LOL.

For my part anyway, yes I am not thrilled about a Trump presidency based on his platform and campaign, but I'm willing to sit back and see what sort of action is taken before I get super worked up.

Agree with most of the tone of the post, even if not all the content, apart fom the snarky comment at the end, so i'll retort with a slightly snarky comment of my own:

I was replying to (even quoted) a post that was about the losing side protesting a democratic vote.

All of the rest of your points are fairly argued (and FWIW I do agree the public shouldn't have voted on that decision) but I would say that in fact Brexit and POTUS were very similar on the surface: lies on both sides, big claims that just aren't true (I also agree with you on the NHS bit), farcical behaviour throughout from both sides and a protest by the losing side basically because of a lack of acceptance/understanding that other people disagreed with them.

This is a very good point and makes me realize I should have stated what I was trying to say much better.

First I think everyone, or darn near everyone, "governing" up in DC are a bunch of immature blow hards who talk a big game and not much else. I wasnt referring the the politicians themselves.

I was more referring to my interaction with folks in my social circle and my observations of those around me. I've been very open and candid here about my past and current career. I have long networked and lived in a group of middle to upper middle class small business owners. It is rare, so strikingly rare to be notable, to find anyone in those circles who is a D. When I think of Democrats that I know in "real life" away from the internet they without exception fall into one of the following categories:
1- Young idealists - frequentyl college students or recent college grads
2- Those who work at Universities or other Education based
3- Freeloaders
4- A select handful of aging "southern democrats" who ant let go of the title and in some cases dont even realize the party has completely flipped from why they aligned to start with.


I'd challenge anyone who works in or around the construction industries (expanded to include contractors, suppliers, engineers, and designers) to tell em they know a wide swath of democrats. They certainly dont exist in that industry in the southeast.

And if we are serious about putting more Americans to work and for a true living wage - in my view construction industry jobs are key. Bringing min wage textile or low skill manufacturing jobs to the country doesnt really provide much value. But skilled trades in the construction are a dieing art and way for someone even with minimal formal education to make an outstanding living.

Good lord, man. Look at some of your Obama and Clinton posts.

My point was that there is no reason for hysterics on either side after an election. Things will be a little different under Trump, but nothing that is worth the level of fear out there. The right was terrified when Obama took office, and things are OK now. There are some policies that helped and some that caused some issues, but overall nothing dire happened. In four years, we will be at the same place with Trump.

All that said, I see no reason to stop people from supporting their party and doing what they can to either support or obstruct Trump with future elections. I think that is healthy - I just thing all the fear and anger against the other side when they win is pointless (and sometimes damaging) energy.

I expect the Republicans to use the nuclear option if the Dems try to block Trump nominees. And the Dems are unlikely to take back the Senate in 2018 as they have to defend all of their 2012 gains, many of them in red states. Also your last bit about why we has elections has nothing to do with the fear argument. I agree that elections have consequences and Presidents get to pick their own SCOTUS nominees. If they're qualified, then partisanship isn't a correct reason to oppose them. But I'm worried about what that 2nd Trump nominee will do. The fact that he has the right to make that appointment doesn't absolve the fear.



McConnell has already said that ACA repeal will be immediate, but it will be a while before a replacement is ready. And a pre-existing conditions coverage requirement won't be included in whatever GOP plan comes forward, because that would require the mandate that they oppose. I understand all of the arguments for and against the ACA, but again we're talking about fear. And my mom is definitely afraid of losing her ACA coverage and I am not confident at all that Republicans (who rejected expanded Medicaid) will have something in place for her.


I really don't get what you're going for here. I mean I could go into a long thing talking about why Obama had to use EO's because even when he proposed moderate things, he was treated like the devil, but none of that matters. If people currently have some protection from an EO and they're about to lose it, they're scared. You wanted to know why people were afraid. I told you why. And I don't think they're crazy for feeling that way.

So, basically, your fear is based on a full repeal of the ACA (which couldn't go into effect until 2018) with no safety-net subsidy/replacement and Trump replacing two vacancies in the next 3-4 years (when only one is available) with extremely conservative judges. Again, seems like a lot of "what if" fears that aren't unlike the right with Obama. Neither of these things could happen right now - nor are they even likely to occur.

Surely you've spent *some* time in a northern city, CU?

The Republicans will try to use their majorities and Trump to get rid of Obamacare, but Trump is a long-time supporter of universal healthcare - something he just stopped mentioning when he started running for president. Obviously that's not going to happen any time soon, but we really have no idea what Trump wants to see happen with healthcare now, as president, and how he interacts with Congress on that issue.

I just don't think we live in the same reality.

100% agreement here.

Domestically I don't think Trump matters. It sure sounds like McConnell doesn't give a shit what he wants. They'll send bills to him and dare him to veto.

