Holy......

[Ronald Lambert]

Rightleft22, Hillary was first lady of Arkansas. That's why the phenomena of half a dozen people who were about to blow the whistle on Clinton corruption and suddenly turned up dead and were ruled "suicides" (even when some had multiple bullet holes in the back of the head), are called cases of "Akancide"--just Google that term to see all the discussion and documentation of this.

As for why Trump won--an important factor was the low turnout of African-Americans, a demographic the Democrats were counting on. In Detroit, it has been reported that 100,000 fewer African-Americans voted this time than voted in previous presidential elections. That is significant when you realize that the total margin of victory for Trump in the state of Michigan was only 13,225. Maybe more and more African-Americans are coming to realize that Democrats do not really have their best interests at heart. And it is also true that this year Trump got twice the percentage of African-Americans to vote for him as Romney did in 2012. Still single digits, but double the percentage.

I do not wish to defend Trump. I said from the beginning that he is uncouth. Republicans would have been much better off if they had chosen Ted Cruz for their nominee. But at least he has always acted with great familiarity with the intricacies of the law, both domestic and international. Hillary, on the other hand, has always skirted the law, gone from felony to felony, and getting away with it because others cover for her. This is one of the reasons why a former assistant director of the FBI, James Kallstrom, charged that the Clintons are in fact a "crime family" comparable to Al Capone's mafia. Link: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/303458-former-fbi-official-clintons-are-a-crime-family

Whatever unknown quantity Trump might be, we all should be thankful that Hillary's crime family did not gain control of the White House.

[AI Wessex]

Hillary was first lady of Arkansas. That's why the phenomena of half a dozen people who were about to blow the whistle on Clinton corruption and suddenly turned up dead and were ruled "suicides" (even when some had multiple bullet holes in the back of the head), are called cases of "Akancide"--just Google that term to see all the discussion and documentation of this.

Ron, check out this site for an important bit of information.  I did take a look at the site and glanced at an article that listed over 90 so-called suspicious deaths and saw the comment that there is no record of some of the people anywhere on the internet .

[TheDeamon]

This is all a “whitelash,” you see. Trump voters are racist and sexist, so there must be more racists and sexists than we realized. Tuesday night’s outcome was not a logic-driven rejection of a deeply flawed candidate named Clinton; no, it was a primal scream against fairness, equality, and progress. Let the new tantrums commence!..."

This encapsulates exactly what struck me last night as the biggest irony of all.

Remember folks, the same people who agree with the above quoted material will also be very likely to tell you that "the average Trump voter supported him due to the use of hate, and fear. (and ignorance)"

Now go back and look at the quote again, what does that rhetoric instill in a reader when it comes their view of Donald Trump, or those affiliated with him? Seems to perpetuate a truckload of well, fear, hate, and ignorance of its own.

[Ronald Lambert]

AI Wessex, just because someone may have put out a bogus list with a few bogus names, does not discredit all the names on the list, many of which do have documentation. You might call this a sort of "false flag" documentation. Or disinformation. It is believed by many that Vince Foster was also a case of "Arkancide," even though it happened in Washington, D.C.

I have been looking into and posting about this for over six months.

[TheDeamon]

In Detroit, it has been reported that 100,000 fewer African-Americans voted this time than voted in previous presidential elections. That is significant when you realize that the total margin of victory for Trump in the state of Michigan was only 13,225. Maybe more and more African-Americans are coming to realize that Democrats do not really have their best interests at heart.

It's also possible that the reduced voter turnout in Detroit, might have more to do with the depopulation that has been happening there. Those people possibly still voted, they just happen to live in another city/state now.

It may not account for the full 100,000 but it might account for the 13,000 vote margin.

[Wayward Son]

There are a lot of explanations being offered about why Trump won. Maybe it was the 'rednecks' and 'hillbillies', maybe it was the 3rd party votes, maybe it was racism in America showing its ugly head, maybe it was the FBI, maybe it was etc etc. But let's face it, all of these things may have caused a few fluctuations in the final hour, but they are not why Trump won. He won because the DNC threw the game and blew it. Their grand plan of propping up Hillary, and the tactics they used to do it, resulted in nothing more than undermining their own credibility and driving voters to a man hated by probably over half the country. This isn't a bro-Bernie post, but nevertheless I believe firmly he would have beaten Trump. For whatever they're worth, all analyses I read came to the same conclusion months ago.

There is no one to blame here but the Democratic party. For anyone who feels let down by the results of the election, in my opinion it's no mystery who let you down.

By the same token, there is no one but the Republican Party (and especially the Republican voters) who are to blame for Trump being elected.

Yes, another Democratic candidate (like Bernie) may have beaten him (although I suspect the Republican smear machine would have labeled him a Communist to prevent that).  But no one would have needed to have beaten him if he wasn't the nominee to begin with.

There were 16 other Republicans running for the nomination.  This was the best the Republican electorate could pick? 

