OK, I don’t usually do this, but the owner and name sake of a supposed “Progressive” website just posted that tens of thousands retired miners and wives/widows should lose their meager pension and health care because Trump won those states.
Other words, let them suffer because they didn’t vote the way their betters told them. Maybe that will teach them a lesson.
Poor dumb white trash hillbillies, that will show ’em.
For an avowed Democrat to even consider this must display the bitter disappointment he feels. I can only assume he was promised a White House position (“Director of Online Outreach”?) and he painfully feels the loss of prestige and authority.
From previous experience, I can say there is no surprise in the comments. Its the usual ignorance and arrogance but for the “figurehead” of such a prominent site in the Progressive Community to come out and say outright, “Screw them” ….well.
This attitude displayed by many in the online part of the Democratic Party does not bode well with any type of appeal for those votes. Because everyone who ever worked with their hands and has retired, or nearing retirement; is WATCHING. If the Democratic Party doesn’t fight tooth and nail, then the remaining Union membership will see where they stand with the Party and will increasingly vote against them.
In a political, strategy, rebuilding sense…this has to be the goddamn dumbest thing I have seen since HRC opened her mouth during the campaign.
If the Party does not go all out for this, then maybe its time for a NEW political party. Nothing says that parties have to last forever. If they don’t have a natural constituency or can gain one, then why does it exist? Just to enrich consultants?
I tell ya, when I saw this, I was stunned.
Always interesting to see self-described liberals tested. Markos obviously failed this test (not for the first time, but by late 2003 it was obvious that Markos wasn’t a liberal nor left leaning; so, this should not have surprised any astute and authentic liberal).
Liberalism is about not letting anyone suffer because they lacked whatever it is that allows people to be informed and rational enough not to make political and financial choices that are harmful to themselves and others. And the commitment to keep working to protect and expand whatever limited benefits workers and their families have gained should remain at the core for liberals and Democrats regardless of being rejected by those people in one or more elections.
Some, very few in my experience, are able to be kind and generous without judging the beneficiaries of their kindness and generosity. Participating in a “Christmas in April” construction project taught me that I fall short on that kind and generous gene and have to look to those not similarly handicapped to lead.
well, for the moment, I’m pounding away. Not doing much good.
Truthfully, its Ayn Rand land over there.
“Its their own damn fault they are poor and ill, I’m safe in my little world (for now), so screw ’em.”
As long as the “leaders” of the Democratic Party throws some social bones to the rubes in the tech and urban corridors, they will allow anyone else to suffer.
You would think Paul Ryan is writing the posts.
R
Not even hiding behind their masks anymore. Which is a reason why they along with the rightwing are enemies of the people.
Markos wants others to suffer b/c he backed the wrong candidate. Moar inability to analyze and blaming others for
Now how did I know where it was posted before I saw your links? Might have been Balloon Juice, but thought you might not be familiar with that one, so decided Kos.
Know them both. John at Balloon, is a major crank, but sometimes has some insights. Some other posters are good. Lots of tight analysis on the healthcare insurance problems. Others ok.
Yeah, its Kos and he has done more to tear that community apart than anything. Reminds me of the Usenet flame wars; where one act of stupidity could blast a group.
R
iirc Cole was the first person I tangled with at dKos (2002-2003). It was so unpleasant that I was never tempted to visit his site and didn’t miss him when he stopped popping up.
Dkos has been a PermaGov tool…the so-called “left-wing” division…for over 15 years.
WTFU doesn’t even begin to cover it!!!
AG
Watch your tongue, man, Markos will ban a second time if he could! Marks is authoritarian: macho man.
Yeah. Authoritarian and macho as a compensation device.
Napoleon Jr. Jr.
AG
To be fair, Markos refrained from engaging in purges until after his blog reached critical mass. Good business decision because dKos would never have reached critical mass if lefties had been disappeared from day one. Technologically, his site was just enough better than the alternatives that it made it easy for lefties to stay and the more that stayed, the more that there were enough commentators to make it interesting. A reasonable excuse for lefties to stay over the years but no longer. Still many that weren’t purged don’t leave in the mistaken notion that their words will sway the partisan DINOs. They don’t have that power because they are now vastly outnumbered and nor is there any power in leaving which will hardly cause a ripple. However, even when the odds for success are very long and there aren’t other alternatives, boycotts do have an impact.
Just plain creepy, that site.
Covert blog operatives are always creepy, but their numbers wax and wane depending on points in an election cycle. They have been invading dKos in waves beginning in mid-2003.
And here too. Only the last several months…
Kinda like termites.
Ignorable because so small and so basic. Until of course they take down the house.
Fight ’em.
AG
Could be my selective attention or perception but since the election and the immediate aftermath of it, it seems that their numbers and commenting frequency have dwindled. Perhaps some viewed this site as their form of political activism to increase the vote for HRC but failed to note that the few here that reside in any of the places where she needed more votes were already with HER and not having much success in persuading family, friends, and neighbors to join them. If they were recruited by team Clinton, either volunteers or paid, it would be evidence of her campaign’s incompetence. Their departure seems to have increased the frustration of the neoliberalcon true believers that were taking comfort in their numbers. So, they’re lashing out with their silly downratings as their impotent attempt to purge lefties from the site, but sad to see, they do seem to be gaining favor with one person.
Indeed.
Right turn ahead?
I hope not.
Or has it already happened?
AG
It’s happened. Look at the general lack of complaint about the disgusting Trump cabinet appointments. I know I’ve said HRC’s would be just as bad, but there should have been something other than crickets about them from the news media.
Well…I wasn’t talking about “the media” in general, I was referencing this particular site.
AG
Oh, definitely, it’s neoliberal all the way except for half a dozen holdouts. The only coasters (East or West) that aren’t are fossils like me and Marie3 (and you?) and Bob In Portland who got banned.
I AM NOT A FOSSIL!!!
AG
LOL!
there were a whole bunch of them, many called “X from Y location” e.g. Joe from AnnArbor and the like, a few claiming to be canadians- I engaged one anti Sanders poster “from Canada” and got attacked for being a mean sanders supporter. ok, venting, thanks for listening.
Yeah, Errol. We don’t always (or even often?) agree, but you are one of the good guys.
what’s with the pet fetishism over there?
I mean, we’re all animal lovers, but the pet diaries, I mean- just wondering since it just struck me how odd that is
It’s not my first rodeo.
Some time ago, lost in the mists of memory (1999), I and many others were on a Tech and social news server run by a “wizard”. Had neophytes and very adept practioners in the arts. Also space for jokes and some political debate.
His problem is that members of the TLAs were hanging around and they recruited him to write little bugs. Hush, hush -except when he lost his cool and started bragging. But as the atmosphere heated up during the 2000 election, I think he was either leaned on or saw which side of his bread was buttered; so purged the non-complying political elements. After all they wouldn’t let him in the Building or answer his emails if he was hosting such commentary. Ok. However, knowing who he was working for or with, damaged his reputation; but who cares. He was now an Insider.
