Post-election Neopostmortems Open Thread

by Ugh

Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition.  

I just....wow.  Are we relying on Ivanka to be the adult in the room?  Did they give him his twitter keys back yet?

Since signing every bill Ryan/McConnell put in front of him and Alito-esque Justices are high probabilities right now....  Jeepers.  

And as bad as I feel, I can't imagine what Latinos, African Americans and Muslim Americans are experiencing.  Fnck.

Regroup and fight back, the 2018 midterms begin today.

Comments

[Frank Shannon]

I'm expecting ethnic cleansing. It is what his base wants. If he can get rid of enough brown and black people he will increase the ability of the Republicans to win elections going forward.

[cleek]

now we get to see a President dealing with a RICO trial.

[cleek]

also, polling is now thoroughly discredited.

[Ugh]

Or a significant re-calibration of who constitutes a "likely voter" and what to do with people who won't speak to you.

Separately, do we now have the GWB problem, only much worse, of POTUS going with the recommendation of whatever person spoke with him last?

[sapient]

Separately, do we now have the GWB problem, only much worse, of POTUS going with the recommendation of whatever person spoke with him last?

We can say goodbye to the judiciary.

[sapient]

Separately, do we now have the GWB problem, only much worse, of POTUS going with the recommendation of whatever person spoke with him last?

Sorry, my brain is in random distress mode. I don't know that Trump will be taking anyone's recommendation. In some ways, that may be good, but in most it will be disastrous.

[MckinneyTexas]

It may be too soon to look within and query whether HRC was all the committed Dems thought she was. "Why aren't we fifty points ahead" may be HRC's "Mission Impossible ".

[sapient]

One more rando comment, and then I'll leave everyone alone. The time to internalize how horrible things will be was before the election. Now that it's here, we have to figure out what we will do next. The blue states have all of the economic and intellectual power. I would suggest, as russell has, a new appeal to states rights.

[wj]

Are we relying on Ivanka to be the adult in the room?

Um, no. That would be Vlad -- the guy who has demonstrated that he knows how to manipulate Trump. And, however deliriously happy (and amazed) he is at the result, really doesn't want Trump tossing nukes around and screwing up his new hegemonic opportunities.

[wj]

Now that it's here, we have to figure out what we will do next.

A) figure out how to survive for the next few years. Economically for most of us here.
B) figure out how to ride the usual anti-incumbant party wave in the Congressional elections in 2 years. Fortunately, there will be no question as to who gets the credit/blame for the economy at that point.
C) try to take some solace at the spectacle of a group which has never been interested in governing, just in shouting "No!" early and often, suddenly finding themselves stuck with actually doing their jobs -- and bearing the consequences of their actions.

Me, I'm calling my broker and selling anything that depends on "the full faith and credit of the United States." We've got a party in charge which already ran close to defaulting on the national debt. Led by a guy who mused during the campaign about the merits of defaulting; and who has experienced declaring bankruptcy.

[Ugh]

And yet US markets are now up...

[Ugh]

Meanwhile, it appears HRC will win the popular vote, leaving the GOP having won it only once since 1988.

[wj]

But it's still a mandate!

[wonkie]

Although nativism is a big part of Trump's support there are some other factors.

Republican party leaders years ago--among them DeLay and Rove--decided to end representative democracy and make the US into a one-party state in service of the oligarchy. Their means: gerrymander Congressional districts, voter suppression laws, pack the courts with rightwing extremist judges, get the Citizens United decision, and create an alternative "news" media that functions in the US the way Goebbels
functioned for Germans.

They have succeeded. They will get to make Supreme Court appointments and they will appoint judges in the Scalia model, so there will be no recourse for people who are blocked from voting.

We will continue ot have elections and they may even make a difference at the local level. Some states will continue to have decent responsible government uniil the koch brothers do to them what they did to Wisconsin. But basically our experiment in representative government is over.

That's what we lost in this election. On Balloon Juice there 's a lot of talk about hwo is to blame, but to me that is obvious: the voters who voted for Trump. There's also a lot of talk about how racist or nativist or mysoguynisit those voters are and many of them are those things but Ithin the biggest common denominator is taht they are poor citizens. They failed in teh prmary responsibility of citizenship. They failed to know what they were voting for.

I have a two hundred and fifty thousand in savings. I have no idea how to invest it to protect it. I would appreciate advice if anyone seriously thinks the R's are going to tank our economy. I don;t see why they would drive the US into default. They will gut the infrastructure, "reform" the New Deal out of existance, through millions of peopel off health insurance, sell our public land and resources to the highest bidder, ignore global warming, continue to defund and undermine all pubic instittions, probably deregualte Wall Street and generally fuck ua all over, but why default? They can now remove taxes from the wealthy and subsidize corporations with impunity while balacing geh budget just by defunding everything else.

[wonkie]

Any more it doesn't matter
Who's right or wrong
We've been injuring each other
For much too long
And it's too late to try to save
What might have been
It's over
Nobody wins

Make believin' in forever
Is just a lie
And it seems a little sadder
Each time we try
'Cause it's a shame to make
The same mistakes again
And again
It's over.
Nobody wins

We've gone too far too long
Too far apart
The lovin' was easy
It's the livin' that's hard
And there's no need to stay and see
The way it ends
It's over.
Nobody wins

Read more: Kris Kristofferson - Nobody Wins Lyrics | MetroLyrics

[Ugh]

You're right wonkie, they won't default, absent some kind of personal snit from Trump (which I guess is a real possibility).

More broadly, I just have no idea how Trump is going to go about governing. Not that that's a big strength of the GOP generally, but at least with a, say, Rubio victory there would be a sense of how things would go - I wouldn't like it but they would be somewhat predictable.

But with Trump....? Is he going to turn everything over to Pence and sit back, give speeches, fly around on Air Force One gabbing with world leaders, and generally be content to be the showman figurehead President? Or will he take an interest in certain things and try to run them "his way" and reject all advice (his remarks about Generals and ISIS come to mind here)?