Democrats are to blame for not choosing a better candidate to run.  But Republicans are fully, and solely, to blame for choosing Trump as their candidate, and thus, as our President.

[Fenring]

Sorry, WS, but your argument is simply bizarre. It's not your business who your opposition chooses to run for President. As a Democrat it's your business to choose someone to beat whomever that is. If you can't do that, game over. Blaming them for picking someone who did, in fact, win, is more or less nonsensical. Obviously they were 'right' if the criterion in question is to defeat the Dem candidate. They should have been wrong, but the DNC gave Trump a freebie.

[Ronald Lambert]

Wayward Son, I would have loved to have Ted Cruz be the nominee of the Republican Party. He would have been ideal. Dr. Ben Carson would have been a good candidate, as well.

As for depopulation accounting for the lower African-American turnout in Detroit, you are talking about 100,000 voting age adults leaving Detroit since 2012. That is not reasonable. It is estimated that 230,000 African-Americans did vote in Detroit this year. Something kept nearly a third from voting. The only reasonable assumption is that they did not WANT to vote. So why did they not want to vote? There are really only two likely reasons--which are not mutually exclusive:

1.) The poor quality of the candidate

2.) The increasing disillusionment among African-Americans with the Democratic Party in general

[TheDeamon]

Digging a little further on the Detroit numbers, and the vote shift in Michigan.

http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/2622000

From April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015 Detroit lost some 36,746 residents. Sadly, that report doesn't give racial information for 2015, so we can't check against that. However:

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2015/09/17/detroit-white-population-rises-census-shows/72371118/

The new data, paired with the recent estimates of small gains, suggests an increase of more than 14,000 whites since 2010. The latest data put the city’s black population at 79.1 percent and Latino population at 7.2 percent. Both groups saw small declines in 2014, which weren’t considered significant by experts.

Whites in Detroit made up 10.2 percent of the city’s population last year, a jump of 1.3 percentage points from 2013. The numbers have been increasing since 2010, but experts say this was the first significant increase statistically.

“I think it’s a trend. I fully expect 2015 to be an even bigger jump,” said Kurt Metzger, director emeritus of Data Driven Detroit.

One of the infographics provided in article shows the Black population declining from 587,000 in 2010 to 538,000 in 2014. Although it looks like about half the change happened prior to 2012 if my eyeball is reading it right.

But yeah, the Michigan/Detroit side of things may be due to "Black Flight" from the city, and an increasing number of White people moving into the city. As blacks also tend to avoid generally rural areas in preference to urban settings, it's probable that the racial makeup of Michigan is becoming increasingly "less black" over the course of this past decade as they leave the state. Party loyalties among the Black/African American population being what they are, that would tend to translate into fewer Democrats living in state.

[TheDeamon]

As for depopulation accounting for the lower African-American turnout in Detroit, you are talking about 100,000 voting age adults leaving Detroit since 2012. That is not reasonable. It is estimated that 230,000 African-Americans did vote in Detroit this year. Something kept nearly a third from voting. The only reasonable assumption is that they did not WANT to vote. So why did they not want to vote? There are really only two likely reasons--which are not mutually exclusive:

1.) The poor quality of the candidate

2.) The increasing disillusionment among African-Americans with the Democratic Party in general

Oh I agree, I think 8 years under Obama has left a LOT of the African-American(/Black) Community rather disillusioned with regards to the Democratic Party. Putting "a Black guy" in the highest office in the land ultimately did nothing to change their situation, in fact, in many respects, their situation is worse now than it was in 2007. Obama did no favors for the DNC on that front, and as other polling data is showing.  The Blacks are starting to cease walking in lockstep with the Democratic Party, as the improved polling for Republicans among Black voters indicates.

If things start to improve for the African-American(/Black community) in significant ways over the next 2 to 4 years, the Democrats are potentially going to have a very big problem on their hands. The Republicans may get the African-American(/Black) voter back after nearly 80 years.

[Wayward Son]

Sorry, WS, but your argument is simply bizarre. It's not your business who your opposition chooses to run for President. As a Democrat it's your business to choose someone to beat whomever that is. If you can't do that, game over. Blaming them for picking someone who did, in fact, win, is more or less nonsensical. Obviously they were 'right' if the criterion in question is to defeat the Dem candidate. They should have been wrong, but the DNC gave Trump a freebie.

Sorry, Fenring, but it is your reasoning that is truly bizarre.

The question on the ballot was not "Should Hillary Clinton not be President?"  The question was "Who should be President?"

People did not vote against Hillary Clinton. They voted for Donald Trump.

Sure, many people voted for Donald Trump because they disliked Hillary Clinton and wanted someone else.  Nevertheless, it was still Donald Trump they voted for.

And the only reason that he was even on the ballot is because he won the Republican primary. 

He was not the Democrat's choice for an opponent.

You can blame the Democrats for not winning, for not nominating a candidate who could have won--even though the candidate was fully qualified, with years of experience as both a Senator and a Secretary of State, and was one of the most respected women in the world at one time, not so long ago.  But you can't blame them for who did win.