Came back to bite him as after 9/11, the gloves came off and the TLAs didn’t need back alley coding or plausible deniability with a 3rd party. They would do it all in house and proudly. Leaving him out in the cold. So he became a public Internet Security expert.
But I still will never install any of his small, nifty keen utilities.
The Orange place is kinda like that. When the Internet was perceived as just a bunch of bozos in their pajamas, what happened on that (and other sites) didn’t matter. But once the numbers built up and the volume of activists/donations shown that could be tapped; the Establishment came calling and probably inducted him as an Insider. And such status has to be protected. Anti-Establishment blather has to be discouraged or suppressed. Sure, pisses some off but being on the Inside made up for the all the ill will.
But when the Establishment lost, then all the effort and ill will generated came to naught, all the position reversals, all the reporter phone calls … and she LOST. That is what I think rankles him and is the source of the despicable post. Revenue will drop as he isn’t on the Money side of the table anymore. And those in ascendency in the Democratic Party won’t be forgetting anytime soon as well.
I wish him good luck, but he should stick to writing what he knows about, Establishment Democratic Politics; and leave off commenting about the rest of the country until he experiences some of the pain they have to deal with daily.
R
Uh, …to writing what he knows about, Establishment Democratic Politics; even by late 2002 is seemed clear that he didn’t know much about that, or anything else really. A reason why he enlisted “guest FP” posters that wrote more interesting pieces that Kos ever did. (billmon and Steve Soto were the first two)
He’s just a guy that got a blog at the right time and somehow (interesting question as to how) got enough money to upgrade it from Blogger and thus, beat the competition. Suspect that some “dark money” (and not the chump change he got for tech advice from the Dean campaign) entered the equation in mid-2003. If not, it did begin to dribble in in 2004 and has increased from there. With 2015-16 being the big payoff that since November likely plummeted as fast as donations to the Clinton Foundation.
At c99 I keep reading that he has a CIA background, but I have no idea if it’s true. It could be just a “Trump is Putin’s agent” slur.
at c99 everyone hates kos passionately.
IIRC he claimed to have applied at CIA and not been hired. My vague memory of a story i don’t really care about.
at c99 everyone hates kos passionately.
IMHO that reflects poorly on those at c99 because it means they failed to properly assess who Markos is, put him on some pedestal, and after being a part of what Markos needed to make his mark and wealth, we’re shocked to discover that he’s just another Democratic apparatchik with the power to kick out those that don’t conform to the party line. Took me a decade to get banned (and over something quite ridiculous), but unlike others treated similarly, I wasn’t into even making an attempt to grovel my way back into his or his henchmen’s favor. The unstated edict after the 2008 election was “mustn’t criticize Obama” repressed quality critical thinking and led to various cultish behaviors that in turn retarded progressivism. Clapping louder didn’t prevent the 2010 and 2014 midterm bloodbaths, and they completely misread Obama’s 2012 win as evidence that clapping was enough. So, here we are forced to accept another bozo for POTUS.
A mystique that he’s cultivated but it’s a fake as Trump being for the “little guy.” His story was that he applied and was accepted but then declined the offer because it meant living in DC and he hates DC. My take — he applied and didn’t make the cut. Also his claim that he went into the Army as a Republican and came out a Democrat doesn’t seem credible to me. My take is that his switch came later while either in college or law school. He’s really not the sort that the CIA looks for and would have had better luck with the FBI or DOJ.
Soldiers are more likely to be Republicans. Don’t know why. Maybe they like authoritarian leadership.
I have praised the late Senator Everett Dirksen for his aggressive support of enlisted soldiers against the officers, but given enlisted soldiers proclivity for Republicans, it was good politics for him, constituent service.
IIRC, during the campaign, I read that military officers were narrowly for Clinton, but enlisted soldiers were heavily Trump. It was posited that this was part of a general rebellion against the status quo in the USA.
Yes. Have to remember that the all volunteer army is different from what it was before then. More diversity of color but less diversity in class, intelligence, etc. And the military academies, particularly the Air Force, have been infested with religious fundamentalists.
A standing army/military was contrary to what was envisioned at the beginning of this country. Wouldn’t object to a small residual force because it is helpful in fast and large ramp up if needed as this country demonstrated in WWII. FDR’s plan for the Pentagon was that it was to be decommissioned at the end of the war. But the living was good for two many people for us to do that; so, we’ve since spent trillions of dollars looking for enemies and fights.
Governments are perfectly capable of serving as an employer of last resort without the jobs being training to kill.
I’m afraid that modern aircraft and rockets made that Founding Fathers ideal technologically obsolete.
Sort of like Kirk claiming to be an Iraq war veteran because he was recalled to duty (in the Pentagon!) during the Iraq War. Meanwhile he mocked Tammy Duckworth for having no legs which she lost in combat!
I really hate that piece of shit.
Let me guess – anybody who disagrees with the sentiment is a misogynistic racist who only cares about white hillbillies.
Their use of these words in the attempt to gain votes has cheapened these labels to the point that half the country wont accept/recognize legitimate misogyny and racism now (and it didnt even get them the votes in the end).
Got it in one. The talking points are evident even after the election.
I agree with the overall thrust of your criticism, but I read what Kos wrote twice and I still don’t see where he mentioned pensions.
If you’re going to go after him, make it tight.
Health care runs out the first of 2017, pensions, later that year. If he missed the pension problem, then he needs to be better informed before slamming the those who can’t defend themselves. If only they lived in San Francisco. If only they weren’t so….
I only dip my toes in those waters since 2004. I don’t hang around enough to form a long term impression of Kos and am cynical enough to speculate as to his marketing plans. However, the place he built developed into something that hindered the Democratic effort in 2016 by emulating the epistemological closure we all derided the Republicans for in 2012. Anyone who questioned the viability of the HRC candidacy or tried to report on the public feelings outside Blue enclaves was derided in personal terms. And with this post, Kos is setting (his) terms for discussion as to Why she lost and how to correct the Democratic Party’s problems in the future.
And the terms? The voters are wrong, so let them suffer. They don’t know better so as parents (betters, superiors) we’ll practice tough love. Then maybe they will learn. We, the “chosen” live in places and have good enough jobs and health care where we won’t be affected too much by Trump and can ride it out. The other poor dumb bastards get what they deserve. Besides, if they didn’t vote for Hillary, it displays deep character flaws of racism, misogyny, ignorance, and whatever else we can think of. So they don’t warrant our sympathy and assistance. Anyone who questioned HRC’s candidacy or her support outside Blue areas was painted with the same brush.
One might ask if this patronizing attitude among HRC and her supporters toward the “other” was also a hindrance to her success.
Anyway, you provide a more open place for discussion, for which I am appreciative.
Ridge
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/10/umwa-retirement-pensions-health-care
Both my grandfathers were coal miners and it’s awful work. These people deserve every benefit they were promised. Period. If I were Gawd, kos would have to listen to this lullaby every night before he went to sleep.