Or does he just not give a sh1t about anything - he won the Presidency and can now leave all the details to those less worthy - which I guess is the same as turning things over to Pence.

[sapient]

Hey, y'all should be watching Hillary - she's going to speak. They're playing fight music.

[bobbyp]

The next two years are going to be brutal. Any attempt by Senate Dems to filibuster the impending flood of terrible legislation will be brutally put down. A raft of wingnut judges will infest our judiciary since the GOP has successfully blocked Obama's appointments (the SC is just the tip of that disaster).

This is going to be ugly.

And the alienated white working class? They will get bupkis.

[sapient]

And the alienated white working class? They will get bupkis.

Well, if they're smart they'll create some infrastructure projects and employ a few of them. They'll throw them some bones that Obama was obstructed from doing. I'm sure they'll make cultivating their racist base quite an art form.

[sapient]

I'm sure they'll make cultivating their racist base quite an art form.

And there's Gestapo work, don't forget.

[Donald Johnson]

My first constructive thought is to contribute heavily to the ACLU. I think they may need the assistance given a likely flood of new clients. Maybe contribute heavily to environmental groups. We needed to work fast on global warming and that's not going to happen here, not on the governmental level.

[Ugh]

It certainly seems there's going to be a test of how the Executive Branch Bureaucracy, outside the national security apparatus,* reacts when ordered by POTUS to do plainly illegal things.

*said apparatus having been tested during GWB's administration and failing miserably.

[sapient]

My first constructive thought is to contribute heavily to the ACLU. I think they may need the assistance given a likely flood of new clients. Maybe contribute heavily to environmental groups. We needed to work fast on global warming and that's not going to happen here, not on the governmental level.

What a joke. The ACLU doesn't win when the judges are Nazis. Environmental "groups"? What, the legislative process? Too late.

[wonkie]

It won't matter to the people who voted R that they get nothing in return for their vote. People in Alabama vote to screw themselves over and over. This election shows the power of the rightwing hate media and there are lots of people who will vote R no matter what because they are in thrall to that crap. I tiwll not be necessary to create some infrastructure jobs. All they have to do is keep pumping out the message that everything is the fault of whoever--immigrants, probably. Rove understood Orwell.

[Ugh]

You know, Gestapo kind of put me off, however...

An unhinged Rudy Giuliani as AG would really just take the cake. And the choices for Interior Secretary include Palin and Trump Jr.

[wonkie]

I do wonder, if Trump will actually try to be the representative of the common man against the Republican Ayn Rand ideologues. Will he go along with turning Medicare into a voucher system, for example? Privatize Social Security? Does he have any core beliefs other than self-aggrandizement? He does not have a conscience and has shown himself to be willing to screw people such as his creditors over for his own benefit, so....I think he will go along with whatever Congressional Republicans tell him to do unless there is a particular issue that gives him a chance to get on tv and play the hero by publicly opposing some Republican policy. I can imagine him going rouge every now and then while basically doing what McConnel or someone like that tells him to do. His proposed Cabinet appointments are awful in a standard Republican support-the-oligarvhy way

[bobbyp]

Well, if they're smart they'll create some infrastructure projects and employ a few of them

Maybe. Trump said he will build a beautiful infrastructure, but a GOP Congress will exact a big toll in return:

shred the safety net
cut spending except defense
tax cuts for the rich
gut regulations...after all, who needs a safe workplace when there are no jobs?

The effort to terminate the New Deal will be a serious one.

But yes, it will soon be legal to tell gay people that you refuse to cut their hair or bake their wedding cakes.

Oh what a relief that will be.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

Fortunately, there will be no question as to who gets the credit/blame for the economy at that point.

Obstructionist Dems in Congress. Duh.

I, for one, am eagerly awaiting the end of the filibuster so we can start appointing radical activist judges in their forties. The American people had their say, after all, and they couldn't possibly have been any clearer, amirite?

--

Hey sapient, remember how you kept telling us DFHs that the ballot box was sufficient protection to keep the levers of an overreaching national security state out of the hands of malicious actors, even though it hadn't been in the past? Welcome to reality.

Interesting how you suddenly have nothing constructive to contribute, just shallow attacks on other people's suggestions. Not surprising. But interesting.

[cleek]

just shallow attacks

he attacked, shallowly.

[sapient]

Interesting how you suddenly have nothing constructive to contribute, just shallow attacks on other people's suggestions.

The depth of your constructive plans are mind blowing, NV. You wanted to Bern it down, and now you have your flames. Sadly for some of your age cohort, you'll be burning a lot longer than I will.

[Ugh]

I do wonder, if Trump will actually try to be the representative of the common man against the Republican Ayn Rand ideologues.

Will he even know he's doing it? I'm not sure he will.

Pence: Here sign this bill.
Trump: Don't you pay bills, not sign them?
Pence: Not when you're President.
Trump: Oh, I guess I am truly great. What is it?
Pence: It fixes medicare and social security.
Trump: All at once? Good deal!

[Girl from the North Country]

This is beyond horrific. Palin?!

Surely only Trump would be worse. Oh wait....

I hoped it was a bad dream. NV, I think you're being a little harsh on sapient, who worked his socks off in a good cause, and if he and his kind of people had won you and your people would be much better off in almost every way. But if anyone's aim (I don't necessarily say yours) is the destruction of the Republic in order to build a better and more utopian replacement, good luck. Chances are any replacement will be a darker and much more terrible place. God help us all.

[hairshirthedonist]

So does Trump get to pass a bunch of stuff with a Republican congress? Of course.

Will passing that stuff make him look effective, particularly relative to Obama, or will he pass stuff that pisses more people off than it pleases? Who knows?

How bad can things get in the next 2 years, and who will recognize it as being bad soon enough for it to matter? What about the next 4 years?

