The General American Politics Thread

[Tani Coyote]

Let's get inside the minds of voters this election. From CNN's exit polls.

First, in terms of why they voted the way they did. People who said they strongly favored their candidate were 53% for Clinton, while only 42% for Trump. Those who said they liked their candidate with reservations were about evenly split. Now here's the real interesting statistic: of those who said they voted for their candidate based on disliking the other, Trump voters lead by a huge margin. Now, without knowing the exact number of votes behind each of these options, it's hard to give them weight, but the message that can be read here was this: most Clinton voters could back her in good conscience, while most Trump voters did not do the same. They voted for him because they did not like Clinton.

We see a similar trend with perception of the candidate. Of those who believed their candidate cared about them, only 35% of those were Trump voters. Those who valued experience and good judgment were seldom Trump voters. Those who believed in needed change, however, voted overwhelmingly for Trump.

It would be interesting to see how other candidates would have fared against Trump. It looks like a considerable number of Trump voters were vested in the "drain the swamp" ideology he brought to the table, and chose him over Clinton with that in mind.

Boy are they sure fuming right now.

[Tornado]

Those numbers all sound in line with what NBC was reporting on election night.

[Tani Coyote]

Might be old, but I think it's worth a close look.

Especially in the context of debunking the "all Trump supporters are [insert derogatory remark here]!!!" idea.

Admittedly the sentiment seems to have cooled in the weeks since Election Day (I was admittedly emotional at the result but not to the "Trump voters are horrible people" extent), but it's always worth remembering that people can back a candidate for a variety of reasons. Hell, this is the essence of coalition politics.

You have 9% of self-reported liberals backing Trump, for example. It's quite possible they were strategic (rather than tactical) voters and realized it was better in the long run for the GOP to win this cycle.

[Johnny Boy]

This guy is gonna be president next month and yet he keeps crying about SNL making fun of him instead of focusing on shit that matters. So much for being the "Tough President".

[Patticus]

As happened with the Bush/Cheney administration, the Vice President will probably be the proverbial power behind the throne. Pence's fingerprints are all over the cabinet as it is, which likely indicates how the administration will run - Trump saying whatever he wants while enjoying the perks of the job, meeting people and "making America great again" etc, while Pence makes a majority of the actual policy decisions, directing the cabinet to enact his agenda, etc.

Bannon and Priebus will probably stick their oar in sometimes, and Bannon in particular will have a huge influence over Trump's policy wants, but for the most part I'd say that unless Bannon and the Trump children keep a very close eye on the administration, it's likely that Pence will dominate.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

Let's get inside the minds of voters this election. From CNN's exit polls.

First, in terms of why they voted the way they did. People who said they strongly favored their candidate were 53% for Clinton, while only 42% for Trump. Those who said they liked their candidate with reservations were about evenly split. Now here's the real interesting statistic: of those who said they voted for their candidate based on disliking the other, Trump voters lead by a huge margin. Now, without knowing the exact number of votes behind each of these options, it's hard to give them weight, but the message that can be read here was this: most Clinton voters could back her in good conscience, while most Trump voters did not do the same. They voted for him because they did not like Clinton.

We see a similar trend with perception of the candidate. Of those who believed their candidate cared about them, only 35% of those were Trump voters. Those who valued experience and good judgment were seldom Trump voters. Those who believed in needed change, however, voted overwhelmingly for Trump.

It would be interesting to see how other candidates would have fared against Trump. It looks like a considerable number of Trump voters were vested in the "drain the swamp" ideology he brought to the table, and chose him over Clinton with that in mind.

Boy are they sure fuming right now.

The Trump supporters that I know are not fuming at the moment...not now anyway.

They are too busy enjoying the win and can't wait for Trump to take over the Oval Office.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

What about the part where Obama will stick around longer than he should to help Trump? Is that still a thing, and how do you think Trump supporters would react to that?

[Tani Coyote]

6 hours ago, Ming Ming Hatsune said:

The Trump supporters that I know are not fuming at the moment...not now anyway.

They are too busy enjoying the win and can't wait for Trump to take over the Oval Office.

They're probably had odd reasons for backing him, then, because he's rolled back a ton of his promises.

Most Presidents can at least say they tried, but Congress stopped them.

