As someone who's actively vocalized his support for Trump in the past, both here[1] and in my meat space life, I'm ecstatic with the results of this election.
Not just the POTUS, but the trifecta of the house and senate as well. That's as loud of a mandate as can be expected from a strongly divided country. On top of all that, with the SCOTUS picks that are expected in the next few years, this election is going to be felt for many years to come.
I just hope that as we move forward with the transition to the new government, both sides can leave behind the incessant name calling and hate that's plagued this election. It's done, it's over, and the people have spoken. Now let's move forward on the direction that's been chosen and go about discussing it constructively.
Politicians know the electoral college decides the election. If the candidates had been campaigning for the popular vote, presumably Trump would campaign harder for more votes in large states like California and New York.
It's about the people, not the politicians. The fact that campaign strategy matters more than campaign platform is a huge weakness in the current system.
It's like that by design. Representative democracy is intended to limit the ability of the majority to shoehorn the minority -- in this case the coastal population centers vs. the rest of the country.
>Representative democracy is intended to limit the ability of the majority to shoehorn the minority
That is a benefit of certain aspects of our political system, but not the electoral college. The electoral college only serves to introduce bizarre volatility into the elections.
This is a nice sound bite (kind of), but doesn't bear out the actual facts. The EC was designed specifically to ensure that States (in the big-S, Constitutional meaning) decide the President, not the people.
Allowing states to control the elections is a mean not an end. Given that the vote of states are determined by a popular vote within the state, the only end that is accomplished by the EC is introducing volatility.
Right, and it was up to the state to decide how the electors were elected. The intended goal is the same -- a midpoint between State-level republicanism and populist democracy.
Clinton couldn't gain as much support because she already has most of the likely voters, and a lot of Republicans think, why bother, she's a lock for the electoral votes.
Whatever, with no data to back up your claim this is just hot air. Maybe she would've gotten more support from people that now decided to vote third party or didn't bother to vote at all. You can basically rationalize every outcome outcome if you don't have to rely on data.
Was discussing this earlier, how many countries are actually ruled by popular vote? The recent Iceland election brings in mind, where the six constituencies makes a vote in Reykjavík count less than any other vote. The reason for that is if they didn't, citizens of Reykjavík would have a majority on their own in any national election.
Similar, Sweden have a similar system where a vote from the small island of Gotland has 50% more impact compared to any other vote. The reason for that is that otherwise the island would only have 2 politicians in the parliament and the Swedish government wanted to have one more party representing the island than just the two major parties (which, based on those rules, means that the top 3 parties in Gotland is more or less guarantied one seat each).
I don't think any citizen's vote should count more than another just because they're part of a minority, geographic or otherwise. Imagine the uproar that would ensue if a politician suggested that a racial, ethnic, or religious minority group would have their votes count for more.
I am more split on the issue. geographical votes result that problems and needs in one area don't get overlook because of population statistics. In the worst case this could lead to countries splitting up into smaller parts, just so that each area which its own special problems and needs can govern themselves.
To take a practical example, the European parliament. Seats are allocated to each state according to population using degressive proportionality, which mean that Luxembourgish voters have roughly 10x more influence per voter than citizens of the six large countries. The alternative would be that Luxembourgish have practically no vote, since their population would be too small to even get a single seat, meaning their vote would have 0 influence. Which one is more fair?
I agree with you about the European parliament example, but speaking of the U.S. situation specifically, we already have a bicameral legislature with disproportionate representation for lower population states in one of its houses. We also have federal courts to step in when any laws are stepping on the rights of minority populations.
You've also touched on one of the longest-running debates in American politics: should we treat states as independent and semi-autonomous or allow the federal government to dictate policy direction for the nation. You can probably tell what side I'm on. People still claim that the American civil war was about the South defending "states' rights" when I, and many others, feel that it was about defending the rights of many people actually in those states.
That might be a little off topic. Anyway it's an interesting debate, but it's just hard to see how a candidate for national office can win more votes across the country and come out the loser.
Yes. We have states which gerrymander the Senate then we have gerrymandered House districts.
Wyoming (pop. 584,153) has two Senators. California (pop. 38.8 million) has two Senators. CA is 66 times the population. Alaska (pop. 736,732), two Senators.
Now let's move forward on the direction that's been chosen
I guess one of the bigger problems is that it's utterly unclear what direction has been chosen.
I think it's fair to say—do correct me if you think I'm wrong—that most of the policies that were advocated by Trump prior to the election will not be put into practice. There are a few reasons for that – many of them are practically unworkable, or contradictory, or will be objectively harmful. It seems that the actual policies that will take effect will be markedly different from those of the campaign.