Voters could have voted for any other candidate than Donald Trump.  But, instead, they voted for him.

The Republicans put forth a candidate.  He won.  They were successful.

Now they are going to have to live with the responsibility of that choice.

[Fenring]

Blame the other side all you like, but the DNC made their own bed.

[AI Wessex]

Blame the other side all you like, but the DNC made their own bed.

Sure, but you're claiming that the DNC made the other side's bed, too.

[Gaoics79]

There is no one to blame here but the Democratic party. For anyone who feels let down by the results of the election, in my opinion it's no mystery who let you down.

The D turnout was pathetic.  It makes me ashamed.  If you didn't vote just because the candidate wasn't ideal, you suck. 

(Generic you.)

I want to address this latter point. The idea that one must hold one's nose and vote for a bad candidate to prevent a worse candidate from being elected, is one of the most pernicious and manipulative arguments used by politicians against the populace.

If political parties can count on their subjects to vote for any candidate they field, even if the candidate is poor, all that means is the'll keep fielding poor candidates. It also betrays a sense of entitlement, a sense that they own your vote by virtue of your political or ideological alignment. It also acts as a means of smothering the possibility of new political parties and leaders breaking the two party duopoly. It is by its nature a self-serving and manipulative position.

In my view, so-called strategic voting is an inherently self defeating act that is corrosive to the political process and democratic values. If a candidate is unnaceptable to you, then you should not vote for that person. Clinton was not owed anything by the democratic base. It was for her to make her case to them, to earn their votes and she failed.

The decision NOT to vote is absolutely a valid political act, one that in some cases has the greatest chance of effecting real meaningful change rather than holding one's nose and voting for Tweedle-Dee because his masters tell you he's slighty less offensive than Tweedle-Dum.

One of the nice things about elections is that there's always a new one just around the bend. Maybe next time the Democratic Party will pay more attention to what their electorate actually wants rather than trying to dictate it to them by ramming an unpopular candidate down their throats.

And yeah, the sun will rise on Trump's first day and it's going to keep doing so during his term. Anyone who pretends different is fearmongering. Take your medicine, learn from your mistakes and move on.

[Wayward Son]

The idea that one must hold one's nose and vote for a bad candidate to prevent a worse candidate from being elected, is one of the most pernicious and manipulative arguments used by politicians against the populace.

If political parties can count on their subjects to vote for any candidate they field, even if the candidate is poor, all that means is they'll keep fielding poor candidates. It also betrays a sense of entitlement, a sense that they own your vote by virtue of your political or ideological alignment. It also acts as a means of smothering the possibility of new political parties and leaders breaking the two party duopoly. It is by its nature a self-serving and manipulative position.

This assumes that the voters don't have much say in who gets nominated.  But as we've seen, more people voted for Hillary than Bernie during the primaries.  It wasn't "the party's" choice (although those in charge of the party did do what they could to help her).  It was ultimately the primary voters' choice.  The voters' choice.

But the main thing you're missing is that, by not voting for the better candidate, you may end up with the worse candidate.  As in this election.

If you truly believe that both candidates are equally bad, then, sure, go ahead and don't vote.  It doesn't matter which one wins.

But then you can't complain about which one wins, either.

Assuming that this is more than just a philosophical exercise for you, you didn't vote for either candidate.  (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, jasonr.)  Which means that you don't really care that Donald Trump won.  He's just as good as Hillary, and the outcome would be about the same if Hillary won.  Which is fine.  That's your opinion.

But if you have any reservations, like I do, that this might be a disaster for the country, and that Hillary would have been a better choice--well, then you are to blame.

Because now we are going to have to live with that worse choice.  If you had reservations, you did nothing to help avoid that.

Pressuring the party for a better choice is what you do during the primaries.

Avoiding the worse choice is what you do during the general election.

Don't get the two mixed up--or we may keep ending up with Trumps.

[scifibum]

The decision NOT to vote is absolutely a valid political act, one that in some cases has the greatest chance of effecting real meaningful change rather than holding one's nose and voting for Tweedle-Dee because his masters tell you he's slighty less offensive than Tweedle-Dum.

One of the nice things about elections is that there's always a new one just around the bend. Maybe next time the Democratic Party will pay more attention to what their electorate actually wants rather than trying to dictate it to them by ramming an unpopular candidate down their throats.

Next time, the Supreme Court will have 2+ new Trump picks, and over 100 more Trump appointed federal judges, and a slew of new gerrymandering provisions put through by the GOP.  Unless Trump flames out in some huge scandal, this was the worst possible time to strategically not vote.  Because next time we're screwed, now.

[cherrypoptart]

I guess it's unacceptable to speculate that black people didn't turn out for Hillary Clinton as much as they did for Barack Obama in large part because she's not black and he is. I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that if Hillary were a black woman she'd have gotten the same level of support from black voters as Obama. But I'm not going to suggest that because as I mentioned it is completely unacceptable to suggest that black people might be racist and not only that but according to many definitions of racism it is actually impossible.

