POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Legitimate question for the Clinton supporters out there, how do you view a Trump supporter?

I ask because I travel the East Coast from Virginia to Maine selling wastewater equipment. Many of the people I meet are either industrial workers, or government employees that work at the wastewater treatment plants. Most of these guys are your classic blue collar union worker. They by and large voted for Trump not because of Mexicans, not because of Obamacare, but because of jobs. Many of their family members work in factories, and they are afraid that the jobs are going to go away. In PA, they were worried about jobs going away due to the energy policy being pursued by left.

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Most of the Trump supporters I know work blue-collar jobs and were the kids who weren't exactly the best in school. I don't know that they are xenophobic, but they are white and grew up in a very white setting.

The Trump supporters I know are a little bit of each. They discuss jobs and regulations. However, they were also more than ok voting for someone who was brazenly racist and xenophobic if he mentioned he was against NAFTA and would bring the jobs back (but how?). They also tended to be very much against Obama and thought the country was in terrible shape (one of the Trump supporters I know is the father of a friend of mine - him and his wife cried on their couch when Romney lost to Obama because they feel Obama was ruining the country that much). I wouldn't say they were racist per se, but they definitely said some racially suspect stuff at times (isolated) and sexist stuff (a little less isolated) and took all the racism and xenophobia in stride and didn't think it was a big deal.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Do Trump voters really care about crime in black areas?

The question is: Does the average citizen care much about crime in places other than where they live?

I would hope that overall everyone would like to hear that crime is down everywhere but what I care about the most is that crime is down where I live and where my friends and family live. I suspect that is generally everyone's basic take on the issue.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

The question is: Does the average citizen care much about crime in places other than where they live?

I would hope that overall everyone would like to hear that crime is down everywhere but what I care about the most is that crime is down where I live and where my friends and family live. I suspect that is generally everyone's basic take on the issue.

I agree.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

While I empathize with this plight and agree that somebody should do something to combat this, I find it a little ironic that the small-government, states rights folks consider this to be a federal issue that they need federal funds and resources for (meanwhile in Arlington, the Texas Rangers need $1.675 billion for a new stadium. Priorities!)

How is national border security a state's issue though?

Or, alternately, stay the hell out of the way of states & citizens that have tried to deal with it but encountered federal interference.

[RainMaker]

I'll give Michael Moore credit, he called this result months ago. Much more in tune with what working class people are thinking than the DNC.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The Trump supporters I know are a little bit of each. They discuss jobs and regulations. However, they were also more than ok voting for someone who was brazenly racist and xenophobic if he mentioned he was against NAFTA and would bring the jobs back (but how?). They also tended to be very much against Obama and thought the country was in terrible shape (one of the Trump supporters I know is the father of a friend of mine - him and his wife cried on their couch when Romney lost to Obama because they feel Obama was ruining the country that much). I wouldn't say they were racist per se, but they definitely said some racially suspect stuff at times (isolated) and sexist stuff (a little less isolated) and took all the racism and xenophobia in stride and didn't think it was a big deal.

You need to get out more. I know plenty of white folks (if you can believe that!) and none of them were huddled up on their couch crying when Obama was elected. Hahaha! You are so dramatic, ISiddiqui.

Meanwhile: Crisis Help Lines Have Been Inundated Following The Election | Huffington Post

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

How is national border security a state's issue though?

Or, alternately, stay the hell out of the way of states & citizens that have tried to deal with it but encountered federal interference.

Oh, I think the border should be a federal issue. This is more just a dig at the "we're big and bad and don't need anybody and could be our own country if we want to because TEXAS ! YEEHAH!" attitude, vs hey, feds? little help here! (Or the "leave us alone to our own devices! (except in the case of funding for projects or natural disasters)" attitude some states give off.)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You need to get out more. I know plenty of white folks (if you can believe that!) and none of them were huddled up on their couch crying when Obama was elected. Hahaha! You are so dramatic, ISiddiqui.