This is similar to Brexit in the UK, which was a campaign fought in a similar way – quite a few half-truths with no clear idea of what policy was being voted for.
To me, this seems like a dangerous situation. Practically speaking, it is unlikely that Trump with 'make America great again' by solving all of the problems that his supporters face – not because he's a liar, but because that's an astonishingly difficult task to achieve. What happens in a couple of years when relatively limited progress has been made? Trump has no political barriers within the US, so who will be blamed for his inability to deliver on his promises? I worry that such a situation is a breeding ground for nationalism of the worst kind.
This was a rejection of the political establishment, rejection of neo-liberal economics, and a rejection of both the neo-conservative and (to a lesser degree) the libertarian wings of the republican party.
Serious question (and I think the source of the confusion as to what direction has been chosen): if all those philosophies have been rejected, what exactly are we left with? What was being advocated?
rejecting neoconservatism, and libertarianism, leaves you with traditional conservatism and cultural conservatism, or religious conservatism.
On the social side, things like abortion, (anti) gay rights, etc.
On the legal / economic side, actual pro-small business type changes, think 1950s republican.
As for rejecting neo-liberal economics, there are tons of options. Without throwing out ideologies, though, I think the most likely things we'd see in America would be:
Well, if bernie was elected I'd say things like trying to reform college tuition costs, expanding medicare, ensuring the stability of social security, new worker protections and federally promoted retraining of laid off / out of work workers, etc. guaranteed paid family leave, etc.
From the conservative viewpoint, the people would probably want more focus on closing immigration loopholes used by businesses to avoid hiring domestically (h1bv, j1bv reform), actively enforcing punishments for employers utilizing illegal immigrants, retooling international trade agreements to favor small businesses and local producers as opposed to larger corporate interests, tax subsidies and encouragements for businesses that produce locally, etc.
What are the milestones and key metrics for the "direction that has been chosen"?
In four years, if the rural mine workers are still out of work and iPads are still made in China, will you concede that the experiment failed?
I can't see Trump doing that. Deflecting blame has been a theme of his career. Therefore I'm frightened that he's going to need new scapegoats for his lack of achievements pretty soon... And considering the rhetoric he's used, there just is no telling who he might pick to receive the blame.
That's what I'm wondering about this whole thing - by what metrics can we test MAGA? I'm beginning to feel like this is Obama 2.0 when it comes to a revolution - in 4 to 8 years we will look back and go "huh, pretty much business as normal". I'm not worried about a random scapegoat, but I do just see this fizzling, and the anger and division being there again in 4 years time.
> In four years, if the rural mine workers are still out of work and iPads are still made in China, will you concede that the experiment failed?
That's like saying that because people still have to pay for insurance in the US that Obamacare failed and he's a failed President and should feel bad about himself.
Obamacare failed and he's a failed President and should feel bad about himself
Isn't that exactly what Republicans were saying? Trump wants to repeal Obamacare first and then replace it with something "much better, believe me".
In good and bad, ACA was a big part of Obama's legacy. What are the yardsticks that should be applied to the Trump presidency?
How many coal mines will be back in business and turning a profit? By what date will Apple be forced to bring back manufacturing into USA? When will American airports and roads become the best in the world?
Those are a few of his most clearly defined goals, like healthcare reform was Obama's.
I can't fathom you interpreting the result as a "loud mandate." The presidential race has been extremely tight with ~200,000 separating the two. Is that a clear mandate?
No, it is a clear indication of the divisions in our country.
>> Not just the POTUS, but the trifecta of the house and senate as well. That's as loud of a mandate as can be expected from a strongly divided country
> I can't fathom you interpreting the result as a "loud mandate." The presidential race has been extremely tight with ~200,000 separating the two. Is that a clear mandate?
> No, it is a clear indication of the divisions in our country.
Yes, the country is divided. A single party taking all three major government divisions is as loud a mandate as you can expect in a strongly divided country.
They didn't take over all three major government branches. They "took over" one via the Presidency. They maintained their majorities in the legislature. They will maintain a hold on the Supreme Court by virtue of the Presidency, not public mandate.
In a strongly divided country, interpreting anything as a clear public mandate can be disastrous.
> ...as loud a mandate as you can expect in a strongly divided country
Only true if the way voting happened didn't disenfranchise voters. Yet we know that the way voting happened, with gerrymandering and discriminatory rules in some states, did disenfranchise voters.
