Support NeoGAF

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Pretty much, it was that kind of election. You can point to pretty much anything and say, "If this thing had been different Trump wouldn't have won."

It's why I don't think mocking the >99% victory projections is particularly worthwhile. OK, maybe it wasn't THAT in the bag, but certainly Upshot's hovering around 80 or 90% seems believable. It was a black swan event.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

2020 is going to be scary. We're going to be flying blind the entire time, since polls and models will have been so wrong in 2016, how could we possibly trust them.

 

[Retromelon]

Already there. The fact that Trump won means the US is weak and unstable - If people laughed at Obama's line in the sand, they're going to piss themselves with laughter at Trump trying to be strong.

Trump will commit ground forces as soon as some village magistrate in Iran says he has a small dick

 

[Pyrokai]

Every morning I wake up and wish Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy good health for years to come.

 

[mo60]

2020 is going to be scary. We're going to be flying blind the entire time, since polls and models will have been so wrong in 2016, how could we possibly trust them.

They will probably be more accurate in 2020.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

They will probably be more accourate in 2020.

How so? They've been getting worse and worse every election.

 

[Lucky Forward]

Texas Elector Resigns: Trump Is Not Qualified And I Cannot Vote For Him

"I do not see how Donald Trump is biblically qualified to serve in the office of the Presidency. Of the hundreds of angry messages that I have received, not one has made a convincing case from scripture otherwise," he wrote on his blog "The Blessed Path."

"Since I can’t in good conscience vote for Donald Trump, and yet have sinfully made a pledge that I would, the best option I see at this time is to resign my position as an Elector," Sisneros continued. "This will allow the remaining body of Electors to fill my vacancy when they convene on Dec 19 with someone that can vote for Trump. The people will get their vote. They will get their Skittles for dinner. I will sleep well at night knowing I neither gave in to their demands nor caved to my convictions. I will also mourn the loss of our republic."

 

[Pixieking]

Trump will commit ground forces as soon as some village magistrate in Iran says he has a small dick

The US has no taste for a "worthy" war - if it did, it'd be in Syria, which is as bad a humanitarian situation as Kosovo/The Balkans in the '90s. Obama tends towards pacifism, sure, but public opinion is to not push to far into situations which aren't immediately related to the US.

So, in that situation - and being publicly against the Iraq War - how does Trump justify doing anything militarily?

Hillary would've been different. More hawkish than Obama, she wanted to do more in Syria, and would've been very willing to push Congress for military action in Syria. She would've framed it as an humanitarian crisis, and maybe pushed UN Peacekeepers there, if she couldn't do US military.

But Trump? He's outright said he doesn't give a fuck about refugees, and wants out of NATO. He has no influence militarily - he doesn't want to personally and he has no moral standing.

 

[Wilsongt]

Texas Elector Resigns: Trump Is Not Qualified And I Cannot Vote For Him

Geeze.

Looks like Trump pissed Kellyanne off, lol. Good.

 

[Pyrokai]

Texas Elector Resigns: Trump Is Not Qualified And I Cannot Vote For Him

He should have stayed on and voted for someone other than Trump.

 

[kirblar]

Texas Elector Resigns: Trump Is Not Qualified And I Cannot Vote For Him

Oh look, more people actually refusing to take actual action against him.

 

[pigeon]

The US has no taste for a "worthy" war - if it did, it'd be in Syria, which is as bad a humanitarian situation as Kosovo/The Balkans in the '90s. Obama tends towards pacifism, sure, but public opinion is to not push to far into situations which aren't immediately related to the US.

So, in that situation - and being publicly against the Iraq War - how does Trump justify doing anything militarily?

Hillary would've been different. More hawkish than Obama, she wanted to do more in Syria, and would've been very willing to push Congress for military action in Syria. She would've framed it as an humanitarian crisis, and maybe pushed UN Peacekeepers there, if she couldn't do US military.

But Trump? He's outright said he doesn't give a fuck about refugees, and wants out of NATO. He has no influence militarily - he doesn't want to personally and he has no moral standing.

It's not that Trump doesn't want to take military actions. It's that he doesn't consider them interesting or important.

Think about that for a while and then ask yourself whether we'll go to war in the next four years.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

2020 is going to be scary. We're going to be flying blind the entire time, since polls and models will have been so wrong in 2016, how could we possibly trust them.

