ChrisWeigant.com

Angry White Men Triumphant

[ Posted Wednesday, November 9th, 2016 – 16:47 UTC ]

For the past eight years, America has had an African-American president. Faced with the prospect of a white woman succeeding him, America instead just elected an angry white man as president. Call it the triumph of angry white men everywhere. Millions of Americans are about to find out what it's like to be led by the equivalent of the drunk uncle at the Thanksgiving table who refuses to follow the rules of politeness and political correctness. Was it a backlash against our first black president? Or rampant misogyny towards Hillary Clinton? Or just free-floating rage against a changing culture that is becoming more tolerant and multicultural by the year? It's impossible to accurately say, really. The only thing that can be said for certain is that angry white men are now dominant.

Of course, even saying so is oversimplifying things. There were plenty of angry white women who voted for Trump yesterday, as well. The demographics of the 2016 election will be carefully studied for years to come, as political elites and the media search for the reason why they were all so utterly wrong, before the fact. I certainly include myself in that group, as I in no way saw last night coming ahead of time. I thought Hillary Clinton might have a tougher time than predicted, but would emerge victorious with a few states like North Carolina and Pennsylvania shoring up the numbers she needed to win the Electoral College. Like many others, I believed that right up until state after state began to be called for Trump, beginning with Florida. A "silent majority" actually did exist, and they turned out to the polls in numbers which overwhelmed all of Clinton's careful preparations and all of the pollsters' predictions. It was stunning to see, and it still hasn't really sunk in completely, if truth be known.

Republicans will now have a free hand to reshape the country to their liking. If Senate Democrats even try to fight hard against this tide, Senate Republicans might just do away with the filibuster altogether so they will have complete control of all branches of government. They will almost certainly do so for Trump's Supreme Court nomination, and they may very well get rid of the legislative filibuster as well. At this point, nothing seems impossible.

Republicans are now in the position of the barking dog which caught the car it was chasing -- and then didn't know what to do with it. They will have no excuse now for why they can't pass the wildest fantasies of their base into law. Obamacare will be repealed, to be replaced with not much of anything. Gigantic tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy will (obviously) pass rather quickly. The safety net may be shredded or privatized. Who knows, maybe they'll even try to make gay marriage illegal once again. Perhaps the minimum wage will be lowered, or even abolished altogether. The entire Republican agenda is now on the table, and it doesn't really look like anything's going to stop them from passing whatever their little hearts desire.

Trump may go along with the Republican agenda, or he may not. It's really tough to even predict. He's been rather malleable on all kinds of policy ideas during the campaign, and gives the impression that he doesn't really care about any particular ideology. So a Republican Congress may be able to talk him into all sorts of things.

Or maybe not. Trump doesn't really strike me as playing the part of puppet very well, because his ego won't allow him to play second fiddle to anyone. On the issues he does appear to care about, he'll likely refuse to back down. This means that wall will get built, most likely. Millions may get deported as well. Bombs may rain down on ISIS indiscriminately. A trade war with the world may take place, as Trump convinces Congress to slap all sorts of tariffs on foreign goods. Some of what he said on the campaign trail may have been mere bluster, but on the biggest issues he's likely to attempt to follow through. How much of a match his agenda will be with Paul Ryan's agenda remains to be seen.

America under Trump's leadership may soon become a very dark and reactionary place. Will his close advisors be able to rein in Trump's natural vindictiveness? Or will he use the levers of power to get back at his perceived enemies? Nobody knows, at this point.

It'd be comforting to at least hold the belief that this was all some sort of darkness before a new dawn. Will Democrats emerge stronger in the end? Well, they've got a lot of wilderness ahead before that happens, that's the only thing that is sure. Both political parties were ripped apart by the 2016 election, and what gets reconstituted on either side remains to be seen. There are a lot of Bernie Bros saying "I told you so!" this morning, to put this another way. Will the Democrats realize that they've all but forgotten how to make average voters' lives better, and redouble populist efforts to address the concerns of the working class? Or will they attempt to lurch to the center and wind up being Republican-lite? That battle has yet to be fought, and the outcome is far from certain.

I can spin a rosy scenario for the future, but I'm not sure how much I believe it, at this point. California's Proposition 187 is the model for Democrats looking for a silver lining, today. Prop 187 was a virulently anti-immigrant ballot initiative with some of the worst scaremongering on the airwaves behind it. It passed, back in 1994, and the Republican governor who championed it also got re-elected. But Pete Wilson's triumph has turned California solid blue as a direct result. Republicans are now almost irrelevant in the state's politics. The backlash against the ugliness of the Prop 187 campaign convinced a whole lot of Latinos that the Republican Party did not want them at all. They are all now Democrats, and are a big reason why California is so solidly blue.

Will there be a national parallel? People who remember that Prop 187 flipped California to Democratic control for a generation often forget that it passed at the time. We all remember the backlash, but forget that it didn't happen immediately. If President Trump follows through on his promise of mass deportations, Latinos nationwide may start voting Democratic at the same rate as African-Americans. For decades to come. If the Democratic Party manages a comeback in two years (or four, or eight...), this will likely be the driving force behind such a resurgence. Angry white men in California won the battle, but they lost the larger demographic war. If that takes place nationally, the electorate is going to look very different in the next few elections, although not in every state.

Before that happens, though, we're going to have to get through the angry white men era first. Trump's economic promises to his base will be the hardest for him to keep, though. There simply is no magic wand to wave to bring all those manufacturing jobs back to the Rust Belt and beyond. If Trump slaps tariffs on lots of other countries, it could lead to a major recession -- meaning even more economic devastation for all those Midwestern small towns. Repealing Obamacare is going to mean millions will, once again, have no health insurance at all. That's also going to hit rural America hard. When another round of huge tax breaks for the wealthy fails (once again) to cause all those manufacturing jobs to reappear, Trump's own supporters may get pretty disgruntled with him. The Republican Party will have absolutely no excuse why all those rainbows and ponies they had promised everyone failed to materialize. If they hold total control of the government, it's going to be pretty hard to blame the other party if the economy goes south.

Angry Trump voters are triumphant now. They scored a huge upset victory, and they're all (with good reason) patting themselves on the back right now. But that honeymoon is going to wear off at some point. How long it will take and what will happen next is anyone's guess. Right now, though, the angry white men are going to have their day in the sun, whether the rest of us like it or not.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

170 Comments on “Angry White Men Triumphant”

  1. [1] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    I tried to post Glenn Greenwald's latest piece in a comment to your previous column, but the filter ate it, and I'm guessing few will go back to look if it's regurgitated now.

    But it's well worth the read.

    "Democrats, Trump, and the ongoing, dangerous refusal to learn the lesson of Brexit"
    by Glenn Greenwald
    The Intercept
    11/9/16

    He takes particular issue with those blaming everything and everybody but Hillary.
    The idea you are perpetuating that it may have been racism or misogyny at work is discussed, and I think you may actually reconsider the idea if you read it.

    I don't expect the Dems to undertake the necessary introspection though. Most of them are clinging to their finger pointing like Balthasar under your previous column. They focus on every factor except the true cause... the truth about Hillary.

    And, since Dems are still blaming Nader after 16 years and counting, I think their pattern of self-delusion will continue.

    Just to be clear CW, I do NOT include you among the delusional on either of those issues.

    BTW, since you mentioned Hillary's "careful preparation" and her supposedly strong GOTV efforts in previous columns... my personal experience in my swing state home was rather different.
    By election day 2012, (despite being a registered indy) I had received four times as many mailers from Obama as from Romney, five phone calls, and two home visits by volunteers plus an offer of a lift to the polls if needed.
    2016, equal amounts of mailers from Hillary and Trump... no calls, no home visits.

    Not that it would have gotten me to vote for her... I'm just saying her organization wasn't even close to O's here.

    A

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Democrats, Trump, and the ongoing, dangerous refusal to learn the lesson of Brexit"
    by Glenn Greenwald

    As somebody who has lived for extended periods in both Britain and the United States, Greenwald does not know what he is talking about.

    Yes there is a backlash against the elites, but this isn't some fanciful new arrogance the elites have developed recently, but is far more to do with the Gini coefficient. The elites in Britain are richer, but far less powerful than they were 50 years ago. Talking to other Americans, they say the same thing - the elites had a far tighter control of the levers of power in the past than today (they completely controlled the media, and had instilled a far more docile attitude in the populace.

    The big change is the rise of the Gini and two of the three nations with equally high coefficients are the U.K. and the U.S.

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/inequality-america

    A quick search will show how the Gini has increased over the last 50 years (I'll post a link in the next post)

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-major-trends-in-us-income.html#.WCPX5uErI1g

    The insidiousness of the rise in the Gini is that not only are people seeing their standing slip, but unless your kid gets an expensive education and moves to a large city, their chances are getting worse as well.

