I45owl
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18,347
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX
|
RE: Presidential Horse Race Thread
(11-09-2016 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (11-09-2016 09:43 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: First, I voted write-in, and evidently was only one of less than 500 in Harris County on election day to do so. I could not bring myself to vote for someone who frequently lies and their main reason for running was to be President. I could not vote for Trump who was, and is, largely unqualified, and an affront to moral decency (sorry, that's not debatable). Gary Johnson was an unqualified loon. At that point I was too tired to consider Jill Stein . . . but just, . . . .no.
The people at the precinct were clueless (truly) on what I needed to type in to make sure my ballot counted. Had to call the Harris County Clerk to verify that what I typed in was sufficient to have my vote counted.
Watching the national news media (some of whom were literally on the verge of tears at times, some who actually got angry at points in the evening) drove home exactly why Trump won, and why 2004 repeated itself for the Democrats.
1. Hillary. Had the Democrats run Joe Biden, I think they win the Presidency. He has his issues, but he comes across as a decent man. And a decent candidate beats Trump (and by decent, I mean someone who exhibits regularly the attributes of basic human decency). It's why Bernie Sanders DESERVED the Democratic nomination. It was not because Hillary was a woman. It is because she is the consummate career politician, and her public/private persona and her willingness to say and do anything to satisfy ambition could not be hidden after 24 years in the limelight. No one trusted her, and the extent to which the DNC took measures to assist her win the nomination was appalling. For some reasons, the Democrats thought that only Trump voters would be holding their nose while voting. Those on the far, far left must be true believers indeed.
2. East Coast Media. I'm not sure I would call it bias, because Trump was such a flawed candidate on many levels. But it was obvious they favored Trump. Anyone who watched the ABC election returns and couldn't see the anguish and disbelief throughout the night and thinks there wasn't favoritism is kidding themselves. The issue is that the media came to their conclusions early and frankly decided that there is only one possible 'right answer' and that everyone else saw it also. They don't see how it comes across: we know better, we live in a state (or DC) which is going to go overwhelmingly Democrat, we surround ourselves only with people who think like us, and we are going to help guide you to make the right decision.
3. Hillary had no identifiable agenda or plan. Nothing that stood out. Whereas Trump had "Make America Great Again" which the Dems mocked, at least it was identifiable to a constituency the Dems have ignored (and I'm not talking about the 1/2 of 1% that some here are worried about). Again, Hillary has been at this so long that I think the real agenda was transparent to everyone, or at least this is what they saw: on a personal note "2016: It's My Turn" or pandering "OK, We've had an African-American President, Let's Check Another Box"
Those are not good reasons, unless you're part of the DNC. We WILL have a woman president someday, but it will be someone who is elected because they have an identifiable message, or at least a message that translates outside the DNC.
4. The talking heads kept noting that Trump was overwhelmingly winning with non-college white males. It was clearly stated as an indictment. It's the Dems dog whistle for racist morons.
They would then turn around and lament "What do they think Trump is really going to be able to do for them" On ABC, this was the refrain over and over. There only answer was that he represented change.
What they failed to grasp is that the fact they view Trumps appeal to that demographic (which is quite large) as an indictment, and because the far left Dems concentrated on the coast do view them flyover America as populated by 'deplorables' is exactly why they voted Trump.
They kept asking what Trump was going to do for them. What they should've stopped and asked themselves is what Hillary has EVER given that group besides lip service. When she used the term "deplorable", she wasn't addressing any constituency of Trump's (and he got Latino votes, and other demographic votes, at least enough to win) other than 'less than college educated', white, male America.
Not a one of the talking heads stated how the Dems would help this constituency improve their standard of living.
In fact, they went to so far as to say "What will these voters do when nothing changes for them?"
Basically, this is their lot in life, to be left behind, it's their deserved fate (implied - it's their own fault, they're deplorable after all)
If the Democrats invested the time and effort that LBJ put into the Great Society into that demographic (and not necessarily Great Society programs - maybe a focus on better education and access to college - Bernie hit on that big time. But it seemed like the DNC's version of that was targeting making it affordable for the kids already there or who had amassed student debt. The Trump demographic certainly didn't feel it was directed at them.
I was shocked. After 2004, I should not be. The DNC's ability to misread large swaths of the electorate is well documented.
For weeks I had been saying that Trump was the only Republican Hillary could beat.
Now the reality may have been that Hillary is the one Democrat that Trump could beat (albeit Kaine was even worse, IMO).