The polls weren't that far off though. The final average was Clinton +3 and she's going to win by 2 points or so. People just weren't aware of how the urban / rural divergence would impact rust belt states.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

2020 is going to be scary. We're going to be flying blind the entire time, since polls and models will have been so wrong in 2016, how could we possibly trust them.

there were also polls that had it at a dead heat, what polls people chose to follow is another issue

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

There's been a couple of hot takes out there saying that had Jon not left the Daily Show when he did that he could have made something stick to Trump or forced the media into giving his shit real coverage, but even if you do believe that it's just a way of absolving the rest of the media for not doing their job right in the first place.

I mean, it's not like Trump being one of the most awful people to run for office for an endless amount of reasons was a secret, or something. I would've liked Jon to last another year but not because I was expecting him to be the last bastion against what happened on the 8th.

 

[Pixieking]

It's not that Trump doesn't want to take military actions. It's that he doesn't consider them interesting or important.

Think about that for a while and then ask yourself whether we'll go to war in the next four years.

Hmmm... I think I stand by what I said, for the most part. Even if Trump deems a war interesting or important, he's going to be caught between a rock (his absolute need to be loved) and a hard place (his desire to go to war). And his need to be loved is going to win out. The only way a war occurs is if a 9/11 incident happens, and the far-right/alt-right have so wound themselves into the fabric of society that they create a groundswell of anti-foreign and pro-war support. And if that has happened, I'd be willing to bet on civil unrest against minorities/POC more than a war on foreign soil.

 

[B-Dubs]

I mean, it's not like Trump being one of the most awful people to run for office for an endless amount of reasons was a secret, or something. I would've liked Jon to last another year but not because I was expecting him to be the last bastion against what happened on the 8th.

I was just pointing out that particular hot take was nothing new.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

there were also polls that had it at a dead heat, what polls people chose to follow is another issue

But in state polls? PA polls were like double digits off.

 

[Blader]

The US has no taste for a "worthy" war - if it did, it'd be in Syria, which is as bad a humanitarian situation as Kosovo/The Balkans in the '90s. Obama tends towards pacifism, sure, but public opinion is to not push to far into situations which aren't immediately related to the US.

So, in that situation - and being publicly against the Iraq War - how does Trump justify doing anything militarily?

Hillary would've been different. More hawkish than Obama, she wanted to do more in Syria, and would've been very willing to push Congress for military action in Syria. She would've framed it as an humanitarian crisis, and maybe pushed UN Peacekeepers there, if she couldn't do US military.

But Trump? He's outright said he doesn't give a fuck about refugees, and wants out of NATO. He has no influence militarily - he doesn't want to personally and he has no moral standing.

Trump is a pathological liar and his followers will do anything he says, no matter what. If he tells them war in Iran is necessary now, and especially if he blames it on the failures of Obama/Hillary/the Iran deal, then he will do it and his voters will go along with it.

These are the same people who spent months cheering "Lock her up" and called for Hillary to be killed, and then on Election Night, cheered along when Trump said we owe her a great debt of gratitude for her service. These are the same people who harshly criticized Hillary for daring to propose paid family leave, and then were so excited at the RNC when Ivanka called for paid family leave. There is little "justifying" necessary in any of this; they are brainless dopes who will fucking go along with anything he says.

 

[whyamihere]

But in state polls? PA polls were like double digits off.

Yeah. This is a huge problem heading into 18 and 20. I would've been much more... I don't know, level headed???? if we had headed into election night showing a tight race in PA/MI/WI.

 

[Pixieking]

Trump is a pathological liar and his followers will do anything he says, no matter what. If he tells them war in Iran is necessary now, and especially if he blames it on the failures of Obama/Hillary/the Iran deal, then he will do it and his voters will go along with it.

These are the same people who spent months cheering "Lock her up" and called for Hillary to be killed, and then on Election Night, cheered along when Trump said we owe her a great debt of gratitude for her service. These are the same people who harshly criticized Hillary for daring to propose paid family leave, and then were so excited at the RNC when Ivanka called for paid family leave. There is little "justifying" necessary in any of this; they are brainless dopes who will fucking go along with anything he says.

But it's not just Trump supporters he has to deal with. Look at his absolutely moronic tweet about how he'd have won the popular vote were it not for the illegals voting. He cares what everyone thinks - he has a pathological need to be loved and liked by everyone. Bearing that in mind, do you think he'll get into an unpopular war? Oh, he might ask Congress to approve military action, but the GOP are so against that (most of the time), they almost-certainly won't go for it. Which also gives him an out for if his supporters want a war.