I work with them and their wives daily. Just took a look over in Kos and the paternalistic commentary would enrage any adult, not to mention some one working in low coal or knee deep in water around machines what would snatch your arm in a second. If the mine doesn’t collapse or explode. Just to provide food and shelter for their family.
But “they” don’t know better and should be punished.
Jesus fu**kin Christ, what a bunch of absolute losers.
I’m surprised I voted for HRC with a mob like that advocating her election. And multiple that by millions on the factory floor, working 12 hrs a day farming, or any other type of “labor”.
What a mess and I morn for the future of the Democratic Party if they are it.
R
imo that’s what T voters were choosing- make America great again meaning return to the middle class life that previous generations had as reward for hard work- and they get written off and called deplorables and young plp have bought the line that only the 1% deserve a middle class life
correction: young ppl sold the line that only the 1% merit a middle class way of life. ppl don’t even know what that looks like any more- pensions retirement, actual vacations, no food insecurity
Well that was the thrust of some of the responding posts at DK. Citing the example of a retirees who had some pension and healthcare, younger posters couldn’t imagine such a world. “Why should he get a pension?” Instead of asking, “Why don’t I get a pension?”
Everybody got sold the 401K scam; which does nothing but enrich Wall Street brokers and stock contributions in companies whose trading prices fluctuate wildly.
Well, we’ll see if Ayn Rand Ryan come through and can privatize, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That may be a bridge too far.
R
yes, that’s it. one goal, the Q’s iirc fladem asked and you asked, is to get a large % of the young ppl to ask “why don’t i get a pension”
Noticed some pushback diaries over there in response. One by Bob Johnson seemed semi-sympathetic, and I like that he emphasizes how Republicans have been using a divide and conquer strategy on workers for a long time, and have done so successfully (the psychology is easy enough, I suppose). Others have been less kind. Kos is out of touch. There are plenty of us who work with or serve in some way people who voted for a candidate who – if successful – will make it much harder for us to our jobs of serving them. It sucks for those of us in that position and it sucks for them. Telling them to go to hell is not going to win any hearts and minds.
Look, the Democratic coalition is a very diverse and divergent one. One big mistake the party has made is of taking its base constituents for granted. The sort of dual loyalty that the party’s leaders have had toward Wall Street and workers (broadly defined – including trade unions) was going to eventually catch up and hurt the party. The midterms in 2010 and 2014 should have been seen as wakeup calls. They weren’t. Union leaders have threatened for several years that the Democratic Party could not continue counting on their constituents’ votes for a few years now. That was not an idle threat. That was a description of the facts on the ground. And this is where we find ourselves now. Taking for granted any of the constituencies that make up the party’s coalition will only further damage its candidates’ efforts to win seats or win the White House, given the way the Presidential electoral system is set up.
In the meantime, I still have a job and will keep serving people – the majority of whom would just as soon see me and my coworkers go away (something that was the case long before Trump, so in some senses, the beat goes on). I suspect that quite a number of folks in my neck of the woods are going to be in for a shock when Trump and his minions follow through on their plans to screw them over on health care, social security, and so on. They’re in denial right now – figured old Donny was just bluffing. Most of us will suffer together. We could also thrive together, but that would mean doing something pretty drastic: turning off the TV, the radio, and the computer and actually looking at our communities and talking with one another. That, regrettably, is a very tall order. Not exactly betting on that one.
I don’t understand how Bob Johnson made it through the campaign and remained on the site. he’s from the olden days there and a sanders supporter, perhaps b/c of ties from olden days
Ties and goodwill make a difference. I’m not one to knock it. If that’s working out okay for Bob at DKos, then good on him. I sort of remember Bob from way back. Seemed okay enough, although I doubt I interacted with him much. Most of the folks I grooved on either came here, formed their own community blogs on Soapblox (all of which seem to have folded), or just faded away over time. When I think about what motivated a lot of the formation of what got characterized as the left blogosphere – namely opposition to the wars GWB started – I expected that with so many diverse and divergent factions we’d eventually become fragmented, as eventually happened. I’m surprised any of the community blogs survive. Suspecting that if any of the remaining old-timers are asked, it’ll come down to some sense of having ties, perhaps fraying ties, to a particular blog. And the beat goes on.
At this point in time I’ve seen many reactions to the election from both sides. There are many similar to kos’s (I can relate, too), & there are many bizarre ones from the other side – “Oh he didn’t mean that!”. Aren’t these expectation problems? Let me frame them 2 different ways.
Democrats – reactions like kos’s sound like covert contracts. For an example, the Nice Guy syndrome – I’m so nice to her, I do all these things, but I can’t close the deal! She’s bad! Maybe but more likely, she just wasn’t a party to this “contract” in the 1st place. On the scale of masses of voters, they’re taking the medical care, since it was handed to them, but that wasn’t what she was in the market place for. They didn’t agree to keep voting for you because you did them this enormous favor.
Trump supporters – “He doesn’t meant that!” sounds like entitlement. I’m entitled to social security / disability / medicare / medical coverage/ same job I’ve had for 30 years / same neighbors as the past 30 years. (I can understand the irritation; operating as an entitlement is harder for me personally). These must seem a lot like entitlements; after all there is almost no living memory now of a time before social security. We’ve had it 80 years. Regardless, those things are not even in the constitution and even if it got there it could be changed.
If democrats want to win elections they better make these contracts overt and make sure they are selling things in them voters really will want. This is clearly what Trump is doing to some extent. Democrats absolutely did not do this in this past election. Trump supporters might need education about what things one is entitled to in life (precious little) and what things you have to fight to keep. This seems difficult.
If angry dem’s calm down I think what kos type reactions are really looking for is “natural consequences” – if the bad things angry dem’s are predicting happen, people who voted for these changes will learn from this mistake. Some will. Mammals in general learn better from positive reinforcement however. Humans are complicated but I think we will get a lot cognitive dissonance reactions instead. Happened before.
These are very interesting perspectives.
After putting all the nonsense in the proper frame, I think we can look at the strong reactions objectively.
The coal miner stuff was just a fuse. Could have been farm subsidies, disaster in Tornado Alley, etc… anywhere that needed national action or assistance and voted Republican.
I think all the heat reflects a “buyer’s remorse” in picking Hillary to run. After all, she had all the party money, super delegates, operatives, and name. We were told she had the best campaign, was experienced, tough, could counter ANY Republican attack. They had the correct strategy and she was going to WIN. All those other shmoes, not a chance. The cracks began to appear when Sanders matched her funding without bundling or dining with the Big Money and wining surprising states. But the Party Establishment had so much invested in her, that the cracks were papered over and efforts to obstruct Sanders increased. And those who were invested in the Establishment followed along. The word went out and the soldiers patrolled sites like Kos and other places. Ready to correct or drown out any dissenting voices.