I'm not entirely sure if you are being sarcastic here or not. This person LITERALLY did that. I know THIS PERSON.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You need to get out more. I know plenty of white folks (if you can believe that!) and none of them were huddled up on their couch crying when Obama was elected. Hahaha! You are so dramatic, ISiddiqui.

Meanwhile: Crisis Help Lines Have Been Inundated Following The Election | Huffington Post

Cry, no -- but they bitched about it for eight years, and questioned the legitimacy of it for at least half.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm not entirely sure if you are being sarcastic here or not. This person LITERALLY did that. I know THIS PERSON.

I was gonna have to back you up on this. I know several people who were in tears, both rounds. Some for days.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Oh, I think the border should be a federal issue. This is more just a dig at the "we're big and bad and don't need anybody and could be our own country if we want to because TEXAS ! YEEHAH!" attitude, vs hey, feds? little help here! (Or the "leave us alone to our own devices! (except in the case of funding for projects or natural disasters)" attitude some states give off.)

Just keep the feds out of the way & let the states & citizens handle it, that works fine for me. But pro rata reduce the taxes going to Washington accordingly.

Do the job or stop sending bills,either or.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I was gonna have to back you up on this. I know several people who were in tears, both rounds. Some for days.

And lets be honest - these days people are so invested in their candidates and against the opponent, I'd be shocked if a good number of people weren't in tears after Presidential elections if their candidate lost.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So left-wingers were all about the "Trump won't accept the results" yet....here they are...

Thousands protest Trump victory across nation - CBS News

Not accepting the results.

Come on. You were(are?) a tea party supporter. How is this any different?

[ISiddiqui]

Besides, there is quite a difference between supporters protesting the accepted results (Clinton has conceded) and the candidates' themselves refusing the accept the results.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Come on. You were(are?) a tea party supporter. How is this any different?

I don't recall even having an opinion of the tea party other than perhaps as a counter to left-wing rhetoric.

In any event...How are the liberal protests, the calls for resistance, the chants of "Fuck Donald Trump" and "Not My President" different than 8 years ago under similar circumstances? Vastly different, I'd say.



Ahhh...here are my "substantial" references to the tea-party.

Originally Posted by Dutch

I don't mind Sarah Palin, but I don't support her Presidential efforts or the Tea Party thing (don't know much about it honestly). But I can't help but sympathize with her as the left-wing media mob attacks her relentlessly.

Originally Posted by Dutch

You are obviously trying to suggest something, why else would you be mentioning this clown in this thread? I don't know what the Tea Party is all about (other than they are somewhere on the right of the political spectrum) and don't know what David Duke said (other than I can only imagine that it was far-right racist crap). I'm more interested though to understand what your point is for posting what you posted.

Originally Posted by mckerney

Tea Party group boycotting Fox News for becoming ‘too liberal’ | The Raw Story

Originally Posted by Dutch

Since when do actual reporters interview 3 people and then call them a broad-brushed "Tea Party group"?. It's laughable what we believe these days is serious news.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Come on. You were(are?) a tea party supporter. How is this any different?

The Tea Party actually went out and voted.

[JPhillips]

And they protested in between.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Cry, no -- but they bitched about it for eight years, and questioned the legitimacy of it for at least half.

And this is different from GWB how?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Among several thoughts I had today there's at least one I'm gonna share.

A lot is made of -- and I suspect the most-written about aspect of this election might eventually be -- "how the heck did he break so many 'rules' and succeed".

I think what Trump did for many voters was remind them of who Americans are,and how Americans ultimately behave. Our very origin is in rebellion, and particularly in being the one who faces whatever enemy confronts us with a sneer & a middle finger. And to a large extent, I think that's what Trump played on,he reminded a lot of people of the best of us.