Can you explain to me what direction the country voted to move in? I'm really really trying to understand but all I see for the Trump voters is more economic pain under Trumps policies and I think will ultimately lead to more division as they dig their heels in as more time passes where they don't see the change they want. Trump supporters were sold the idea that illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, non-white people, muslims and gay people were a threat to the country and their livelihood. Removing these "threats" as Donald Trump has proposed will only benefit those at the top. So where does that leave us? Putting the screws to the perceived threats even more?
Seems extremely disingenuous that Trump supporters of all people would criticize hate and name calling when Trump's campaign was run on those issues, but I guess it's always easier to strike a conciliatory tone when you've won.
I'm not a Trump supporter by any stretch but mother of god if "crooked" which is literally just an adjective and is pretty appropriate when applied to Hillary Clinton is now considered a slur all these angry white people might just be on to something.
See that Trump and Trump supporters largely limited their name calling to Hillary, whereas Hillary and Hillary supporters largely blasted on Trump as well as his supporters.
> both sides can leave behind the incessant name calling and hate that's plagued this election
Trump ran his campaign on incessant name calling and hate. If you voted for him, that means you're OK with letting the incessant name calling and hate continue.
Calling someone a xenophobe isn't name calling. Calling someone a bitch or a nigger is name calling. The difference is whether the word us a critique of specific behavior, or just a general slur on the person or their identity.
Don't think that is possible. If I was a democrat today I'd do like the Republicans have been doing the last 8 years and do my outmost to make the Trump Presidency be a major failure.
The way the republicans have played this game is so dirty, that you can't expect people to forgive. We can not reward such a divisive character like Donald Trump with his racism, xenophobia, mysogny, insults and bullying with a successful presidency.
Honestly I think the democrats should do the best the sabotage him and make sure everything he does fails. It should teach them a lesson that there is no reward in playing dirty and confrontational.
If we reward this behavior it will only get worse.
It is sad to say, but for the long term benefit of America it is probably better if it gets run to the ground over these four years. Then America will be spared for such leaders in the future.
I don't think they should act like the Republicans did under Obama and vote against things they actually believed in just to make him ineffective. If they genuinely vote for things they believe in, maybe Trump will feel more of a reason to compromise instead of digging his heels into the dirt further and further and stomping on them anyway. It's because they did this that the country got further divided and less bipartisan.
But yes, Democrats better do whatever they can to stop anything that's outrageous or they don't believe in even a little bit. No "Oh, the people have spoken, so we better go along with it" shit. Republicans pulled every dirty trick they could with Obama, so they should feel free to do the same.
> It is sad to say, but for the long term benefit of America it is probably better if it gets run to the ground over these four years. Then America will be spared for such leaders in the future.
I heard this EXACT phrase said about Obama 8 years ago! We always get what we deserve. Hope, change, make america great again.
> If I was a democrat today I'd do like the Republicans have been doing the last 8 years and do my outmost to make the Trump Presidency be a major failure.
Good luck with that. GOP now has majorities and will probably pick up more in 2018. So be it.
> The new rules remove the requirement of 60 votes in order to begin debate on legislation and allow the minority two amendments to measures that reach the Senate floor, a change implemented as a standing order that expires at the end of the current term. In the new rules, the amount of time to debate following a motion to proceed has been reduced from 30 hours to four. Additionally, a filibuster on the motion to proceed will be blocked if a petition is signed by eight members of the minority, including the minority leader.
> do like the Republicans have been doing the last 8 years and do my outmost to make the Trump Presidency be a major failure.
I think I'd modify that just a little. Our too-few representatives in Congress should do everything to thwart the Trump agenda, but only because that agenda is itself a failure. By opposing it, we make America a success. Very different than what the Republicans have been doing.
They quite explicitly said the exact opposite the day after Obama was elected. They didn't just want Obama's policies to fail. They were willing to accept failures that hurt people, so that those people would associate the pain with Obama and vote the other way next time. That's the level of obstructionism I'm suggesting we not pursue.
> They quite explicitly said the exact opposite the day after Obama was elected. They didn't just want Obama's policies to fail. They were willing to accept failures that hurt people, so that those people would associate the pain with Obama and vote the other way next time.
I don't see anything about them being okay with hurting the country, but I see a lot about them wanting President Obama to fail, and fail badly. Do you blame them? Do you not think that Democrats want Mr. Trump to fail badly, and are having these same conversations?
If X is your number one priority, then Y - e.g. helping the American people, doing what's right, etc. - is not. What's telling is not that they said right out that they were willing to accept collateral damage - of course they didn't, because it would be political suicide - but that they said nothing at all about it. Didn't acknowledge its existence. By contrast, look at what Sanders said.
“To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him."
