I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This can be said only if you don't know anything about polarization and can pretend that most Republicans are reasonable people who might not vote for an inexperienced, narcissistic, bigoted monster simply because he is the Republican nominee.

(eta: Incidentally, I've already said I was wrong in thinking that Trump would not be able to consolidate Republican support.)

I was a true idiot on this. Initially, I said that Trump would be able to consolidate Republican support, and that by election day everyone who usually votes Republican would have 20 reasons why they had to pull the lever despite Trump.

Then I acknowledged I was wrong when I saw a bunch of Republicans show some real backbone, particularly in the foreign affairs and defense communities (where an enormous number of traditional republicans endorsed Hillary) and among women, including some around here.

But I was actually right the first time. The women who bolted were a small, if fierce, group, and no one listened to the foreign affairs nerds.

Apropos of which, I recommend Kagan's article in FT today. I think Kagan (prepare yourselves) is fundamentally right on his policy analysis of Trump and the country, but is understating the danger of Trump, since he views war and policy as logical things and isn't worried about the wag-the-dog engagement or the quick twitter nuke sent to avenge us against a viral slight from some Pakistani or Mexican leader.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Apparently the only conversation you can have is about who's to blame. My point: the whole f*cking email ruckus was an embarrassment to anyone who took it seriously, and as time goes by most of those will come to realize it. Even now it should be blindingly obvious that the question of which server the Secretary of State's email was on is pointless compared to the other consequences of the election. If you want to talk about something else, go nuts, but I note that you aren't disagreeing with me, just "deflecting" in your own way.

It's politics. Your opponent works with what he's got. The email thing was a useful device for Trump.

Personally, yes, I think the email thing was a huge nothing burger. But she really fucked up by erasing those 30k in emails. There's no way to spin that or deflect it.

I'm not convinced the foundation is totally clean, but I do believe whatever violations there are over there, they fit in the bucket of "criminalized politics." We have too many stupid laws on the books allowing prosecutions for things that are just how business is done in politics.

The Trump University thing deserved more scrutiny. That is troubling, and yes -- it's worse than the foundation's sins, if any. Instead of focusing on that, however, the identity politics wing of the opposition glommed onto a ten year old Access Hollywood tape. That worked for a while, but its effect waned quickly. And it played into the right's narrative that all the left does is whine about sexism and xenophobia. Trump University, OTOH, was a sticky scandal that was universally offensive to anyone, right or left, who detested a rich sleazeball stealing from poor people. I'll never know why Hillary's campaign didn't ram that down his throat more aggressively.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's politics. Your opponent works with what he's got. The email thing was a useful device for Trump.

Personally, yes, I think the email thing was a huge nothing burger. But she really fucked up by erasing those 30k in emails. There's no way to spin that or deflect it.

I'm not convinced the foundation is totally clean, but I do believe whatever violations there are over there, they fit in the bucket of "criminalized politics." We have too many stupid laws on the books allowing prosecutions for things that are just how business is done in politics.

The Trump University thing deserved more scrutiny. That is troubling, and yes -- it's worse than the foundation's sins, if any. Instead of focusing on that, however, the identity politics wing of the opposition glommed onto a ten year old Access Hollywood tape. That worked for a while, but its effect waned quickly. And it played into the right's narrative that all the left does is whine about sexism and xenophobia. Trump University, OTOH, was a sticky scandal that was universally offensive to anyone, right or left, who detested a rich sleazeball stealing from poor people. I'll never know why Hillary's campaign didn't ram that down his throat more aggressively.

What evidence do you have relating to anything in the foundation?

I don't have anything left to invest in defending Hillary personally against the incessant lies and investigations that you have chosen to accept as part of politics. The assholes and liars have won, congratulations to you for that. There is no more Clinton legacy in electoral politics. And you'll see Chaffetz continue the tradition of bs never ending investigations that did not exist in American politics prior to Gingrich.

But I've worked with the Clinton Foundation on a couple of occasions and deeply value the fact that a former President and a former Secretary of State who had Presidential ambitions put together a charity that focused on the needs of the broader, less developed parts of the world, a task that is electorally utterly thankless, and even a liability, but in which they have excelled. I really hope that Bill and Hillary will rededicate themselves to the Foundation with gusto, and that people will recognize it for the enormous good it does.

So kill the bullshit shade. Do you have anything concrete to complain about, or is it just the usual bs. If it is, then tell us what you've done for the world.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

What evidence do you have relating to anything in the foundation?

I don't have anything left to invest in defending Hillary personally against the incessant lies and investigations that you have chosen to accept as part of politics. The assholes and liars have won, congratulations to you for that. There is no more Clinton legacy in electoral politics. And you'll see Chaffetz continue the tradition of bs never ending investigations that did not exist in American politics prior to Gingrich.