But there's very good reason to fear Trump in terms of foreign policy. He's been lying about his contacts with the Russians and he's stated repeatedly that he may not honor NATO's guarantees. If that's what he wants to do, nobody can stop him. That's a very rational fear.

I think there was also a hope that criminal justice reform would happen. Speaker Ryan was speaking about it and Clinton made it an important policy point of her campaign. I think African-Americans who were very hopeful that their community could finally finally get criminal justice reform are a bit afraid that will not happen, especially with AG Guiliani waiting. I think that's a valid fear as well.

Well and the fact that the replacement won't be adequate enough.


Do you mean the 2nd seat opening up or the extremely conservative judge? The first might not happen (but I don't think you can argue likely), but I'm confident the 2nd will happen. In fact, I expect a nominee even more conservative than Scalia, someone like Alito or Thomas.

Those aren't my only fears. I just listed a few to make my point. And you didn't even address the issue of Muslims visiting their families.

Look, I think the Democrats deserved to lose this election for ignoring the white working class. I've argued many times on this board previously about how they need to win those voters over and how I supported Howard Dean because that was one of the major things he talked about in his campaign. The Democrats need to figure out how to change that in both how they govern and how they run their campaigns.

But the other side needs to understand why people are afraid (which is what Van Jones has been talking about).

I mean, you have a candidate who demeans Hispanics. I'm not just talking about immigration, but his comments about Judge Curiel, "Miss Housekeeping", etc. So Hispanics shouldn't worry about that?

Women who have been sexually assaulted or harassed have no reason to be worried?

Gay people shouldn't be worried that he wants to appoint right wing Justices? That he selected a VP who signed a religious freedom bill and believes in gay conversion therapy?

I could go on. But he used divisive rhetoric during his campaign and targeted people in specific groups. Those people are now worried. And telling them they're stupid or silly to be worried isn't helpful at all.

Err, that hostility already existed.
He at least pretended (?) he shared it.
He didn't really have to stoke anything, those were already raging.

If you want to know what people are really afraid of. It's crime. Rampant crime. Drug dealers. Gangs. Theft. Armed robberies. Rape. Domestic Violence. Oh...and cops.

CNN/DNC is the first to tell you it's really....just cops...and the whiter, the scarier. Take off your blinders.

One of the very few things they managed to accomplish.

The stuff that has been in drastic decline over the last two decades?

Fixed this thread.

And being told that the world does NOT revolve around them & their crazier notions. And that the law & your behavior DOES matter. And that the world does NOT owe them a living.

I thought the anger of being told that is why we got Trump...


And that THIS is false, that we DO owe them their coal mines and factories?

There there, having someone sane in the WH could be a nice change of pace.


Are we bailing them out? (If so I've missed that, legit).
If we're simply not engaging in undue government interference then by all means, yes, they ARE owed that.

Pretty much.

Well shit. Racism has been in decline since 1960. So were good then?

I've begun the same process I did in 2008 with a different set of friends: I'm trying to calm the losing side of a presidential election by saying the sky isn't falling. I can't imagine living with all the irrational fears both sides have about the other. I would have a massive ulcer and be completely miserable.

If this ridiculous strawman makes you feel better at night, sure. I can't tell if you are deliberately obtuse or just brain addled.

Does the Democratic party have a problem now that Trump basically flipped the Rust Belt and put those traditionally solid blue states in play? I'm not liberal nor a conservative, but the Republicans are the ones that struggled with the electoral map in their advantage and kept trying to do the same thing over and over. Does Trump's new path change the game here? Can the Democrats go more progressive as they have while competing in a more moderate Rust Belt?

Really though, that's been the major take in the election autopsy - Trump was elected because the elites weren't listening to the plights of the working white class. They complained, but did so at the ballot box. Fortunately for them, there were enough of them to be heard.

I wouldn't call it a bailout, but there was absolutely the promise that Trump would bring jobs back. I don't know how that happens without government interference. Not saying it's not government's role to protect jobs, but it's not exactly the free market at work in trying to get them back.

The Democratic Party can, but they have to change their focus a bit. Starting going more Howard Dean, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders in their views and speak to concerns of voters from those areas. The Democratic Party has been going more Silicon Valley - technocratic. I think they need to retreat from that.

I think those in the Rust Belt may actually be fine with a lot of progressive social policies (or just not care that much). They just want the Democrats to offer specific plans for them and how they are going to be put back to work.

His promises about infrastructure improvement, what was it $500mil, sounded very much like a second Stimulus.

Interesting. One of the fussing points that some have been using is that Hillary won the popular vote. Now it looks like that may have only been because the urban districts reported first. While Hillary is currently around 200k ahead in the popular vote, CNN has now predicted that Donald Trump will win the popular vote.

http://www.cnn.com/election/results

No, I just told you the TRUE fears and concerns in the inner cities (because anybody would fear this level of crime)... And you blew it off. It's what you get.