 

[Blader]

But it's not just Trump supporters he has to deal with. Look at his absolutely moronic tweet about how he'd have won the popular vote were it not for the illegals voting. He cares what everyone thinks - he has a pathological need to be loved and liked by everyone. Bearing that in mind, do you think he'll get into an unpopular war? Oh, he might ask Congress to approve military action, but the GOP are so against that (most of the time), they almost-certainly won't go for it. Which also gives him an out for if his supporters want a war.

Trump's need to be liked by everyone seems to operate on a different mental level from his policy faculties. Maybe this is because he is a moron and impressionable with whomever the last person he spoke to happens to be. If Trump were actually that concerned about needing to be loved by everyone, he wouldn't be stacking his cabinet with far-right radical ideologues and general lunatics whose rhetoric and policy prescriptions appeal to, statistically, a minority of Americans. He doesn't seem to understand or care about that.

I understand what you're saying, I just don't think Trump is going to think twice about a war with Iran because the Times, WaPo, et al. begin criticizing the possibility of military action or highlighting Trump's hypocrisy on it.

 

[dramatis]

While I am very far left, I consider myself a pragmatist. While I'm eager to push policies leftward, and support and join progressive causes, I believe more so in doing the option that is most likely to get results. I'm a believer in being loud, and visible and aggressive, and having the appearance of being uncompromising, but I am not actually against compromise. Government as an entity is a compromise by design. I didn't consider myself anti-establishment until the establishment started failing to get results. You talk about how Pelosi and Schumer get the dollars needed to invest in and win elections, but here's the thing; they aren't winning elections. That's my problem.

If democrats had control over the federal government, and we were getting policies like family leave, mandatory paid sick leave, police and criminal justice reform, increased minimum wage and other progressive issues I'd still be bitching about not having medicare for all. But I wouldn't be calling the democratic party a complete failure. Because it factually wouldn't be.

The democratic party has become a complete failure. It's failed electorally on every front.

If Bernie Sanders can out fundraise Hillary Clinton by the end of the primary entirely through small donations, I find having a traditional donor class to be obsolete and counter productive. While Clinton might have out raised Trump this time, when you look at the party as a whole and most of their candidates you are fighting on Republican's terms when you do that. You're never going to out big business Republicans so when you let them frame the fight that way it makes you more likely to lose. Worse, it fundamentally undermines your ability represent the workers and middle class and when are so closely tied to private and business interests that actively oppose workers and their needs. Those donors are the ones lobbying the democrats to not raise the minimum wage. Those donors are the ones lobbying against getting money out of politics.

The fixation on the top of the ticket, thinking that because Sanders can raise lots of money on the nationwide scale of presidential elections, is a poor comparison to what Pelosi and Schumer do, which is the unglamourous work of fundraising to help the unknowns on the down ballot. Unknowns in small races cannot do what Sanders did, because the crowd that enthusiastically supported Sanders doesn't care. These unknowns are the people who will have to be Blue Dogs, which makes them too impure for the people who donated to Sanders. No, the imperfect down ticket candidates won't be able to fundraise like Sanders can, which is why Pelosi and Schumer are needed.

Hillary's campaign cooperated with the DNC very early on to help fundraise for the downticket. Aside from being late to support Democratic candidates, Sanders selectively chose to reward those who supported him, or in opposition to the foes he disliked, rather than distributing his assistance strategically to races that could have used some of his money. The people he supported lost. In summation, he is no more successful than Pelosi or Schumer; in fact, they are more successful than Sanders, given that we did actually pick up a few House seats and keep and win a few Senate seats. So that logic doesn't work either, and worse yet, Sanders exposed himself to be prone to nepotism.

Name to me the donors to the Democratic party lobbying against minimum wage, and how they have managed to stop the Democratic party from implementing increases across the country. Andrew Cuomo, who you seem to spite so much, signed a plan to increase minimum wage to $15 in NY; as another poster noted, Cuomo implemented exactly those things you are promoting, yet for some reason you hate Cuomo, who you don't know, whose state you are not in, and are neither a beneficiary or a victim of his policies.

Name to me the donors to the Democratic party that are against getting money out of politics, and tell me how good their donations were at preventing Hillary Clinton from coming out and saying she wants Citizens United overturned, even going as far as to suggest we make an amendment to the Constitution against that kind of money in politics. Sanders can not have a bigger claim to hatred of Citizens United than Hillary can, because that Citizens United case was about her.