Well said, Rick. As I was telling my nephew late night when he pointed out the "Not cpllege educated" demographic to me, think of that demo as 'working class", not "stupid racists".
I am a college educated white male of partial Hispanic descent and many hispanic family members. his comment about "rapists" were offensive to me, but I recognized he was talking about illegal immigrants and not Mexicans, as the media tried to play it. But I think her "deplorables" comment was directed right at me personally, and illustrated her contempt for middle America- middle economically, middle geographically. Reminded me of Obama's "clinging bitterly" comment. The Dems need to think democratically rather than paternally and change their attitude toward Middle America.
My concern with Trump from early on (before the media was discussing dog whistles) is that Trump seemed to deliberately appeal to racists and the basket of deplorables (I can use the phrase...I'm not running for office) to build an early base, and the subtle undertones of appeal to racist sentiments continued all the way through the end of the campaign. I can't say that I know enough about Trump to say that he is a racist himself. At best, he has innocently continued to retweet "racial realists" (hereafter abbreviated to "racists" by removing a few select letters)... somewhere in the middle is the possibility that he is a latent KKK and/or neo-Nazi who's been clever enough to conceal his activities... at worst, he has cynically chosen to appeal to a part of the electorate that the democrats really can't effectively compete for, and he's done it by following a Machiavellian/KKK script that reads "how to appeal to and energize the white working class electorate using standard racist memes to appeal to a mainstream audience".
In that light, the Mexican Rapists is almost straight out of The Prince. The "Muslim ban" is a tribal us versus them appeal, regardless of the merits or lack thereof. The appeal to protectionism (who'd have thunk that - absent a political campaign - Trump would rail against free trade?) is enough to overcome whatever influence political unions might have on their members (who I imagine support unions because (1) they have to, and (2) to the extent that it benefits them... but at the same time, fundamentally despise the union itself). The Soros/Yellin/??? ad at the end of the campaign also sought to put a wedge between "international elite" and the American working class... as a dual purpose, antisemitic undertones may benefit the ultimate turnout. I think it's the latter... I don't think Trump repeatedly got into this mess of re-tweeting racists by accident.
My concern is that the last 3-4 presidential elections reinforce the value of politicians that purposefully divide the populace by using or appealing to race. Worse, is that the American electorate seems to seek out narcissists for POTUS.
Who said that Cthulu for President was only a joke?
edit: I'm still catching up to the thread and just saw this comment, which stands in contrast to my conclusion above (and I don't think it is one sided - I think the Democratic party is very much to blame in creating and exploiting racial divides) ...
(11-08-2016 11:41 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: In all three of those cases he has peddled lies (fake crime stats, myths about Muslims celebrating 9/11 in NJ, lies about vigils for the killer of the Dallas police officers, etc.) in order to stoke hatred and anger toward minority groups.
That is just flat out wrong, and a classic ploy of demagogues and authoritarians and I hope to god today's results show that that's not who we are as a people.
(11-09-2016 12:51 PM)JOwl Wrote: (11-09-2016 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: But I think her "deplorables" comment was directed right at me personally, and illustrated her contempt for middle America- middle economically, middle geographically. Reminded me of Obama's "clinging bitterly" comment. The Dems need to think democratically rather than paternally and change their attitude toward Middle America.
You can think she was directing that at you, but she wasn't. She directed her remarks specifically:
"I know there are only 60 days left to make our case -- and don't get complacent, don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, well, he's done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just 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 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America."
You can argue with her numbers, whether 50% of Trump supporters are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and/or Islamophobic (and I assume you will), but if you're not those things then you're part of the half not in that basket.
The problem with applying reason to incendiary comments is that you've already lost control of the situation when you're in a position of trying to explain what you meant. It shows the same basic contempt for the electorate that Romney's 49% (or binder full of women) did, and that's at a juncture where you have narcissists trying to show some humility and deceive enough people into thinking that the candidate actually respects them and is concerned about their individual welfare that they can ascend to office and move on to pursuing their own agendas.
(11-09-2016 02:18 PM)gsloth Wrote: Saw a tweet last night from a right-leaning pundit, as the results started showing things much tighter than expected: "Any other Republican would have beaten her. Any other Democrat would have beaten him."
I have been telling friends and family that both parties tried their best to lose the election... it's just that Trump sucked at it a little bit more than Hillary did.
(This post was last modified: 11-15-2016 10:33 AM by I45owl.)
|
|
/
Presidential Horse Race Thread