Trump stopped himself.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-names-ben-carson-for-housing-and-urban-development-secretary/

Ben Carson nominated as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

The Secretary is responsible for such things as funding for urban planning, public housing, and government backing of mortgages. Now here's the terrifying thing about that: historically, this was the sort of thing used to reinforce racial stratification. It was simple. Allow local and state control of government mortgages (thus ensuring blacks were denied more frequently even when they had the same qualifications as a white person), while providing generous funding to urban renewal programs that demolished largely black neighborhoods and sold the land to private entities for commercial or high-end residential usage. Those displaced by the renewal? They were simply forced into ever-higher apartment buildings. All these policies combined are a major reason for the modern racial wealth gap; many blacks simply could not afford or did not have the opportunity to buy a home, since a ton of them were torn down; whites, meanwhile, fled to racially-segregated suburbs in droves. Throw in a few generations and voila, you have a vicious cycle of stratification.

Trump's rationale for choosing Carson largely seems to be the latter taking him on a tour of blighted neighborhoods, and Carson's own humble background.

Carson has zero experience in urban development policy. He considers federal rules against housing segregation to be failed socialism. Carson is, of course, using the language of colorblindness as evidence that government activism is not necessary. Also, he opposes drugs in all but the most extreme medical circumstances; ergo he's going to keep up the trend of destroying lives in the inner cities rather than paving a way for recovery.

The Trump administration is likely to be both corrupt and hilariously inept. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

[Johnny Boy]

That's funny because didn't Mr. Carson previously turn down a spot in Trumps administration because of the fact that he had zero experience in government (despite running for fucking president)? Good god we're fucked.

[Kevin]

So it seems Trump didn't like SNL's latest cold opening. Alec Baldwin had a great response to him of "You release your tax returns and I'll stop impersonating you."

Our President-elect ladies and gentlemen.

[Blacklightning]

I still can't get over the fact that Alec made fun of his obsessive tweeting and he somehow saw absolutely zero irony in tweeting at him to bitch. I swear I've seen birds with a better sense of self awareness than that.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Says a lot that our incumbent president took all parodies and criticism in stride.

I find it funny that people somehow blindly elected a man-child to the presidency. I wonder what they'll say cone the chance he fucks up spectacularly?

[SenEDDtor Missile]

1 hour ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Says a lot that our incumbent president took all parodies and criticism in stride.

I find it funny that people somehow blindly elected a man-child to the presidency. I wonder what they'll say cone the chance he fucks up spectacularly?

"It's all the fault of those liberals! We must purge them and ensure the purity of the white Christian republican empire!"

Being realistic though, probably whine and cry about how they were tricked and then get amnesia about it and go back to voting against their own best interests like usual.

[Tani Coyote]

13 hours ago, Johnny Boy said:

That's funny because didn't Mr. Carson previously turn down a spot in Trumps administration because of the fact that he had zero experience in government (despite running for fucking president)? Good god we're fucked.

I mean hey, it's the Republican way.

"I nominated Fiorina as my running mate!"

"Actually I'm dropping out."

At least a lot of money was generated for people making promo materials those few days...

5 hours ago, SenEDtor Missile said:

"It's all the fault of those liberals! We must purge them and ensure the purity of the white Christian republican empire!"

Being realistic though, probably whine and cry about how they were tricked and then get amnesia about it and go back to voting against their own best interests like usual.

It sounds like a good chunk of Trump voters aren't lunatics but really bought into the drain the swamp and economic revival messages. If you wanted needed change, you overwhelmingly voted for Trump. His status as an extremely wealthy man supposedly insulated him from special interests... but we're quickly finding out it goes beyond that. His extreme wealth makes him liable to pursue those interests with the Presidency since he isn't doing a blind trust like Bush and Clinton did. He also needs taxpayer money to run the country, which means he has to kowtow to Congress.

The Trump movement is paradoxical. On one hand, it's no secret that a lot of "deplorables" were brought into it. But on the other, his message appealed because it reminded people of a time where America was economically prosperous and a clear leader.

Now sure, a lot of that prosperity was rooted in racism and the like, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people romanticize the past without realizing exactly what it was built on. This goes beyond white privilege. It's the very essence of nationalism: a lot of people, for example, think of George Washington as this awesome general who showed the British who's boss. In reality, he lost more battles than he won, and the United States owes much of its successful independence to rival colonial powers like France, Spain and the Netherlands. As time goes on, the past ends up romanticized and oversimplified regardless of one's intent.

We don't need historians because history is cool. We need them so we know the whole picture of an era and don't buy into the idea that it was perfect. We need them for full understanding before we pass judgment on the past and present.