I thought about General Anthony McAuliiffe, acting commander at Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge. Those who remember the story are nodding already most likely. Encircled & outnumbered, the Americans received surrender terms from the Germans. McAuliffe's legendary answer was one word: "Nuts" A subordinate (reportedly) eventually translated that to the confused German by telling him it meant "go to hell" (or stronger,depending upon the version you've heard).

THAT is the American way,the American spirit. Somehow,some way, I believe Trump really gets that. And he played on it,hard. He knew, somehow, it would work and it did. It's not what he said, it's the attitude he brought along when he said it. And that resonated.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

And this is different from GWB how?

Fair point.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Besides, there is quite a difference between supporters protesting the accepted results (Clinton has conceded) and the candidates' themselves refusing the accept the results.

You mean, Al Gore?

[Warhammer]

His campaign slogan also resonated with these same voters. While I didn't get it at first, for those that are not optimistic or are uncertain, it is a show of confidence. We can be great again. We can be exceptional. Which is something we have not heard for the last 8 years.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

His campaign slogan also resonated with these same voters. While I didn't get it at first, for those that are not optimistic or are uncertain, it is a show of confidence. We can be great again. We can be exceptional. Which is something we have not heard for the last 8 years.

I'll add another nuance to that slogan too: we deserve to be great again.

That's also a far cry from the message of recent years.

[EagleFan]

What are these idiots protesting? It's over, deal with it. It's like a 5 year old that didn't get their way.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Okay, explain to me -- in 4th grade language if need be -- how these two stories can both be true.

Voter turnout (*in counties reported by 1am) up 4.7%
Voter turnout up 4.7% around the country
Voter turnout down to lowest level since 2004.
Voter turnout in 2016 looks low so far — and that may have helped Donald Trump - Vox

Assuming both are accurate, is the difference
a) registered voter percentage vs age-eligible percentage?
b) what happened after 1am?
c) something,uh, else?

Originally Posted by wustin

2008
Obama: 69,498,516
McCain: 59,948,323

2012
Obama: 65,915,795
Romney: 60,933,504

2016 (as of 1:31pm EST, Nov 9th)
Clinton: 59,602,634
Trump: 59,396,462

This has been weirding me out too. Because I'd love the narrative to be that Trump didn't reach any new voting bloc or receive more support, it was just Democrats failing to show for an uninspiring candidate. But the only plausible explanation I can see is that California's turnout fell from 13m to 8.5m? How can one states turnout fall by 40% in one cycle (it wasn't like 2012 was any closer there.)

California's 2012 vote total doesn't even sync up in different places. Politico and the NYT don't match the total California's SoS published. What am.I missing here?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

California's 2012 vote total doesn't even sync up in different places. ... What am.I missing here?

That part is probably a case of media sites simply not updating with an eventual final official number. There's stuff like provisional ballots that have to be approved/rejected and so forth, but in cases where those take a long time I believe states can certify their result (for electoral college purposes) once the number of outstanding ballots cannot change the outcome.

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Legitimate question for the Clinton supporters out there, how do you view a Trump supporter?

I'll take a stab at this. Not really a Clinton supporter, but I side more left-center than anything.

Early on, I felt a Trump supporter was racist and wanted things to be like they were in the 60's w.r.t race relations. As I started to read more and as Trump spoke more, that was backed up with a more sexual predator feel in the mix.

However, as the process went on and I started trying to understand why people were supporting him, it started to make sense. He was running on fear, hate, bringing back manual jobs, protecting our borders, and getting rid of foreigners. Those items are right in the wheelhouse of complaints from not only White Americans, but Americans of other races as well. He played those notes like the master con artist (or businessman if you want to be more PC) he is.

Late last week, my view of Trump supporters changed to be a person who is afraid of or very concerned about one or more of the following:
1. Technology and the way it's changing labor
2. Immigration
3. The economy not growing in the right way, whatever that is
4. National security

Unfortunately, I don't think Trump will do a lot for #1. The economics of moving those jobs onshore has problems. The others, maybe he will.

