[awm]

My point is just that I'd always assumed that certain things were disqualifying in a candidate... That some words and actions are so far "beyond the pale" that people would override party loyalties and love of tax cuts and refuse to vote for a dangerous demogogue. At least for people who were well educated and economically comfortable I assumed this would be true.

I don't think that any more.

[kenberg]

I will present an example of something, I am not sure just what. We go to a WaPo story today:
Headline the original is much larger)

Quote

The attorney general could have ordered FBI Director James Comey not to send his bombshell letter on Clinton emails. Here's why she didn't.

Quote

Yes, a good question. Here is the answer:
Remarkably, the country's two top law enforcement officials never spoke. As Comey's boss, Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch could have given the FBI director an order to not send the letter. But Lynch and her advisers feared that Comey would not listen. He seemed to feel strongly about updating Congress on his sworn testimony about the Clinton investigation. Instead, they tried to relay their concerns through the Justice official whom the FBI had called.

Their efforts failed. Within 24 hours of the first FBI call, Comey's letter was out.

The dogma on Clomey has been: Comey did wrong, very wrong. Lynch did no wrong, not at all her doing. This never sat well with me. If she had the power to stop the letter from being sent, and she did not exercise that power, then it seems she has some responsibility for the letter being sent. They have had now close to two months to come up with an explanation as to why she didn't use here power. This is it? She could have told him not to send it but she and her advisers thought he wouldn't listen to her so she sent her views though an intermediary? From the beginning, I have felt that a. she did not want the letter sent and b. she did not want her fingerprints on the effort to stop it from being sent. This seems totally obvious to me. It also contradicts the dogma that Comey is the villain, Lynch did fine.


When this first broke I suggested that, quite possibly, Comey took the view that if Lynch told him not to send it, and clearly made this here responsibility, he would do as his boss said. But if Lynch did not do this, then Comey would do as he thought right. I see no reason to change this view, it seems the most plausible view on the face of it, and the alternative that she didn't tell him what to do because she thought he wouldn't listen strikes me as absurd. If a boss wants something done or not done, she says so clearly and then, if the person subordinate to her goes against this clearly stated order, he gets fired.

I guess what I am getting at is this: There is a liberal dogma. This is not a failure of liberals, it is a failure of the pure. Truth is what we, the pure, say it is. Comey bad, Lynch good. Why didn't she tell him not to send it? She thought he wouldn't listen. That explains everything, skepticism is not acceptable.

Trump should never have won. Never, never. But he did, and we must ask why. I think I am on to something.

[hrothgar]

awm, on 2016-December-22, 16:38, said:

I'm not convinced we can reason with such voters (or that I want to share a country with so many of them).

Here's the rub... I don't think that its much better anywhere else.

Maybe Denmark.
I've heard really good things about Denmark.

How does the old saying go "“There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy”

[awm]

kenberg, on 2016-December-22, 16:51, said:

Trump should never have won. Never, never. But he did, and we must ask why. I think I am on to something.

I blame the voters. We are a democracy (more or less). The American people are responsible for the leaders we choose.

This was a close election. There are many things which could have swung it. Obama could've handled the Russian hacking thing differently. Comey could've shut up. Lynch could've tried to muzzle him. Clinton could've campaigned more in the Midwest. Etc etc.

But honestly, why was this election even remotely close? We had the most qualified candidate in history running in a good economy against a racist scam artist who wishes he could date his own daughter and attacks American war heroes on twitter. This should've been a landslide of epic proportions, not a nail-biter that could be swung by a timely letter. Again, WTF American voters?

[awm]

hrothgar, on 2016-December-22, 17:00, said:

Here's the rub... I don't think that its much better anywhere else.

Maybe Denmark.
I've heard really good things about Denmark.

How does the old saying go "“There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy”

Well California is bigger than many countries in terms of population, land, and GDP. Here Trump lost by roughly a 2:1 margin. It doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that there is a country out there with voters like CA voters, but not beholden to 49 other states some of which are filled with dangerous lunatics.

There are a number of countries that might be worth a shot. They all have their idiosyncracies but only a few have leaders nearly as insane as our president elect.

[Al_U_Card]

If Clinton supporters are so convinced of the rectitude of their position and opinions and beliefs then how could they be wrong?

Worst candidate ever. (Booooorrring)
Worst background ever. (Notwithstanding Comey.)
Worst campaign strategy ever. (Ignore those swing states because ..... uh why?)
Worst estimation of voter sentiment since Dewey/Truman. (Polls by pollsters.)

How could Trump not win? He will be as bad or good as he is and surrounded by corporatists, to a man, it may get very good for the oligarchs and pretty sad for the common man. Remains to be seen.

