from it. You have to admire these marketing skills.
You think Hillary's the one to make sure the GOP doesn't get away with it? The Dems were uniquely unqualified to criticize, with a lawyer that hitched her wagon to a rising star and made millions in a time she remembers being dead broke. So Trump doing the plain-talk schtick on reality TV did cement his image as friend of the working class. How more removed can you get from rural america than mincing words about the plight of victim groups A-G?
I was referring to a long-term tendency that harks back to at least Dick Cheney, not just this election. Just be gracious in victory.
Gore and Kerry are at least as good of, if not better examples of, candidates that had issues being the alternative for the supposedly fatcat GOP names. It doesn't take marketing when it's Bush vs Gore back in the days when white males didn't split so strongly and unions still had great influence for Dems.
I've been reading my twitter feed of the least self-reflective Clinton supporters I can possibly imagine. They tell me the problem was Americans, not Hillary. After about the hundredth slam on dumb inbreds electing a Hitler-Mussolini-Nixon orange Frankenstein, the grace takes a bit of a hike for the next guy that says he pulled the wool over our eyes. Let's hear it for a return of inward criticism before playing the Trump card and blaming your version of China for electoral losses.
I'm trying to understand what in the hell has happened really rather than being partisan ( no US passport myself, no skin in that game ). All the prediction models I've read with Hillary 80%+ chance were mathematically okay, Drew Linzer's in particular. This means the input data was wrong. I don't believe in generalized sampling error. It either means there is a turnout anomaly, or people say one thing and then vote for another ( the infamous 'shy Trump' vote ). It's fascinating to try and understand what happened there - there doesn't have to be an issue with Americans if the 'fringe' candidate had circa 30% of total votes just like in every other country, but they all showed up.
Well, if the samples are not representative of the demographic that showed up to vote, then that's a sampling error. I believe we can safely write this one up to Garbage In Garbage Out. You can have the most sophisticated mathematical aggregate, but if your basic data does not fit reality (in this case apparently rural America voting in far larger numbers than expected), then nothing is going to save your model.
Oh, and as pointed out above. The best models did account for this uncertainty in the underlying data, and Nate Silver spent every moment of the last week up until the election pointing out how much uncertainty there actually still was in his model (I believe the final estimate was a 71% likelihood that Clinton were to win the election)
EPT
If he doesn't eliminate the EPA, that would be pretty fortunate. I'd take that as a small silver lining, compared to what some other Republicans would do in Trump's shoes. 