And I think repealing the ACA was just a way to get people on his side. I think they'll end up modifying or repealing and replacing it, not just a straight out repeal.

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So left-wingers were all about the "Trump won't accept the results" yet....here they are...

Thousands protest Trump victory across nation - CBS News

Not accepting the results.

My wife and I talked about that tonight. It's too late for that. It's over. He won.

If you have a problem with what happened, then you should've voted and/or gotten others out to vote. And, you're protesting in states where she won, so what are you actually protesting?

If you are protesting the voter suppression in other states, then work to get that corrected. Maybe they're not protesting the outcome, but at this time, it is what it is. Like it or not, barring some out of this world event, Trump is our next president.

And yes, that is ours. All of us. Just as Obama has been our president for the last 8.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by rjolley

It was about that group feeling that Trump would change the way the country grows it's economy. The question is can he change the economy from growing with technology like it is now to growing with more "old school" jobs that are leaving the country. Making more products here in the US and diminishing trade with other countries can have a very bad impact on differentiation and overall cost of the products, which can also cause new business growth to stagnate. It's a problem of a transitioning economy that may not be solved until the older workforce is replaced by the more technical-savvy one that we're raising.

I wanted to reply to this before and forgot to. I think this is pretty much true and is an example of the tragedy of the situation, because this(manufacturing economy) is not coming back. The third wave and everything associated with it, globalization, automation, etc. are economic realities. To the extent Trump is successful in implementing isolationist policies, it will make the eventual, inevitable transition that much more difficult and painful and put the US at a competitive disadvantage in the world. It's the exact wrong direction, which doesn't at all mean I dismiss the fears of those who want it; you just can't close Pandora's box.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Legitimate question for the Clinton supporters out there, how do you view a Trump supporter?

I ask because I travel the East Coast from Virginia to Maine selling wastewater equipment. Many of the people I meet are either industrial workers, or government employees that work at the wastewater treatment plants. Most of these guys are your classic blue collar union worker. They by and large voted for Trump not because of Mexicans, not because of Obamacare, but because of jobs. Many of their family members work in factories, and they are afraid that the jobs are going to go away. In PA, they were worried about jobs going away due to the energy policy being pursued by left.

These same people felt that the party elites, for both sides, were not in it for them, but for their own gain. They felt Trump actually did care about them, and being a businessman, might institute a plan to bring jobs back to America. Additionally, any questions about taxes paid by Trump did not matter to them. They want to pay as little tax as possible themselves and felt that if there were laws to take advantage of, why not, and he might even try to close some of the same loopholes he was exploiting. Also, since Trump was not indebted to any current government officials he might actually try to get stuff done, rather than take care of buddies.

The whole xenophobic Neanderthal stereotype the media has portrayed is just wrong in my experience, not to say it is not out there, because there were a few that were extreme, but most just wanted there to be better opportunities for their friends and family to make a living.

I think you hit the nail on the head. People care about their own lives and how government works for you. A lot of Trump voters that I know weren't exactly rabid Trump voters--and even cringed at the thought of him--but they felt that DC was ignoring them, selling them out to foreign, corporation, and elite interests. ACA didn't help in terms of the prices people were paying.

I do think there is a bit of a cultural battle as well of liberalism vs. non-liberalism that is playing out. The safe spaces and trigger warnings, the issues of tolerance if you don't agree with someone from both sides (I see a lot of utter contempt from one side to the other, and no one is really taking time to actually listen and respectfully understand to WHY the believe or a feeling what they do.), the urban vs. rural cultural, and even the religious (which isn't exactly a R Vs. D issue) debates. I find FOFC rather respectful and engaging to other people's views compared to most of the debates I have and see, even with my own friend, which is refreshing.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Sorry, uncovering America's racist underbelly wasn't why Trump won.

This seems to jibe well with what some of you have said here already. Ignore the working class/lower middle class and you'll get a surprise when someone speaks to their concerns.