Sanders is not the sole savior or the only person in the entire US who is trying to push forward progressive economic policies. To ascribe to him all of the credit is very dishonest.

If there is anything to take away from this election it's this; the American public have completely lost faith in the ruling elites both in business and in government. The 2008 crash destroyed the American public's trust in our elite business leaders. And the fact that none of the people responsible suffered and consequences destroyed the American public's trust in our elite government leaders. Hillary Clinton's campaign died a death of a thousand cuts. But that Trump ran against the failed elites, and Hillary could not help but be tied to them, was a cut that hit an artery.

Yeah, Donald Trump ran a racist xenophobic campaign. A large part of Donald Trumps voter base are aggressive racists and bigots waiting for an excuse to say and do all the horrible things they've thought throughout the years but were afraid to publicly. But what you and a lot of others miss is that he fed people racism and hatred. And he could only do that in a time where people have lost faith in the elites to govern and hold power. The public, aside from the top 1% that are doing very well, are struggling and angry. It's pervasive and you can feel it everywhere. Trump tapped into the real justifiable anger in this country, but he directed it in an ugly, destructive and wrong direction. But at the end of the day Trump recognized there was anger and pain in the country.

Honestly, I'm still not really sure what Hillary's overall message was to this day. She adopted a number of Bernie's policies but she certainly didn't run on them. It's very hard to run as someone who is going to bring the failed business leaders and government leaders to task when you're giving the companies that crashed the economy paid speeches for $200,000 a year.

I see not only in post-election discussion but across all internet discussion the strangeness of people needing to place themselves and their opinion in the 'majority', without proof or discussion about whether or not they actually are in the majority.

The American public has not lost faith in ruling elites in both business and in government: they have only lost faith in the government, with business reaping the rewards. The people in the rust belt aren't railing against business for moving their jobs, they're railing against Obama and government regulations and free trade agreements between the governments of nations. That's why they allowed themselves to look at The Other as the source of all their woes, not business. They picture their tax money going to help The Other, not to help them. And that has nothing to do with losing faith in business or elites.

You can keep using the buzzwords and speak of the American public as if you know what they really want, when it's pretty obvious the American public is incredibly diverse and all kinds of illogical. You only wear 'elite' as a word to give yourself an Other not defined by skin or gender or sexuality to hate. By giving yourself a villain to hate, that sort of thinking that leads you to believe that everything in a complex civilization of 300 million people could be solved by simple means and simple plans. Just defeat the final boss, The Elites, and everything will get better!

The truth is, the election was not about loss of faith in government institutions or business. It was about diversity, about division, about what I want versus what is better for the country.

I currently work three jobs. All of which are poor paying jobs. I Sometimes four if I pick up a temporary job. I work 70-90 hours a week. I graduated college years ago with good grades and with a degree that should get me a decent career. I can't get a good paying job that I can actually live on. I'm not whining or bragging about my ability to work long hours. This describes almost everyone I know personally. I'm not living in some rural dying town in the middle of nowhere, but a city that's doing well and has a good economy.

People are angry. People are hurting. Unless the democratic party recognizes and taps into that hurt and anger in a positive way, and distances itself from the failed elites that have caused so much damage we're going to continue to lose.

But keep calling me and people in my situation children. That'll teach me.

I am calling YOU a child because YOU are acting like one. You are blaming things with no insight or logic or even knowledge about the subject. You are making your own boogeymen. You are excusing racism and hatred, when poor economic conditions are not an excuse for violations of human rights. Nobody excuses the Germans for killing Jews because of economic troubles.

Your crusade against 'establishment' is just desire to be at the center of power, to be the one with the power to institute your own ideas rather than to have to listen to everybody's concerns. Using your own circumstances as justification for why you are most deserving of having the strongest say. Writing a narrative of what you think the political climate is rather than looking at more detailed data and research on the election. You view the world through your narrow lens of 'elites' being the source of all the troubles in your world, and insist that Sanders be the standard bearer for the future with a complete focus on you and people like you. But do you have to worry about being stopped by the police for anything routine, and getting shot and killed for doing nothing? Do you have to worry that you won't be able to get the healthcare you need because the government is forcing the clinics in your area to close because of anti-abortion crusades?