[DJQuag]

I'll point out that Clinton may have had more votes in the primary, but Sanders performed much stronger in battleground states. Only the wilfully blind could have ever said that Clinton was the stronger general election candidate.

Young people loved Sanders. Antiestablishment voters loved him. His voting record was pristine,  and he had no scandals.

Being labeled a socialist would have hurt him, sure, but it would have almost entirely hurt him with voters who were never going to vote Democrat anyway. Things like free eeucation, improved healthcare, being anti Wall Street, and questioning free trade are things that moderates tend to at least be open to, if not fully behind.

[Gaoics79]

This assumes that the voters don't have much say in who gets nominated.  But as we've seen, more people voted for Hillary than Bernie during the primaries.  It wasn't "the party's" choice (although those in charge of the party did do what they could to help her).  It was ultimately the primary voters' choice.  The voters' choice.

The voter's choice? And who gets to choose what the choice is going to be? Who decides on the menu items for this great buffet of choice presented to the primary voters? Or are you going to tell me that the Clinton family didn't have the slightest inside track in the Democratic Party? I'm to understand that it wasn't Hillary's political connections and pull within the party leadership that paid her way into the heart of the process, but a vast groundswell of rank and file Democrats in love with Ms. Clinton? There are more ways to rig an election than ballot stuffing and just because a voute is free doesn't make it fair or Democratic.

Next time, the Supreme Court will have 2+ new Trump picks, and over 100 more Trump appointed federal judges, and a slew of new gerrymandering provisions put through by the GOP.  Unless Trump flames out in some huge scandal, this was the worst possible time to strategically not vote.  Because next time we're screwed, now.

I don't mean to completely trivialize your concerns nor suggest that they aren't worthy of concern - but that said boooh hooh hoo. You think that Republicans and conservatives didn't have similar thoughts in 2008 and 2012? You think as a supporter of the Conservative Party in Canada I wasn't apprehensive when Mr. Boy Wonder social justice won a landslide majority government in our last election?

Life goes on. I can pretty well guarantee that the choice of Supreme Court justice won't ruin your life - and by the way, there are plenty more opportunities to change things. The next election is 2 yrs away.

We get the candidates we deserve. I didn't vote in this election because I'm not American. But let it be said that if I could have voted, I wouldn't have. When you vote for garbage, garbage is what you get.

Pressuring the party for a better choice is what you do during the primaries.

Avoiding the worse choice is what you do during the general election.

Sounds like a recipe for making alot of "less worse" choices. You know what ""pressure" really does the trick? Lost elections.

[TheDrake]

I personally won't vote for someone I don't respect. People can go ahead and blame me all day for how I'm responsible for Trump winning, but offered a choice between a turd burrito and a turd sandwich, I'm going to go hungry.

[cherrypoptart]

Since I voted for Trump I guess I basically took the turd sandwich. But I only plan on eating the bread.

I agree with the Democrats who are freaking out and blaming the abstainers for Trump getting elected. If Trump had lost I know I would have been blaming the Bush clan and Romney, George Will and Glenn Beck and all of the other people who helped Hillary win by not making the best of the turd sandwich. And the Democrats are also right that it is about the Supreme Court. There is no way to pretend there wasn't a huge difference between Trump and Hillary because the Supreme Court is, as Joe Biden might put it, a big freaking deal and the difference between Trump and Hillary regarding the Supreme Court will be massive. Basically nothing else they do even comes close to mattering as much as that.

But I can also appreciate the view that if people really do think they are both terrible and there's no real difference that's significant enough to make up for that then it's right not to vote for either one of them.  Perhaps they just don't agree that the Supreme Court is so important that it's worth giving up their soul. I on the other hand do think it's that important. Not that I honestly ever thought Trump was that bad anyway. Having Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in office has really lowered my standards on what is acceptable, regarding personal behavior, in a President.

[Wayward Son]

And who gets to choose what the choice is going to be? Who decides on the menu items for this great buffet of choice presented to the primary voters?

As I recall, the Democrats got to chose their candidate from those who decided to run.  The "Party" didn't decide that list; otherwise, Bernie (an independent) probably wouldn't have been on it at all.  The individuals themselves decided whether they should declare to run or not.

If there was someone you felt who should have run but didn't, why didn't you ask them to?

I'm to understand that it wasn't Hillary's political connections and pull within the party leadership that paid her way into the heart of the process, but a vast groundswell of rank and file Democrats in love with Ms. Clinton?

What you forget, jasonr, is that there are a considerable number of people who actually love Hillary.  She has done some great things in her time.  She has championed some very good causes in her time.  The Clinton Foundation, for all the accusations of it being used by donors to "get in" with the Clintons, has actually done a hellava lot of good.  People do actually love and trust her.