How many SCOTUS justices does he get to nominate? At least one. What about judges in lower courts? Lots, maybe?

I certainly don't want the wheels to fall off under Trump, but I don't know how "successful" he can be in a way that accords with my values. Can he please his base without an opposite uprising taking place 2 or 4 years from now?

Will Trump be bellicose or isolationist? Can he somehow be both?

What do the 2 parties look like ideologically in whatever amount of time? Do they move further apart - Dems to the left and Reps to the right? Is there any commonality of populist economic thought that comes into play? Do they compete to work for the interests of the middle class? Will working-class whites really fail to blame Trump and the Republicans if they continue furthering the oligarchy?

My head is spinning over this stuff right now.

[bobbyp]

Atrios strikes.

Things could get ugly in our house, too.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

No sign of Count. Hmmm.

[cleek]

count is on vacation.

http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?p=25042#comments

[russell]

I was up late, first watching the returns, then trying to talk my wife down off the ledge (metaphorically), then holding her while she cried for about an hour until she could go to sleep, then sitting by myself in the living room, reading and generally trying to get my head around it all.

Finally went to bed around 4:00. I'm tired.

Here's what I got.

First, it is what it is. Trump won. He got the votes he needed to get, won the states he needed to win, and he is going to be President. He didn't cheat, he worked the system as it is, and he straight-up won.

I appreciated the conciliatory tone of his victory speech. I wasn't necessarily surprised by it, but to be honest I thought it could go either way.

I was glad to hear him talk about improving infrastructure. We need it, and it will put some people to work. If it takes somebody with an (R) after their name proposing it to make it happen, so be it.

I'm not sure what to expect from Trump as far as policy. I'm not sure what to expect from him as far as tone, on an ongoing basis. I don't know if the more moderate tone of the victory speech is the new Trump, or if he just thought he could be magnanimous give the occasion.

We'll find out.

I don't know what to expect from Trump as far as the overall policies and agendas of the (R) party as a whole. I don't know if he's on board with all of it, or not, or if he has any opinion about it at all. I don't think he's a particularly ideological guy, I don't see him motivated by any Grand Plan or Big Ideas in the philosophical sense. I don't know if he's really thought about it all that much. In general, I think he got into this thing without thinking the consequences through, because he just seems like that kind of guy.

So, we'll see what happens.

I'm not extremely worried about the future for myself, personally. My wife is retired and our household income stream includes investment income, that's probably going to be a little shaky for a while. But I think it will settle out.

I have some concern that SS may simply go away, or be greatly reduced, by the time I retire in about 6 years. That will suck, but I guess we'll figure it out.

But I'm a 60 year old, white, native born American, with a pretty solid and reasonably well-paying job, reasonably good health, and no huge debt load other than mortgage.

Lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky me.

A lot of what I've been doing over the last 12 hours or so, and what I will probably continue to do for some time, is try to help people I know who are, frankly, freaked out, to come to terms with it.

There is a sizable Hispanic community in my area, and due to the nature of what my employer does, a lot of Hispanic people where I work. Those folks are extremely anxious about what a Trump administration is going to mean.

There is a significant Muslim community in my area. Those people are extremely anxious about what a Trump administration is going to mean.

There is a sizable Jewish community in my area. Those folks watched Trump supporters chanting "Jew-S-A" at news people during a Trump rally, and are anxious about what a Trump administration is going to mean.

There is a sizable foreign student population in my area. Those people are all anxious about what a Trump administration is going to mean.

We have a lot of friends with young kids, who have frankly been frightened and disturbed by the hostile, xenophobic rhetoric of much of the Trump campaign. They are all anxious about what to tell their kids.

And go ahead Marty, or whoever, tell me your opinion of their parenting skills. Wait and see what I have to tell you in return.

My wife and I are committed members of a liberal church community in our area. We have a sizable gay membership, because they are welcome and not judged in our community. They are extremely anxious about what a Trump administration is going to mean for them.

Ask any black person what they think a Giuliani DOJ is going to mean for them.

Pretty much every woman I know, including my wife, is horrified at the prospect of a Trump administration.

There has been a lot of disturbing, unsettling, frightening rhetoric displayed during this election. And I'm not talking about "baskets of deplorables". A lot of people are frightened, and many of their fears are not irrational or without cause.

What I expect, or demand really, from Trump is that he will drop the race-baiting, misogynistic, abusive language and insist that his followers do the same.

What I expect and demand from all of his followers who have spent the last 18 months telling us all that they are not racists, not homophobes, not misogynists, is that they walk the walk.

Walk the f***ing walk, because there is no place in this country for that kind of shit. It is, in fact, deplorable, and I and a hell of a lot of people like me won't put up with it.

The "let's all get together" rhetoric is nice, and frankly, given the hostility that we've all been treated to for the last year and half, welcome.

But this is not just a white blue-collar nation. Nobody is going to be "taking their country back" from anybody, because those of us who don't fit the Trump demographic also live here.

More people voted against Trump than voted for him. And we're not going anywhere.

[Girl from the North Country]

OMG. I hope anybody with any influence on him can persuade him not to withdraw and go underground.

[russell]

NV, I think you're being a little harsh on sapient

As do I.

[wonkie]

I'm probably not as upset as others are over this because I have been expecting the worst for years.
Trump and the Rethugs will accellerate the processes, but the processes are there and I don't know that the Dems could have done anything to stop them or even mitigate them

I'm thinking of global climate change. Much of what I cherish will be gone soon: the Great Barrier Reef is dead, the mega fuana of Africa is being slaughtered, the orangutangs are losing her homes to palm oil, the migratgion routes of birds are screwed up, the boreal forests are dying of bug infestations.. . we are facing a depleted, debased ugly future.