    So parents are facing flat incomes, rocketing education costs that often wipes out their chance to save for retirement, only to see their kids move 100's of miles away - and those are the lucky ones.

    Trump isn't going to address these problems - he wants more tax cuts for the over $250K crowd, is part of the scam University problem and is the new leader of the party that has pushed hardest for policies that increase the Gini.

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/exit-polls/?hpid=hp_hp-bignews6_graphic-exitpolls-9pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

    Look at the numbers for "Do you expect life for the next generation of Americans to..."

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:

    "By understanding how we misunderstand each other, for example, we may find better ways to overcome misunderstanding, as the work by Willer and Feinberg suggests. But that’s still presuming a common desire for mutual understanding, which may be found in a laboratory setting. But is it truly a realistic presumption to hold onto in America as a whole today?"

    Interesting article:

    http://www.salon.com/2014/11/29/why_are_these_clowns_winning_secrets_of_the_right_wing_brain/

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    Interesting reading Al and Neil; I looked up at the clock and realized I spent 2 hours on your posts and the links contained therein.

    I'm going to agree with Neil on this one. Perhaps because I am not a fan of Greenwald or his buddies Snowden and Manning, who I see as traitors to America belonging in Dante's ninth circle of hell, but I think Greenwald's piece is little more than a self-serving "don't blame me, I told you to pick Bernie."

    You'll just have to take my word for it when I tell you that Bernie wouldn't have survived what the right-wing machine would have done to him either because there's no such thing as a perfect candidate, and some hotshot journalist/Hillary fan on a soapbox like Greenwald could have written a similar piece after Bernie's loss blaming the DNC, super delegates, and/or Democrats for choosing Bernie over Hillary. The Greenwalds and Bernie Bros would be well served to admit that regardless of the propaganda regarding who should have been chosen and why, it was the voters who ultimately chose the nominee.

    We live in the age of information, misinformation, and Greenwald isn't:)

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    This election had absolutely NOTHING to do with Angry White Men...

    It had EVERYTHING to do with Angry Americans..

    Until Democrats understand that and change their ways accordingly, they will continue to lose elections..

    It's THAT simple...

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    The SCOTUS is safe for my lifetime... That is the biggest takeaway from this election...

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    Yer a teacher...

    'Anxious and fearful' students demand day off to cry about Trump
    College students at several schools have started petitions urging their universities and professors to cancel classes in the wake of Donald Trump’s electoral victory, citing “emotional distress.”
    Petitions have sprung up at Loyola University, Bryn Mawr University, and Johns Hopkins University, but so far none of the schools have acceded to the demands.

    https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8367

    Care to field this one???

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    Yer a teacher...

    'Anxious and fearful' students demand day off to cry about Trump
    College students at several schools have started petitions urging their universities and professors to cancel classes in the wake of Donald Trump’s electoral victory, citing “emotional distress.”
    Petitions have sprung up at Loyola University, Bryn Mawr University, and Johns Hopkins University, but so far none of the schools have acceded to the demands.

    https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8367

    Care to field this one???

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump isn't going to address these problems -

    That's an opinion unsupported by any facts whatsoever..

    Ya have been wrong before..

    You MAY be wrong again....

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump isn't going to address these problems -

    That's an opinion unsupported by any facts whatsoever..

    Ya have been wrong before..

    You MAY be wrong again....

  13. [13] 
    neilm wrote:

    If you haven't read "Three Men in a Boat" by the marvelously named Jerome K. Jerome you have a treat in store. A particularly apt quote:

    But who wants to be foretold the weather? It is bad enough when it comes, without our having the misery of knowing about it beforehand. The prophet we like is the old man who, on the particularly gloomy-looking morning of some day when we particularly want it to be fine, looks round the horizon with a particularly knowing eye, and says:

    “Oh no, sir, I think it will clear up all right. It will break all right enough, sir.”

    “Ah, he knows”, we say, as we wish him good-morning, and start off; “wonderful how these old fellows can tell!”

    And we feel an affection for that man which is not at all lessened by the circumstances of its NOT clearing up, but continuing to rain steadily all day.

    “Ah, well,” we feel, “he did his best.”

    For the man that prophesies us bad weather, on the contrary, we entertain only bitter and revengeful thoughts.

    “Going to clear up, d’ye think?” we shout, cheerily, as we pass.

    “Well, no, sir; I’m afraid it’s settled down for the day,” he replies, shaking his head.

    “Stupid old fool!” we mutter, “what’s HE know about it?” And, if his portent proves correct, we come back feeling still more angry against him, and with a vague notion that, somehow or other, he has had something to do with it.

  14. [14] 
    neilm wrote:

    Link to "Three Men in a Boat" if you want to read the whole book.

    http://www.authorama.com/three-men-in-a-boat-1.html

  15. [15] 
    neilm wrote:

    Link to "Three Men in a Boat" if you want to read the whole book.

    http://www.authorama.com/three-men-in-a-boat-1.html

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liberals are comparing the election to 9/11....

    And they wonder why they lost.. :^/

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/photos-l-street-artist-posts-moving-sale-posters-anti-trump-celebrities/

    Hehehehehehehe

    Don't let the door hit ya'all and yer asses as ya'all trip the frak out the door... :D

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    You'll just have to take my word for it when I tell you that Bernie wouldn't have survived what the right-wing machine would have done to him either

    You may, or may not be right about that..

    But one thing is clear..

    Bernie would have had a fighting chance because Bernie was not the epitome of the Establishment and Hillary Clinton was..

    And, as I said til I will blue in the face, this election was SOLELY and COMPLETELY about The Establishment/Status Quo vs REAL CHANGE.....

    And, again as I said til I was blue in the face, the Establishment/Status Quo candidate did not have a snowball's chance in hell of pulling it off..

    Too many Angry Americans....

  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    "Will [the Democrats] attempt to lurch to the center and wind up being Republican-lite ? That battle has yet to be fought..."
    Have you not been paying attention ?
    The Democrats are and have been Republican-lite for more than 20 years. They could only move farther right from the right side of the center.
    And while the battle is not and never will be over, it was recently fought in the 2016 primaries when Bernie tried to move the party back to the left side of the center.
    My hope for the future is that both the current major parties continue to use the axiom "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance- then baffle them with bullshit" and they both will end up like the cartoon I drew about the Reform Party after the 2000 election when Pat Buchanon infiltrated and destroyed the party.
    The first panel showed a lawn sign that said "REFORM PARTY". The second panel showed the sign again with the "R" and "E" ripped off and placed after the "FORM" so that it said "FORMER PARTY".

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Great Words Of Wisdom..

    "Wanting Donald Trump to fail is like wanting the pilot of a plane that we are ALL in to crash..."

    Think about it...

  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (8)-
    You've been on a roll lately- but I hope you're wrong about SCOTUS.
    Hopefully, the SCOTUS that you consider safe will frighten enough people into supporting a Constitutional Amendment to end lifetime appointments.
    The argument for lifetime appointments that it allows the Judges to do the right thing without having to worry about their job security not only defies the checks and balances that prevents abuse by those in power- it enables the Judges to do the wrong thing without having to worry about their job security. See- Kelo and Citizens United just to name a few examples.

  22. [22] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I hope that we're lucky enough that the Clintons and Bushes finally go away.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    I hope that we're lucky enough that the Clintons and Bushes finally go away.

    On THAT, we completely, whole-heartedly and 10000% agree, JFC.... :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    You've been on a roll lately- but I hope you're wrong about SCOTUS.

    Yes, I have.. :D

    Fewer freedoms we have are as sacred as the right to self-defense.. No other freedom is as important...

  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (20)-
    I think what most people fear is that we will be ejected from the plane with the excuse that it is necessary to keep the plane flying when it is really for the reason of expanding first class. Or that Trump will crash the plane whether we support him or not.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think what most people fear is that we will be ejected from the plane with the excuse that it is necessary to keep the plane flying when it is really for the reason of expanding first class. Or that Trump will crash the plane whether we support him or not.

    But the problem comes when people who have that fear base it SOLELY and COMPLETELY on the fact that Trump has a '-R' after his name..

    Like I said, I think the BEST move Trump could make is renounce his Party membership and register as an INDEPENDENT or NPA...

    That chucks the ENTIRE Party RvD meme out the window and will leave Party fanatics on BOTH sides of the spectrum saying, "Welll, frak!! NOW what do we do!!!???"

    Trump owes ZERO allegiance to the GOP....