Do you understand why people would push back against you? Anger and hurt? We've been there a long, long time. Minorities and women have been second class for much longer than those who are suddenly realizing they're living the lives that minorities had to live. The election to these groups was not a rejection of 'elitism' or 'establishment'. The election to these groups was a rejection of their claim to equality.

Hillary had a clear message: unity over division, unity over hatred, unity being the way forward. Perhaps you didn't hear it because you weren't interested. Acting as if she had no message is another piece of revisionist history.

Trump will commit ground forces as soon as some village magistrate in Iran says he has a small dick

I asked this somewhere yesterday, but what sort of shit would happen if Xi Jinping calls Trump an idiot?

 

[Grief.exe]

It's not just a smash and grab. Like I said above -- for a white supremacist, dismantling social structures that help poor white people is exactly what a Nazi would want right now, in order to further radicalize those white people and prepare them for more extreme action against people of color in the future.

That's been the Republican status quo, to remove benefits from those that support them in the ballot box while directing the benefits directly at those that fund the party.

Interesting to see this take as it is anecdotally true in that Republicans look to drive up health care costs, reduce regulations that would benefit workers, and blow up any safety nets.

 

[B-Dubs]

I asked this somewhere yesterday, but what sort of shit would happen if Xi Jinping calls Trump an idiot?

Real talk? I don't even want to think about it.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Germany will step up to be the pro-active strong-man (woman, technically) of the West. I can see a unified Europe/Canada/Japan/China/Australia through trade agreements (minus the UK, of course, assuming Brexit passes). Because, as A Serious Man points out, it's a way to unify countries through financial benefits, and eases tensions. There's a reason why Japan became an economic powerhouse in post-war period.

Why would Germany be seen as the strong woman of the West over the US?

As for Japan what was the reason? Are you saying trade agreements made Japan an economic powerhouse in the post-war period? Given the level of state intervention before they liberalized and all the various measures after they liberalized...that can't be correct. In fact, the fact nationalistic Japan is a powerhouse and companies like Toyota are running around the world is refutation of what you believe in vs. support.

 

[mo60]

Yeah. This is a huge problem heading into 18 and 20. I would've been much more... I don't know, level headed???? if we had headed into election night showing a tight race in PA/MI/WI.

The question is that if trump will get the same rural turnout as this election in 2020. He may not if the democrats pick someone pretty good and charismatic.

Trump will probably complain about Xi Jinping hypothetical comments by posting multiple inflammatory tweets about him.

 

[Pixieking]

Trump's need to be liked by everyone seems to operate on a different mental level from his policy faculties. Maybe this is because he is a moron and impressionable with whomever the last person he spoke to happens to be. If Trump were actually that concerned about needing to be loved by everyone, he wouldn't be stacking his cabinet with far-right radical ideologues and general lunatics whose rhetoric and policy prescriptions appeal to, statistically, a minority of Americans. He doesn't seem to understand or care about that.

I understand what you're saying, I just don't think Trump is going to think twice about a war with Iran because the Times, WaPo, et al. begin criticizing the possibility of military action or highlighting Trump's hypocrisy on it.

Oh, no, I doubt that he would care what the media said, too... But anti-war protests? Or peace marches? Rallies against violence? He loooooooves rallies, remember. He thinks of them as personal polling figures. Actual people in the streets protesting against even the concept of violence abroad would have him doing a double-take.

Though, yeah, I do get what you're saying about his cabinet, so maybe *shrugs*.

 

[trembli0s]

The American public has not lost faith in ruling elites in both business and in government: they have only lost faith in the government, with business reaping the rewards. The people in the rust belt aren't railing against business for moving their jobs, they're railing against Obama and government regulations and free trade agreements between the governments of nations. That's why they allowed themselves to look at The Other as the source of all their woes, not business. They picture their tax money going to help The Other, not to help them. And that has nothing to do with losing faith in business or elites.

While the rest of your post is very lucid and well reasoned, I simply cannot agree with this.

Middle America and Lower Class America have VERY much lost faith in the business elite, particularly those who specialize in banking and finance.

If you polled for who is less popular between Trump, Hillary, and the CEO of Goldman Sachs or Wells Fargo, I think the answer would be substantially against the banks.

 

[Revolver]

Geeze.

Looks like Trump pissed Kellyanne off, lol. Good.

Let 'em fight.

“I’m all for party unity,” Conway said on CNN. “But I’m not sure we have to pay for that with the secretary of state position.”