But for all their efforts, came up snake eyes. Since they had the right candidate, at the right time, with the right team, and all the money…it must be someone else’s fault. I know, its the Voter’s fault. You just can’t trust ’em. Dumb hillbillies, red state farmers, Rust Belt lay a bouts. Poorly educated, hyper-religious,racists, misogynists, gun totin’ white trash which would just as soon shoot a Hillary voter as to look at them. Hate PoC ( a new acronym which I saw which means, Person of Color). Hate homosexuals, hate, hate, hate….
Of course they say all this with many never experiencing life outside the Blue Islands. From outside their bubble of perception; I would say they may be transferring their own fears and prejudices against the “other” onto the electorate that rejected HRC.
But who knows. The fact is, she was a lousy candidate for a majority of states, and a presidential election is 50 state elections. They were warned but the institutional momentum was rolling and too hard to stop. Maybe next time, they won’t be so quick to jump on one particular train before its left the station and goes over the trestle.
R
Have you been reading the Michigan postmortems? Looks more like rank malpractice in the campaign.
Truthfully, I have been looking at the things I thought caused her loss. Unforced errors that pissed off large portions of the population in states she needed.
I was on the road election day and when the numbers were tight in Va, I had a very bad feeling. I know I discussed the race in that state here; being familiar with large portions of it. At first, wasn’t sure she could win; then Trump started acting like a lunatic and I felt better about it. She eventually won by 5%/200k votes. But she needed every last vote in Fairfax Co to do it. The support in the Western College towns and Norfolk area was not as deep as it should have been. I haven’t looked at % of registered Democrats vs. voting for Hillary but they seem light.
And I’ve got news for any depending on Va being blue in the future. Its only blue because of 8 yrs of Democratic Admin in DC With the years of GOP admin in the White House, it was red. Only changed with Obama and was reinforced by the character of his Admin. Now all those govt workers who live there may be moving and be replaced by Republican office drones, who could flip the state again. If you want to keep it Democratic, you will have to move out of the enclaves of DC/Charlottesville/Blacksburg/Norfolk and actually connect with voters in the West and Central part of the state.
Just like the US.
R
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/virginia
5% is better than Obama’s 2012 margin. She held onto Obama’s totals and added a few, and Trump lost several thousand from Mitt’s totals. Results fully in line iwht the pre-election polling. Thus, VA wasn’t a bellweather state.
It was my intuition that any gains in num. of cast votes for Hillary came out of the DC area and did not reflect support in the state overall. Your post put that in question, so I looked at the 2012 and 2016 city/county results for Obama and Clinton . (cut into my bourbon and cigar time, but that’s alright)
The NYTimes map remained about the same, with some county or city flipping but with only about 500 vote differences.
If you look at the map, you have SE counties that circle around the Norfolk/Portsmouth/Newport News area. Once away from the coast, they are rural peanut and other farms. (Driven through there several times.)
Those counties showed a drop in Democratic votes in the range of 500-1000 from Obama to Clinton. Not much but if the total Democratic votes are 4200 vs 3095 GOP, those numbers represent a significant drop off.
The more populated Norfolk area with industry, military, and retirees was interesting. There the drop of votes for Hillary was around 5000 votes in Newport News, 3000 in Norfolk, and less In Portsmouth. The county around those cities (Hampton) showed a drop of 9000 votes vs Obama’s numbers.
Next area of concentration would be Richmond and region. Richmond City was about a wash between H and O. but the surrounding county (Henrico) saw Clinton over take Obama, 32,000 to 19,000. Petersburg, drop from Obama, 2300.
Next would be Charlottesville and Albemarle County, with UVs and rich DC retirees, you would expect big margins for both. C’ville city, Hillary up 3000 over Obama. Albemarle Co. up 7500 for Hillary. Why? Trump? Sanders? I don’t know.
The western college areas of Roanoke, Blacksburg, Radford,Lexington, Harrisonburg, and Montgomery Co.. the differences were slight. 500-1500 going both ways.
The Southside islands of Martinsville and Danville, which have comparatively larger black populations, showed a drop from Obama by 1200 in D’ville and a wash in Martinsville.
So that just leaves the DC area. Fairfax, Loudon Prince William counties. Towns of Manassas, Falls Church, Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax
For Hillary over Obama numbers-
Alexandria, +12,000
Arlington, +24,000
Falls Church, +1500
Manassas, -600
Fairfax City, +1700
Loudon, Co, +13,000
Prince William Co, a wash
Fairfax Co, + 109,500
So, it seems my intuition was correct. Most of Hillary’s gains was in the DC area, while losing in margins in most of the state. The surprise was her surplus 10,500 around Charlottesville/Albemarle over Obama (Politically motivated women?) and + 13,000 over Obama in Henrico Co surrounding Richmond. When I had contacts there years ago, the Richmond suburbs were very conservative. I guess less so now.
Considering the drop or static margins in Democratic support in most of the state, the DC area really came through for Hillary and made up for increased Trump margins in other parts of the state.
Now to light one up.
R
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/states/virginia
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/virginia
I should clarify that the numbers cited refer to the differences in the margin of victory by the Democratic candidate . So if both Obama and Clinton won Fairfax county-
Obama by 87,094 votes 2012
Clinton, by 196,648 votes in 2016
she increased her margin of victory by 109,500 (rounded off)
Same when she dropped.
We could argue and study all night about changes in population and party affiliation… but I have laundry.
R
laundry? what about cigar and bourbon?
Put a load in and relax. If I knew how to add a photo, I’d show you.
Sorry, didn’t mean to discount what you were seeing on the ground in parts of VA. Only that I took VA out of the category of potential swing states early on because of the uniqueness of NoVa that played perfectly into the Hillary formulation. Which was to hold or slightly improve on Obama’s Latino/Asian vote, lose some AA and white male voters, reduced AA participation and make it up with “middle-class,” predominately women, white voters that have done okay economically in the past eight years but voted for Romney (and possibly McCain) because they’re a bit racist.
It worked perfectly in MD (another state heavily dependent on DC employment) because she received the same number of votes as Obama did in ’12 and better in VA where she added 10,000 votes to Obama’s.
While I correctly projected that the NC flip from 2008 to 2012 would hold through 2016, I didn’t articulate the why and wondered why the Clinton campaign was spending so much time and money there.
Then the polling told us that IA and OH were gone early on, but MI, PA, and WI were holding. Lulled in part by the presidential election results in those states since 2000. What I and apparently everyone else overlooked was the general economy and recent political leanings in gubernatorial and senate elections. They were all more like NC than VA. Although the profile was far more mixed in PA than MI and WI; so, wouldn’t fault anyone for getting PA wrong.
We should also have better considered the primary results as we looked at the general election polling. Clinton easily won the NC, VA, PA, and OH primaries. Yet, she was losing in NC and OH. OTOH, she lost in the MI and WI primaries and that should have been a signal. What made WI harder to read was that Feingold’s poll numbers were solid (over the course of the election cycle better than Bennet’s in CO and he and Clinton were both going to win in CO). Still, PA, MI and WI should all have been viewed as ground zero. And while Clinton’s team was active in PA it was with a certain arrogant confidence. McGinty (which I did project) was too weak and Toomey was too strong; Clinton did get 61 thousand more votes than McGinty and Trump got 18 thousand fewer votes than Toomey.