And global change will cause huge economic dislocations. Millions of people displaced, millions of people losing their livlihoods. Humans do not adpt readily to change, especxailly fast change. Change leads to fear, fear leads to hate, hate leads to war. I have known all my life that global war was coming. Not necessarily nuclear war. That would be bad for business. But lots and lots of war

I don't think Terump will himself involve us in a war. I would not be surprised if he truns out to be an isolationist. And all he has to do to convice R base voters that he is strong an dpowerful is to say bellcose things on TV since one of the characteristics of R base voters is the inability to tell style from substance,

So what I am sayind is we are fucked anyway, Trump and the Repubicans take away any fope for the future because their contribution will be to accellerate the negative processes, but the processes were there anyway.

[Donald Johnson]

I was being constructive, sapient. I could say a few things too in a harsher spirit. In fact, all sorts of things and all of them valid, without ranting.

For instance, this is why it's not such a good idea to stigmatize voters. You can criticize policies and even politicians, but once you start blasting away at voters for their bad judgment (and yes, supporting Trump was extraordinarily bad judgment) and insisting that all of them are making this choice because they are bad people, you had better be damn sure you don't need some of their votes. One of the things about living in a democracy or really, anywhere, is that you notice that people all around you see things differently, sometimes very differently, on issues you consider of fundamental moral importance. You can assume that these other people are just evil, or you can try to understand their pov, wonder if there is any validity to it or at least to their reasons for thinking or voting the way they do. Or you can call them "deplorables" and mock the notion of empathy. You can just assume that because some are racists all are racists. You can assume that none of them are making lesser of two evil calculations of their own, but are just choosing the greater evil because they're evil. You can, in short, be utterly blind to the reality of living with people who think differently and call yourself a pragmatist all at the same time.

This is or should be pragmatic politics 101. I heard one commentator say that Trump won areas in the Rust Belt that Obama won in 2008 and 2012. Maybe by 2016 it was impossible to reach these people. I doubt it.

I am not sure it is helpful to go into all this now, so I tried for something constructive. I did see the LawyersGunsandMoney people this morning looking for scapegoats, so if we want to do that, maybe looking at people who doubled down on the "deplorable" angle would be a start. Clinton herself realized what a blunder that was. Not all her supporters did.

[Tony P.]

hairshirt: Do they compete to work for the interests of the middle class?

How would they do that? What is "the middle class" any more, and what does it want?

Let's stipulate that He, Trump could not have won had "the middle class" rejected him. By any traditional definition, "the middle class" includes a damn sight more than 50% of the population.

--TP

[cleek]

maybe looking at people who doubled down on the "deplorable" angle would be a start

bigotry is deplorable.

[wonkie]

That said, I have wondered if Trump will privot, make friends with Dems in Congess and form a coalition with them against the the Ayn Rand Republicans. He used to be a democrat and he did run as the savior of the working class.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

he attacked, shallowly.

I don't make "You have nothing constructive to add! Come back when you have concrete, constructive alternatives, or shut up already!" into a mantra. So it's not particularly damning for me to act contrary to that line of reasoning.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

bigotry is deplorable.

It is, yes. Whether it's based on sex, race, religion, class, regionalism, or education, it's deplorable.

[wonkie]

I think that Hillary may have lost because of the deplorables remark. That is the kind of thing that one can think and believe but while running fro office it should not be said.

I also thought throughout the campaign that it was not wise and possibly was not accurate to label Trup voters as racist. That's not good politics if yiu want their votes. Also they do not recognize themselves as racist so it doesn't communicate anything to say that to them.

I have hundreds of FB friends due to being involved in dog rescue and the majority of them are Trump supporters. Are they racist/ Not in the sense of dislking an black person they are acquainted with. Not in the since of wanting a return to Jim Corw. But yes in the sense that they voted for Trump in hopes that he would build his base up economically by putting others down. They also are hooked into the Goebbells network and have fallen hook line and sinker for Republican hate mongering. So how to communicate with them? Well calling them racists didn't work. NOt an effective political tactic.

I am still FB friends with all of them. I never shared any posts that called Trump a racist oer his supporters racist. I did share links to articles about him stiffin creditors, RICO trial and that sort of thing and I also debunked rightwing lies with links to legitimate news sources.

I thiknk the commonality of my rightwing FB friends is a failure of citizen ship at least as I understand it. But I never said that to anyone of them.

[Donald Johnson]

Bigotry is deplorable, but people resenting what has happened to their community because of trade policy is not, and Trump won some votes that way. He might have won enough to win the election that way.

[Tony P.]

NV,

Stop. If you keep trying to equate Hillary Clinton with He, Trump on the "bigotry" scale you will make yourself look like an ass.

--TP

[cleek]

but people resenting what has happened to their community because of trade policy is not,

Clinton wasn't talking about trade policy. she was talking about bigotry:

You know, just to be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable. But thankfully they are not America.

[Ugh]

Saw on tweet that the campaign to paint Romney as the outsourcer in chief in 2012 must have been pretty effective.

[MckinneyTexas]

Markets seem ok. Assuming appt of responsible conservatives to the bench and no more tax increases and no non-essential wars, my minimal expectations from a nominal righty are met. I anticipate peripheral tweaks on the regulatory side. The main thing will be an end to pourous borders. That has majority support.

[hairshirthedonist]

How would they do that? What is "the middle class" any more, and what does it want?

Let's stipulate that He, Trump could not have won had "the middle class" rejected him. By any traditional definition, "the middle class" includes a damn sight more than 50% of the population.

I should have used "working class," though you might well ask the same questions either way. Generally, they want to prosper economically, possibly while believing no one, particularly the government, did anything to help them.

[sapient]

I hope so much that the count doesn't leave for good. I myself will try to take a break. I appreciate people's patience with my bad mood today, and generally when I've thought of the prospect of today.

I didn't say it nicely, Donald, but private groups like the ACLU and [pick your environmental group] depend on government to function: the courts to enforce laws fairly, the legislature to create those laws, regulatory agencies who use experts to implement and enforce policies. You know, a functioning and stable "establishment". Best wishes trying to get things done without that. I'm all for your trying, because I want a better world too.