[Al_U_Card]

kenberg, on 2016-December-22, 16:51, said:

Trump should never have won. Never, never. But he did, and we must ask why. I think I am on to something.

See my post above. The only thing not bankrupt about her campaign and candidacy was her personal finances.

There may also be a little bit of: She was willing to sell her soul to win. Trump didn't seem to care all that much about it.

People glomm onto that sort of thing, viscerally.

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-December-22, 17:23, said:

If Clinton supporters are so convinced of the rectitude of their position and opinions and beliefs then how could they be wrong?

Mencken said it best:

“No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”

[kenberg]

awm, on 2016-December-22, 17:01, said:

I blame the voters. We are a democracy (more or less). The American people are responsible for the leaders we choose.

This was a close election. There are many things which could have swung it. Obama could've handled the Russian hacking thing differently. Comey could've shut up. Lynch could've tried to muzzle him. Clinton could've campaigned more in the Midwest. Etc etc.

But honestly, why was this election even remotely close? We had the most qualified candidate in history running in a good economy against a racist scam artist who wishes he could date his own daughter and attacks American war heroes on twitter. This should've been a landslide of epic proportions, not a nail-biter that could be swung by a timely letter. Again, WTF American voters?

" The American people are responsible for the leaders we choose."

I see this as fundamental. It is the defining feature of being a democracy. So yes, this was a choice of the American people, and we are responsible. But then what? Hrothgar quotes Mencken: "No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."

We can go that way, but really Mencken is arguing against democracy: We are, as a people, just too dumb for self-government. By which Mencken meant that the people did not agree with Mencken.

A few posts back there was a discussion of the electoral college. Part of the explanation for its existence, and it is one I learned in school, is that the creators of our government thought in this Mencken way. We cannot have people making the choice directly, rather the people should elect, or maybe the state legislatures should choose, presidential electors and then we let them choose wisely who should be president.


This idea has merit, but I think we have decided not to go that route. We have decided that the people will elect the president. The electoral college still exists, perhaps an anachronism (but only perhaps, in my opinion), but we have now decided that people will go to the polls and vote for whom they think should be president. The electors are supposed to do what the people say (there was some recent re-thinking of this but predictably that went nowhere).

If we are going to stick with this idea that the people will elect the president, and I hope that we will, then this decision seems to imply that we simply must put some trust into the collective judgment of our countrymen. And this means that when we do not like the result, we must respectfully ask why our countrymen chose as they did. Writing them off as just too stupid to consider is not an option.

[awm]

kenberg, on 2016-December-22, 18:56, said:

If we are going to stick with this idea that the people will elect the president, and I hope that we will, then this decision seems to imply that we simply must put some trust into the collective judgment of our countrymen. And this means that when we do not like the result, we must respectfully ask why our countrymen chose as they did. Writing them off as just too stupid to consider is not an option.

You seem to assume that our countrymen (or at least most of them) are rational people -- that they are not idiots, or devoted racists, or insane. It would be nice to be optimistic enough to believe such a thing, and I confess that prior to this election I would've shared your outlook. However, at some point it's necessary to accept that the data invalidates your hypothesis. For me, this election was that tipping point.

[Winstonm]

awm, on 2016-December-22, 19:06, said:

You seem to assume that our countrymen (or at least most of them) are rational people -- that they are not idiots, or devoted racists, or insane. It would be nice to be optimistic enough to believe such a thing, and I confess that prior to this election I would've shared your outlook. However, at some point it's necessary to accept that the data invalidates your hypothesis. For me, this election was that tipping point.

As much as I respect the wisdom of Ken, I have to say I'm with you on this, Adam. When I look back on this election season, it seems as though anything other than a complete landslide for Clinton should have been impossible to avoid if we were talking about even a remotely similar species sharing the voting booth next to us.

I watched the other night a show that huddled together a number of Trump voters - I think from Wisconsin - and asked them why they voted as they did. It amazed me that all of them totally discounted everything Trump said or did that was crazed, stupid, wild, heinous, etc., and only focused on the tiny part of his shotgun attacks that they liked to hear and agreed with. One guy was a union member and he said he didn't believe Trump meant or would do what he said he would do but it was time for change. From my perspective, change seemed to mean "white guy". Another lady claimed she supported the immigration plan because Mexicans at her work were taking jobs, which simply sounded racist. Over and over, though, each person discounted Trump's claims as just "talk".

How can you watch the guy, hear the warnings about him from your own national security people, and still vote him into office?

To me this simply means that the terrorists have already won - because there is no reasonable explanation for Trump voters where cognition is the key component, and that means the only possible reason was an emotive one - people voted for Trump because they were scared.