We’ll never know if the results would have differed if Clinton’s campaign had zeroed in on MI, PA, and WI instead of dicking around in AZ, FL, NV and NC. NV was irrelevant (she had to carry MI, PA, and WI) and Rubio was much too strong and Murphy was much too weak in the FL Senate race. I doubt it would have made a difference in MI and WI.
Re: Upper Midwest.
You are right about screwing around trying to “expand the map” while letting the critical states slip away.
While she couldn’t control other actors (Putin, FBI…)
She could control her strategy and got it wrong. The other thing she could control is her mouth. Everyone thought Bill would be the loose cannon, but it was Hillary that did the most damage.
Wis- Trump by 22,177 +0.8%
Mich- Trump by 10, 704 +0.2%
Penn- Trump by 44,292 +0.73%
All three states have sizable or overhelming industrial areas surronded by vast rural or forest regions.
All three states have large populations that enjoy field sports
All three states been damaged by past trade deals in industrial areas but helped in farming rural areas
One of the states has an active coal industry which has a portion that is unionized.
All 3 states have large union populations, though declining.
HRC made off the cuff or poorly thought out statements that effected elements in one, or 3 of those states.
Coal- Western Penn. Could have used a few voters there.
Trade- For and Against TPP, family history of previous trade deals and broken promises. Hisory in State Dept of negotiating recent trade deals.
Guns- All 3 states have huge field sport populations (700,000 – 900,000 yearly deer licenses alone.) If comments about an Austrialian solution swayed even a very small portion of hunters in any of those states , that was enough. Combine those comments with her precieved untrustworthiness with trade issues, and you get a double reason not to vote for her.
And the complete tone deafness of the “deplorables” thing. Problem is, every deplorable is someone’s son, brother, cousin, neighbor, … Some of whom may have close relationships with their relatives.
These were unforced errors that spoke directly to the lives of people in those states. Effected them in ways she probably was not aware of because she didn’t know how they live. Talked to Captains of Industry and Union Bosses, but not knowing how people lost their jobs, or one of their few joys of life is going hunting a week out of the year, or looking at a “deplorable’ across a holiday dinner table.
She did those things because she was unaware after a lifetime of campaigns with Bill, She should have known the lessons by heart. But, I think she knows she is smarter than Bill and didn’t need any of his lessons or advice.
Count hubris as one of her failings as well.
R
Schumer made a comment to the effect that for every rural voter Clinton lost in PA, she gained two metro white voters. His numbers were off — for every rural vote lost, she only gain 0.98 (a guesstimate) metro voters. And she only did that well because Trump is so awful and her negative campaign was effective enough with all the white metro and AA voters that she could possibly get. Another guesttimate is that the FOR Clinton and FOR Trump votes were half of what they received. The other half was AGAINST Trump or Clinton.
The post-mortems, after the dead wood in DNC is cleared, away will show how incredibly unpopular she was with the electorate (outside a few constituencies). Those negatives meant something. That much of the vote wasn’t so much pro Trump but anti Hillary. That or stay at home/ leave President blank on the ballot.
If she couldn’t gain new voters in red state areas, she had to increase her turn out in key states to defeat the appeal of Trump. Which she couldn’t do.
And Trump’s positive appeal wasn’t racial so much as Change. Change the trade problem. Change the job problem (and the perceived immigrant component). All the other things were dross to be drained away; which is what we are seeing with his statements.
If he can have some success with one or two of those, the US electorate will forgive a lot.
R
Trump will soon enough discover that the only way to serve the two “masters” the masses and the GOP elites) is with a whole lot more debt. (not that either of his “masters” object to debt if they’re getting their pieces of silver) But I don’t know if that “feel good” well has any juice left in it. That tap that worked so well for GWB, only worked half as well for Obama even though the tap was 50% stronger. Given Trump’s business MO, he’s a very dangerous man to put at the helm of USAInc. Then there’s his penchant to destroy and humiliate anyone he views as an enemy. (That causes me to wonder what led to his breach with the Clintons because it sure looked as if his animus towards the two fueled his campaign.)
Who is going to clear out the DP dead wood? Obama ceded back control of the DP to the Clinton faction as soon as he won in ’08 (he’s a weak negotiator) and by this election cycle was completely co-opted by them. Absent the power of his office, what does he have left to assume control of it? How bad will the ’18 midterms have to be for Schumer/Pelosi etal. to be kicked out? And that’s not going to happen unless or until “social democrats” make significant electoral gains because their current numbers are too tiny to wield any power. That faction of the DP has been purged in the past twenty-four years through attrition, co-option, and rejection of new faces for the bench. Will left leaning Democrats/liberals now finally stop acting like Charlie Brown?
Not even the language and cognitive skills of a bright eleven year old, but that of the bully struggling at a fourth grade level:
Sure hope this wears thin on the vast majority of Americans real soon — like 30 days soon.
Kurt Eichenwald (big time important Time “journalist”) demonstrates the his superiority to Trump: higher grade level language skills Cognitive and emotional skills hovering around age eleven.
Speaking as a Devil’s advocate, has any other Presidential contender ever said that the F-35 is too obscenely expensive and deficient to continue? Sure, lots of us but people who potentially had the power to stop it?
A few of these Carrier/Northrop things combined with more jobs (from deficit spending) and he’s a shoo in 2020 especially against Clinton redux or Joe Biden in a walker. But Democrats continue to believe their own propaganda.
Not the F-35 specifically (which hasn’t been in development and construction for all that long), but how many contenders don’t make noise about the out-of-control costs for military ships, aircraft, tanks, etc.? And that they are just the person to fix it.
One thing that Trump knows something about is the cost of his fleet of aircraft. Particularly his twenty-five year old 757. So, his baseline cost comparison is with his his hunk of junk and therefore, the new AF-1 and F-35 leads him to make pronouncements such as over-priced, failure, etc. which in his mind is a display of his phenomenal expertise. He’s just a jackass that won’t follow through on this anymore than he’ll build his great wall.
Note: he doesn’t comment on the performance of the F-35 because he doesn’t know anything about that.
I believe he did say that it was no better than Russian fighters. A bit of hyperbole, I think. But not worth the price. I could do a diatribe on post WW II procurement but it needs detail. Maybe, I’ll get around to a diary.
I am very pessimistic that we’ve moved a long ways towards turning our country into Mexico, a country where all but the .01% are locked out of everything, which is what imo has been the goal of our 1% all along
yes, very well put
What’s the track record of presidential “inevitable,” “his/her turn” nominees in the general election? Not good. One reason is that the base of the party feels as if the nominee has been shoved down their throat and people rightfully resent that. However, by election day most partisans and leaners have accepted the choice by their “betters,” and therefore, these nominees don’t lose by that much after allowing for the other relevant factors in each election. But they are always the duller or less exciting choice.