Here's one. A lot of modern liberals condemn the three-fifths compromise on the basis that it defined slaves as three-fifths of a person. What they don't realize is that if not for it, the South would have had more representation in Congress and dominated this nation. We think racism is bad now, but picture what would happen if there wasn't a good balance between the North and South. In absence of universal suffrage, racists would have been made stronger without the compromise. We as a society tend to condemn it because we look back on it as a state with mostly-outlawed forced labor and universal suffrage (albeit that's questionable in many states), and so we find it hard to grasp that the compromise wasn't taking power away from black Americans, but from racist slaveholders. The real injustice of early America was that blacks - slave or free - were being used for the basis of apportioning representatives, but could not vote for those same representatives. This injustice is repeating itself by different means, with black Americans free and fully accounted for in representative apportionment, but many states work to limit their participation.

[Patticus]

Quote

Vice President Biden on Monday raised the possibility of a presidential bid in 2020. 
 
“I am going to run in 2020,” Biden told a group of reporters in the Capitol when asked about his political future. “What the hell man, anyway.”

Asked if he was kidding about running, the 74-year-old paused for four seconds before saying he is “not committing not to run.” 
 
“I am not committed to anything,” he added. “I learned a long time ago, fate has a strange way of intervening.”
 
It would be surprising if Biden decided to continue his decades-long political career, which many assumed would end once President Obama and he leave the White House next month. 
 
Biden will be 78 in 2020 and would by far the oldest person ever to win a major-party presidential nomination if he became the Democrats’ standard bearer.
 
After months of toying with a presidential run this cycle, Biden announced last October that he would not mount a bid. He said he ran out time “necessary to mount a winning campaign” while mourning the loss of his son, Beau, to cancer. 
 
He instead spent 2016 campaigning for Hillary Clinton. 
 
Biden spoke publicly before the election about his post-White House plans, which include working on his cancer moonshot initiative, a possible policy project with a major university and writing a book.  
 
The vice president was at the Capitol on Monday afternoon to preside over the Senate as it held a vote on legislation funding the cancer initiative, a portion of which the chamber named after Beau.
 
Biden received an emotional tribute from his colleagues on the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the bill was a "testament to [Biden's] tremendous effort" to fight cancer.
 
He would have to put that work aside if he decided to launch a presidential bid in four years. 
 
But since Clinton lost, the future of the Democratic Party is up for grabs. Some party officials have wondered if a candidate like Biden or Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would have fared better against Donald Trump. 
 
The vice president has long had his eye on the Oval Office. He ran for president in 1988 and again in 2008, losing both times in his party’s primary. 
 
In the past few months, he has repeatedly refused to rule out a future run for office. He told CNN in October his decision not to run in 2016 was solely because of his son’s death.
 
"I didn't run for one simple overarching reason. My son was dying and he died," Biden said. "I didn't not run because Hillary’s running. I didn't run because my son's not here.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/308895-biden-raises-possibility-of-2020-presidential-bid

Happy news, but simultaneously, quite saddening, as Joe probably won't be able to run in 2020 due to his advanced age, and there's a real need at this point to pass the baton to a younger generation. Unless Joe only intends to be a one term president, with his VP pick being younger and much more able to take the reins in 2024 for an 8 year stretch - sort of a reverse Reagan/Bush era. Perhaps that would be a viable strategy.

[Mad Convoy]

It must really suck for people who were expecting real change from Trump but are steadily realizing that, barring something completely unanticipated, all they're going to get is George Bush Jr.: Electric Trumpaloo.

Though as an aspiring biologist, I always found the drain the swamp metaphor to be pretty discouraging. Swamps are actually amongst the most diverse environments around, with a particularly rich microbiome. While draining them was seen as good before as a way of preventing disease in populations, growing awareness of their ecological importance, advancements in medical technology and understanding of how microbial infection can be dealt with, and growing awareness of the existence of helpful and neutral microbes has turned draining swamps into an environmental and legislative nightmare. Somehow, I don't think that's what we want-- though incidentally, the part about it being a legislative nightmare fits the idea of purging the bad elements of DC a lot more than the intended meaning of the metaphor.

Here's hoping that Trump fails where Bush succeeded-- that is, I hope Trump doesn't manage maintain his cult of personality well enough to get a second term. I kind of doubt it-- Bush could fall back on the old "Not me, the Democrats!" excuse, but with Republican majorities in the House and the Senate and even less of an understanding of how to win over critics, Trump is going to hit a point where he really can't use that excuse effectively anymore. Actually, now that I think of it, this election is probably going to be the end of a lot of Republican excuses and propaganda-- as now people are going to see just what they really result in, or the Republicans will back off on some stuff and be seen as traitors to their support base for it. Yes, memories are short, but if there's one thing the Dems should have learned from this election is that they need to keep a spotlight on themselves and their ideas whenever possible by any (ethical) means necessary, and that should extend to never letting people forget just what happened the last time the Republicans got the majority they wanted so badly.