  27. [27] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Don,

    My fear is that I'll never get to cash a Social Security check now that McConnell & Ryan can run amok. I fear them much more than the Orange One because I really don't believe anything he says. Who knows what his agenda really is?

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:
  29. [29] 
    altohone wrote:

    neilm

    Thanks for the response, but you are not being clear.

    You didn't support your claim the "GG doesn't know what he's talking about" at all.
    And it's quite the broad statement for a four page column.
    Maybe you should quote the part you have a problem with, and explain the relevance of your un-described personal experience.

    It also seems like you're going off on a straw man.
    "levers of power"?

    "I'm right, he's wrong, because I lived there and I talked to people, and look at this graph that proves it"?

    You may think what you're saying is self evident, but you didn't communicate it at all.

    The links you provided actually seem to be making the same point as he is, just using a different metric and terminology

    Focus.
    Read it again if necessary.
    Get back to me if you want.

    A

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    U.S. Stock Futures Signal Dow Will Rise to Record on Trump Bets
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-10/u-s-index-futures-signal-more-stock-gains-on-trump-policy-bets

    So much for the claims of the Left of an economic meltdown...

    Once again, the Ghost Of Brexit Past.... :^/

    NONE of ya'all's arguments have a logical leg to stand on....

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump fared well with women voters despite sex assault claims

    Los Angeles (AFP) - Despite sex assault allegations hounding him, fat-shaming a former beauty queen and his controversial abortion stand, a large number of women voters helped put Donald Trump in the White House.

    Though his rival, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, clinched 54 percent of the female vote, Trump was backed by 42 percent of women voters, which contributed to his stunning victory, according to CNN exit polls.

    Some 53 percent of white women voters supported the Republican candidate, CNN said, the majority of them (62 percent) non-college educated.

    The results upended predictions that sexist and degrading comments Trump made against women would sway female voters -- who accounted for about 52 percent of the electorate Tuesday -- in favor of a candidate that could have broken the glass ceiling.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-fared-well-women-voters-despite-sex-assault-050433269.html

    Once again... Ya'all saw what you WANTED to see... Not what was really there...

  32. [32] 
    altohone wrote:

    kick
    6

    I'm not sure what neil is actually arguing (see my response to him), and you don't say either, so I'm not sure what you're agreeing with. The rest of your comment doesn't seem related to anything neil mentioned.

    Your right wing "Snowden and Manning are evil" position is duly noted.
    Funny how so many Obama and Hillary supporters side with the anti-whistleblower Republicans.

    Should I presume that you believe that none of the information they've made available is anything that Americans deserve to know about?
    That's quite a lot of faith in our government (both the Bush and Obama admins in case you don't realize what you're saying)... I wonder if it will hold up for the next four years?

    You can claim Hillary was the better choice, but the polls, approval ratings and miserable election results don't back it up... so, no, I'm not going to "trust you".

    "It was the voters who ultimately chose the nominee"?
    Sure.
    That's why 5 people at the DNC were fired.
    They didn't influence the outcome at all, right?
    They probably just wanted to spend more time with their families.
    Or maybe you just don't believe the evidence because it was from Wikileaks, even though none of it was shown to be inaccurate?

    There's nothing like the side with a thumb on the scale claiming democracy prevailed.

    Not exactly logical in my book.

    A

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    “There are a lot of people .?.?. who voted for Barack Obama in 2008, who voted for his reelection in 2012, and voted for Donald Trump in 2016. I don’t have an explanation for that, to put it bluntly.”
    -White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest

    The explanation is simple...Earnest just doesn't want to articulate it...

    Obama and the Demorats were more concerned about their agenda and ignored the very people that elected them...

    See? Simple....

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:
  35. [35] 
    dsws wrote:

    dsws wrote:
    It's time to panic. We've got the worst candidate in history. She's on track to lose, and give us the worst president in history.
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/09/16/ftp408/#comment-84716 [Sunday, September 18th, 2016 at 23:27 PDT]

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What do you want, a medal or a chest to pin it on?

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That was a little joke. :)

  38. [38] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    JFC-
    I think not getting your social security counts as being ejected from the plane.
    And you are right to fear the legislative branch more than the executive.
    So the best option at this point is to start now to build Voucher Vendetta for the 2018 election.
    The Tea Party has proven that taking on the establishment candidates in the primaries can work.
    Bernie has proven that small contributions can work.
    Many internet campaigns have moved the public discourse in much less time than the past.
    Voucher Vendetta combines these three proven approaches to create demand, incentive and viability for small contribution candidates to be competitive.
    It enables citizens to work to change the current major parties while at the same time making it possible for third parties and independents to provide a viable alternative if (when) the current major parties resist the change that the citizens demand.
    Citizens can continue to pine for the magic legislation or constitutional amendment to be passed by the Big Money legislators that will solve the problem of Big Money in our political process (don't hold your breath) or they can use the tools that are available right now and take action and demand change by participating in Voucher Vendetta.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    It always struck me as strange that such an unpopular candidate enjoyed such robust and unanimous endorsements from the editorial and opinion pages of the nation’s papers, but it was the quality of the media’s enthusiasm that really harmed her. With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station. Here’s what it consisted of:

    Hillary was virtually without flaws.

    She was a peerless leader clad in saintly white, a super-lawyer, a caring benefactor of women and children, a warrior for social justice.

    Her scandals weren’t real.

    The economy was doing well / America was already great.

    Working-class people weren’t supporting Trump.

    And if they were, it was only because they were botched humans. Racism was the only conceivable reason for lining up with the Republican candidate.

    How did the journalists’ crusade fail? The fourth estate came together in an unprecedented professional consensus. They chose insulting the other side over trying to understand what motivated them. They transformed opinion writing into a vehicle for high moral boasting. What could possibly have gone wrong with such an approach?
    Put this question in slightly more general terms and you are confronting the single great mystery of 2016. The American white-collar class just spent the year rallying around a super-competent professional (who really wasn’t all that competent) and either insulting or silencing everyone who didn’t accept their assessment. And then they lost. Maybe it’s time to consider whether there’s something about shrill self-righteousness, shouted from a position of high social status, that turns people away.

    The even larger problem is that there is a kind of chronic complacency that has been rotting American liberalism for years, a hubris that tells Democrats they need do nothing different, they need deliver nothing really to anyone – except their friends on the Google jet and those nice people at Goldman. The rest of us are treated as though we have nowhere else to go and no role to play except to vote enthusiastically on the grounds that these Democrats are the “last thing standing” between us and the end of the world. It is a liberalism of the rich, it has failed the middle class, and now it has failed on its own terms of electability. Enough with these comfortable Democrats and their cozy Washington system. Enough with Clintonism and its prideful air of professional-class virtue. Enough!
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/donald-trump-white-house-hillary-clinton-liberals

    Everything (and much much more) I said BEFORE the fact
    has been proven to dead on ballz accurate....

  40. [40] 
    Kick wrote:

    [22] JFC,

    I hope that we're lucky enough that the Clintons and Bushes finally go away.

    Well, JFC, his name is George Prescott Bush. I think we'll be hearing from him in the future. He's actually a very nice man whom I have had the pleasure of working with.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, it's true... There were a few... a VERY few for ya'all who tried to point out Hillary's flaws...

    But even those few refused to concede that those flaws were DISQUALIFYING flaws...

    And that is where ya'all went wrong..

    Only two here, besides yours truly, stated for the record that Hillary's flaws were disqualifying...

    So, congrats to Al and Don....... Ya'all made it thru the rain.....

  42. [42] 
    Kick wrote:

    [7] Michale,

    This election had absolutely NOTHING to do with Angry White Men...

    "Absolutely NOTHING to do with Angry White Men"? Of course it did. You are living proof of that. Reread paragraph 2.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Absolutely NOTHING to do with Angry White Men"? Of course it did. You are living proof of that. Reread paragraph 2.

    IF you want to unnecessarily reduce everything to race, I won't bother trying to stop you..

    But my race has absolutely NOTHING to do with my anger....

    I am (or rather WAS) an angry American. PERIOD...

    Anyone who wants to inject race into the election says more about them than it does about the election...

  44. [44] 
    Kick wrote:

    [18] Michale,

    And, again as I said til I was blue in the face, the Establishment/Status Quo candidate did not have a snowball's chance in hell of pulling it off..

    Too many Angry Americans....

    The "Establishment/Status Quo candidate" appears to be on track to receive more votes than the con artist who will take office -- twice in my lifetime, who'd have thunk it?

    Hindsight is 20/20, always seems to be, but if you actually believe that "snowball's chance in hell" applies here, then I have truly misjudged your intellect. :)

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    , but if you actually believe that "snowball's chance in hell" applies here, then I have truly misjudged your intellect. :)

    You may misjudge all you like, but the simple fact is that I was saying constantly that this was an ESTABLISHMENT ELECTION vs an ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT and there is NO WAY that 80% of of Americans would allow an ESTABLISHMENT candidate to win...