Well, at least now there is a good reason to be fearful.

[mike777]

Democrats the party of the rich:

http://www.nytimes.c...-rich.html?_r=0

-----


I have posted often in these forums how people are fearful and anxious, now I see Winston is fearful as are other posters.


Who knows perhaps in time we may even see Liberal/Democratic leaning posters demand that Washington have just a bit less economic and political power....

[nige1]

awm, on 2016-December-22, 14:47, said:

The story that's usually told about this election involves white working class voters turning out to support Trump. These voters have been "left behind" by the modern economy, and neither they nor their communities have done particularly well over the last sixteen years regardless of which party held power. Trump's blaming of trade deals (partly true) and immigrants (not true) for their situation found a receptive ear and he substantially improved on Romney's performance with these voters.

I'm sure that's true, but what's often overlooked is that Trump also won more votes than Clinton from people making over 100k per year. This is rarely discussed because Romney also won that demographic (and by a slightly larger margin). To me this is much more upsetting -- these are people who are doing well economically, very much not "left behind by the modern economy" and also probably better educated and informed. If not out of economic desperation, why did they vote for Trump? More specifically, why did they overlook the many totally disqualifying things Trump said and did? The usual explanation is that "they are Republicans coming home to their nominee" but of course, Trump has many positions that differ from Republican doctrine (he's anti-trade, pro-Russia, shows no respect for the military, not religious, etc). So basically this explanation is that they ignored the racism, mysogeny, and various frauds and scams... as well as overlooking many of his stated policy positions... just so they could put party over country and vote for him based on the "R" by his name. To me this is really disturbing.

The alternative explanation seems to be that it was all about Clinton's emails and Comey's letter and "fake news." Likely that stuff played some role, but could it really convince nearly half of voters that they should vote for a guy who seems to say or tweet something utterly repulsive every single day just to keep Clinton out? Hard to believe.

To me it seems more likely that the things I find utterly disqualifying (bragging about sexual assaults, anti-Latino and anti-Muslim rhetoric, anti-Semitic tweets, direct links to white supremacists, praise for dictators around the world, stiffing contractors who worked for him, defrauding students at his "university", sexually objectifying his own daughter, insulting war heroes and their parents, refusing to disclose his tax returns or even try to avoid conflicts of interest, etc) simply do not bother more than half of moderately affluent Americans. Really terrifying stuff!

From an ignorant outsider's point of view, another factor might have influenced the election result. Most US parties and their presidential candidates seem to be in the pockets of big business, particularly the arms-industry. Hence the US has attacked regimes in other countries, in accord with the interests of these pay-masters. Hilary's ideas were particularly frightening, e.g. thwarting Russian initiatives against Al Quaeda and Isis. Donald has many grave faults but his relatively independent means might enable him to slow the rush to World War III.

Donald's attitudes to racism, women, torture etc are wrong. In other threads, however, some BBOers seem to justify rendition, torture, etc on pragmatic grounds. We should avoid double-standards about human-rights, especially when principles are under severe test.

awm thinks Trump-voters are immoral, idiotic or insane. Perhaps they just fear nuclear war more than they hate discrimination, etc. Optimistic they might be -- but not necessarily irrational.

[kenberg]

awm, on 2016-December-22, 19:06, said:

You seem to assume that our countrymen (or at least most of them) are rational people -- that they are not idiots, or devoted racists, or insane. It would be nice to be optimistic enough to believe such a thing, and I confess that prior to this election I would've shared your outlook. However, at some point it's necessary to accept that the data invalidates your hypothesis. For me, this election was that tipping point.

And then, thinking rationally, we do ?

Premise: The American people cannot be trusted to choose a president.
By logic, we should therefore change the constitution so that a person becomes president as a result of ?

Abolishing the electoral college would be at most a temporary fix if the people really cannot be trusted.

I do agree that we have a problem. On that we can agree.

Btw I think "sane" is good, "rational" is more of a mixed bag. As a friend suggested long ago: Rationalization is good for you, it teaches you to think.

[Kaitlyn S]

You are speculating why people voted for Trump. Let me reiterate some things I said months ago.

As I traveled, I overheard many people say "She should be in jail." Some of this was before Comey so people thought she had done illegal things before Comey even appeared on the scene. Why they thought that, I can't tell you. But if you figure that out, you'll have some of your answer. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the people I heard say that made over $100K/year as many were sole proprietors of their small business (hotel, store, etc.) These people would choose Trump even if they thought him despicable because they think Hillary is a criminal.