That explicitly acknowledges an obligation toward the American people - something we never got from the "oppose Obama at all costs" crowd. So yes, there is a difference between today's loyal opposition and 2008's treasonous opposition. I reject your false equivalence.
> Honestly I think the democrats should do the best the sabotage him and make sure everything he does fails.
I don't think this is necessary. With Obama, his policies were ultimately shaped, designed and compromised to benefit centrist to left-leaning voters, and so he was sharply opposed by the right and extreme right. With Trump, his policies will be ultimately shaped, designed and compromised to benefit Trump, so it is far from clear that this will give advantage to any class of voter at all.
Won't this just devolve into a vicious circle, where the politically expedient thing to do is to utterly sabotage the other side, and teach the voters a less each election cycle?
I actually think we are facing real daily crises that need to be addressed. So no, I'm not going to try to sabotage my country in order to try to tarnish the Republican brand. I have work to do.
Given that the campaign was so divisive and acrimonious, what makes you think the losing side is just going to say 'ok' and get on board?
If they think he's going to be as bad as they say surely they should do everything to frustrate him? Same as the Republicans did to Obama.
It's naive to think that just because the vote is in that it's over, look at the UK and Brexit.
"Now let's move forward on the direction that's been chosen and go about discussing it constructively."
A few thoughts on this:
- First, roughly half (and the majority of the votes) did not agree with this direction. That isn't much of a mandate.
- Second, the party that won has repeatedly shown that they don't want to work on compromise, or follow standard procedure such as allowing a sitting President to get a hearing for a nominee for the Supreme Court.
As a person that feels that this trifecta will change the country for years to come (as you rightly point out), my hope is that the Dems do exactly to Republicans what they've done for the last 4 years - obstruct in any way possible. I'm tired of one side feeling that they have to play by the rules and the other feeling they can ignore them. And I hope that Ruth Ginsburg serves at least for the first term.
> allowing a sitting President to get a hearing for a nominee for the Supreme Court.
Let's talk about George W. Bush's nominees...
Politics is politics and to pretend that one side or the other plays them "dirty" and the other side plays them "clean" is naiveté of an astounding level.
I'm not naive enough to think that Dems never play dirty, but what's astonishing that you seem to give the Republicans a complete pass with regard to their actual behavior by making a false equivalency: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/...
I'm actually happy for you. And I'm scared about some things (mostly health care access and wars due to climate change) but I am also excited to see how some of these conservative policies pan out in practice. I hope it moves the dialog forward.
That said, your mandate claim is kind of absurd. More people voted for Romney than Trump.
And Obama got almost 10% more votes than Trump did. So it's not nearly "as loud as can be". Turnout was very low.
How do you reconcile your desire to leave behind hate when you cast a vote for a candidate who's core positions were one of hate? If Trump does not continue a platform of hate, how would you not view that as a slap in the face as a supporter? He promised you hate, you said "Yes, I'll take one of those", and now say don't do that? You can not have it both ways, your vote is one for hate whether you bury your head in the sand about that point or not.
He called for a ban on Muslim immigrants, said illegal Mexican immigrants are criminals and rapists, and suggested that his supporters should assassinate his opponent. That's just off the top of my head.
He mocked a disabled reporter, he bragged about sexual assault, and he ran an ad that showed pictures of Jews with a voiceover talking about global special interests controlling the levers of power. Also off the top of my head.
I wish the people who voted for Trump would just be honest and take ownership of the hate, instead of trying to gaslight everyone by playing dumb.
Yeah, it's subtle, but there is a definite hum of anti-semitism going on in the background of Trump's inner political circle.
First there was that poster with a six-pointed "sheriff" star on a pile of money, which (to me at least) didn't seem definitively anti-semitic. But in conjunction with hiring Steve Bannon (who has said he doesn't want his kids going to a school with too many Jews), running the "global special interests" ad, and retweeting white nationalists, it all starts to add up.
>I wish the people who voted for Trump would just be honest and take ownership of the hate, instead of trying to gaslight everyone by playing dumb
I'm Canadian, so I didn't vote for anybody.
I'm simply not blinded by rhetoric and political leanings like most in the US are. It may surprise you, but many in the rest of the world think both sides are nuts.
Don't forget that his rallies regularly featured people chanting "hang that bitch". "We" just elected a politician that openly condones violence against someone with different political views. Hopefully it ends now but that is a dangerous path to go down and is the total opposite of what makes America "great".
>Don't forget that his rallies regularly featured people chanting "hang that bitch". "We" just elected a politician that openly condones violence against someone with different political views.