    I was right... Dead on ballz right...

    It's THAT simple...

  46. [46] 
    neilm wrote:

    altohone [29]

    Sorry for not being clear.

    Here is a link, that is also embedded in Greenwald's article, that expresses what I was trying to say, and how the Gini coefficient is a simple indicator of the misery that drove Trump support.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/03/trump-supporters-us-elections

  47. [47] 
    neilm wrote:

    Sorry - not being clear again altohone. The Gini coefficient is my scale to map to the points in the Guardian article. As for the education challenge, a quote from the article expresses it more clearly than I obviously did:

    "But in communities I visit, the right education is often beyond most people. Many residents often fail to go beyond high school, and if they do, it is an education cobbled together by night classes and community colleges, together with a concoction of loans, programs and overwhelming debt."

  48. [48] 
    neilm wrote:

    The above quote is why Trump should be strung up by the goolies for Trump University!

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    [25] Don Harris,

    I think what most people fear is that we will be ejected from the plane with the excuse that it is necessary to keep the plane flying when it is really for the reason of expanding first class. Or that Trump will crash the plane whether we support him or not.

    What Don said... with the addition of Frank Abagnale as our pilot. :)

    It wouldn't exactly be Trump's first plane crash, right? ........ or even his second or third or.......

    "Why do the Yankees always win? The other team can't stop looking at the pinstripes." -- Frank Abagnale

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    The above quote is why Trump should be strung up by the goolies for Trump University!

    But Hillary gets a pass for her Email Server and her Pay For Play slush fund...

    You see the point??

    It's *ALL* about Partisan Bigotry.....

  51. [51] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Don,

    "I think not getting your social security counts as being ejected from the plane."

    I definitely agree. I just wanted to state my most specific fear.

  52. [52] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I have a T-shirt that says "Listen to Michael Moore". I wish that more people had. At the very least, a lot fewer people would have been taken by surprise.

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    Trump owes ZERO allegiance to the GOP....

    Trump, more than any GOP candidate in a loooooooong time, relied heavily on the RNC... and all that that implies. In fact, Trump literally owes them his presidency. I totally understand why someone would actually think he owes them "ZERO allegiance," although that is simply not the case. :)

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump, more than any GOP candidate in a loooooooong time, relied heavily on the RNC..

    Bull... Trump cut the RNC loose almost a month ago...

    I totally understand why someone would actually think he owes them "ZERO allegiance," although that is simply not the case. :)

    It IS the case...

    The vast majority of the GOP abandoned Trump after that locker room video was released. Trump returned the favor and gave the RNC the finger a couple weeks later...

    Trump has absolutely ZERO allegiance to the RNC...

    Which is good for America....

  55. [55] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump, more than any GOP candidate in a loooooooong time, relied heavily on the RNC... and all that that implies.

    Here is Trump's dilemma, he can either play the game and become part of the establishment or try to be the voice for the "forgotten" and fight his own party. If he chooses the latter, he might start to regret calling Elizabeth Warren pathetic names because he needs her, and Bernie, more than McConnell or Ryan.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    I still would like to know if it's legally possible for Trump to renounce his GOP membership and declare himself an NPA..

    I would also be interested in the thoughts of ya'all if Trump actually DID that....

  57. [57] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Well gang, Hillary only lost by a percent or two in most of the states that decided the election, and won the popular vote by a sizeable margin, so all this talk of how 'flawed' she was as a candidate is just bunk. Reminds me of the derision heaped on Gore after he lost by a handful of votes (while also winning the popular vote).

    And don't forget, fellow Weigantians, that I called the point-spread, if not the winner, back in July: One percent.

    So neither self-flagellation nor giddy exaltation are called for; rather this is the time for Dems to do a careful, honest autopsy of this event and to apply the lessons of it to the next contest, and for Republicans to realize that they dodged a bullet, miraculously, and without convincing most of the country that they were right. That's not a mandate: that's a warning not to get too cocky.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here is Trump's dilemma, he can either play the game and become part of the establishment or try to be the voice for the "forgotten" and fight his own party.

    Trump has PROVEN beyond ANY doubt that he has NOT problem fighting the Republican Party...

    If he chooses the latter, he might start to regret calling Elizabeth Warren pathetic names because he needs her, and Bernie, more than McConnell or Ryan.

    Why on earth would Trump need Warren or Bernie???

  59. [59] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (49)-
    Nice. Wish I'd thought of that.

    It's time for us passengers to take control of the plane by starting Voucher Vendetta.
    Let's Roll!

  60. [60] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Bull... Trump cut the RNC loose almost a month ago..

    Then you missed Trump's victory speech? He called Priebus up to the podium and said there was 'not one minute' of discord between them. He all but gave his buddy Reince brotherly noogies.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    , and won the popular vote by a sizeable margin,

    The votes have not all be counted... Claiming a popular vote win is premature...

    Further, considering the "LANDSLIDE" and "50-STATE RUN" ya'all predicted, Trump's win IS a mandate...

    I understand yer desire to soften the blow, but the fact is, this is a BLOW OUT of epic proportions...

    ESPECIALLY when you consider that Democrats only picked up a single Senate seat and lost a buttload of State positions...

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    What the heck is 'Voucher Vendetta??

    :-)

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well gang, Hillary only lost by a percent or two in most of the states that decided the election, and won the popular vote by a sizeable margin, so all this talk of how 'flawed' she was as a candidate is just bunk.

    Well, Balthasar, you've got some pretty dandy rose-coloured glasses on there.

    Secretary Clinton and her esteemed campaign team gave us President Trump. That goes well beyond flawed.

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, Balthasar, you've got some pretty dandy rose-coloured glasses on there.

    Secretary Clinton and her esteemed campaign team gave us President Trump. That goes well beyond flawed.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4PHjxRiT2I

    Liz, if we were ^^^^ there, I would give you a big kiss!!!! :D

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Soorry... I am working network topology and am trying to transfer 220 devices to a new subnet....

    I am kinda loopy... :D

  66. [66] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It'll pass ... :)

  67. [67] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Michale: Further, considering the "LANDSLIDE" and "50-STATE RUN" ya'all predicted, Trump's win IS a mandate...

    Considering all the talk about this being a 'popular uprising', Trump's totals weren't much to write home about. More than half the country disagrees with Trump. That's the takeaway you should be pondering right now.

    Liz: Secretary Clinton and her esteemed campaign team gave us President Trump. That goes well beyond flawed.

    Clinton and her esteemed campaign team didn't give us Trump, the folks who didn't vote for Hillary gave us Trump. For instance, despite Trump's insults, his share of the Hispanic vote was about the same as Romney's. The youth vote was down from 2012, so was the black vote. Hillary did her job - not everyone in her coalition did theirs.

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, Balthasar, what you're saying then is that Secretary Clinton ran an inspiring campaign for president but that her fellow Democrats could not be inspired to vote.

    Unbelievable.

  69. [69] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Okay, Liz, tell me what Clinton could have done differently and how her campaign was different than any other candidate's campaign would have been. D'ya want inspiration? Any old fool can inspire a crowd by promising them what they want to hear - Bernie proved that. But as Clinton said, (paraphrasing) in the real world, governing is the art of the possible, not the Candyland fantasies that voters want to hear. Trump just made things up: that was inspiring to a large number of folks.

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I have given my advice frequently here in the pages of this blog.

    Unfortunately, neither you nor Clinton took any notice.

    I have no time for this right now, but, I'll get back to you - probably with a simple cut and paste...

  71. [71] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    No rush. We've got four years to discuss this. :)

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Make that two!

  73. [73] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Make that one and a half. Campaigns start earlier & earlier these days...

  74. [74] 
    neilm wrote:

    Any old fool can inspire a crowd by promising them what they want to hear

    Maybe competence, decency, honesty and intelligence are not required any longer. Trump certainly isn't any of those, and the Republican Party spent two years successfully convincing gullible Americans that Hillary was some sort of criminal.

    If it comes down to having the best entertainers, surely the Democrats have a big edge. Most of the entertainment industry leans left.

    They might need to up the pay - $400k/year is small potatoes - maybe we should pay $25M/year and get some more people interested.

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Clinton and her esteemed campaign team didn't give us Trump, the folks who didn't vote for Hillary gave us Trump. For instance, despite Trump's insults, his share of the Hispanic vote was about the same as Romney's. The youth vote was down from 2012, so was the black vote. Hillary did her job - not everyone in her coalition did theirs.

    Sorry, B... But I have to go with Liz on this..