This was not my reason. I can speak on behalf of some of my friends who have the same sentiment as me and probably all of us either make $100K or could if we worked harder. My reason, for better or worse, was that I feared that with Hillary, we would forever lose our country to an unstoppable train wreck of permanent Federal government control where the people have no voice anymore. You can call me stupid for saying that and many of you have, however if you are looking for a reason why educated people would choose Trump, you have this one. I have scanned some user comments from conservative websites in other areas of the country and found this sentiment echoed so it doesn't just apply to my small circle of friends; it is a widespread opinion. Many conservatives stated that while Trump might make an awful president, he was the country's last hope.

[Winstonm]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-22, 21:32, said:

You are speculating why people voted for Trump. Let me reiterate some things I said months ago.

As I traveled, I overheard many people say "She should be in jail." Some of this was before Comey so people thought she had done illegal things before Comey even appeared on the scene. Why they thought that, I can't tell you. But if you figure that out, you'll have some of your answer. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the people I heard say that made over $100K/year as many were sole proprietors of their small business (hotel, store, etc.) These people would choose Trump even if they thought him despicable because they think Hillary is a criminal.

This was not my reason. I can speak on behalf of some of my friends who have the same sentiment as me and probably all of us either make $100K or could if we worked harder. My reason, for better or worse, was that I feared that with Hillary, we would forever lose our country to an unstoppable train wreck of permanent Federal government control where the people have no voice anymore. You can call me stupid for saying that and many of you have, however if you are looking for a reason why educated people would choose Trump, you have this one. I have scanned some user comments from conservative websites in other areas of the country and found this sentiment echoed so it doesn't just apply to my small circle of friends; it is a widespread opinion. Many conservatives stated that while Trump might make an awful president, he was the country's last hope.

This is the thinking I cannot understand - how it comes about, that is. Why do people like you believe Obama and Bill and Hillary are so liberal or far left. All three are centrists. How far right is considered normal now? I don't get it.

I wonder how many Trump voters are regretting it?

[y66]

I recently got a note from my Congressman featuring Lincoln's "Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection" quote. Obama also mentioned this quote in David Remnick's New Yorker story. I suggest these two men aren't just worried about the results of the election on the state of our union. North Carolina comes to mind as do Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and 8 years of scorched earth politics by a party that put it's own corporatist agenda way ahead of getting the economy back on track and were rewarded for doing this by enough voters to win the presidential election and increase control of state legislatures leaving Democrats in the worst shape they've been in since the Civil War and in kenberg's lifetime. WTF indeed.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2016-December-22, 19:46, said:

Democrats the party of the rich:

http://www.nytimes.c...-rich.html?_r=0

-----


I have posted often in these forums how people are fearful and anxious, now I see Winston is fearful as are other posters.


Who knows perhaps in time we may even see Liberal/Democratic leaning posters demand that Washington have just a bit less economic and political power....

I agree that to their detriment Democrats have adopted many aspects of Republicans' economic policies.

[cherdano]

hrothgar, on 2016-December-22, 16:24, said:

I'm not a big fan of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. I think that its a recipe for a constitutional crisis.

Scenario.
Say in 2020, Republicans again control all branches of the government in North Carolina.
The Democratic candidate loses the popular vote, but barely wins the electoral college, while winning North Carolina.
What would stop the NC legislature from changing state law between the election day and the electoral college meeting and require their electors to split the vote in proportion to the state results, thereby ensuring a Trump reelection? Shame certainly won't stop them.

A little more realistically - in a state likely getting carried by Democratic presidential candidates in close elections, but under Republican control, Republicans could always pass such a law before the election.

The way the electoral college has been set up is a recipe for a constitutional crisis, and always has been. The only thing it's ever been useful for is to identify people who like to rationalise systems they are used to - many Americans are defending the EC, but their arguments never hold up to even the slightest intellectual scrutiny.

[awm]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-22, 21:32, said:

My reason, for better or worse, was that I feared that with Hillary, we would forever lose our country to an unstoppable train wreck of permanent Federal government control where the people have no voice anymore.

Bill Clinton was president for eight years. In what way did the people have less voice in 2000 than they did in 1992? In what way was our country a train wreck or closer thereto?

Barack Obama has been president for close to eight years. In what way do the people have less voice in 2016 than they did in 2008? In what way is our country a train wreck or closer thereto?

How will Hillary Clinton be so much worse than her husband, or Barack Obama?

This statement (which you've made repeatedly) makes absolutely no sense to me. What objective criteria do you use to decide whether a president has done a good job? Can you even do this without being told what party that president came from?

During my lifetime there have been only two major events which I could identify as making our country a "train wreck" -- the economic crash of 2008 and the 2016 election of Donald Trump. I wouldn't be inclined to blame either of these on Democrats.