OTOH, from the time that voters have thought that they choose the nominee, they may have only done so twice (in defiance of the party bosses) and once when the bosses and big money rendered a split decision. Still, the appearance and not the reality is what matters most. GHWB (’88) and Gore have been the two general election anomalies.
where are you finding them? would appreciate a link or two,
I actually agree with Markos here. I am not interested in rebuilding a party that includes the turncoat racists who voted for Trump in any way. I would rather devote my energies to helping the undocumented immigrants they fear to take their jobs, their guns, their homes, and what little dignity they have left, than dialogue with them or include their needs in big tent anymore. Politics includes both war – destroying power — as well as coalition building — building power — and now is the time for the former, not the latter. If you voted for Trump, you deserve to lose it all for having denigrated our country like this, period. Now more than ever, I favor free trade and open borders, and the rest of globalization’s benefits for us urban dwellers. To hell with them.
Then you don’t get why those that you’ve labeled as racists managed to vote for Obama in ’08 and subsequently either dropped out or switched to Romney and Trump.
Building your big blue walls higher will mean that Democrats become the permanent rump party. But for practical purposes, your cozy space won’t change much.
Yep. No understanding of the requirements of federalism. EU would never have been accomplished if it were conceded that it would be ruled for the benefit of only France and Germany, now would it?
Not making a bigger tent worked for the GOP, obviously, so no, I don’t want them in my party or even care about their votes anymore. I don’t care about them or their interests at all after the damage they have done to American by their vote.
As the song goes, there is time for war and a time for peace. This is not a time for peace.
look more closely at why ppl voted for T.
It doesn’t matter in any way why anyone voted for him. Because to have done it they had to have accepted his own, pussy-grabbing bigotry, his mocking of a handicapped journalist in a campaign speech (!), his blatantly racist campaign, and his ties to Russia, and accepted all of that as of less importance to whatever really bothered them about Hillary Clinton and their own pathetic lives.
I can’t ever trust a person with that poor judgement again, and I would rather reduce their willingness and capability of ever voting again rather than include them in any coalition in which they have a voice and a mutual interest.
I would rather follow an electoral strategy of letting them lose their jobs and rural, ex-urban livelihoods, so they have to move to the Democratic big city to live in subsidized housing and on welfare, for example, rather than try to pander to their votes by supporting anything they might want anymore.
new troll on the site? I am troll rating you for your pornographic, reductive language describing T’s assaults on women, for consequent complicity in those assault by dehumanizing language towards those women. they are human beings, not a body part.
I assume the function of the new trollery is to fragment the progressive community so I respectfully bow out of reading any more of your comments
I’m sorry, but quoting someone’s own words, pornographic and objectifying as they may be, while criticizing that person for the very words he used, is not trolling nor dehumanizing to the victims of his assaults, verbal or otherwise. To say otherwise would make it impossible to criticize anyone for their hateful speech. If you’re defending Trump in any way at all, then I don’t think the word “progressive” means what you think it means.
Are we now being censored for using or paraphrasing Trump’s own words against him and his supporters? If I used memes of models in bikinis oil wrestling as a metaphor for permagov as one of our other posters does, is that considered acceptable and progressive instead? Just trying to understand what is acceptable and what is not. What is the Correct line that we are allowed to toe here?
well, that’s why he used that language, he’s reducing those human beings to a vulgarly named body part – the only body part that interests him, in fact when pushed he’d probably deny they are human beings. your language here is directed to the readers of this blog; respectful language, acknowledging that it’s assault, would speak to the readers here. as far as AG goes, I usually don’t read his comments, though on occasion, skim them and i have on occasion troll rated his porn images. It’s a reader-response-criticism issue, why doubly assault those women to us, the readers of this blog, by using hostile reductive language that dehumanizes their experience. and btw that phrase makes it all about T and some body part, the women are not even included in that phrase (in my definition of human being) not the way i’d describe those incidents at all.
At this point, are you speaking of Trump or santiago? One reason I made my original query is that there seems to be a tendency to selectively troll rate fellow users based on disagreements with their views, rather than for anything that would seem fitting with long-standing norms here. I get troll ratings when a user is being racist or sexist for the sake of being racist or sexist (dataguy springs immediately to mind) or for spam posts (which have thankfully been minimal as of late). I get the impression that santiago is a long-time but infrequent poster here and may not conform to one faction’s views of what is considered Correct left politics. Since santiago is not the first person to experience such treatment in recent memory, I think it is understandable that I would be more than a tad suspicious. The old norms served this place well. I suppose a normative shift is underway, and perhaps that particular norm is falling by the wayside. And as someone who does not conform to Correct left politics (or when we still had our Russian trolls, Correct Russian Federation politics) I am quite well aware that I have a bit of a target on my back as well. Short version of a long story, there is a lot of troll rating abuse going on. This incident is at best a gray area in my view and rather than foster communication will only further tribalize whatever might still be left of a “community” here. If that is the intention, knock yourself out, I guess. But realize I will be reflexively uprating troll rated comments that appear to have been given as punishment for nonconformity rather than because there was an actual offense.
A few things in response. I rarely troll rate anyone, and I don’t appreciate being put into that group of ratings abusers because on this point, which I explained fully before troll rating, I troll rated. w. Santiago, a few back and forth leads me to think the comment is disingenuous, not really about dialog and discussion but about pushing an agenda and creating conflict and I have no interest in that, so I’ll stop reading his/ her comments. I treat each commentor as an individual and could probably tell you over time how their comments have been. Few here accord me that respect, I’ll certainly reply more if you reply to me specifically about my comments and participation on this blog. we had a long to and fro a few months ago (do you remember that that was me?) my approach to the attempts to destroy internet dialog on the blog is to treat each commenter as an individual and engage where it seems to me productive.
Let’s try this one last time. Factually, is there anything incorrect in santiago’s description of Trump’s words and behaviors? Is using Trump’s own language or paraphrasing Trump’s own language against Trump and against his supporters (certainly to the extent that they were aware of Trump’s dehumanization of women, for example) now to be considered not Correct? If not, what is the Correct way to do so? Is simply being not Correct according to any particular faction on this blog sufficient for a zero? I ask because I can imagine the goose eggs dropping by the bucket loads if that is now the normative standard, whether or not you intend to be part of that normative shift (as you avow to not be part of said normative shift, at which all I can do is take your word). I see the real possibility, and one that is starting to become reality, where each faction attempts to impose its own version of Correctness by force, if need be by finding individual scapegoats and troll rating them to the point of no return. If such an environment plays out, is it one worth visiting?