While I don't know if it was a "groundswell," she was a highly qualified candidate and she had a whole lot of support.  It wasn't just the Democratic leadership that got her the candidacy.  She got votes.  More than Bernie did.

So while the leadership may have (gasp!) favored Hillary, she did get the candidacy by getting the most votes.  It may have been tilted in her favor, but it certainly wasn't a foregone conclusion.

Sure, it may not be easy to influence who runs and who wins.  But it's a lot easier than during the general election, when you get votes from all sides, not just the side you prefer.  And while you think not voting sends a message that you want better candidates, it really sends another message, which overrides the one you want to send.

It tells the party that you don't care.

And they can't do anything with voters who don't care.

So make sure that you really don't care before sending that message.

[scifibum]

jasonr, I don't think you're getting my point.  The GOP is now in a position to make the next election much harder to win.  This was the year to hold your nose and vote D, if you wanted to have a chance of taking back Congress in the next 4-6 elections. 

It's not about making my life bad.  I'm in great shape, and will likely pay less tax.  That being said, Trump is going to hurt a lot of people if he does what he's claimed he wants to do.

[Fenring]

While I don't know if it was a "groundswell," she was a highly qualified candidate and she had a whole lot of support.  It wasn't just the Democratic leadership that got her the candidacy.  She got votes.  More than Bernie did.

I'm sorry but I'm going to call you on this. You are trivializing the election process, and are deliberately mangling the issue of how people's minds are made up prior to a vote. After months of paid-for publicity, the party behind her, the media behind her, and all the major money interests behind her, yeah, many people voted the way they were told. New flash: people do that. You want to credit her with that, knock yourself out. All you're doing is worshipping dollars. Bernie had none of that and instead rode on small donations and true grassroots support, and he barely lost. I'm ignoring for the moment the paid-for electoral votes, the party line electoral votes, and the lobbyist electoral votes when I say this, because most informed people know by now that this part of her success had literally zero to do with the will of the people. In the actual popular vote she beat him by such slim margins that it was frankly an embarrassment, and now that ill-earned victory has come home to roost. So again, I say that it's time to lie in the bed made by the DNC.

[DJQuag]

Cherry I value you immensely as a voice that isn't in the echo chamber around here. But I have to ask, what in the world did Obama do in his personal life to give you something to grieve against?

[DJQuag]

Sanders would have won this election hands down. Anyone denying that is still swimming in the bubble that had liberals in a circle jerk the day of the election.

[DonaldD]

I'm not sure why this is such a big surprise (to those that are so surprised).

Sure, the end result (electoral college-wise) is a huge difference, but the difference in the vote between a Clinton solid win and a Trump solid win is just 1% in the vote, distributed equally across the nation.

So basically, existential stürm und drang on one side or the other, based on a single percentage point swing in actual voters.  I would like to say "good luck to y'all" as it really doesn't affect me, but since Trump is apparently still pretending not to believe in human affected global climate change, then the job of mitigating damage to the planet just got a lot harder for the rest of humanity.

Thanks Obama!

[AI Wessex]

Sanders would have won this election hands down. Anyone denying that is still swimming in the bubble that had liberals in a circle jerk the day of the election.

I hope we don't have too much certainty about things that didn't happen, but that's just another price to pay for things turning out badly.  If only...

[DJQuag]

Al come on.

For a year or more you've dismissed any criticism of Clinton with all the zeal of a Trumper. You and yours *censored*ed up. Own it already. You had liberals and moderates telling you the entire time that, no matter how qualified she was, she was a godawful candidate. And you and yours ignored it. You went along with it because you lived in your bubble and forgot that other people's votes count just as much as yours.

And now we're all going to suffer for it.

A ham sandwich could have beaten Trump. And you chose Hillary *censored*ing Clinton.  Thanks, bro.

[cherrypoptart]

Obama, had he been caught with the drugs he admits to using, would have surely done some hard time back in that era. Also bragging about how he did inhale because that was the whole point sends a very bad message to children. A felony conviction like the one he would have received for those hard drugs might have made him ineligible to be a lawyer though I'm not sure about that, but if so it would have put him on a far different life path than the one ending up with him being President. As far as I know Trump hasn't used illegal drugs. Bush supposedly did but he didn't brag about it. Romney almost certainly did not and maybe doesn't even drink caffeinated beverages. Obama not getting caught doesn't do much for me as he still did the crime by his own admission.

I understand that's not a big deal to very many people especially now that drugs are being legalized all over the place but having the person in charge of enforcing the nation's laws being essentially an unconvicted felon is a very bad sign, and Obama proved my worries correct because he demonstrated he has no respect for the laws he was charged to enforce, particularly immigration law, and ended up violating it by executive order by going beyond the authority even he admitted he Constitutionally had. And that's not even counting the Larry Sinclair affair which even if you are okay with the gay extramarital affair still is bad because he was using cocaine while he was a politician. There may be no truth at all to that though so perhaps it's not even fair to bring it up even if it was a more credible story than the woman who accused Trump of raping her when she was only 13 that the media ran with, learning nothing from all the fake rape stories people make up all the time which this one also turned out to be though not until after the election for most people and even now I don't see any real mea culpa's from the media. Going back to Obama's drugs, maybe he should look for every person convicted of the same drug crimes he committed that he has the power to pardon and give them the pardons he basically got just by being lucky enough not to get snitched out. I don't necessarily support such an action but by him not pardoning them for the same drug crimes he committed how is that not an admission by Obama himself that those were serious offenses worthy of serving time in prison?