[hairshirthedonist]

The main thing will be an end to pourous borders.

Not if the Peso and the Mexican economy tank.

[cleek]

an end to pourous borders.

get used to expensive produce!

so much win.

[Girl from the North Country]

I hope so much that the count doesn't leave for good

Ditto, ditto, ditto.

[Ugh]

Mckinney: Assuming appt of responsible conservatives to the bench and no more tax increases and no non-essential wars, my minimal expectations from a nominal righty are met. I anticipate peripheral tweaks on the regulatory side.

Of Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Roberts, which are "responsible conservatives"? And if you don't mind can you rank your preference among them from most favorite to least? I'm genuinely curious.

On the tax front - what I know most about - the chances of "tax reform" passing just went way way up. I scare quote it because I'm not sure it's going to so much be "reform" as it's going to be a massive tax cut for the wealthy and business disguised as such. You may see some groups get a tax increase (like those benefiting from the carried interest loophole, although I wouldn't bet on it). This will massively balloon the deficit.

I think you'll be disappointed on the nonessential war front, but I hope not.

I don't know enough about the Administrative Procedures Act to guess how much regulatory roll back there will be, but if there's room to do it legally (and maybe if not) I'm sure there will be lots of it. And lots of plain just not enforcing the current rules/laws.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

Stop. If you keep trying to equate Hillary Clinton with He, Trump on the "bigotry" scale you will make yourself look like an ass.

You miss the point. By a wide mark. I should probably just leave this subject to Donald Johnson, as he's (surprise, surprise!) doing a better job of articulating it than me. But I'll take a last stab. The point isn't equivalence. The point is that wide-brush, lazy-but-satisfying attacks on the moral character of vaguely defined swathes of your political opponents are not a good idea unless you can really, truly do without them forever, because you're always going to insult more people than the most narrow construable understanding of your insults. And this is a feature, not a bug, because a lot of Nice Respectable Liberals are elitist a$$es who view politics as a team sport and get off on demeaning and condescending to the "other team". Do lots of conservatives mirror this outlook? Ofc. Does that in any way, shape, or form make the NRLs doing it anything but pompous, bigoted a$$holes? It really doesn't. They e.g. may not be racists, but they're still divisive (typically classist) a$$holes, and they're still doing their political opponents a favor by embodying culture-war caricatures. Sneering and spitting on ill-defined "deplorables" is stupid because you're not decrying bigotry, you're decrying a poorly-defined and conveniently-fungible collection of people who will necessarily include more people than just the bigots (unless we just assume they're all bigots, which is easy and satisfying, but really quite dumb). So sure, bigotry is deplorable. That's a lazy observation. If you want to decry it, decry it... don't decry loosely-defined groups of people who may or may not be bigots depending on how you define group membership (especially if you pointedly don't define group membership). It may feel good to tell ourselves that this is an existential struggle between us the morally upright and them the fundamentally corrupt, but it's stupid, lazy, simplistic, and more than a little self-sabotaging.

[MckinneyTexas]

Kennedy for sure. I'm generally fine w Roberts. The others generally are more doctrinaire than I prefer, but that is true in spades for the liberal wing. And I default conservative if the option is doctrinaire liberal.

PS--I did not vote for Trump.

[Girl from the North Country]

the main thing will be an end to porous borders

McKinney, all your minimal expectations apply only to the US, understandably, and leaving out any lefty considerations of the effects on different races, poorer people etc in the US, also understandably, since as you say you are a righty. But what about the effect on the wider world? What about the emboldening of Putin (who I now read has footage of Trump at an orgy with which to blackmail him, although I'm guessing it wouldn't do him any harm if revealed), the possible/probable weakening of NATO, the emboldening of Marine Le Pen and other fascist parties in Europe? I know you weren't for Trump, but do you, personally, think all this is worth risking in return for a (proposed, but difficult to achieve) closing of US borders and a right wing SCOTUS?

[Ugh]

Thanks McKinney, and I know you didn't.

Separately, I'm not going to be surprised at all if Trump's approach to court orders/injunctions is of the "let him enforce it" variety.

[MckinneyTexas]

Bravo NV. I may plagiarize this and use it on the smug assholes denouncing those of us who opposed Trump. BTW, and for context, the assholes I'm referring to make the back and forth here look like patty cake.

[MckinneyTexas]

GFTNC--I will reply when I get to a laptop. I'm using an iPhone right now. Very awkward. Good question. I want to answer.

[hairshirthedonist]

But I'll take a last stab.

Your stab was clear enough to me, FWIW. And I think you (and Donald and wonkie) have a point.

I have tons of friends who are Trump supporters and who are not overtly, consciously, or self-identified racists. They may not be particularly enlightened about or open to concepts like white privilege and may not recognize the scope of the racism that continues to exist in this country, but they sure as hell don't go around actively hating on minorities or generally endorsing racism.

It's not the highest bar, but, like you and others have said, pointing out whatever shortcomings you might think they have on that front by calling them racists isn't going to help.

[cleek]

don't decry loosely-defined groups of people who may or may not be bigots depending on how you define group membership

group membership is clearly defined:

The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic 

[Girl from the North Country]

Thanks McKinney. By the way, when you do reply, I did not mean to imply that as a righty you have no concern for the plight of the American poor and other vulnerable ethnic groups, just that your concern will naturally be of a completely different type, with completely different desired solutions, from the concern of most of the liberals (myself included) on this site.

[MckinneyTexas]

GFTNC, understood. No issues.

[hairshirthedonist]

group membership is clearly defined:

It may be to you. But that doesn't make it politically wise, because it may be far less clear to people who assume you're including them in those categories, even if you're not.

[cleek]

people who assume you're including them in those categories, even if you're not

how does that work?

if you're not in one of the groups she mentioned, you're not in the overall group. by what magic does a person include herself in a group without being a member of one the subgroups?

