Idiocracy

[CarltonTheBear]

https://twitter.com/EByard/status/796317753749729280
www.twitter.com/EByard/status/796317753749729280

Millennials rule. Take as many snapchats and selfies as you want.

 

[louisstamos]

https://twitter.com/EByard/status/796317753749729280
www.twitter.com/EByard/status/796317753749729280

Millennials rule. Take as many snapchats and selfies as you want.

11,000 people also voted for Harambe - so, you know, there's still ways to go...

 

[bustaheims]

Millennials rule. Take as many snapchats and selfies as you want.

This is what's giving me hope today. Trump is the last lingering gift from the Baby Boomers and Co. As long as we can survive him, we can be secure in knowing that the future is going to be much more progressive than the present.

 

[Kin]

Thing is, and I don't want to snuff out candles here, but I wonder how that would compare to say % of how young people voted 20 or 30 years ago. Is that a real sign of shifting political priorities or a fairly standard sign of generational divide?

 

[Bill_Berg]

Thing is, and I don't want to snuff out candles here, but I wonder how that would compare to say % of how young people voted 20 or 30 years ago. Is that a real sign of shifting political priorities or a fairly standard sign of generational divide?

Meaning those blue votes will turn red when those young people reach their 50s become jaded and possibly racist?

 

[Kin]

Meaning those blue votes will turn red when those young people reach their 50s become jaded and possibly racist?

If you buy the idea that a lot of Trump's vote was based on disenfranchisement and economic anxiety then, yeah, maybe.

 

[Bullfrog]

Thing is, and I don't want to snuff out candles here, but I wonder how that would compare to say % of how young people voted 20 or 30 years ago. Is that a real sign of shifting political priorities or a fairly standard sign of generational divide?

Meaning those blue votes will turn red when those young people reach their 50s become jaded and possibly racist?

I think we need to be careful with suggesting those who vote Republican are possibly racist.

 

[Bender]

Really?

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Kin]

I think we need to be careful with suggesting those who vote Republican are possibly racist.

It would be wrong to say they're definitely racist but they're certainly possibly racist.

Either way, they're certainly ok with voting for a racist which isn't yards better.

 

[louisstamos]

I think we need to be careful with suggesting those who vote Republican are possibly racist.

It would be wrong to say they're definitely racist but they're certainly possibly racist.

Either way, they're certainly ok with voting for a racist which isn't yards better.

As a rule, though, people are self interested.  Trump came out explicitly saying he was going to save rust belt jobs in decline (automotive, coal), which is exactly that they wanted to hear.  A lot of people in Michigan and Wisconsin who have voted Obama twice (and probably Kerry and Gore before that) voted Trump, and basically said "yeah, he's a deplorable human being...but at least he'll fight to save my job."

Of course, what that does is it legitimizes those who did vote for Trump because their anti-progressive policies line up with Trump's views. They can now boldly claim that the majority of the country agrees that should ban all Muslims, that they're okay with the objectification of women - when in fact, a lot of people in those swing states particularly didn't like those things, but held their noses and voted for Trump just because they wanted to keep their jobs, lower taxes, etc.

On top of which, looking at the exit polls, the majority of people who voted Trump are white men.  They don't really concern themselves with him being a racist or sexist because it doesn't affect them personally.

 

[Frank E]

I think we need to be careful with suggesting those who vote Republican are possibly racist.

It would be wrong to say they're definitely racist but they're certainly possibly racist.

Either way, they're certainly ok with voting for a racist which isn't yards better.

What about the suggestion that Hilary was a racist as well, due to racist statements in the past?

And really, aren't the Trump statements more xenophobic than racist?

 

[Frank E]

As a rule, though, people are self interested.  Trump came out explicitly saying he was going to save rust belt jobs in decline (automotive, coal), which is exactly that they wanted to hear.  A lot of people in Michigan and Wisconsin who have voted Obama twice (and probably Kerry and Gore before that) voted Trump, and basically said "yeah, he's a deplorable human being...but at least he'll fight to save my job."

Yeah, I think this might be the case. 