And I agree with Patticus. The Democrats need fresh blood. It has the opposite problem of the Republican Party, which is currently facing a demographic crisis where its old guard of support base is literally and metaphorically dying, and steadily replaced by alt-righters who in turn follow a niche philosophy that's thoroughly despised by non-believers. (Really, the surge of Trump support is only prolonging the inevitable in regards to demographics). Luckily for the Dems, getting fresh faces as politicians is a lot easier. A lot of young people are hanging around that want to get involved in politics and change America's system for the better-- encourage them to become the change they want to see in government and become politicians.

[Patticus]

Bush was arguably able to win re-election in the face of mounting unpopularity due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 9/11, galvanizing people behind him - a phenomenon which was probably still in effect to some degree in 2004. War presidents, as is my understanding, usually have higher re-election odds, due to people not wanting to switch horses in the middle of a race - and 9/11 only bettered his odds.

Trump has no war to fight, save for the ongoing assistance of anti-ISIS forces, in a conflict which hasn't yet dragged the US in full-quagmire like the one which lead to ISIS flourishing to begin with. Mike Flynn has a real thing about Iran, though:

Quote

Days after Islamist militants stormed the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012, Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn reached a conclusion that stunned some of his subordinates at the Defense Intelligence Agency: Iran had a role in the attack, he told them.

Now, he added, it was their job to prove it — and, by implication, to show that the White House was wrong about what had led to the attack.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/4/1607175/-After-Benghazi-incompetent-Trump-pick-Mike-Flynn-ordered-his-staff-to-prove-Iran-did-it

Quote

“New leadership in Washington,” Flynn writes, “will have to craft a winning strategy that will bring freedom to Iran, thwart Putin’s ambitious undertakings in the Middle East and Europe, and break the worldwide enemy alliance.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/18/michael-flynn-national-security-adviser-profile

He wants to enact regime change in Iran, as if that worked so well before...

He also sees Russia as a threat, which at the present time it very much is; a view that is at odds with Trump's starkly pro-Russian bent.

There'll be no war with Russia, though, unless it invades the Baltic states and raises the ire of NATO. Iran, on the other hand, is ill-prepared for a fight, and is relying on diplomacy to keep itself safe - despite its involvement in the ISIS War and the internal politics of its neighbors. Trump isn't one for foreign meddling though, so I don't know. Maybe Flynn will get his war and Trump will be re-elected as a result, maybe not. The cynic in me says his flavor-of-the-moment principles will quickly take a back seat if he is assured of re-election, by whatever means.

[Tani Coyote]

12 hours ago, Patticus said:

Bush was arguably able to win re-election in the face of mounting unpopularity due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 9/11, galvanizing people behind him - a phenomenon which was probably still in effect to some degree in 2004. War presidents, as is my understanding, usually have higher re-election odds, due to people not wanting to switch horses in the middle of a race - and 9/11 only bettered his odds.

There's also Osama Bin Laden's tape taunting Bush's efforts being released a few days before Election Day; Bush's numbers increased several points afterward. Regardless of one's views of Bush, the idea of a terrorist leader belittling him helped Bush ride a wave of patriotism into a second term.

2004 also saw a large slew of gay marriage ban initiatives, which some think helped bring out conservative voters who proceeded to vote for Bush while they were there.

Wedge issues are just one part of a campaign, but they help voters feel as if the government is close as opposed to distant, increasing turnout and voting in other issues.

12 hours ago, Patticus said:

Trump has no war to fight, save for the ongoing assistance of anti-ISIS forces, in a conflict which hasn't yet dragged the US in full-quagmire like the one which lead to ISIS flourishing to begin with. Mike Flynn has a real thing about Iran, though:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/4/1607175/-After-Benghazi-incompetent-Trump-pick-Mike-Flynn-ordered-his-staff-to-prove-Iran-did-it

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/18/michael-flynn-national-security-adviser-profile

He wants to enact regime change in Iran, as if that worked so well before...

He also sees Russia as a threat, which at the present time it very much is; a view that is at odds with Trump's starkly pro-Russian bent.