I would write: T assaulted women and boasted about it using degrading and dehumanizing vulgar language towards those he assaulted. Another way of putting it is that he assaulted them physically and verbally by referring to them with vulgar slang term for a body part. My other point is that T supporters aren’t reading this blog, nor is T – why assault the women using the degrading language which essentially also denies the physical assault. [it’s just locker room “banter” after all]. think about how you would write about it in a court of law, for example. fsm, I guess if the language assaults women it’s no biggie, just Correct
My daughters heard that fucking talk from Comrade Donny during the campaign season while early evening news was on. So let’s not go there. They were disgusted and they are both in the age range we’re talking about. What I have issue with, now that the genie is out of the bottle is how do we deal with the fallout. To describe Comrade Donny in any of a number of ways, including those that are crude, is going to happen. To say Comrade Donny is misogynist should be non-controversial. I myself would not refer to Comrade Donny in quite the same way as santiago did, but I did not experience santiago as advocating dehumanizing women. If I absolutely have to, I will have my daughters read the post and see if they have the same reaction to that as they did to what Comrade Donny was saying as he practically admitted that he raped women. I’ll report back and report back honestly. I will say that I had hoped to keep them away from political blogs (or other social media). This one in particular is a damned cesspool any more, and so I have great reservations about letting them even know this place exists. But I’ll do it just to prove a point if that is what is going to come down to. I’m convinced that santiago’s reference to Comrade Donny was not in any way shape or form intended to demean women nor to condone rape. I read it as quite the opposite. Unfortunately, since santiago barely posts and may be of a somewhat different ideological persuasion than you, I am absolutely 100% convinced that the animus here is not the language itself (although probably in part) as it is the fact that there is someone who did not conform to your preconceived notion of what is a Correct Democratic or Left party line, and you had a convenient opportunity to drop a zero and did. You went there. We both know it. Might as well cop to it now. I know my answer now. We can be censored for just being different. What a wonderful place Booman built. Sorry Booman. This place is really beginning to stink.
alternatively, just think about how you would describe it to your 13 year old daughter
or granddaughter as the case may be
another example since you’re parading the horribles re: ratings. did you write about Eric Garner as the nigger was stopped …?
You went there. Great. That is a word I really never wanted to see here. Thanks for leaving me with that. You and I – we’re through.
I have tried figuring out some way of giving you the benefit of the doubt, and for the life of me I cannot. It appears that you are using the description of a person’s physical appearance and description of a person’s behavior as equivalent. That you would use such a vile example in the process of committing to me a cardinal sin (false equivalence, which of course is a logical fallacy that is often encountered on political blogs) tells me something about your character that is, to say the least, unfortunate.
So to put this simply, you are dead to me.
Got it? Good. Glad we had this little chat.
And hopefully no one zeros your wretched post in which you evoke a racial epithet to score points. That should remain visible for the remainder of this blog’s existence. It’s now your mark of Cain.
I guess you aren’t going to read this, but I’ll respond anyway. I was going to ask how you find the racial epithet and the T phrase different – narrowly speaking they both are “physical descriptions”, both are terms to express disdain, dehumanize their referent. otherwise, I see no difference. I write as a fow [friend of women] veteran of decades long wrangling about inclusive language in academic circles where our conclusions have long lasting impact. Nevertheless, not surprised that insults that hurt women are of less concern than racial insults. Alas, it has ever been thus.
more accurate to write: both are terms to express disdain, dehumanize their referent and would be interested to see how you understand them to be different – that’s why I brought up the example. One would not use some police officer’s term for Eric Garner, for the reasons you explain, you don’t want to see that word on this blog, why use T’s degrading term for women, a term best omitted from this blog as well. that’s my question.
I’ll probably live to regret this, but I’ll bite. First, this is not a question, but a statement. Fine. Think about how you presented your statement on race that I apparently did not care for. It was described with no context whatsoever. It was simply “do you remember writing something something something n-word something.” Without any context there is just a racial epithet. I stand by the notion that one has no control over one’s natural skin pigmentation, and I certainly have no quarrel with the reality that there is no control over one’s gender in all its rich complexity. There is control over how one treats others of different skin pigmentation and genders (oddly enough we may agree more than disagree on the general principle). Whatever else might say of santiago’s comment that you saw fit to zero out, it came with context that was recent enough to where just about anyone who had heard the hot-mic confession of rape by Trump would get what was being said, and get that santiago was not advocating raping women. Nor has santiago been the only one to use what offended you in context (I can find several examples be several individuals who have done so – and no, I will not provide links, as to try to protect these individuals regardless of where they stand with me from being downrated). What I found peculiar was that no apparent effort on your part to look at his/her user number (at which point you’d quickly realize this was a long-time member and probably mostly lurker – something I find increasingly understandable given the current environment here) before writing this person off as a “new troll.” I also found it peculiar because this person does not belong to your particular clique. And let’s be real. There are cliques here. That is intended as a neutral term with regard to this particular conversation. I wonder, if this was someone who was part of your in-group, your clique, would you have come down on that person so hard, or would you have challenged them a bit, or given them a pass? Was this just another bit of in-group/out-group bias that sadly seems to rear its ugly head with such frequency these days? What would have happened if you had simply engaged santiago instead? How might the outcome have differed? How do we go about treating other members here who may be different, may be Other, in some significant way?
You don’t need to answer. I just wanted you to know that yes, I did read what you had to say. I do think an extended time out from interacting with one another would be advisable. My experience, at least this year, is that we don’t seem to bring out the best in each other, but rather something closer to the worst in each other. The only way I know to stop that from happening is to walk away. If you won’t, I will. A shame really.
I wish I could go into what it was like as a parent to have to explain to my daughters that we had a Presidential candidate who had just admitted to being a rapist in a very vile and disgusting way, and even worse, to explain that a significant number of their neighbors seem perfectly okay with voting for a rapist and may well be okay with rape culture as well. I wish I could share in some detail what it felt like to have to find a way to both listen and comfort my elder daughter the day after the election, because she feared that with Comrade Donny’s electoral victory, boys and men would now have free reign to rape her or any other girl or woman they wanted to. After all, Comrade Donny can with impunity and my daughter was already well aware of that. To say that a piece of me died that day is a bit of an understatement.
There was a conversation we had several years ago. Body shaming I think was the general topic (one actually quite near and dear to me for reasons I shall not go into). Seemed like a productive enough conversation. You made some comment about wanting to converse with me further and there was some mention of emailing me, which struck me as a good idea. Nothing came of that, which at the time I saw as a bit of a lost opportunity. But we are both probably busy people, so it is what it is. Anyhoo, I’ll try to get a feel for where my head is at and where yours seems to be sometime next year and go from there. Needless to say, I am clearly not the same person I was at the start of the year. For some here, that is clearly a disappointment. I’m not exactly losing any sleep over it. I’m comfortable with my choices of party, candidates, and near-future plans in a way that I haven’t been in a very long time. I wish you well.
I wouldn’t troll rate him for that, they are direct quotes. But I’m tempted to for his sneering superior attitude toward blue collar people. Up Yours!, santiago.
LOL The ones owed an apology are the 80% still being strip mined by neoliberal policies that traded production for a debt economy and financialization. Bill Clinton is smart enough to know what he did and has made some mention of how wrong headed it was. Unintended consequences? Maybe at first, but soooooooo profitable.