    It's not the voter's job to vote for candidate A or B..

    It's up to the candidate to make the voter WANT to vote for them...

    If voters didn't vote for Hillary, then that is ALL on Hillary....

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil and Balthasar.

    You are both missing the big picture ... you and most progressives/democrats.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Considering all the talk about this being a 'popular uprising', Trump's totals weren't much to write home about. More than half the country disagrees with Trump. That's the takeaway you should be pondering right now.

    The mere fact that Trump was supposed to get "slaughtered" PROVES that this election was one to write home about...

    Trump did what he had to do to win... Inspire enough voters to vote for him...

    Hillary cannot make the same claim...

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are both missing the big picture ... you and most progressives/democrats.

    EXACTLY...

    They are thinking like Democrats and not like Americans....

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    and the Republican Party spent two years successfully convincing gullible Americans that Hillary was some sort of criminal.

    Not hard to do with the facts prove the case so completely.....

  80. [80] 
    Kick wrote:

    Sorry, B... But I have to go with Liz on this..

    It's not the voter's job to vote for candidate A or B..

    It's up to the candidate to make the voter WANT to vote for them...

    If voters didn't vote for Hillary, then that is ALL on Hillary....

    Wow... I too agree it's on the candidate and their campaign to convince the voters. It was a turnout election, and the voters did not turn out for Hillary. I was underwhelmed by her VP pick; I understand the locking down Virginia part of the equation, but I think she would have been better served with a VP that united the party. :)

  81. [81] 
    neilm wrote:

    Please condescend a bit more Elizabeth so we can fully understand how blind we are.

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow... I too agree it's on the candidate and their campaign to convince the voters. It was a turnout election, and the voters did not turn out for Hillary. I was underwhelmed by her VP pick; I understand the locking down Virginia part of the equation, but I think she would have been better served with a VP that united the party. :)

    I agree... If Hillary had chosen Bernie or Warren, she might have won....

    But Hillary didn't want to share the spotlight....

  83. [83] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    63

    Nicely said.
    Too nicely.

    That's like saying the Challenger wasn't a flawed shuttle, or the Hindenburg wasn't a flawed zeppelin.

    If Dems like Balthy remain stuck in the denial phase, the party will never recover.

    The boggling part is that these types who are all too common somehow feel the need to try to redeem an image forever tarnished by utter failure.

    What possible purpose does it serve? Is it a self-preservation tactic to rationalize the wasted effort and ethical breaches? Are they trying to help Hillary through the revolving door to make more millions to salve her wounds? Is it an attempt by the Dem establishment to defend the status quo and prevent any changes that threaten the jobs they don't deserve, or the policies and tactics that led to their failure?

    Hillary blew it big time... are they trying to raise money to get her a nice participation trophy?

    Can anybody explain this?

    A

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Please condescend a bit more Elizabeth so we can fully understand how blind we are.

    Lemme know if I can be of any help... :D

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Clinton leaves leaderless, rudderless and talentless Democratic Party in crisis - with only pensioners Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders to turn to
    //www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3922902/Leaderless-Democratic-Party-dire-straits-GOP-sweeps.html#ixzz4PdzNXfVZ

    That's the dilemma facing the Democrat Party...

    Ironic..

    ALL the discussions the past few months were of the Republican Party self-destructing...

    While it was the Democrat Party that was on life-support....

  86. [86] 
    neilm wrote:

    Wow... I too agree it's on the candidate and their campaign to convince the voters.

    Hillary was definitely not an inspirational or exciting candidate. If she had won nobody would be bringing this up however. They would be focused on what a disaster Trump is for the Republicans (and he still might be - he has raised high expectations with a lot of very pissed off people who will be very open to a midterm message that Trump has gone native and is just looking out for the elites by a firebrand on the left looking to make a mark for 2020).

    Trump has identified a passionate voting group. I don't buy that they were motivated primarily by racism or social issues - they want good jobs, a decent community to live in, and some respect. This is a Democratic strength.

    So while I can Monday morning quarterback Hillary with the best of them, she is out of the picture and now we need the Trump slayer to arise, phoenix-like from the ashes and force Trump to defend his "forgotten" wing while trying to keep the evangelicals, the libertarians, and the country club crowd happy.

  87. [87] 
    Kick wrote:

    [43] Michale,

    IF you want to unnecessarily reduce everything to race, I won't bother trying to stop you..

    Everything? Seriously? Did I write this column?

    Anyone who wants to inject race into the election says more about them than it does about the election...

    See your comment at [28] with the link to Alex Jones conspiracy website about blacks beating up a poor white Trump voter. :) Note to self.....

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hillary was definitely not an inspirational or exciting candidate. If she had won nobody would be bringing this up however.

    That's right. But, we were bringing this up well before she lost when there was still time to turn her campaign around.

  89. [89] 
    altohone wrote:

    neilm
    46,47

    So, you are agreeing with GG you just didn't like the terminology?

    I guess that means that kick was agreeing with GG too.

    Whatever.

    Thanks for trying to clarify.

    A

  90. [90] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al,

    Can anybody explain this?

    I would say simply that a deep sense of entitlement coupled with a certain and dangerous complacency rendered Hillary unable - at any time, even over the course of a very, very long campaign - to assess the situation, learn from it and make critical adjustments.

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    IF you want to unnecessarily reduce everything to race, I won't bother trying to stop you..

    Everything? Seriously? Did I write this column?

    Again.. A royal "you".... :D

    Anyone who wants to inject race into the election says more about them than it does about the election...

    See your comment at [28] with the link to Alex Jones conspiracy website about blacks beating up a poor white Trump voter. :) Note to self.....

    I follow where the conversation goes... :D

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's right. But, we were bringing this up well before she lost when there was still time to turn her campaign around.

    Word......

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.greatagain.gov/index.html

    Looks great to me!! Let's get started.... :D

  94. [94] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    Trump has absolutely ZERO allegiance to the RNC...

    Which is good for America....

    What we wish to be and what "is" are sometimes two different things. I know you want Trump to be an Independent, but he's already crashed the G.O. Party and rode its elephant to a win. If he were truly the cash rich and successful businessman he claimed to be, he could afford to shoot the elephant, but he's really not that guy... so he can't... at least not right away, but things could get interesting maybe later. :)

  95. [95] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    Trump has identified a passionate voting group. I don't buy that they were motivated primarily by racism or social issues - they want good jobs, a decent community to live in, and some respect. This is a Democratic strength.

    Then explain why Hillary failed to fully recognize and adequately address this voting group and other voters who stayed home and who really needed to hear an uplifting message from the Democratic nominee that demonstrated she understood their problems and how to make their lives better.

    And, why didn't she communicate clearly how the economic policies of the Democrats are far superior to those of the Republican cult of economic failure? She would have done better to acknowledge the difficulties that Clinton trade policies have created and what she can do to mitigate against them.

    And, that's just for starters.

  96. [96] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    I still would like to know if it's legally possible for Trump to renounce his GOP membership and declare himself an NPA..

    I would also be interested in the thoughts of ya'all if Trump actually DID that....

    I respect the office of the presidency no matter who holds it or what party affiliation they hold. I don't necessarily respect the person who holds the office. An unqualified con artist by any other name is still an unqualified con artist, and I have high hopes that he surrounds himself with capable persons no matter what their political affiliation. "Our government" is run by a collection of "we the people" from the presidency at the top down to the grunt entering the military... along with many others who take the oath.

    Let it permeate your misguided notion about the "D" and the "R" nonsense, at least where I am concerned. I might have voted for John Kasich if he were nominee of the GOP. True fact. :)

  97. [97] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    There is an excellent article coming soon, after Veterans Day, on the legacy of the Clintons that I will post a link to on the current thread here.

    It'll be a real eye-opener! :)

  98. [98] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    balthasar, LIz (71-73)-
    As I pointed out yesterday the 2018 election has already started. The fundraising started for Congress yesterday and four years ago for the Senate.
    And if you voted for a congressional or senatorial candidate in 2016 you already cast your first vote of 2018 because those 2016 votes are used to establish the status of the parties for 2018.
    With 90% of congressional districts gerrymandered to favor Republicans or Democrats there was only one candidate that could win these elections.
    Will anyone here admit they were duped into voting for the lesser of two evil congressional candidates in 2016 when there really was only one candidate that could win that election ?
    For example, are you a Democrat in a gerrymandered Republican district that voted for a Democrat that didn't have a chance to win or the other way around ? If so, do you still claim that someone that voted for a third party candidate wasted their vote- but you didn't ?

  99. [99] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    You may misjudge all you like, but the simple fact is that I was saying constantly that this was an ESTABLISHMENT ELECTION vs an ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT and there is NO WAY that 80% of of Americans would allow an ESTABLISHMENT candidate to win...