Thank God the NFL has the cure for my post-election blues tonight, with the Ravens vs. the Browns, on a short week of practice. NFL action, it's FAAAANtastic!

Except he got fewer votes than Romney or McCain or Bush did. For every new voter he pulled out to the polls or flipped from the Dems he turned another one off or pushed them away with his message & rhetoric. (Edit - looks like he could pass the 2012 & 08 #'s, though HRC's numbers will still be well below Obama's)

I love smug liberals and SJW's taking a huge L, but if the R side thinks this was more about what Trump was pushing instead of the Dems having the stupidity and hubris to nominate an unpopular and wildly uninspiring candidate who treated the whole thing like a coronation they'll be in for the same rude awakening in 2020 if not 2018.

(Though it will be interesting to see if the educated & uneducated white people flipping sides stays that way, or if some of those people flip back if the Dems nominate a populist candidate as well.)

No they haven't. That prediction is that Trump will win the election, not that he'll win the popular vote. Hillary's popular vote lead is expected to grow.

The 'fear' that didn't manifest at all in the exit polls as the most important concern of voters? (Seriously: 52% of voters said Economy, 18% said Terrorism, 13% said Immigration, and 13% said Foreign Policy).

Or, rather, is this something you basically just made up?

Btw, thanks for the subtle racism... when I talked about African-American concerns (specifically criminal justice reform) you immediately went for 'inner cities'. Bet you didn't even realize that most African-Americans don't even live in the cities anymore.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...r-city/503744/

More liberal or more conservative have no bearing. If this election showed anything it's that policy doesn't matter to persuadable voters. It's all about tribal affiliation. Trump became one of them in a way that Hillary didn't.

But Bernie might have, so it isn't about policy.

Yes they can. They went moderate with Clinton and lost. If they went with someone more likeable like Bernie or Biden they would have won those rust belt states. Run a likeable populist in 2020 and they can win the rust belt back.

If Trump and the Congress go too far and repeal the ACA without having a replacement and try to roll back rights for women, minorities and gay people it will be even easier to inspire their base to come out and vote. That's why I don't think Trump will be as scary as people think.

And any people voting Trump because of inner-city crime almost certainly don't live in the inner city.

This makes me 100% agree with your previous post about us living in alternate realities. If Sanders had been the Dem nominee it would have a landslide loss for the D's. You know the GOP was sitting there ready to just point to his down right communist writings, skip his socialist takes he has full on communist histories. How well would THAT play out in the heartland.

If the left goes even further left to the likes of Bernie Sanders...the center-left with vacate...except for West Coast kids and basement dwellers obviously. The low-income and middle class working whites in particular would switch. The rich white liberals will stick to their guns to the end obviously since they are in charge. But more socialist, more protests, more flag burners, more Media buys, more Hollywood, more "free for me please" and more hate towards the center and right would crush the Democratic Party. People aren't buying it anymore.

You do realize I never said anything about making Sanders the nominee. I hope folks can still read in your alternate reality ;) :p.

It is interesting that for years and years, people have been saying Democrats need to be more pro-business. So they nominate the most pro-business Democratic candidate in decades and that's one of the main reasons they lost.

Maybe that's the silver lining I can find. We have evidence that the Dems need a more populist and less business friendly platform. Of course, Citizens United makes that very difficult unless you're a billionaire.

They'd have to be very careful and thread the needle. Sanders may have done better with some of those voters, but he's way too far to the left. Biden may identify with them better, but his previous Presidential campaigns show that he's not really good at that sort of thing.

I get the jist though.. likeable populist, but one that is more center-left (more of Bill Clinton type in some ways).

Trump was labeled as a racist, misogynist and having ties to Putin. Didn't matter because people just wanted something different.

This was an Us vs. Them election. Why do you think Cruz hung tough? He was viewed as an "outsider". Why did Sanders do so well? He was viewed as an "outsider".

There is a new dynamic in play and the Democrats just saw it first hand. The outsider will rise up.

HRC was the worst possible candidate to face Trump. Or, anyone, for that matter. She was about 20 years too late in this thing.

The Dems will throw up a young person who is charasmatic. If Trump struggles, I imagine we have a Dem in the WH in 4 years.

And please dont forget who told you guys for the entire thread not to underestimate Trump.

Hillary's trade record didn't play well. The Dems need to offer more than just "re-training" programs to those that have lost their jobs due to plants closing. Until they fix this, they'll struggle.

The problem is that the Dems label everyone racist or Misogynist who doesnt agree with them.

And it pissed off the Midwest and Rust Belt. And they spoke very loudly.

The issue is that there really isn't anything other than re-training programs and raising the minimum wage to deal with jobs lost due to plants closing. Those jobs aren't coming back. Manufacturing is actually UP in the US, but it's all automated. Those employees need to get different type of jobs than they were used to in the past... and reversing NAFTA or not passing the TPP won't change that.