 

[Kin]

As a rule, though, people are self interested.  Trump came out explicitly saying he was going to save rust belt jobs in decline (automotive, coal), which is exactly that they wanted to hear.  A lot of people in Michigan and Wisconsin who have voted Obama twice (and probably Kerry and Gore before that) voted Trump, and basically said "yeah, he's a deplorable human being...but at least he'll fight to save my job."

Of course, what that does is it legitimizes those who did vote for Trump because their anti-progressive policies line up with Trump's views. They can now boldly claim that the majority of the country agrees that should ban all Muslims, that they're okay with the objectification of women - when in fact, a lot of people in those swing states particularly didn't like those things, but held their noses and voted for Trump just because they wanted to keep their jobs, lower taxes, etc.

On top of which, looking at the exit polls, the majority of people who voted Trump are white men.  They don't really concern themselves with him being a racist or sexist because it doesn't affect them personally.

I don't fundamentally disagree with any of this(although Trump also won a majority of white women who you'd like to think do care more about that sexism). Like I said, I'm not willing to call all of his voters racist but they did vote for one and there's a limit to the extent to which I'm going to empathize with economic self-interest in that context.

edit: Also Trump's tax plan will increase taxes on a lot of those people.

 

[Kin]

What about the suggestion that Hilary was a racist as well, due to racist statements in the past?

I think that suggestion is nonsense and a willful distortion of something Hillary said while advocating a policy of her husband's, not her own.

And really, aren't the Trump statements more xenophobic than racist?

The great thing about the President-Elect is that there's enough of both. Feel free to say that bans on Muslims or a wall to keep out Mexican rapists is xenophobic rather than racist but you can't really say the same about saying that an American-born federal judge can't fairly do his job because of his ethnicity or that black people everywhere live in violent inner cities.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Perhaps some day, America will have a female President.  For now, it will still be a very bitter pill to those who believed in that dream coming to fruition and to watch it fade far & away,  in a stunning and stinging defeat.

Clinton...addressed the historic achievement for which she twice strived in losing presidential campaigns.

"I know we have still not shattered that highest and hardest glass ceiling, but someday, someone will, and hopefully sooner than we might think right now."

"And to all the little girls who are watching this, never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and to achieve your own dreams."

....she also put Trump on notice that the core American values which many Democrats believe Trump abhors, citing his proposals for a ban on Muslim immigration and rhetorical assaults on female journalists during his campaign, would not be forgotten.

"Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power and we don't just respect that, we cherish it. It also enshrines other things: the rule of law, the principle that we are equal in rights and dignity, freedom of worship and expression. We respect and cherish these values too and we must defend them."

Her speech marked a bitter conclusion to a campaign that will be remembered for failing to fully energize Democratic voters and for squandering the party's traditional heartlands in states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/clinton-to-offer-remarks-in-new-york-city/

 

[Boston Leaf]

I guess Trump set a precedent too. No one running for Prez in future need to have any experience nor have to show his/her taxes

 

[louisstamos]

As a rule, though, people are self interested.  Trump came out explicitly saying he was going to save rust belt jobs in decline (automotive, coal), which is exactly that they wanted to hear.  A lot of people in Michigan and Wisconsin who have voted Obama twice (and probably Kerry and Gore before that) voted Trump, and basically said "yeah, he's a deplorable human being...but at least he'll fight to save my job."

Of course, what that does is it legitimizes those who did vote for Trump because their anti-progressive policies line up with Trump's views. They can now boldly claim that the majority of the country agrees that should ban all Muslims, that they're okay with the objectification of women - when in fact, a lot of people in those swing states particularly didn't like those things, but held their noses and voted for Trump just because they wanted to keep their jobs, lower taxes, etc.

On top of which, looking at the exit polls, the majority of people who voted Trump are white men.  They don't really concern themselves with him being a racist or sexist because it doesn't affect them personally.

I don't fundamentally disagree with any of this(although Trump also won a majority of white women who you'd like to think do care more about that sexism). Like I said, I'm not willing to call all of his voters racist but they did vote for one and there's a limit to the extent to which I'm going to empathize with economic self-interest in that context.

edit: Also Trump's tax plan will increase taxes on a lot of those people.

That's pretty much where I'm at too.  I'm curious how many will have buyers' remorse after a few months in.