    Permission to midjudge... excellent! Yet it appears the majority of people, 60,000,000+ have in fact voted for the "establishment" candidate. If 80% of the electorate had voted for Trump there wouldn't be so many people in the streets carrying signs and protesting (not my thing, BTW), and then I'd say you were DOB accurate, but they didn't... so.... :)

  100. [100] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Balthgasar (69)-
    Hillary could have said after the primary that she recognized that Bernie proved that small contributions can finance a competitive campaign and run her general election campaign only with small contributions from individuals with no Superpacs.
    This would have inspired many of the Bernie supporters that voted for Trump, Stein, Johnson or just stayed home to vote for Hillary.
    I wouldn't even be surprised to find that I suggested such an approach right here at some point (I don't really keep track of all my comments when we have Michale here to do that for us).

  101. [101] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Looks great to me!! Let's get started....

    Ok....So when exactly is Trump planning on bringing his manufacturing for his products back to the US?

  102. [102] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I also don't keep track of everyone else's comments. But I think that at some point someone here said that Voucher Vendetta was a good idea, but the time to start it was not during an election cycle- it was after the 2016 election was over.
    It's over. If you remember making that comment- are you ready to sign up now ?
    At some point we are all going to have to take a page out of Bill Belichek's (probasbly spelled thagt wrong )book when he said "We're moving on to Cleveland" and start moving on to 2018 before it's too late again.

  103. [103] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Crap. Spelled Cincinnati wrong too. It came out as Cleveland.
    "Missed it by that much".
    - Maxwell Smart

  104. [104] 
    Kick wrote:

    [91] Michale,

    Again.. A royal "you".... :D

    Oh, the pluralis majestatis. Okay then. For a minute there, I thought you -- NOT the "royal you" -- were getting all personal. :)

    I follow where the conversation goes... :D

    But following Alex Jones? Spare me the chemtrail, Jade Helm, false flags, and various assorted and ridiculous BS from the fringe...... please :)

  105. [105] 
    neilm wrote:

    Then explain why Hillary failed to fully recognize and adequately address this voting group and other voters who stayed home and who really needed to hear an uplifting message from the Democratic nominee that demonstrated she understood their problems and how to make their lives better.

    Usually elections have "soccer mums" or "Nascar dads". In fact, I think CW had a column on the swing demographic this time round and we were all focused on "Chardonnay moms" or something like that.

    All the pollsters, plus myself and maybe everybody else on this thread missed the depth of anger that let people not care what a hideous creep Trump is and vote for him (I don't see Michale's comments any longer for obvious reasons, but back when I had the patience for him he was pointing out a general malaise that he claimed the rest of us were missing - if he would only drop the confrontation and false attribution, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum).

    As I've already stated, Hillary is not an inspiring candidate, she is just the best qualified for the job. That should have been enough, and I believe if she had seen the real cause of the anger from the "forgotten" she would have been able to adjust her message accordingly.

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    What we wish to be and what "is" are sometimes two different things. I know you want Trump to be an Independent,

    It's little matter what I *want*...

    Ya'all have proven beyond ANY doubt that Trump has no more allegiance to the GOP that he has to the Democrat Party..

    An unqualified con artist by any other name is still an unqualified con artist,

    And an unqualified con artist simply could NOT have been the hugely successful businessman that Trump undeniably is...

    Oh, the pluralis majestatis. Okay then. For a minute there, I thought you -- NOT the "royal you" -- were getting all personal. :)

    Perish the thought... :D

    But following Alex Jones?

    Just like ya'all follow HuffPoop and DailyKO$

    and various assorted and ridiculous BS from the fringe...... please :)

    Back atcha :D

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    DNC Staffer Screams At Donna Brazile For Helping Elect Donald Trump
    Democrats’ nerves are raw in Washington after Tuesday’s stunning loss.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donna-brazile-democratic-national-committee_us_5824cb95e4b0ddd4fe7954e8

    It has begun...

    Democrats start eating Democrats.....

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    GT,

    Ok....So when exactly is Trump planning on bringing his manufacturing for his products back to the US?

    I'll give him a call and ask...

    I'll let you know...

    But, can we at least agree that THIS is a GOOD thing to do???

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Missed it by that much".
    - Maxwell Smart

    {sniffle} I am so proud.... :D

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    All the pollsters, plus myself and maybe everybody else on this thread missed the depth of anger

    Ahem... Speak fer yerself, Bub.... :D

    I have been talking about that depth of anger for almost a year now....

    Vindication, thy name is Michale....

  111. [111] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    As I've already stated, Hillary is not an inspiring candidate, she is just the best qualified for the job. That should have been enough, and I believe if she had seen the real cause of the anger from the "forgotten" she would have been able to adjust her message accordingly.

    Being the best qualified for the job is simply not good enough when you are trying to reach millions of voters who, unlike you, do not pay attention to politics and are not equipped to discern who is the candidate that best represents them and offers the best solutions to their problems.

    Hillary, like most candidates, spent too much time preaching to the choir at events made for political junkies and activists and the like. That's not how you reach the people you need to win ... at least, not in this campaign.

    Hillary Clinton should have seen the anger, understood the anger and reacted to it in a way that resonated with these potential voters because her entire campaign centered around her constant portrayal of her experience working for those very people!

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    (I don't see Michale's comments any longer for obvious reasons, but back when I had the patience for him he was pointing out a general malaise that he claimed the rest of us were missing - if he would only drop the confrontation and false attribution, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum).

    See what happens when you decide that the facts aren't worth listening to??

    You look like a doofus wondering how it all could have gone so bad...

    Had you been reading my comments instead of hiding from the FACTS, this would not have come as such a shock....... :D

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary, like most candidates, spent too much time preaching to the choir at events made for political junkies and activists and the like. That's not how you reach the people you need to win ... at least, not in this campaign.

    Ding, Ding, Ding!!! We have a winner...

    That is EXACTLY why Trump won....

    He took his message into Hillary territory...... Crisscrossing Michigan and Pennsylvania and Ohio and Wisconsin......

    THAT is why Trump won....

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump took Hillary's big blue wall and pissed all over it....

    Who would have thunked that???

    Oh... Wait.....

    :D

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    she is just the best qualified for the job

    Depends on what job we're talking about...

    If the JOB is to be a mealy mouthed politician who takes a focus group before making a decision, who says whatever someone wants to hear just to get a donation and who has a PUBLIC position and a TOTALLY different position in Private...

    Yea... If THAT is the job you are referring to, then Hillary is PERFECT for that job.... :^/

    Thank gods, TRUMP is President...

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    After saying all of the afore, let me say this..

    It's nice to see that there is universal acceptance of the election results around here...

    That is a very pleasant non-surprise.......

  117. [117] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, everyone -- see new program note for today.

    Today's column will be late, and may not appear at all. Hopefully, the wait will be worth it in the end.

    Oh, and I've freed up that comment from the filter for altohone... just FYI... (the Glenn Greenwald thing). Sorry for the delay.

    -CW

  118. [118] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    ESPECIALLY when you consider that Democrats only picked up a single Senate seat and lost a buttload of State positions...

    Two senate seats... better than losing two senate seats, given the outcome of the presidential election.

  119. [119] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    But, can we at least agree that THIS is a GOOD thing to do???

    Certainly, and I think you would be hard pressed to find those who would disagree.

    At the same token don't you think it would be a good thing for him to put his money where his campaign promises are?

    It would certainly be a good indicator of how he actually intends to govern...

    Especially given that the majority in this country voted for the losing candidate...albeit a very small majority but a majority none the less. Would an announcement of him starting to bring back his manufacturing jobs not go along way to helping mend that fence?

  120. [120] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hillary Clinton should have seen the anger, understood the anger and reacted to it in a way that resonated with these potential voters because her entire campaign centered around her constant portrayal of her experience working for those very people!

    No Elizabeth, Clinton worked with kids, the African-American community in inner cities, etc. I'm happy to admit that I didn't expect so many rural white voters to fall for an obvious con man, or knew what he was but did not care. Did you predict the strength of support in these communities that put Trump over the top? Were you calling Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin for Trump? I don't know anybody who was. The best reporting we got from this area was done by a reporter from the bloody British Guardian Newspaper (see below). The pollsters missed it in spades.

    The Guardian's Chris Arnade received his PhD in physics from Johns Hopkins University in 1992. He spent the next 20 years working as a trader on Wall Street. He left trading in 2012 to focus on photography.