Has Kellyanne gone rogue?

 

[B-Dubs]

Let 'em fight.



Has Kellyanne gone rogue?

Yea, we're gonna get Secretary of State Rudy Giuliani. Son of a...

 

[royalan]

Hillary Clinton did not run as a Third Way Democrat. You claim she ran as one, when she did not.

In the end, you can't explain Feingold without blaming Hillary Clinton, which means you're no different from the posters you so deride: you are incapable of doing anything but blame Hillary Clinton, in effect being just like Trump: "Why not blame everything on her?" It gives you an easy excuse to build your own narrative about what the state of the US is, without ever having to take any responsibility for yourself and the people you influence or the people of your community. If you don't get 100 percent of what you want, you don't get to throw tantrums during the election, spreading negativity, then throw tantrums after saying "I told you so" when you were part of the problem.

We believed the electorate had the potential to become more progressive: that they could reject the hatred and racism that divided the country, and acknowledge for once that all people are equal and deserving for respect and dignity. This progressivism is even more basic and fundamental than the progressivism you so espouse as the 'real progressivism'.

You don't know anything about any of those political figures you rail against, other than that you don't want them at the top. When Pelosi is very skilled and very good at herding the cats in the House. When she and Schumer have the ability to get the dollars needed to invest in and win elections.

Your posts and railing against Hillary, Schumer, Pelosi, and so on only indicate one thing: your position is "anti-establishment". But anti-establishment is not a policy: it does not, by default, have any ideas about how to make lives better, nor does it have ideas about how to win elections. It is the child's wish to escape authority, the child's desire to take the power and become the establishment rather than to attempt any substantial earning or learning involved.

Jesus...

 

[Pixieking]

Why would Germany be seen as the strong woman of the West over the US?

As for Japan what was the reason? Are you saying trade agreements made Japan an economic powerhouse in the post-war period? Given the level of state intervention before they liberalized and all the various measures after they liberalized...that can't be correct. In fact, the fact nationalistic Japan is a powerhouse and companies like Toyota are running around the world is refutation of what you believe in vs. support.

Germany as last bastion of liberal ideals and a country that stands against Russia. When the US loves Russia, the UK is off on a rant about how "It were all better 50 years ago down the mines", what other countries are there that stand for Western Liberal democracy? I suppose Canada could come to the fore on international diplomacy and leading the UN/NATO, but... Ummmm...

As for Japan, I meant that after being militarily emasculated after the war, their focus on economy proved that economic might (and an export-led economy) can win over the potential for threats of military force. Certainly they're far more nationalistic now than they were 20/30 years ago, but interestingly that also coincides with their economic power waning.

 

[The Lamonster]

2020 is going to be scary. We're going to be flying blind the entire time, since polls and models will have been so wrong in 2016, how could we possibly trust them.

I'm not worried about this at all. I'll be happy if we even make it to 2020 elections.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I suppose Canada could come to the fore on international diplomacy and leading the UN/NATO, but... Ummmm...

Canada feels like the country every other country should strive to be

It's kind of like America, except it generally gets more things right and at a faster pace. But not too fast. Kind of like a perfect balance. Most of the best perks of Europe, with most of the best perks of America.

I really wish I was Canadian...

 

[LostMyNarbles]

I thought Rudy Giuliani didn't want the Secretary of State job? I could have sworn I remember reading him say that so I am surprised he's still in Trump's book for the running.

 

[TestOfTide]

I mean, if you believe this, I would move to Germany right away.

Saying that we would lose a Civil War doesn't mean I am giving up. It just means that Civil War is not the answer. We have to win through the political game, no matter how difficult it may seem.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

2020 is going to be scary. We're going to be flying blind the entire time, since polls and models will have been so wrong in 2016, how could we possibly trust them.

I can even imagine what a Post-Trump election looks like. Will it get better? Will it get....worse?

 

[Pixieking]

Canada feels like the country every other country should strive to be

It's kind of like America, except it generally gets more things right and at a faster pace. But not too fast. Kind of like a perfect balance. Most of the best perks of Europe, with most of the best perks of America.

I really wish I was Canadian...

Yeah, I'm being snarky about their government and international influence, but it's a great place. My wife and I visited Toronto and the immediate region one year, and then the following year went on a trip from Toronto to the Gaspe Peninsula. We're actually looking at trying to emigrate there. Though we made just end-up in Sweden or Denmark, because we're British Citizens, and it'll be easier to emigrate to a European Union country. (Which reminds me - need to sort my Irish Passport. )

 

[mo60]

I can even imagine what a Post-Trump election looks like. Will it get better? Will it get....worse?