Then there is the kickstarter of Obama's political career, terrorist Bill Ayers who worked hard to assassinate police officers, which NOT coincidentally enough had a massive uptick during Obama's last year thanks to comments Obama made about the police.

[Gaoics79]

jasonr, I don't think you're getting my point.  The GOP is now in a position to make the next election much harder to win.

Au contraire. I know exactly what you are talking about and I know exactly how you feel. When Justin Trudeau won the last election with a majority government (which, by the way, gave him vastly more power than Trump will have even with a Republican Congress and Senate) he promised to reform our electoral system from winner take all to proportionate - a change that many fear will gurantee the Liberal Party's dominance for decades to come! And when Stephen Harper won in 2011 his cancelling of automatic funding of political parties was seen as a fatal blow to the Liberal Party's long term prospects.

I get the dismay of the losing party.

But you have to be careful not to allow fear to manipulate your choice. The long term quality of the candidates you get and respect for the electorate is far more important than the outcome of any one election.

I guarantee you the progressives will get another shot at both the presidency and the Supreme Court.

[Fenring]

cherry, a lot of what you say comes from an interesting perspective, even if I don't agree with all the details and with your conclusions. But I must say your above post is an incredibly weak attack on Obama. I agree that there are things to criticize about his Presidency, but what you've listed doesn't even appear on my radar as being relevant. I really don't know why you even bothered to mention drug use when he was a young man. If that's all you've got then even I would go to bat for Obama in defence of accusations like those.

[AI Wessex]

Al come on.

For a year or more you've dismissed any criticism of Clinton with all the zeal of a Trumper. You and yours *censored*ed up. Own it already. You had liberals and moderates telling you the entire time that, no matter how qualified she was, she was a godawful candidate. And you and yours ignored it. You went along with it because you lived in your bubble and forgot that other people's votes count just as much as yours.

And now we're all going to suffer for it.

A ham sandwich could have beaten Trump. And you chose Hillary *censored*ing Clinton.  Thanks, bro.

I have defended her from an onslaught of attacks on her character and record, but have also pointed out that she was a far from perfect candidate.  It was as if any hint of a stain on her disqualified her, and now we have Ron Lambert coming back to remind us that she has had over 90 people killed over her career.  Ron is an outlier in many ways, but it's that kind of vilification coupled with relentless probes and investigations that have not once turned up criminal wrongdoing that really pisses me off.

I don't agree that she was a godawful candidate, but I do agree that she was made to seem that way.  I honestly think she was highly qualified, highly motivated and has a strong sense of purpose that would have been good for the country.  Instead we have Trump, for whom nobody can stand up for his character or record.

I also said several times that I agreed with most of Bernie's positions and if he were the Dem candidate would have voted for him with some enthusiasm.  But I also said that IMO if he was elected he would have gotten virtually nothing done by insisting on his principled stands.  Politics is about practicality, so Clinton was a better fit for the office.

You are right that I didn't see the outcome coming, and I'm still puzzling how it could have happened without anyone with credible standing predicting it.  That's going to take a while to figure out.

In the meantime we have the worst of all possible worlds and will have to live in it.  I don't worry for myself, as I'm semi-retired and not dependent on the government except for SS and Medicare.  Instead, I'll get involved in political action again after many years on the sidelines because of my daughters and granddaughters.  They'll suffer from the election outcome for far more years than I will.  If I owe anyone an apology for helping make this mess, it's them rather than you.

[cherrypoptart]

I grew up during the Nancy Reagan years of "Just Say No" and I realize I'm old fashioned when it comes to drug use and don't expect many if any people to hold that against politicians the way I do. I've never used illegal drugs myself so I guess I'm too holier than thou to understand the reality of normal people since I'm surely in a very small minority of Americans right now. So I agree it's a weak thing to hold against Obama but my original point was that for me personally the standards of who can be President have taken some very serious beatings by the people who have held the office in recent times. But like I said I realize that's probably just me.

Just as a side note my position on recreational marijuana use is that I'm against it because I believe it will cause a lot more problems than what we're being lead to believe but on the other hand I also believe that Constitutionally it is a States' rights issue and current federal law making marijuana illegal is an abuse of the Commerce Clause. In Obama's case though that only has some relevance because he brags about enthusiastically using every illegal recreational drug he could get his hands on which I would assume includes cocaine and even if you are for everyone's right to use cocaine if they want back then the fact that it was illegal and violent crimes were committed to control the drug trade that means Obama not only had no respect for the law but he helped finance violent criminals which is not nearly the same thing as someone growing some personal marijuana in their back yard for their own use on the weekends.