Clinton lost because she couldn't get the left-wing voters to go out and vote for her. Why don't any of the media address this? They never admit it was the fault of her campaign. She got millions of less voters than Obama did and Trump managed to flip states Obama previously had won because of that.

For example Wisconsin, the state Trump won that Obama previously had won. During the primary back in April Bernie beat Hillary in that state because she never campaigned much there and continued to not give a flying fuck about that state until October. I assume by that point the Bernbots weren't going to be convinced at all because it was too late.

Trump's votes were less than Romney's so it's not like he convinced more people to come out and vote for him. This totally falls onto the DNC's incompetence and complacency but the media will never admit to that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by wustin

Clinton lost because she couldn't get the left-wing voters to go out and vote for her. Why don't any of the media address this? They never admit it was the fault of her campaign. She got millions of less voters than Obama did and Trump managed to flip states Obama previously had won because of that.

Because the left-wing stance has been that everything that goes against them is because of racism, sexism, etc. This chart sums up the election.

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I wanted to reply to this before and forgot to. I think this is pretty much true and is an example of the tragedy of the situation, because this(manufacturing economy) is not coming back. The third wave and everything associated with it, globalization, automation, etc. are economic realities. To the extent Trump is successful in implementing isolationist policies, it will make the eventual, inevitable transition that much more difficult and painful and put the US at a competitive disadvantage in the world. It's the exact wrong direction, which doesn't at all mean I dismiss the fears of those who want it; you just can't close Pandora's box.

That position may be his single biggest failure and hindrance to a second term besides age. If he succeeds in bringing back jobs and dissolving trade agreements, and the costs of products go up to account for the higher cost to make it while differentiation goes down due to costs, he'll lose. If he doesn't bring back jobs or doesn't renegotiate the trade agreements, he'll lose.

He's got a shot, but some of the things he promised aren't going to be easy. People expect politicians to not follow through with campaign promises, but a percentage of the people who elected him aren't expecting a politician.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by wustin

Clinton lost because she couldn't get the left-wing voters to go out and vote for her. Why don't any of the media address this? They never admit it was the fault of her campaign. She got millions of less voters than Obama did and Trump managed to flip states Obama previously had won because of that.

For example Wisconsin, the state Trump won that Obama previously had won. During the primary back in April Bernie beat Hillary in that state because she never campaigned much there and continued to not give a flying fuck about that state until October. I assume by that point the Bernbots weren't going to be convinced at all because it was too late.

Trump's votes were less than Romney's so it's not like he convinced more people to come out and vote for him. This totally falls onto the DNC's incompetence and complacency but the media will never admit to that.

How much did Trump pull in the Rust Belt states from the traditionally blue-collar Democratic base?

[stevew]

Calling this an election referendum on liberal douchiness is probably pretty close to the truth. People spent far too much time talking down to others, throwing out "bigot" at everyone. And the Clinton campaign did a pisspoor job of convincing millions of Americans why they should evenget out of bed in the morning.

Oh, and this is how I imagine her reaction was in the campaign room.

[rjolley]

Guys, you should check out Van Jones' videos on The Next Civil War. Haven't had a chance to watch all of it yet, but it's talking about coming together after such an intense and vitriol-filled campaign on both sides.

I'd link the clip here if I could, but it's on his facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/vanjones

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by stevew

Calling this an election referendum on liberal douchiness is probably pretty close to the truth. People spent far too much time talking down to others, throwing out "bigot" at everyone. And the Clinton campaign did a pisspoor job of convincing millions of Americans why they should evenget out of bed in the morning.

Oh, and this is how I imagine her reaction was in the campaign room.

I kind of wonder how much Clinton's "Deplorables" comment hurt her.

One thing to remember is low-income white voters in PA voted for Obama 2008, then flipped to Trump in 2016. I wouldn't be surprised if it holds in other Rust Belt states.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

What are these idiots protesting? It's over, deal with it. It's like a 5 year old that didn't get their way.

It was the same with Brexit.