[hairshirthedonist]

She doesn't include herself. She assumes you're including her.

[cleek]

is she a racist?

[hairshirthedonist]

Not necessarily. Or not especially so, if you think almost everyone is racist to some degree or other.

Is it really that difficult to accept that people take things personally that may not have been directed at them?

I don't think Clinton was even trying to say what many people have criticized her for, but it was still unnecessary and self-defeating politically.

[bc]

End of representative government? An unhinged judiciary? Bigotry run rampant? The end of the world as we know it? Fascists in Europe and now America? Nah. I don't remember a similar reaction from the right on this blog when the roles were reversed eight years ago. I remember saying I was proud of the country for electing a black president. I just didn't like THIS particular man for his political persuasions. And I still don't. But I'm still proud.

What russell said. And NV at 2:01.

How much of this result was due to appeal to bigotry? IMHO, not much. Rejection of HRC and DC? Huge. There were many that voted "not HRC." Would a mainstream R candidate of won? That is an interesting question. On the one hand, I want to say the HRC was undoubtedly a horrible candidate to lose to the Donald, but maybe the rejection of all things Washington was really the biggest factor here.

I hate polls. I'd actually be in favor of outlawing them. Polls get us away from policy discussions and into group think. All those stories about her data wizards look silly now.

One burning question I have: How much do you think HRC will get per speech now?

[Nigel]

Love ya, russell.
And what Donald & wonkie said.

[Girl from the North Country]

Bigotry run rampant? The end of the world as we know it? Fascists in Europe and now America? Nah. I don't remember a similar reaction from the right on this blog when the roles were reversed eight years ago.

Comparing Trump to Obama is ridiculous, whatever your political persuasion. Trump has openly made many bigoted statements, has been ecstatically endorsed by the KKK and fascist, anti-semitic white supremacist movements in the US, and was enthusiastically endorsed by the Front National in France, to name but a few of his appalling well-wishers. Not to mention the whole Russian connection. Why do you suppose all these people are so keen on him? Is it his pretty golden hair?

You may not have liked Obama, or what he stood for, but what FFS about Obama compared to all of this? As far as HRC's speaking fees are concerned, I imagine she'll get tons, as do many ex-pols, ex-officials and celebrities. So what?

[cleek]

Not necessarily. Or not especially so, if you think almost everyone is racist to some degree or other.

this is strange...

when people talk about someone being a racist, they are talking about someone who is a racist. and Clinton was talking about racists. she wasn't trying to split hairs, she was talking about "white supremacists" (her words). she was talking about Trump actual supporters - the actual white supremacists who championed him! and she was talking about people who harass LGBT people, and people who want to overturn gay marriage laws, and Pence's no-gay-cakes bill, and people who support the NC bathroom bill. and she was talking about Trump's 'wall'.

context.

and here's the very next paragraph, follow the one i quoted above:

But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

here's the full speech.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-transcript-clinton-s-full-remarks-as-1473549076-htmlstory.html

there she goes, doing that thing everybody wishes she'd done.

Is it really that difficult to accept that people take things personally that may not have been directed at them?

no it's not. but don't you then have to assume that those people were probably misinformed? because if you take offense at being called something you weren't actually called, then you have missed a step somewhere.

but it was still unnecessary and self-defeating politically.

no, it wasn't the best way to phrase the sentiment. but i don't know how much it hurt her (literally - i'd like to see some polling).

[Donald Johnson]

The long knives are coming out in the liberal press. About freaking time, after all the BS.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/the_democratic_party_establishment_is_finished_after_trump.html

[bobbyp]

Well, I'm going to breath deeply and stay calm while nursing a monstrous hangover today....and fully intend to patiently watch as the Trump transition unfolds.

Will he build a wall? Will he start a war? Will he round up and deport all those 'illegals'?

I don't think so...but if you are a liberal there are some very disturbing things to consider:

this and this, for example.

Anybody have some aspirin?

[hairshirthedonist]

but don't you then have to assume that those people were probably misinformed? because if you take offense at being called something you weren't actually called, then you have missed a step somewhere.

Yes!

That aside, you don't have to explain the context to me. That's why I wrote that I don't even think she was saying what people were accusing her of saying. I'm sure you can find an exchange between me and Marty just after she said it where I go into detail about it. I still think her point was very nearly the opposite of what many taking it as.

but i don't know how much it hurt her

I don't, either. But I'm pretty damned sure that, at best, it didn't help.

[Donald Johnson]

Don't worry about it sapient. We're always going to be at each other's throats.

BTW, I felt horrible last night and this morning, probably almost as bad as you did. I actually had to take a couple of Tums for my stomach. I have literally never in my life been so upset my stomach hurt. Probably age too, but still, it was a first time.

Right now, though, I am starting to get a little frustrated. It's the reaction after the shock.

As for positive actions, I really don't know short term what to do--private charities and organizations can do something, I think. Change minds, defend people's rights in courts. Not all judges are jerks and even some conservative judges will, presumably, be outraged if Trump goes too far. Not that I would count on that. On environmental issues, we need to get the public on our side and that would presumably mean giving money to environmental organizations. But sure, it won't help much if sensible people aren't in office.

[hairshirthedonist]

And, really, it's not all about that one statement by HRC. It's about how people generally approach people they disagree with, especially as it applies to furthering an inclusive agenda without shooting yourself in the foot.

[cleek]

yeah, yeah.

Newell is an idiot. doesn't even know how primaries work.

And yet they worked giddily to clear the field for her.

this conspiratorial nonsense really has to stop. no field was cleared for her. running is voluntary, and people volunteered. did Sanders not make her work for it? how could he have done that if the field was "cleared"? the fact that she won, that she was more was popular with the Democratic Party's base than all the others doesn't mean it was a set-up. it means her party likes her.