He will have even more of his buddies in power in other countries by then.

 

[pigeon]

Saying that we would lose a Civil War doesn't mean I am giving up. It just means that Civil War is not the answer. We have to win through the political game, no matter how difficult it may seem.

This is like saying you only support peaceful protests.

There are always two parties with the power to control whether violent confrontation takes place. You can only determine the choices for one party.

 

[TestOfTide]

The question is that if trump will get the same rural turnout as this election in 2020. He may not if the democrats pick someone pretty good and charismatic.

Exactly. Trump only won because he managed to do to Rural Areas in 2016 what Obama did to everywhere else in 2008.

These rural voters are only going to be energized so long as Trump actually makes good on his campaign promises, which we know won't happen because half of his promises are impossible to meet.

Meanwhile liberal and progressive turnout was low this election. All Dems have to do to win PA, WI, and MI in 2020 is energize those Obama voters again, which will be much easier when no one knows for sure who will be the Dem Nominee in 2020. Hillary was such an easy target for the GOP because everyone knew she would run again right after Obama won reelection.

This is like saying you only support peaceful protests.

There are always two parties with the power to control whether violent confrontation takes place. You can only determine the choices for one party.

No it is me saying that protests are useful, but it won't mean jack shit unless that protest energy gets harnessed into actual voters.

You want to focus on protesting? Go ahead. Meanwhile I'm going to focus on the more direct political game. I'm going to focus on everything it will take for Democrats to end up winning in the upcoming midterms and then after that I will be focused on Dems picking the next Obama.

 

[sphagnum]

More evidence that Bannon is a racist, complete with Token Black Friend and Not Racist.

The former screenwriting partner of Donald Trump’s senior aide Steve Bannon said that he once mused that it might be beneficial to restrict African Americans’ voting access.

Writer Julia Jones told the New York Times in an interview that Bannon, who was recently named as Trump’s chief White House strategist, would occasionally claim that some people were genetically superior and once suggested that the vote should be limited to property owners.

Jones said she told Bannon that such a policy would “exclude a lot of African-Americans.”

According to Jones, Bannon replied, “Maybe that’s not such a bad thing.”

Jones asked specifically about his longtime executive assistant Wendy Colbert, who is black.

"She’s different. She’s family,” Jones said he replied.

...

Jones, who described herself to the Times as very liberal, insisted that Bannon was “not a racist” but instead “using the alt-right—using them for power.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...tner-says-not-such-bad-thing-limit-black-vote

 

[pigeon]

No it is me saying that protests are useful, but it won't mean jack shit unless that protest energy gets harnessed into actual voters.

You want to focus on protesting? Go ahead. Meanwhile I'm going to focus on the more direct political game. I'm going to focus on everything it will take for Democrats to end up winning in the upcoming midterms and then after that I will be focused on Dems picking the next Obama.

You are completely missing the point.

We don't have the power, unilaterally, to decide that there won't be any violent action or conflict in the Trump administration. There are two parties who can choose to escalate to violence -- Dems/protestors, and Trump and his administration. So if you think Trump would inevitably win any violent confrontation, you should be more concerned about that.

 

[Slurpy2k20]

Conway shitting on Romney so publicly is hilarious. Definitely seems like she's trying to influence the decision, who the fuck knows if she's being instructed to do so by Trump or not. Either way it just seems utterly odd and unprofessional.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

Pastor Jim Bakker Helps You Prepare For Trump's America

 

[whyamihere]

Harry Reid stays winning. No fucks.

@SenatorReid
I join with the Standing Rock Sioux in calling for an alternate route for the pipeline’s completion.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Can Harry Reid run the DNC? The Nevada Democrats are organized and win elections for the most part.

 

[Angry Grimace]

The California streaming services tax thread is like watching people become Republicans in real time

 

[Pyrokai]

Now that everyone has had nearly a month to ruminate a bit.....what's everyone feeling like these days?

Better? Worse?

What is everyone's realistic worst-case and best-case scenarios they can foresee at this point, overall, in terms of Trump's presidency for the next four years and what can happen and not happen?

Stop me if these kinds of questions are frowned upon. I am still depressed and these kinds of questions poised to PoliGAF help me cope somewhat....