But I've worked with the Clinton Foundation on a couple of occasions and deeply value the fact that a former President and a former Secretary of State who had Presidential ambitions put together a charity that focused on the needs of the broader, less developed parts of the world, a task that is electorally utterly thankless, and even a liability, but in which they have excelled. I really hope that Bill and Hillary will rededicate themselves to the Foundation with gusto, and that people will recognize it for the enormous good it does.

So kill the bullshit shade. Do you have anything concrete to complain about, or is it just the usual bs. If it is, then tell us what you've done for the world.

You're getting emotional. I just said I'm not sure it's entirely clean, but that if it had any violations, they were not things worth further investigating. Do I have to say it's the most wonderful thing since ice cream and every time I think about it I have to contain a massive erection to satisfy your demand for its veneration? I'm on your side here.

I hope Bill and Hillary rededicate themselves to it, and will be the first person to bitch if that asshat Sessions tries to further investigate it. The battle's over. Grace and decency demand that the attacks on the Clintons cease.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This can be said only if you don't know anything about polarization and can pretend that most Republicans are reasonable people who might not vote for an inexperienced, narcissistic, bigoted monster simply because he is the Republican nominee.

(eta: Incidentally, I've already said I was wrong in thinking that Trump would not be able to consolidate Republican support.)

I know tons of Republicans who did what I did, or left the top line blank. I know a ton who flipped over to Hillary.

It's the height of arrogance to think the Rs voted lockstep. What you might better consider is how many middle class Ds switched over to Trump.

It's no secret the union heads were pledging allegiance to Hillary while the the actual members were voting for Trump. I heard as much from almost every union member I know from DC to NYC.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You're getting emotional. I just said I'm not sure it's entirely clean, but that if it had any violations, they were not things worth further investigating.

Damn straight I'm getting emotional. I'm an angry white guy these days. It seems to get a lot of sympathy.

The "I'm not sure it's entirely clean" is the kind of throwing shade that gets us trump. There's no there there, but you're going to throw shade anyways.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I know tons of Republicans who did what I did, or left the top line blank. I know a ton who flipped over to Hillary.

It's the height of arrogance to think the Rs voted lockstep. What you might better consider is how many middle class Ds switched over to Trump.

It's no secret the union heads were pledging allegiance to Hillary while the the actual members were voting for Trump. I heard as much from almost every union member I know from DC to NYC.

Hank, I'm going to let you deal with math class.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Hank, I'm going to let you deal with math class.

There is no way to prove Hank's assertion. Ty admitted as much above. You cannot tease out a conclusion as to which population caused Trump to win. You can call Hank's position math all you like. I can call you Archduke Franz Ferninand from now on if I like. All you have is rhetoric.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There is no way to prove Hank's assertion. Ty admitted as much above. You cannot tease out a conclusion as to which population caused Trump to win. You can call Hank's position math all you like. I can call you Archduke Franz Ferninand from now on if I like. All you have is rhetoric.

Look, you've followed Hank and I on these boards. We occasionally mix it up. I tend not to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The main difference between Hank's math and your posts is that his is convincing.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Hank, I'm going to let you deal with math class.

conf to ggg- cool people don't post on the weekends....

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

conf to ggg- cool people don't post on the weekends....

See, Hank, you are good at recursive jokes.

I knew you could do it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I know tons of Republicans who did what I did, or left the top line blank. I know a ton who flipped over to Hillary.

It's the height of arrogance to think the Rs voted lockstep. What you might better consider is how many middle class Ds switched over to Trump.

It's no secret the union heads were pledging allegiance to Hillary while the the actual members were voting for Trump. I heard as much from almost every union member I know from DC to NYC.

It's not arrogance, it's statistics. There were certainly Republicans who voted for Clinton -- just very few of them, proportionately.

[SEC_Chick]

So even I were to detail the at least questionable conflicts of interest on the Clinton Foundation, you would not be persuaded, so I won't bother.

While I was half expecting the GOP to spontaneously combust post election, it has been most interesting to see the Dems response to defeat. If Trump had lost, we would have seen a chorus of joyous "I told you so!" from Never Trump, but the loss of all of those new racist voters would have destroyed the party. But Hillary blames it on Comey. Warren thinks the party didn't go big enough. GGG says she was too wonkish and that's why people don't like her. I may be unusual on this board because the entire time I have lived in the US, I have never lived east of the Mississippi or or west of the Rockies, but this is some special kind of being out of touch. (Ok, I actually lived a portion of my first year in Hank country, but I don't really count that, and it's still deep in flyover land.)