Newell is gloating on the backs of those who are about to get asphyxiated by Trump EPA. and he's a fool.

[hairshirthedonist]

But sure, it won't help much if sensible people aren't in office.

Isn't part of the point of what you're suggesting getting those people into office, though?

[cleek]

specially as it applies to furthering an inclusive agenda without shooting yourself in the foot.

that seems hard, if you can't call out racists for being racists without running the risk of offending racists who take offense at being called racist!

racists.

[Donald Johnson]

Yes, it is. The idea is that the environmental groups might be able to persuade people. It's depressing this still has to be done, but obviously it does.

Cleek--I don't know much about Newell (nothing, actually) and I saw that link somewhere else. And I agree that Clinton won the primaries. Though with the entire party lined up behind her and a constant barrage of media people saying that Bernie didn't know what he was talking about, didn't have her experience, wasn't vetted, etc.... One doesn't have to sign up with Bernie again. I don't think he was the ideal candidate either and getting too fixated on a particular candidate is probably a mistake. But the Party failed miserably and if Democrats aren't willing to look at their own failings we might not win things back in 2020. Or in the midterms.

[hairshirthedonist]

that seems hard, if you can't call out racists for being racists without running the risk of offending racists who take offense at being called racist!

That's not the problem. It's making non-racists think you're calling them racists. If you said, "Those KKK members who are endorsing Trump are racists and he should denounce them immediately," I don't think many non-racist Trump supporters would think you were talking about them.

Or in the midterms.

Let's assume Trump's first 2 years are bad enough that the Democrats take back both chambers of congress. What would Trump, the chameleon that he is, do? Would he go along with an agenda that Democrats could support just so he could continue to "win"?

[cleek]

But the Party failed miserably

the Dems actually picked up House and Senate seats. not enough, but a gain is an impressive feat while also losing the Presidency.

it's looking like NC's ridiculous GOP gov is out, too.

losing the WH to Trump is an embarrassing and truly horrendous failure. and Clinton turned out to be far weaker than anyone had predicted (though, this time yesterday nobody knew just how wrong those predictions were). but there will be more elections, and the Clintons won't be involved in any of them.

[cleek]

It's making non-racists think you're calling them racists.

but again, she didn't do that. if non-racists believe that, then they believe something that isn't true. her phrasing certainly helped the misunderstanding. but the real cause is that the GOP twisted what she actually said. no?

[hairshirthedonist]

but the real cause is that the GOP twisted what she actually said. no?

Maybe. Don't give them the ammo.

[cleek]

always a good plan.

[sapient]

Don't give them the ammo.

Maybe what she said lost her the election, and if so, a real shame. People also complain that Hillary was too calculating, and too staged. Do you see that the only people that we have to tiptoe around are [those who see themselves being called out as] haters?

But it's interesting that none of the litany of "politically incorrect" things that Donald Trump said lost him the election with those very same people. His people voted for him in droves notwithstanding his comments. None of the women seemed to include themselves in his categories of ugly pigs, and I didn't hear a lot of his supporters thinking of themselves as 400 pound people sitting on a bed. Nor did I hear anyone suggesting that the people who were the subjects of those insults needed "empathy".

Maybe there's something about those supporters that is just difficult to appeal to if you're a decent human being.

[Sebastian H]

The racist thing is an analytic dead end so far as this election goes. In the key rust belt states that Clinton lost, Obama won.

The actual black man won there when running for President.

These people may or may not meet some textbook definition of 'racism' based on their inability to understand or their unwillingness to prioritize systemic racism, but they aren't so racist as to be beyond the reach of the Democratic Party as is directly evidenced by their votes for the Black Democratic Party Representative as recently as four years ago.

I'm not sure I can adequately explain why the Democratic Party did in fact lose those people. But 'racism' is not likely to be a good explanation. It feels like a comfortably non-self reflective explanation.

[russell]

I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with NV at 2:01. And with hairshirt's argument that Clinton's "deplorables" comment was an act of political folly. And, with cleek throughout the thread.

Yes, there are a lot of entitled liberal assholes who look down their noses at people who don't meet their standards for general cultural sophistication.

Yes, it was stupid for Clinton to use the language she used to make the point she made.

And yes, there is no shortage of racists, xenophobes, Islamophobes, homophobes, misogynists, and "alt-right" white supremacists among Trump's supporters.

All of those things are true.

For the record, I'll also note that it was folly for Trump to disparage the family of Humayun Khan, and to accuse a federal judge of being incapable of treating him fairly because of his Mexican heritage, and to speculate about whether Megyn Kelly's menstrual cycle was the reason for her asking him sharp questions.

Who on this thread is standing up for the offended dignity of Muslims, Hispanics, and women? Anyone?

If we're going to be candid about this stuff, let's be candid about all of it, please.

Trump won, Clinton lost. Could be that her comments about "deplorables" helped her lose.

Nonetheless, it's worth pointing out that all of those attitudes exist in this country, that they are not hard to find among Trump's supporters, and that they are all unacceptable.

For those folks who think that a Trump administration gives them license to exercise their bigotry - and those people exist - they will find that they are mistaken.

More people voted against Trump than voted for him. Neither I nor anyone I know is going to put up with that bullshit.

If that gets up anybody's nose, I'm offering no apologies.

As far as bobbyp's links about the EPA and the SCOTUS, yes, any hope of advancing a progressive agenda in any of those areas is dead in the water for the forseeable future.

The consequences will be whatever they are. Mostly, they will suck. I doubt that folks on the conservative spectrum will be open to the idea that they bear any responsibility for any of that.

So it goes.

[russell]

sapient beat me to it.

[hairshirthedonist]

Maybe what she said lost her the election, and if so, a real shame.

Again, it's not simply about that one comment. It's also not that I think it was some horrible (or horribly stupid, politically) thing to say. It's just a very high-profile example that serves as a cautionary tale.