Condones violence? You know that Hilary has been behind actual violence, right? Voting for bombing other countries and such things? She voted to go into Iraq. How many people have died? Is she not accountable in any way?
Honest question if you're concerned about violence: who has more blood on their hands, Trump or Clinton?
I don't agree with the approach, but do you understand why he said this? The idea was to vet people coming into the country to prevent homegrown terror. It's a real thing, and people are concerned about it. I doubt that it'll work, the problem is more nuanced, but it's not a ridiculous idea.
>said illegal Mexican immigrants are criminals and rapists
No, he said that Mexico sends their worst, not that all Mexican immigrants are criminals.
>and suggested that his supporters should assassinate his opponent
I understand why Trump called for a ban on Muslim immigrants. Do you understand why such a thing would be grossly unconstitutional and is against everything this country should stand for?
For Mexicans, he said "they're rapists" without limiting the number. He then said some of them are good people, which is confusing and contradictory. Deciding what he really meant is a matter of interpretation and you'll never know if you have the right answer or not. This is, of course, a constant theme with the Trump campaign: say something outrageous, but with just enough wiggle room to explain it away as something else.
As for assassination: "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know." This was later explained as a reference to the pro-gun political power, but that makes no sense: Supreme Court justices with lifetime appointments don't care about political activism.
>You know, when he advocated committing a war crime?
How about when your candidate actually did participate in things that other people consider war crimes, like bombing hospitals and DWOB encampments in the middle east?
This has been a constant theme in this election. I criticize Trump based on something he said. A supporter tells me I'm taking it out of context. I look up the context and it either doesn't change anything or just plain makes it even worse.
"...until we find out what the heck is going on" doesn't help. Hate doesn't stop being hateful when you say it's temporary, and neither does blatantly violating the Constitution become OK.
"And some, I assume, are good people." This immediately follows "They’re rapists." So, what does it mean? Some of the rapists are good people? Or he meant to say that some of them are rapists? Even there, "some" implies not huge amount, so "some are good people" implies most of them aren't. So, OK, he only called most illegal Mexican immigrants rapists, that's not much better.
Finally, let me guess, you believe his followup damage control that "second amendment people" meant their superior abilities at political organization?
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”
How is that not an allusion to assassination? He is talking about a situation in which Hillary has won and appointed a judge. How else do people suspect "second amendment people" are going to stop her at that point?
Yeah, the explanation they followed up with makes no sense. Supreme Court judges with lifetime appointments don't care about your political activism, no matter how good you are at it.
I think his rhetoric is pretty hateful. I don't see how you could say it isn't, as though it's just misunderstood, when it's been a huge boon to the alt-right - which is _all_ about hate. I fear we will see more of that kind of rhetoric in the mainstream.
After his BS speech did you see him going down the line of people, kissing each woman on the left cheek, every one except the last one that is. She was about to pucker up and had to awkward kiss the guy next to her instead. Not racist? Yeah right. C'mon man she was at least a 7!
> What do you have to say about the women who voted for Trump. Do they support molesting themselves?
They are feeling relatively safe from molestation. That good. They like to think it's because they are keeping themselves safe. If it's their doing then they're in control. So it feels good to them to blame women for their assaults and to believe that men like Trump aren't doing anything. It makes the world feel safer.
The liberal position, that men like Trump do sexually assault people, and that rape is common, and your friends might do it to you, and you should probably believe rape accusations by default, is much scarier. Many women would rather not believe it if they can avoid it.
Women with a LOT of privilege can safely believe it because they can use their prvilege (money etc) to stay safe. Women who are forced to be in unsafe positions can believe it, because they see how common sexual assault is. They are on the front line. Those two groups make up the feminist core.
But there are a lot of women who are just trying to put as much distance as possible between themselves and the rape scene, and for them it's a bit of an abstract matter.
There is no mandate here, and there will be no coming together; she's going to win the popular vote, dems win more votes in the house yet because of the electoral college and gerrymandering republicans carry the win. Nothing has happened here but a clear signal of how badly the system is broken when the will of the majority loses to a hateful minority due to a fucked up system.
How can you expect the millions of marginalized people to just "sit back and move in the direction that has been chosen" when that direction is one that believes they should not exist?
Not just the POTUS, but the trifecta of the house and senate as well. That's as loud of a mandate as can be expected from a strongly divided country. On top of all that, with the SCOTUS picks that are expected in the next few years, this election is going to be felt for many years to come.
I just hope that as we move forward with the transition to the new government, both sides can leave behind the incessant name calling and hate that's plagued this election. It's done, it's over, and the people have spoken. Now let's move forward on the direction that's been chosen and go about discussing it constructively.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12728645