    Look at what he wrote on November 3rd:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/03/trump-supporters-us-elections

  121. [121] 
    neilm wrote:

    If you don't want to read the link in [120], this quote might change your mind:

    As Trump gained momentum, as he marched towards the GOP nomination, his message started to resonate with these entire communities – including those that were doing well economically. Many solidly middle-class Americans have friends, relatives, or congregants who are suffering.

    More than that, supporting Trump has become a way of showing support for their failing communities. It had become tribal: entire communities were joining the back-row kids.

  122. [122] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [20]

    "Wanting Donald Trump to fail is like wanting the pilot of a plane that we are ALL in to crash..."

    I would consider crashing to be far and away the better of the two options presented here.

    And it isn't a case of wanting Trump to fail, it's a case of knowing that such failure is inevitable.

  123. [123] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [9] and [10]

    'Anxious and fearful' students demand day off to cry about Trump
    College students at several schools have started petitions urging their universities and professors to cancel classes in the wake of Donald Trump’s electoral victory, citing “emotional distress.”
    Petitions have sprung up at Loyola University, Bryn Mawr University, and Johns Hopkins University, but so far none of the schools have acceded to the demands.

    And what, may I ask, has the president-elect done about this?

    Nothing

    Not a damn thing.

    Probably too busy arranging his next golf game with the Russian ambassador.

  124. [124] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [85]

    That's the dilemma facing the Democrat Party...

    No, that's not the dilemma facing the Democratic Party (there is no such thing as the Democrat Party and, as far as I know, never has been).

    Why? Because the Democratic Party will be systematically eradicated by republicans who now have supreme power over the country and all its people. They will not govern, they will rule. And they will never ever give up the power they now have. They will expand that power instead.

    That's why in the 115th Congress, the Senate will nuke the filibuster, because the republicans know they will never need it again.

    After the 2018 elections, I fully expect the republicans to have at least 70 senators and after 2020, they will have 90+.

    They will also increase their majority in the House until it is at least 400+.

    Democrats no longer have any power whatsoever. There is nothing they can say or do that will have any influence or effect whatsoever. The Bernie supporters who witter on about Bernie being a voice "for the people" in the 115th Congress, is delusional. The same is true for Elizabeth Warren fans. And I have yet to meet anyone who has the slightest regard for Chuck Schumer.

    The Democrats might as well do a Rubio and not bother turning up at all. It will save them a lot of impotent angst.

  125. [125] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Always the drama queen, Mopshell. :)

  126. [126] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No, Neil ... I was calling for her to up her game.

    She didn't.

    Then, she lost.

    Deal with it.

  127. [127] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil[121]

    What did Hillary do to counteract all of that?

    Nada.

  128. [128] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That is a very pleasant non-surprise.......

    Indeed.

  129. [129] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    For some reason this fits at the moment...

    Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
    Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
    Everybody knows that the war is over
    Everybody knows the good guys lost
    Everybody knows the fight was fixed
    The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
    That's how it goes
    Everybody knows

    Everybody Knows - Leonard Cohen - 1988

    RIP - you will be missed on those times when I need to listen to the blues.

  130. [130] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Shocking and sad news ...

  131. [131] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    My favourite ... Hallelujah

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrLk4vdY28Q

  132. [132] 
    neilm wrote:

    Elizabeth [127]

    Try to understand before one of us passes away (I'm channeling your penchant for condescension and it feels good), nobody understood the depth of support Trump had with the white vote in the rural and semi-rural areas of the rust belt. Trump blabbered on about it, but since about 75% of everything he says he makes up as he goes along, who knew he'd get lucky and get this one right.

  133. [133] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If Hillary had made use of some very compelling countervailing measures, Trump may not have been so lucky.

    Do you have a favourite Leonard Cohen song?

  134. [134] 
    neilm wrote:

    Sad news about Leonard Cohen. My first girlfriend was a goth who was into Cohen - unusual at the time. She was a couple of years older than me and cried when Led Zep broke up. I got an unexpected titty feel that night (we were so innocent) so I've always felt ambivalent about that particular ending.

    She would recite Cohen lyrics as poetry and had the prettiest face when she cried and smiled at the end. She left me for an older guy - everybody but me saw that one coming, it turned out. It was a bummer and I remember thinking that Cohen had predicted it all for me. I've avoided him ever since, obviously to my detriment.

    I was just as much of a fool as a teenager as I am today.

    Miss you Jacqui.

  135. [135] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That was very nice, Neil.

    Try this one on ...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_NpxTWbovE

  136. [136] 
    Kick wrote:

    I like the Hallelujah from Shrek... when Shrek says to Donkey: "You thought wrong!" and then Donkey hangs his head and walks away dejected.

    https://youtu.be/niVNAM4s5Fg?t=5m40s

    Poor Donkey. Hey... I just realized mine is actually kind of political because of Donkey... Sad!

  137. [137] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Apparently, one rendition or another can be found almost everywhere ... movies, tv shows, endless covers ... it's no wonder as it is a hauntingly beautiful song.

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    GT,

    At the same token don't you think it would be a good thing for him to put his money where his campaign promises are?

    IN what way???

    Especially given that the majority in this country voted for the losing candidate...albeit a very small majority but a majority none the less. Would an announcement of him starting to bring back his manufacturing jobs not go along way to helping mend that fence?

    It sure would.. Give him team.. Right now, he is beefing up his security forces, what with all the death threats and all....

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Did you predict the strength of support in these communities that put Trump over the top? Were you calling Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin for Trump? I don't know anybody who was.

    Yes you do. You simply refuse to read my comments...

    "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!"
    -Jack Nicholson, A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    And it isn't a case of wanting Trump to fail, it's a case of knowing that such failure is inevitable.

    No one can know the future..

    Well, except me, apparently.. :D

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    And what, may I ask, has the president-elect done about this?

    Nothing

    Not a damn thing.

    What would you have him do???

    Probably too busy arranging his next golf game with the Russian ambassador.

    Do you REALLY want to slam a person for playing golf??? REALLY?? :D

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why? Because the Democratic Party will be systematically eradicated by republicans who now have supreme power over the country and all its people. They will not govern, they will rule. And they will never ever give up the power they now have. They will expand that power instead.

    And many on the Right said the EXACT same thing about Democrats and the Democrat Party...

    That's why in the 115th Congress, the Senate will nuke the filibuster, because the republicans know they will never need it again.

    It was the Democrats who thru the first nuke...

    The GOP didn't nuke the filibuster when they first got control of the Senate. There is absolutely no reason to think they will do it now...

    But if they do, the Democrats only have themselves to blame..

    They tossed the first nuke...

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    nobody understood the depth of support Trump had with the white vote in the rural and semi-rural areas of the rust belt.

    Yes, someone did!!!

    But it was someone YOU refused to listen to....

    That's ALL on you, my friend...

    Someone tried to warn you of the coming "doom" and all you did was stick yer fingers in your ears and say, "neener, neener, neener, I'm Not Listening To You"

    THAT is your biggest take-away from this election...

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    GT,

    It sure would.. Give him team.. Right now, he is beefing up his security forces, what with all the death threats and all....

    That should read, GIVE HIM TIME...

    My bust...

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    GT,

    Certainly, and I think you would be hard pressed to find those who would disagree.

    Apparently, only you and I seem to agree on this... :^/

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all need to ask yourselves, "WHY DID DEMOCRATS DO SO BAD??"

    I'll give ya'all a hint.. Look to the 2014 mid-term elections for your answers.....

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Then you missed Trump's victory speech? He called Priebus up to the podium and said there was 'not one minute' of discord between them. He all but gave his buddy Reince brotherly noogies.

    And he also said Hillary was awesome and thanked her for her service...

    That doesn't mean he wouldn't show her the door if she got in the way of his governing..

    So it is with the GOP..

    Let me be clear..

    Trump owes NO ALLEGIANCE to the Republican Party..

    ZERO.... ZIP.... NADA..... NONE......

  148. [148] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    90

    I agree with your assessment.
    Hillary was incapable of making the changes necessary to win, except that I believe that even if she had tried, it wouldn't have been believable.

    However, my comment wasn't about Hillary at all.
    I was asking someone to explain the actions of her supporters right now.

    Hillary is gone.
    The Clinton's are no longer relevant to the Democratic party except as a lesson on what not to do.

    The party is stuck with her supporters though.
    They need to be rehabilitated.
    Or the needed lesson will not be learned.

    A

  149. [149] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    105

    "As I've already stated, Hillary is not an inspiring candidate, she is just the best qualified for the job. That should have been enough, and I believe if she had seen the real cause of the anger from the "forgotten" she would have been able to adjust her message accordingly"

    The causes of the anger were the economic policies that Hillary supported.

    That alone is proof she was never the best qualified.

    But Liz is right.
    Inspiring voters to vote is the first required qualification. Winning is the necessary first step.