 

[Frank E]

What about the suggestion that Hilary was a racist as well, due to racist statements in the past?

I think that suggestion is nonsense and a willful distortion of something Hillary said while advocating a policy of her husband's, not her own.

And really, aren't the Trump statements more xenophobic than racist?

The great thing about the President-Elect is that there's enough of both. Feel free to say that bans on Muslims or a wall to keep out Mexican rapists is xenophobic rather than racist but you can't really say the same about saying that an American-born federal judge can't fairly do his job because of his ethnicity or that black people everywhere live in violent inner cities.

Fair enough, and I don't necessarily disagree.  I do find, however, that too many people attribute racism to statements that really aren't racist.  It's a word that has had its meaning diluted.  Many people use the term racism when they mean xenophobic or stereotyping.

I'm no Trump fan, and I think he's full of shit, but the Democrats really screwed this one up.  Hillary's platform was a bunch of nothingness.

 

[Kin]

Fair enough, and I don't necessarily disagree.  I do find, however, that too many people attribute racism to statements that really aren't racist.  It's a word that has had its meaning diluted.  Many people use the term racism when they mean xenophobic or stereotyping.

I'm no Trump fan, and I think he's full of shit, but the Democrats really screwed this one up.  Hillary's platform was a bunch of nothingness.

I agree with everything you wrote here to one extent or another. The thing of it is that this isn't really even a Left-Right thing. Trump's positions on a lot of things are probably further to the Left than Hillary's. It was just establishment vs. let's throw a grenade into the establishment.

 

[hockeyfan1]

The real reason Trump won...the economy:

Economists aren't suffering from this post-election confusion.  They are in the enviable position of saying "I told you so."....they base their predictions on economic variables.  And those variables were indicating a Trump victory long before the first ballots were cast.

The basic premise of economic modeling for election outcomes is that people vote their pocketbooks.... if the economy isn't delivering the growth and jobs that people expect, they want a change  in leadership ? a different party in the White House.  

From this perspective, it doesn't really matter who the candidate of either party is ? much less their gaffes or their crude language or their bankruptcies...All that matters is whether voters want a change or not.  And that depends on how well the economy has been performing under the outgoing administration...

For the last, agonizing  six months, the airwaves and newspapers have been filled with political prognoses.  Every commentator claimed special insight into how voters would cast their ballots and why. None of the political factors the pundits cited ad nauseum even enter the best economic models.

The most famous model was constructed by Yale economist Ray Fair, who argues that people's sense of how well the economy is performing depends on two key variables: GDP growth and inflation. 

If GDP growth is robust, job creation will keep up with the population and workers will be happy.  If inflation is restrained, consumers will be happy.  So a combination of robust growth and restrained inflation will make voters feel happy about the economy.  Happy voters will vote for the incumbent party ? and vice versa.

Clinton lost because the economy under President Obama did not perform well enough to meet Fair?s thresholds of happiness.  Economic growth was anemic for nearly all of the last eight years.  As a result, job creation lagged far behind the records set during other post-recession recoveries. 

In the Fair model, GDP growth in the three calendar quarters prior to the election is critical: That?s when voters are especially  attuned to how the economy is performing. And on that count, Clinton lost a lot of votes.
This sluggish growth hardly inspired confidence in the economic policies of an Obama/Clinton team, and it seems Clinton couldn?t talk her way out of this performance. 

.The Fair model, furthermore, says that ?good news? quarters are particularly important to the incumbent  party.  Every calendar quarter in which GDP growth exceeds the long-term average of 3.2% yields a popular vote advantage of .873 %.  That?s significant in presidential elections that are typically won by only a few percentage points.Unfortunately for Clinton, the Obama administration was able to deliver only six quarters of good news out of the 31 that it has presided over.  A couple of more robust growth quarters could have swung the election to the Democrats.

The inflation record was benign...the inflation rate has stayed well below the Federal Reserve?s target of 2%.  So voters didn?t turn away from Clinton because of rising prices.  It was only GDP growth that did her in.

Fair predicted a Republican victory back in May in this very newspaper. All he needed were a few, readily available statistics on the economy?s performance over the past four years.


http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-91826641/