There'll be no war with Russia, though, unless it invades the Baltic states and raises the ire of NATO. Iran, on the other hand, is ill-prepared for a fight, and is relying on diplomacy to keep itself safe - despite its involvement in the ISIS War and the internal politics of its neighbors. Trump isn't one for foreign meddling though, so I don't know. Maybe Flynn will get his war and Trump will be re-elected as a result, maybe not. The cynic in me says his flavor-of-the-moment principles will quickly take a back seat if he is assured of re-election, by whatever means.

I think we can almost guarantee Senator Rand Paul won't swing in favor of war in Iran. I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats can peel away two more GOP Senators to block the issue.

I'm hopeful this next term will swing libertarian-leaning people a little closer to the Democrats. The Democrats may be more in favor of government programs, but they don't have quite the militarist and policing tilt the GOP does. As much as libertarians are anxious about government programs (the real threat from concentration of economic resources happens regardless of system, though), the fact is a society too oriented around armed forces is more dangerous to personal liberty.

[KHCast]

http://www.wicked.online/article-post/congressman-is-confident-that-trump-will-repeal-protective-measures-for-lgbtq-employees/?utm_content=buffer41118&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

That's some smug confidence he's got there. Though it wouldn't surprise me if the GOP attempt to pull some shit like this. Individuals states try to already after all.

[Nepenthe]

"You wimpy liberals need to stop worrying! Trump will be fine. There's no need to worry about anyone's rights being threatened."

> Heartbeat bill that limits when abortions can be performed to before women even know they're pregnant, and with no rape or incest exceptions, passes Ohioan legislature.

> On Kasich's desk; likely to sign.

> If it's challenged through the courts, only SC holdout is Ginsberg.

> We are in the darkest timeline where Roe v. Wade could actually be overturned.

[KHCast]

1 minute ago, Nepenthe said:

"You wimpy liberals need to stop worrying! Trump will be fine. There's no need to worry about anyone's rights being threatened."

> Heartbeat bill that limits when abortions can be performed to before women even know they're pregnant passes Ohioan legislature.

> On Kasich's desk; likely to sign.

> If it's challenged through the courts, only SC holdout is Ginsberg.

> We are in the darkest timeline where Roe v. Wade could actually be overturned.

Conservative people seem to be very selective about what they constitute as "rights". I don't think they count shit like that and 90% of homosexuality for example as rights that if they were being challenged would be considered as "infringing." Race, and religion(but not those darn Muslims religion) seem to be the big ones people refer to when they say "no ones going after your rights"

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

We call that hypocrisy and moving the goal posts. They'll say "no one's going after your rights" while those in power state gradually eroding them till they don't have to hide it and say "Sike, no rights for you."

If and when states turn blue, and we get more liberal folks into government positions, I'd expect that shit to be reversed just as quick.

[Patticus]

Heard an interview on NPR not long ago with a historian who specializes in studying Weimar Germany. To summarize, it seems that whenever conservatism seems to be on the verge of total collapse, very often a strain of populist conservatism seems to emerge, the central theme being "we can solve all our nation's problems with this one man" or something similar. Sometimes it veers into fascistic territory, sometimes it doesn't. In Weimar Germany, it did. It's like a really shitty final boss fight, where the boss has an effective means of regenerating itself whenever its health dips low enough.

tl;dr: Conservatism is not going away like it fucking promised us it would.
 

The Ohio anti-abortion legislation is quite disturbing, and with Ohio trending rightward over the last few election cycles, I can't see it being reversed without the Supreme Court weighing in on the side of a woman's right to choose nationwide - a sort of renewal of Roe v Wade. People on my wife's Facebook feed have been expressing hope that all abortion will be banned soon, apparently unaware of the fact that it will continue whether legal or not, and the only way to ensure the safety of those who will do it is via legalization and regulation. But I don't think that they're very sympathetic to those people. Empathy is sorely lacking in a lot of people these days.

Quote

Donald Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Ally of Fossil Fuel Industry, to Lead Environmental Protection Agency

President-elect Donald J. Trump has selected Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general and a close ally of the fossil fuel industry, to run the Environmental Protection Agency, a transition official said, signaling Mr. Trump’s determination to dismantle President Obama’s efforts to counter climate change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html

It wouldn't surprise me if we see the EPA itself dismantled or de-fanged over the coming years, though I don't know how easy that would be to accomplish. Just one more thing for the next Democratic president to have to fix.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I wonder what they would think about the idea of artificial wombs.

Not discounting that it'll create a new debacle if such a thing comes to pass, but I think the acceptance or denial of that idea would be a firm indicator of whether they're actually concerned with the life of the embryo/fetus or are really just trying to control women's bodies out of gratification.