The so called intelligentsia and elites protesting because they they found that the rest of the country didn't agree with them. Even started a petition to redo the referendum which meant that parliament had to waste time debating.

Some people these days are over-entitled.

TBH as an outsider I find it amazing that Trump is to be President given his personality, history and campaign, but entirely conceivable that people wouldn't vote for HRC. But unless it's found that he in fact committed some sort of massive election fraud (which I think is extremely unlikely) there's nothing to protest: the system worked, gave everyone and every state a voice

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by AlexB

It was the same with Brexit.

The so called intelligentsia and elites protesting because they they found that the rest of the country didn't agree with them. Even started a petition to redo the referendum which meant that parliament had to waste time debating.

Some people these days are over-entitled.

TBH as an outsider I find it amazing that Trump is to be President given his personality, history and campaign, but entirely conceivable that people wouldn't vote for HRC. But unless it's found that he in fact committed some sort of massive election fraud (which I think is extremely unlikely) there's nothing to protest: the system worked, gave everyone and every state a voice

I see petitions on FB going around to abolish the electoral college and the whole #NotMyPresident cute "sit-my-chair" social media protests. Sorry, but that's how the system works. It worked against you this year, but it worked for you for the last two cycles. Blame the DNC for what the outcome was.

[stevew]

one of my friends went through and reallocated the electoral votes based on state populations. Lots of states went from 3 to 1, wyoming, etc. Some picked up a few EV's.

What do you think the result was? I will spoiler it.

Spoiler

Trump actually picked up 1 EV

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by stevew

one of my friends went through and reallocated the electoral votes based on state populations. Lots of states went from 3 to 1, wyoming, etc. Some picked up a few EV's.

What do you think the result was? I will spoiler it.

Spoiler

Trump actually picked up 1 EV

They are already discussing the elimination of the Electoral College. Which is fine, as long as each state can ratify individually.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by rjolley

I'll take a stab at this. Not really a Clinton supporter, but I side more left-center than anything.

Early on, I felt a Trump supporter was racist and wanted things to be like they were in the 60's w.r.t race relations. As I started to read more and as Trump spoke more, that was backed up with a more sexual predator feel in the mix.

However, as the process went on and I started trying to understand why people were supporting him, it started to make sense. He was running on fear, hate, bringing back manual jobs, protecting our borders, and getting rid of foreigners. Those items are right in the wheelhouse of complaints from not only White Americans, but Americans of other races as well. He played those notes like the master con artist (or businessman if you want to be more PC) he is.

Late last week, my view of Trump supporters changed to be a person who is afraid of or very concerned about one or more of the following:
1. Technology and the way it's changing labor
2. Immigration
3. The economy not growing in the right way, whatever that is
4. National security

Unfortunately, I don't think Trump will do a lot for #1. The economics of moving those jobs onshore has problems. The others, maybe he will.

And I think repealing the ACA was just a way to get people on his side. I think they'll end up modifying or repealing and replacing it, not just a straight out repeal.

You hit the nail on the head as far as how I would have answered the question, maybe even word for word if I could have typed it so well. Only problem was, I didn't realize how many people felt this way until about 8PM on Tuesday night.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Radii

My personal experience is that the people I know who voted for Trump are the people who share blatantly false fearmongering memes from conservative groups on facebook and believe them blindly. They literally think its a miracle of god that the country still exists after 8 years of Obama.

I don't think there are enough people out there like this to make up 49% of the nation to win an election, but if I personally know any Trump supporters amongst my high tech, intelligent, rational friends/coworkers/gaming groups, they aren't speaking up. And fair enough, I wouldn't blame them for not doing so.

This is pretty much my experience. I live in a very red county with poor employment opportunities. I work in a very blue county (at a university). So I'm regularly associating with people on both sides of the ticket and hearing their gripes. I lean Dem. I'm registered Dem. I'm actually pretty Purple, but people gotta have a box, you know?