    A

  150. [150] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [141]

    Do you REALLY want to slam a person for playing golf??? REALLY??

    It was good enough for you republicans.

  151. [151] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [125]

    Always the condescending mean girl.

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    Always the condescending mean girl.

    Yer not mean..... :D

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you REALLY want to slam a person for playing golf??? REALLY??

    It was good enough for you republicans.

    And that's who you want to measure up to???

  154. [154] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [81] Neilm

    Touché!

  155. [155] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [153]

    Michale-

    And that's who you want to measure up to???

    Well, it's good enough for you, Michale, and as the saying goes: "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, I aspire to much MUCH more..

    That is why I am a registered NPA and voted for Trump. The first TRULY Independent President in my lifetime... :D

    Michale

  157. [157] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [142]

    Michale -

    And many on the Right said the EXACT same thing about Democrats and the Democrat Party...

    Whaaaaa? You're actually suggesting that "many on the Right" were actually wrong about something?

    It was the Democrats who thru the first nuke...

    Yes and about bloody time too. The filibuster is an obstructional and anti-democratic practice.

    The GOP didn't nuke the filibuster when they first got control of the Senate. There is absolutely no reason to think they will do it now...

    Of course they didn't, not then. At the time they didn't own all three branches of government in addition to more than two-thirds of the states. But they do now. The playing field has radically changed. I expect the filibuster will be consigned to the dust of history on the first day of the 115th Congress and good riddance.

    But if they do, the Democrats only have themselves to blame..

    They tossed the first nuke...

    I give them credit for that, not blame.

  158. [158] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [156]

    Michale -

    Oh, I aspire to much MUCH more..

    I'm sure we're all looking forward to finding out what that is. :D

    PS: You had better be taking good care of yourself! How are you feeling now?

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whaaaaa? You're actually suggesting that "many on the Right" were actually wrong about something?

    They sure as hell were wrong about Trump not being able to win, eh???

    You seem to forget that I am a registered NPA.. NO Political Affiliation...

    Yes and about bloody time too. The filibuster is an obstructional and anti-democratic practice.

    SO, you CHEER when the Democrats do it, but condemn the Republicans when you think THEY are going to do it...

    And the logic of that is.....????? What exactly???

    I give them credit for that, not blame.

    But you WOULD blame the GOP for doing the exact same thing...

    There's a word for that.. :D

    Of course they didn't, not then. At the time they didn't own all three branches of government in addition to more than two-thirds of the states. But they do now. The playing field has radically changed. I expect the filibuster will be consigned to the dust of history on the first day of the 115th Congress and good riddance.

    Wager?? :D

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    PS: You had better be taking good care of yourself! How are you feeling now?

    Doing great, thanx... Pushing my arm WAY too much, but the bills don't stop just because body parts are falling off... :D

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    How have you been doing?? NO more hospital stays, I hope......

  162. [162] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    [125] Always the condescending mean girl.

    I resemble that remark. :)

  163. [163] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    That is why I am a registered NPA and voted for Trump. The first TRULY Independent President in my lifetime... :D

    I'm not sure what you mean by 'TRULY Independent' ... or, what that a little joke. Heh.

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm not sure what you mean by 'TRULY Independent' ...

    Trump is the first President who is nearly hated by Republicans as much as Democrats..

    If that's not INDEPENDENT, nothing is. :D

  165. [165] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I think we'll have to wait and see what kind of administration the president-elect puts together before assigning an Independent designation to him or it ...

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think we'll have to wait and see what kind of administration the president-elect puts together before assigning an Independent designation to him or it ...

    Well, I agree that the designation MAY change...

    But it is simply undeniable that A LOT of Republicans hate Trump as much as a LOT of Democrats do..

    And a LOT of Democrats love Trump as much as a LOT of Republicans do...

    In my book, that is the epitome of what constitutes a political "INDEPENDENT"...

    I grant you, that may change in the future... Trump MAY earn the moniker of DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN in the future...

    But in the here and now...

    Trump is as INDEPENDENT or NPA as they come....

    That's my story and I am stickin' to it!! :D

  167. [167] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Fair enough, for now ... :)

    BTW, Michale, you'll be very interested to read a piece which will soon be posted in the Huffington Post, revealing some very interesting observations about Secretary Clinton and President-elect Trump.

    Now, I know what you're gonna say about the Huffington Post but, you miss out on some very important essays just because they happen to be posted at a site you don't favour.

    I'll post a link to it as soon as I can but, for now, I just wanted to give you a quick heads-up in the hopes that you may seriously consider reading and discussing it ...

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    For you, I promise to read it and give it a fair shake... :D

  169. [169] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You won't be disappointed.

  170. [170] 
    Kick wrote:

    [32] altohone,

    Your right wing "Snowden and Manning are evil" position is duly noted.

    Funny how so many Obama and Hillary supporters side with the anti-whistleblower Republicans.

    My "right wing" position? Well this is a first; I've never been described as a rightie before. I never said they were "evil," and I don't think they actually are "evil." I do think they are traitors (the legal definition). I don't "side with the Republicans," my opinions are based on facts.

    Should I presume that you believe that none of the information they've made available is anything that Americans deserve to know about?

    I have no idea why you would presume anything, but the answer to the question seemingly within a question is "no."

    That's quite a lot of faith in our government (both the Bush and Obama admins in case you don't realize what you're saying)... I wonder if it will hold up for the next four years?

    I know the entire history of the NSA and PRISM. At one point, I held a security clearance myself. I do realize exactly what I am saying more than you will possibly ever know. The next four years? I'd rather not think about that at the present time.

    It would serve people well to realize that "our government" is a collection of "we the people"... from the very top of the chain with the POTUS all the way down to the bottom of the chain with the 18-year-old grunt entering military service. "Our government" is not a scary entity to me, it's a group of professionals and non-professionals in public service. Manning and Snowden were two of those people making up what we refer to as "our government." They took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and our country from enemies both foreign and domestic. Breaking that oath and breaking the law is grounds for punishment. They both knew that going in. Disclosing information in good faith as a whistleblower does not excuse disclosing information that goes beyond that definition and might possibly harm America or any of our people.

    Manning: While I sympathize with his/her emotional issues (which I won't discuss), it does not excuse his crimes.

    Snowden: Don't get me started on him, seriously.... DO. NOT. GET. ME. STARTED. ON. SNOWDEN.

    I will say:

    * Writing an "open letter" to Brazil in an attempt to obtain political asylum by offering to assist Brazil with investigation of United States surveillance because you leaked information about the U.S. spying on the Brazilian government is NOT "standing up for the Constitutional rights of Americans."

    * I see no connection whatsoever to our Constitution in Snowden's leak of documents that pertained to al-Qaeda’s efforts to shoot down or hack drones of the United States.

    * Two million documents (he could not possibly have reviewed as he claimed).

    Snowden wanted to be famous. He tried other means of becoming famous and failed. He's a self-serving fame-seeking lying POS. How can "our government" of "we the people" continue to function when its employees and contractors decide to take it upon themselves to sabotage our processes and programs they morally disagree with... the arrogance of his ilk making decisions for the rest of us is beyond the pale. He deserves whatever they give him and more. Enough said about the arrogance and narcissism of Snowden.

    polls, approval ratings and miserable election results don't back it up... so, no, I'm not going to "trust you".

    I didn't ask you to "trust" me; I said believe me. You'll believe what you wish no matter what I say and no matter how correct I am so...

    I will say that polls look really good when your oppo file is barely scratched and no one is tearing you down because they'd rather run against you versus your opponent. A candidate who can't get the support of the black community is not going to be the nominee of the Democratic Party. Bernie couldn't so he wasn't.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/23/1529938/-11-reasons-why-Bernie-Sanders-lost-this-thing-fair-and-square

    They didn't influence the outcome at all, right?

    You like to presume a lot. I didn't say that. The DNC wanted a Democrat to be their nominee. Is that so surprising? Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat.

    They probably just wanted to spend more time with their families.

    Or maybe you just don't believe the evidence because it was from Wikileaks, even though none of it was shown to be inaccurate?

    You presume way too much.

    There's nothing like the side with a thumb on the scale claiming democracy prevailed.

    More presumption. Boo hoo. Bernie got less votes. If he had been able to get support from communities of color, he'd have been the nominee, just like Barack Obama became the nominee in 2008 when the DNC had favored Clinton then also.

    Not exactly logical in my book.

    Your book? *LOL* Should I presume your book is a work of fiction of your own making, misclassified as non-fiction in your very own little library?

    If you presume too much about people you know nothing about, you're naturally going to frequently come to the wrong conclusions based on your own misguided assumptions and presumptions. :)

Comments for this article are closed.