Will Dems ever do a mea culpa? Not likely. They want the word out of the dictionary.
This dude is flat poisonous.
it’s interesting what’s going on now the old perma-gov [if one believes in that entity and I’m not sure I buy it] vs. the new permagov of the oligarchs. very interesting and depressing.
Tim Duy: Let me suggest this narrative: Sometime during the Clinton Administration, it was decided that an economically strong China was good for both the globe and the U.S. Fair enough. To enable that outcome, U.S. policy deliberately sacrificed manufacturing workers on the theory that a.) the marginal global benefit from the job gain to a Chinese worker exceeded the marginal global cost from a lost US manufacturing job, b.) the U.S. was shifting toward a service sector economy anyway and needed to reposition its workforce accordingly and c.) the transition costs of shifting workers across sectors in the U.S. were minimal.
As a consequence – and through a succession of administrations – the US tolerated implicit subsidies of Chinese industries, including national industrial policy designed to strip production from the US.
But point c. Point c was a bad call. Point c was a disastrous call.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2016/12/responsibility.html#comments
This is interesting. Once transcontinental transportation was perfected, the US was in the unique position to act on both Asia and Europe from internal lines of communication. that is what helped win WWII and create the world trading system with US at the center.
Russia could potentially, but the distances are both vast and would require 100 yrs of massive infrastructure development, which has been lacking.
Now the incoming Admin is pissing on China (which may be called for) and sliding up to Russia, which could be a mistake and weaken our ties in Europe. Isolating us from both continents.
My question-
What does Russia offer that we need, that’s worth tossing years of treaties? I mean, really. What does it have except financing for the Trump Empire as he can’t get any in NY or London.
The late President Washington said have no permanent friends or foes in foreign relations, just fair relations with all. If Trump scrambles the whole diplomacy board, is that bad as much of its reasoning has ossified; but if he is going to cozy up to Russia, what’s in it for us?
R
T does think of us, T thinks of himself, and for a developer there’s a lot of potential for building projects
wow, sorry, meant to write, T doesn’t think of us
this should be link to Vegas mall complex
http://en.travel2moscow.com/where/shopping/tradecenters/object1590.html
A ME exit?
After burning through $5trillion in our regime change adventures, maybe we can halt the bleed?
I would agree except naming of the Israel Ambassador. That promises to cause more trouble, as well as Bolton and all the anti-Iran deal folks. All it will do is push Iran into Syria/Russa alliance.
but then again, Israel has been cozy with the Saudis and Turks because of Iran; so maybe a realignment is in order and, as usual, the Palestinians get the short end of the stick.
I always said Israel was lucky as the Palestinians didn’t have a Ghandi or MLKing to lead a non-violent movement. No way could they resist that. But then again, maybe the engineered not having a non-violent movement to oppose.
R
fascinating, thanks
Its easy to say when its WV coal miners, because who cares. What about the farmers, factory workers and “middle class” who voted for Trump in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Penn.? Throw them under the bus? Let them drown? Those three states are what won it for Trump, because HRC’s razor thin strategy allowed for no loss in her “blue wall”.
So if you are going to throw around terms like “racist” against people you don’t know, Look to the upper Midwest . They put us where we are.
R
I am in the upper midwest, and the people I am referring to are my neighbors, friends, family, hockey dads, and more. And I repeat it to their face if it comes up in conversation, so they know how ashamed I am to be included in the same category as “Americans” with them. (And I hope someone takes a swing at me when I say it so I can fight back, but no one ever does.) They just look sullen or come up with a lame excuse for their racism or stupidity, like “my ex-wife was a Mexican, so it is personal for me too,” or something like that.
I have even met Mexican immigrants up here who voted for him. And I tell them straight out, you might not be racist, but you are really stupid and have screwed us all over with your vote. All of us should be doing that.
I live in deep red country. One thing I have noticed is that when I ask people whom I know why they voted for Trump, they either get defensive or they give me some non-answer, or just ignore the question and try to change the subject. If the exchange is on social media, the outcome might also include getting blocked by those who are offended at my mere attempt to get a straight answer to a simple question. It’s almost akin to dealing with children who know they have done something wrong, but who don’t want to face up to that fact. The difference is that these are fully functioning adults (many of whom are quite intelligent, and represent any of a number of professions that will be affected by whatever hits us in 2017) who should be able to accept that they too are accountable for their behavior, especially to the extent that their choices have negative consequences for more than just themselves.
I think there was an amount of self deception in Trump voters. Many just wanted someone who would fight for their interests in relation to jobs and trade. Some wanted radical change in DC and who was not “tainted” by the touch of either party. And some bought into the right wing racists nonsense. I think they are a vocal but very small minority. And it is nonsense, you can’t be in the public hospitality and development business and spout that foolishness. People stop coming to your properties.
So when he said he was going to clean house and do this and that….. many may have thought he was serious but for others, the social agenda is certainly far down the to-do list. Jobs and trade are the top priority. If he performs 1/2 way with those, everyone will forget the other stuff.
R
Got a feeling that the folks I know who depended upon Medicaid expansion for their health coverage will find the experience of being kicked off very unforgettable. Of course that assumes successful attempt by GOP majorities to get repeal of what they can of Obamacare through the reconciliation process, which may not happen right away but is certainly a reasonable to expect sometime before 2017 is over. Not sure any happy talk about anything else will matter much at least to that demographic.
Burning self righteousness can be a lonely and injurious weight to carry around so I applaud your courage in braving assault.
As I mentioned, some of the heat from the Democrats, I believe, is buyers’ remorse about Hillary. But to block and deny him every thing is cutting the nose to spite your face.
If he actually comes up with a realistic jobs or trade program. One that helps and advances the country; then every damn Democratic Congressman and Senator should be there. Show up and be beside Trump when he hands out cardboard checks. Tell all the locals how HE helped get the bill through Congress.
That’s how it used to be done by Democrats. Appeal and support the local, state and districts for their political strength. School openings, bridge dedications, etc… Now, its how well you handle yourself on a Sunday talk show, or your backslapping with the Times editorial board over lunch. The Democratic Party has been focused on National issues and National strategy too long. Score points against the national GOP in a Post column, not help get water/sewer funding for NC.
Marie thinks there will be a parting of ways with the GOP Congressional ideologs. If so, Pelosi should be ready to step in and have Dems vote a bill through if it will help the country. Of course, for a price. That’s the way it used to be done. Then after a couple of years of this, when running again, the Democratic Party can point to come accomplishments.
R
It has nothing to do with burning anything. It is merely an effective and quite calm-headed political strategy to increase conflict and decrease cooperation in the US. Cooperation = power, and conflict = weakness in any given group, so we need more conflict right now to prevent Trump keep Trump as weak as possible. Anyone who voted for Trump should be reminded of the shame they have brought until he is removed from office. Conflict and isolation worked for Trump’s campaign, after all, so now is not the time to surrender to them but rather to turn it back on them.