Sometimes politics is about tip-toeing. I wouldn't say it lost her the election. It wasn't that big of a deal, IMO. It just shows how being imprecise about this stuff can go wrong.

[Girl from the North Country]

Who on this thread is standing up for the offended dignity of Muslims, Hispanics, and women? Anyone?

Almost everyone, as far as I can make out. It just seems to be easier to pile in on Hillary and the Dems, to apportion blame about what went wrong and who did it.

[McKinneyTexas]

But what about the effect on the wider world?

The world is pretty buggered up already and Obama/Clinton can take their share of credit. They are the ones who hit the reset button with Russia, for example. The PRC and Russia are pushing the envelope at every opportunity, without meaningful response.

That said, I didn't stick the "non-essential" war thing in there for nothing. If he acts out his hotheadedness and the shooting starts, he should be impeached.

What about the emboldening of Putin (who I now read has footage of Trump at an orgy with which to blackmail him, although I'm guessing it wouldn't do him any harm if revealed), the possible/probable weakening of NATO, the emboldening of Marine Le Pen and other fascist parties in Europe?

Emboldening of Putin begins with Obama who, as you may recall, assured Putin that, after the election, he'd accommodate on anti-missiles in Poland. Very brave and very foresightful.

Further, if Trump halts Obama's unilateral reductions in conventional weapons, he will make NATO stronger, not weaker. He may be an idiot, but not all of his instincts are wrong.

As for the anti-immigrant, nationalists in Europe, that isn't the result of Trump, it's the result of tone deaf, 'we know better than you' EU elitists telling the hoi poloi to shut up, we'll bring in all the Syrian refugees we want and quit whining about the crime.

All cultures are not the same and Syrian muslims are anything but enlightened. To say the least. EU and US left'ish leaders and thinkers see value in any form of multiculturalism and cannot distinguish a compatible from a non-compatible culture. We don't blend well with head hunters, cannibals and religious/cultural products of the 9th Century. We don't and saying so isn't racist. Islam is not a race. It is a religion and it is one that tends to produce a fairly illiberal society/culture as what appears to be a natural byproduct.

I know you weren't for Trump, but do you, personally, think all this is worth risking in return for a (proposed, but difficult to achieve) closing of US borders and a right wing SCOTUS?

The primary Trump risk for me is a war, or a series of stupid military encounters that are non-essential or otherwise unjustified, e.g. attritting ISIS isn't essential, but it is fully justified. If he avoids that, roles back Obama's stupid meddling in how college kids screw and who gets to use what bathroom, let's pipeline construction go forward and other no-brainer economic moves, I'm mainly put off by the damage he is likely to do to conservatism. Plus, he's an unmitigated POS, but that's history now that he's won.

And since y'all were too shy to ask, here's my take on some of the stuff the left does wrong:

1. Do not, if your candidate is married to Bill Clinton, carry on like hysterics over the fact that someone else is a misogynistic, assaultive, sexual preditor. Everyone notices the hypocrisy. BC was DT's get out of jail card.

2. HRC's tears for DT's victiims sounded so totally hypocritical and insincere, it is only those who've already internalized and disregarded BC's BS who don't see this.

3. Even if HRC didn't expressly state that all conservatives and Republicans and Trump supporters are racist, gun loving, sexist, homophobic rubes who hold women down, her surrogates do. All day, every day. And, you see a lot of that right here at ObWi. It's ubiquitous on the left. Not only is it insulting as hell, it comes across as the worst kind of moral preening. The vocal left is anything but modest. It wears its moral certitude like Paul Ryan wears his flag lapel. Hint: it's wearing a little thin.

4. Quit whining about voter suppression and taking HRC out of context. Voter ID laws aren't that big of a deal and it isn't etched in stone that states must allow X days of early voting.

5. Wanting border control is not racist. Uplifting people who've been here a long time (my bright line is 5 years) and sending them home is not going to happen, but cutting off any more illegal immigration is not racist, nor is sending home those who've recently arrived illegally. Even if the price of lettuce goes up. Lefties decry the lack of jobs and then bring in a couple million people who will do what jobs there are for less. Feel free to quote some academic who did a study that shows this isn't right. Only those already on board buy into that.

6. Do not whine about nullification and embrace sanctuary cities. The hypocrisy is palpable.

7. Do not presume bad faith in your opposition, even if Trump is an asshole.

I said not too long ago, only DT makes it possible for HRC to win and vice versa. Conventional wisdom validates the moderate left's worldview and the moderate left has adopted, or at least, tolerates/enables the SJ left. The SJ left is the single largest obstacle to liberal progress.

Back to work.

[GailVortex]

I don't know if the more moderate tone of the victory speech is the new Trump

It sounded to me like someone on his staff Googled "campaign victory speech" and then added in some Oscars-type thank yous, given how disconnected it seemed from anything he said while campaigning.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

group membership is clearly defined:

The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic 

Is it? Is it really?

For every potential deplorable, there are three definitions in play for each one of those "clearly defined" groups.

There's what YOU mean by the term. The possibly-deplorable does not and cannot know this unless you specify it. Clinton absolutely did not do so.

There's what THEY mean by the term. You don't know this, and it may or may not be the same as your definition. If it's not the same, though, that doesn't mean it's wrong. It means that you're using different political jargon than them.

Finally, and most importantly, there's what THEY think YOU mean by the term. You don't know what this is, but it's a safe bet that in many, many cases it's going to be wrong. Unless you refuse to assume everyone else is using language exactly like you do, this is pretty much inevitable given how much subcultures' political language is diverging.

...we're not to the point of mutually unintelligible political dialects, but we're moving in that direction. And we're far enough along that different groups mean different things by those "clearly defined" terms in question. Which makes them not-particularly-clearly-defined if you don't go to the trouble of being specific. Throwing out the terms by themselves might be fine for intragroup communication, but it's a pretty damned sure way to miscommunicate outside of your tribe.