It was the constant (daily, multiple daily) barrage of stuff like Radii talks about above that completely turned me off Trump (other than, I mean, the basically ludicrous position of voting for a reality TV star for president in the first place). It was "Bring on the Second American Revolution if we lose!" It was how seamlessly my Republican friends turned the Iraq war into a Democrat thing and Republicans had been against it from the start...with literally not a single hint of irony. I might understand it if it had been like a century ago, but that was less than 15 years ago. We were all alive then, when Democrats were obstructionists who just didn't want to defend America and whining about WMDs.

So, it wasn't even so much that that I wouldn't be willing to vote for Trump as much as the fact that there's no way that I can support anything these people think is a good idea.

And then Galaxy says this later:

I do think there is a bit of a cultural battle as well of liberalism vs. non-liberalism that is playing out. The safe spaces and trigger warnings, the issues of tolerance if you don't agree with someone from both sides (I see a lot of utter contempt from one side to the other, and no one is really taking time to actually listen and respectfully understand to WHY the believe or a feeling what they do.), the urban vs. rural cultural, and even the religious (which isn't exactly a R Vs. D issue) debates.

And I also couldn't vote for Hillary. Partly because I've never trusted her, but mostly because of shit like this. (Like I said, I work at a university, so I see *this* sort of stupid shit every day.) People who want to change pronouns and want to shout down professors who argue that legislating that sort of change -- to something as fundamental as how people use pronouns -- is foolhardy, as is expecting people just accept it.

And I think about the RFRA/gay wedding cakes issue and hear entirely too much social activism planning. It's not just that people want the right to gay cakes, they want to punish people for not crossing some magical line of tolerance into approval. When you start describing your personal social justice struggle in terms of a vendetta or teaching someone else a lesson, you've gone too far. When your solution is to start cramming social change legislation down people's throats without giving them a chance to adapt before you've moved on to the next extension of your social change agenda, you're not being very wise or empathetic or compassionate.

All of which is why I voted third party.

And why I cast these election results as something of a market correction rather than a complete mandate or a repudiation.

History seems to indicate to me that on social issues, progressives always win eventually. And I'm okay with that. But we shouldn't demean the value of conservatives slowing down the march of progress. Most of us live in the tension between the preserved traditional values of previous generations and the inexorable march into a Star Trek future. I wouldn't want to give unbridled freedom to the idiot extremes leading the progressive march any more than I would the idiots masturbating to the awesomeness of the 1950s.

Everybody loses sometimes, and I'm okay with that.

(Do have to admit that I'm curious to see how my nutball conservative friends pin congressional obstructionism on the Democrats when a completely Republican congress exercises its muscle to shoot down various Trump ideas. On Trump himself, I'm actually cautiously optimistic. I'm willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt in the meantime, at least.)

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by rjolley

Late last week, my view of Trump supporters changed to be a person who is afraid of or very concerned about one or more of the following:
1. Technology and the way it's changing labor
2. Immigration
3. The economy not growing in the right way, whatever that is
4. National security

Unfortunately, I don't think Trump will do a lot for #1. The economics of moving those jobs onshore has problems. The others, maybe he will.

And I think repealing the ACA was just a way to get people on his side. I think they'll end up modifying or repealing and replacing it, not just a straight out repeal.

On moving technology jobs onshore (from offshore), I've always had an issue with outsourcing our intellectual capital (I know, its broad and subject to interpretation but you get the gist of it) which I believes helps other countries more than it helps us.

Bring it back to the US and the smart, well educated immigrants will follow.

I'll admit thought that I am enjoying fruits of cheap labor in other, non-technology stuff which I don't view as strategic (yeah, somewhat hypocritical).

On ACA, I sure hope so. Okay that he doesn't like ACA and okay if he wants to fix it. I feel this election has shown he does have a mandate but I sure hope he has a good alternative that I can live with.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by rjolley

Guys, you should check out Van Jones' videos on The Next Civil War. Haven't had a chance to watch all of it yet, but it's talking about coming together after such an intense and vitriol-filled campaign on both sides.