[DJQuag]

Here's a fact for you, Cherry. Cannabis is no and probably less worse then alcohol. There is inherently nothing more wrong with someone coming home after work and smoking a joint to relax. No more then someone drinking a few cans. A pothead ain't doing well. Neither is an alcoholic. It's all the same.
,,

[DJQuag]

Al

There is a difference between *good* candidate and *qualified* candidate.

[DonaldD]

he promised to reform our electoral system from winner take all to proportionate - a change that many fear will gurantee the Liberal Party's dominance for decades to come!

Although completely of no interest to anybody else here, this is not correct: Trudeau only promised to replace the voting methodology, of which there are many, not limited to proportional representation.  Secondly, proportional representation is less likely to lead to a single party gaining dominance, as it will lead to more (will actually almost guarantee) minority governments, giving other parties extra weight within government.

What PR would likely do is guarantee the parliament more closely resembles the will of the voters, at the expense of governmental stability.

[DJQuag]

Al

You talk about noone with credibility calling it, but I've been saying for a while that this whole thing reminded me of Brexit. Liberals living in their bubble assuming that it was the whole universe. And here we are.

[cherrypoptart]

That doesn't help me since I don't drink alcohol either. I could almost pass for a Mormon except I like coffee and tea. "No worse than alcohol" never really cut if for me since I've had three family members die because of drunk drivers and one survived but had her hip fractured which put her in pain and on pain meds basically for the rest of her life. Whenever I hear that Prohibition was a failure I can't help but point out that if we add up all the deaths that would have been caused by the violent crime associated with Prohibition if it was still in effect right now and compared that to all the deaths of innocent people who weren't drinking but died anyway due to drunk drivers there would be tens of thousands more innocent people alive right now with Prohibition. But I'm sure I'm up on a high horse and not in touch with the reality of almost everyone else and that's fine. Like I said it's just my opinion. My point was that when I was younger I had even higher standards than now but with all that's going on, even if my standards are still completely unrealistic, they are much lower than what they were.

I could also mention my asthma growing up as a child which was almost fatal a couple of times and sent me to a hospital once. One night I couldn't breathe so badly that I couldn't sleep and was afraid to anyway so I drank coffee for the first time at age 12 because I understood it could help me stay awake and I found that it actually helped me to breathe as well. It turns out that coffee can help alleviate asthma symptoms.

I will assume when people talk about smoking marijuana nowadays they obviously mean not doing so anywhere near children, or any nonsmokers for that matter, but my experience growing up around house fulls of adults smoking cigarettes like chimneys and always saying with my asthma attacks that "oh it must be allergies this time of year" and "yeah that pollen count is really high" when in fact it was ALWAYS the cigarette smoke and I actually have NO allergies, was that people don't consider the costs to others of their own actions. Hopefully that has changed but it hasn't ever been my experience.

Having said that, some people can certainly handle their alcohol and drugs much better than others. The question becomes, is it worth the damage to the innocent people who aren't using drugs or alcohol but end up being damaged by those who do in order to let those who can use their vices responsibly enjoy them? Maybe it's selfish of me, in fact certainly it is, but since I don't enjoy any of those vices and can only suffer from others being irresponsible about them, then I have to answer no. Unselfishly, I must also answer no for all of the other victims out there like me.  What if there was a way to make certain that innocent people wouldn't suffer for the irresponsible use of vices by others so that people weren't killed by drunk drivers because all cars had breathalyzer ignitions and people weren't harmed by second hand smoke or drug impaired drivers because there was some mechanism to prevent it? Then I'd be fine with it all.

[Gaoics79]

Although completely of no interest to anybody else here, this is not correct: Trudeau only promised to replace the voting methodology, of which there are many, not limited to proportional representation.  Secondly, proportional representation is less likely to lead to a single party gaining dominance, as it will lead to more (will actually almost guarantee) minority governments, giving other parties extra weight within government.

What PR would likely do is guarantee the parliament more closely resembles the will of the voters, at the expense of governmental stability.

Yes yes, you're right of course. Not really the point though. Whatever variation he chose, whether PR or ranked ballots or whatnot, it was predicted that it would NOT benefit political parties other than the LPC, and frankly, you'd forgive me for imagining that the LPC would not select a new voting system purely out of altruistic interest in better representing the will of the people.

The point was that I'm well familiar with the feeling of my side losing an election where much is at stake. And I can think of few things more significant than the method of choosing your leaders.

Yet like we saw after the Conservatives cut public funding for political parties, which was predicted to cripple the LPC, few things in politics are truly game changing.

[DonaldD]

Ranked ballots would likely disproportionately benefit the LPC - whereas PR would more than likely solidify the left's grasp on the legislature - both outcomes which would suit the Liberals no doubt.