I know you all will argue that the House is stacked because it's gerrymandered, but what about losing the 7 competitive Senate races? Since Obama took office, the Dems have lost 60 seats in the House and a dozen in the Senate. In the states, it's been even worse. Per the WSJ, before 2010, 54.5% of state legislators were Dems, controlling 60 of the 99 state legislatures. Dems totally controlled 17 states. Now they control only 31 state chambers, losing almost a thousand seats since Obama took office and control half as many states. The number of states controlled by the GOP more than doubled.

I am fascinated that I have not seen a single possible thought that perhaps a large portion of American voters have rejected Democratic ideas as they have shifted farther to the left (and as I have seen here are unwilling to acknowledge that there has even been a shift to the left at all). That maybe they should focus less on identity politics and more on the things most people actually care about? Or a real discussion that they pretty much outright ignore almost half the country. That maybe doubling down on ideas voters rejected may not be the best path forward. That polling indicates that the party is far to the left of most Americans on the issue of abortion or that things like the Hamilton cast and the designer who won't dress Melania reinforce the presumptiousness that the Left knows better than everyone else.

I admit I did enjoy the agony of defeat stories about how Hillary didn't speak to her supporters on election night and sent out Podesta because she was in an uncontrolled rage. And that staffers had literally popped champagne on the plane that day. And that Bill had built his presidential library off of the center to leave room for hers. To think this might really be the end of the Clintonian grifting, until Chelsea runs for office.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Here's some different math. Trump should not have been able to get the amount of votes he did, at all, anywhere. A candidate like him in years past would have been bulldozed by someone with a machine like Clinton's. Looking at his numbers, it is inescapable that he somehow created a movement. Digging into the numbers, you see that movement was centered around an unusually high number of white lower to middle class voters. What caused them to so galvanize? Us. We ignored them. They exacted revenge.

EvMI.

That's story makes sense as long as you ignore all of the numbers. Trump didn't win on a wave of angry turnout. He got the typical GOP vote numbers.

ETA: also, what does ignore mean? This group doesn't want the policy help we can offer. They don't want health insurance, education, job training & relocation assistance. They want to crack down on immigrants and brown people. That's not something "we" can or should offer.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

So even I were to detail the at least questionable conflicts of interest on the Clinton Foundation, you would not be persuaded, so I won't bother.

While I was half expecting the GOP to spontaneously combust post election, it has been most interesting to see the Dems response to defeat. If Trump had lost, we would have seen a chorus of joyous "I told you so!" from Never Trump, but the loss of all of those new racist voters would have destroyed the party. But Hillary blames it on Comey. Warren thinks the party didn't go big enough. GGG says she was too wonkish and that's why people don't like her. I may be unusual on this board because the entire time I have lived in the US, I have never lived east of the Mississippi or or west of the Rockies, but this is some special kind of being out of touch. (Ok, I actually lived a portion of my first year in Hank country, but I don't really count that, and it's still deep in flyover land.)

I know you all will argue that the House is stacked because it's gerrymandered, but what about losing the 7 competitive Senate races? Since Obama took office, the Dems have lost 60 seats in the House and a dozen in the Senate. In the states, it's been even worse. Per the WSJ, before 2010, 54.5% of state legislators were Dems, controlling 60 of the 99 state legislatures. Dems totally controlled 17 states. Now they control only 31 state chambers, losing almost a thousand seats since Obama took office and control half as many states. The number of states controlled by the GOP more than doubled.

I am fascinated that I have not seen a single possible thought that perhaps a large portion of American voters have rejected Democratic ideas as they have shifted farther to the left (and as I have seen here are unwilling to acknowledge that there has even been a shift to the left at all). That maybe they should focus less on identity politics and more on the things most people actually care about? Or a real discussion that they pretty much outright ignore almost half the country. That maybe doubling down on ideas voters rejected may not be the best path forward. That polling indicates that the party is far to the left of most Americans on the issue of abortion or that things like the Hamilton cast and the designer who won't dress Melania reinforce the presumptiousness that the Left knows better than everyone else.

I admit I did enjoy the agony of defeat stories about how Hillary didn't speak to her supporters on election night and sent out Podesta because she was in an uncontrolled rage. And that staffers had literally popped champagne on the plane that day. And that Bill had built his presidential library off of the center to leave room for hers. To think this might really be the end of the Clintonian grifting, until Chelsea runs for office.

You're right that the majority of people don't care about the rights of women, POC, gay people and immigrants.

You're wrong that doing so is moving "left" and that this fact is anything but lamentable.

Hillary is the very definition of center (even slightly right) on fiscal, tax and just about every other type of policy. But the party is no longer willing to endorse oppression for political gain. The country just punished it for that. Everyone should be depressed.