I'd link the clip here if I could, but it's on his facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/vanjones

Van Jones has lost all credibility IMO after his 'white-lash' comments on CNN. Easiest litmus test for this is, what if a white former Republican cabinet member after Obama was elected complained about the election by saying the election results were a 'black-lash'.

Van Jones and comments like that are the reason that the Democrats lost this election. I'm still not sure that liberal leaders get that yet.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by miked

I live Georgia, and know many Trump supporters. The majority of them were voting because Hillary was going to take their guns and let ISIS refugees in to the country. I spoke with one girl (who actually had no idea what the electoral college is) that felt as a woman she should have the right to defend herself with her guns. I reminded her that Obama has not come for guns, Bill Clinton did not come for her guns, and Hillary was unlikely. She then told me that she just did not trust Hillary being a career politician.

I only spoke to one who mentioned jobs or the economy, but reminded that him that he was on social security, owned his house and 2 cars, and seemed to be doing ok. He commented that he wanted less money spent on Syrian refugees and the savings could go to his cost-of-living increase for social security. Most just seemed concerned with guns, abortion, and terrorism...ironically 3 things that haven't changed in decades and won't change.

I think, or at least hope, we can both agree that each party has a lowest common denominator that isn't really beneficial to strawman as the prototypical party rep. For every "thank God I get to keep my guns" the other side can counter with "praise Jesus free phones and no need to work again" .... both sides have their crazies.

When we spend our time debating that minority, we miss the true worthy adversary in each party.

I think Hillary's campaign sure fell victim to that.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

This has been weirding me out too. Because I'd love the narrative to be that Trump didn't reach any new voting bloc or receive more support, it was just Democrats failing to show for an uninspiring candidate. But the only plausible explanation I can see is that California's turnout fell from 13m to 8.5m? How can one states turnout fall by 40% in one cycle (it wasn't like 2012 was any closer there.)

California's 2012 vote total doesn't even sync up in different places. Politico and the NYT don't match the total California's SoS published. What am.I missing here?

I'm quoting you but responding more to the bigger point of contest. Id love to see, but haven't yet seen it available, the demographic break down of voter turn out. I think there is a large racist component at work here, but not the one so many point to. I think many African Americans didn't vote this time that did the last two, because neither candidate was black.

Sample size is tiny and anecdotal, but I have 6 employees on my team. 2 of which are African American. Neither voted Tuesday. One I am extremely close to, and I asked him why (our current project has work hours that make it obvious who does and who doesn't.... we are working 15s so you had to leave, vote and come back...I made sure everyone knew the option was open and they didn't have to clock out to vote. 3 voted 3 didnt) he jokingly said, "Obama can't run again.".... but I think a lot of truth is spoke in jest here. There is a very large continent of multiple demographics that voted in the last two elections because they got the chance to vote for a black president. It's not PC to say that, and I expect to get some snarky retorts... but I think it's true.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Van Jones has lost all credibility IMO after his 'white-lash' comments on CNN. Easiest litmus test for this is, what if a white former Republican cabinet member after Obama was elected complained about the election by saying the election results were a 'black-lash'.

That would be pretty comparable if small things like "decades of history" are ignored.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

It's not PC to say that, and I expect to get some snarky retorts... but I think it's true.

Anyone with the tiniest slightest bit of common sense knows its true.

I will acknowledge however that it isn't anything entirely new. Like votes for like.

My mother has voted only once in her lifetime: for Carter way back when, because she wanted the experience of voting for a fellow Georgian

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Logan

That would be pretty comparable if small things like "decades of history" are ignored.

It's inflammatory and accomplishes nothing other than handing an election to a candidate who most people had to hold their nose while voting for him. The quicker the liberal leadership realizes that, the better off they are in 2020.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Van Jones has lost all credibility .

Hard to lose what you never had.