[cherrypoptart]

If Hillary had won you can bet the Democrats would have done everything possible to prevent the Republicans from ever gaining power again. Massive legal immigration including refugee populations for quick citizenship along with wide open borders and mass amnesties complete with a path to citizenship for so many new Democrat voting Americans that the Republicans would be done, probably forever, because as the new immigrants establish themselves and assimilate and start turning into Republicans the Democrats can always just flood the country with wave after wave of new voters who will support them for another generation or two. It's unfortunate that Obama in such a deliberate, calculated, and nefarious fashion used the refugee program to target their settlement into battleground states and districts specifically to win elections and power. Now Republicans in self defense must oppose programs which if they hadn't been used for such obvious and underhanded purely partisan purposes could really have done a lot of people around the world a lot of good.

[DonaldD]

Gosh then, Cherry, it's a good thing the Democrats haven't had the past 8 years to put those nefarious plans into place - the Republicans would never had stood a chance this election cycle!

[AI Wessex]

Al

You talk about noone with credibility calling it, but I've been saying for a while that this whole thing reminded me of Brexit. Liberals living in their bubble assuming that it was the whole universe. And here we are.

I have to plead guilty to that kind of thinking, because the political system seemed to work that way my whole life up til now.  That doesn't mean that I thought every President was the right choice or did everything the way I wanted it done.  But all of that pales in comparison to what electing Trump means.  This is a disaster of almost unimaginable scope, worse for the US than Brexit will be for the UK.  By that I mean that in the UK all of your government functions today just as it did before the Brexit vote and will continue to do so.  Here Trump will dismantle the institutions of government.  Some people will cheer at first, but the cold hard reality will set in and those who voted for him will become as afraid as the rest of us, but as with Brexit there will be no recourse.

[AI Wessex]

Al

There is a difference between *good* candidate and *qualified* candidate.

Semantics, mostly.  Hillary was both qualified and good, as well as willing and able.  The only one of those things that could count against her character is the "willing" part, but since I sincerely believe she has given her entire adult life to public service that is an excusable fault.  Even Mark Twain would have some charitable thoughts about her.

[Gaoics79]

This is a disaster of almost unimaginable scope, worse for the US than Brexit will be for the UK.  By that I mean that in the UK all of your government functions today just as it did before the Brexit vote and will continue to do so.  Here Trump will dismantle the institutions of government.  Some people will cheer at first, but the cold hard reality will set in and those who voted for him will become as afraid as the rest of us, but as with Brexit there will be no recourse.

I'll make a note to check back in with you in a little bit, say in two years. We can then revisit whether Trump has "dismantled the institutions of government". We'll also discuss  whether a "disaster of almost unimaginable scope" has befallen the USA.

I mean for me when I think of "unimaginable disaster" that's a mighty high bar - zombie apocalypse, asteroid impact, alien invasion? Then again, I suppose I have imagined all those things before. So what are we talking about then? Well I wouldn't want to imagine it for you - I'm trying to give your prophecy at least a tiny sliver of chance to come true.

[DJQuag]

Al

There is a difference between *good* candidate and *qualified* candidate.

Semantics, mostly.  Hillary was both qualified and good, as well as willing and able.  The only one of those things that could count against her character is the "willing" part, but since I sincerely believe she has given her entire adult life to public service that is an excusable fault.  Even Mark Twain would have some charitable thoughts about her.

It's not just semantics. In this year, in this political climate, if you want to win the Presidency, she was a bad candidate.

Also, and I really can't stress this enough, she lost to Donald Trump.

[AI Wessex]

Also, and I really can't stress this enough, she lost to Donald Trump.

And as I sit in my office this morning the room is bathed in light coming in through the west window.

Jason:

I mean for me when I think of "unimaginable disaster" that's a mighty high bar - zombie apocalypse, asteroid impact, alien invasion? Then again, I suppose I have imagined all those things before. So what are we talking about then? Well I wouldn't want to imagine it for you - I'm trying to give your prophecy at least a tiny sliver of chance to come true.

I imagine that Giuliani will head the DoJ, so the department won't interfere with state attempts to disenfranchise more non-white voters, stop and frisk won't be challenged and hate crimes will increase without interference.  Other henchmen will take over other departments of the Executive branch and similarly lay off enforcement of environmental laws, BLM oversight, education, energy, health (ACA, CDC and Planned Parenthood), NIH, IRS, etc.  Why do we need those departments, anyway?  They just interfere with people's lives and you have to pay for the yuge tax cuts somehow.

[Gaoics79]

Al, I won't dwell on the "unimaginable" part of the proposition, nor mock you too much for beginning your reply with the words "I imagine".

But suffice it to say, it seems from your comment that you and I have a different definition for the word "disaster".

[AI Wessex]

According to the dictionary, the definition of "disaster" I am using is: "an event or fact that has unfortunate consequences."  That seems too mild.  As I recall you are Canadian, so none of what happens will affect you (directly).