Naive me thought that once the election was over that calm would be restored. And we would all spend time in quiet reflection on what just happened in the last two years. Boy, was I wrong. It seems that no one has learned anything in the last week. Everyone is doubling down on the chaos. Our little snowflakes are creating a blizzard of protests and rallies, though I have a sneaking suspicion that they don't even know why except they didn't get what they wanted. But I get it. We have spent so much time and energy demonizing each other, that we are beginning to believe our own science fiction.
The Democrats do not want to take any responsibility for the outcome. But they are loving the protests and riots and destruction of property. It couldn't possibly be because they spent 8+ years demonizing, degrading, insulting, shaming, disrespecting anyone who disagreed with their policies. I mean did Clinton really think that calling a large swath of potential voters a "basket of deplorables...The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it...irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America." was really going to win her votes in "fly-over country"?
And why did they assume that all women would just fall in line to vote for her? 53% of women did not. Of course many of them were deplorable working-, middle-class and white (well, 74% of the population is "caucasian", so math or something...). This statistic baffled all of them. How could women betray Clinton like this? (Yes, a friend really said that) Didn't we know it was "her time to make herstory?" Sorry, but women did not break from under the thumb of the patriarchy, just to be put under the thumb of the matriarchy. Women have brains and we won the right to use our brains and think for ourselves.
Remember when I wrote about how there weren't any signs, bumber stickers, or campaign buttons anywhere to be seen during this campaign season? There was reason for that. People were so afraid of voicing their opinion for fear of being called [see above] that there were no outward signs literally for the pollsters to consider. So all of those people who were scared to voice their opinions, did it in the voting booth instead. Surprise!
As I said in one of my comments post, when we rewrite/update the "Political Campaigns for Dummies" handbook, the first chapter should say this. "The only name you are allowed to call the voters is "the voters"...full stop." Of course convincing potential voters as to why they should vote for you rather than spending all of your campaign capital on the evils of your opponent is a good idea too. But we have to start somewhere.
And just because I really liked this post-election video by British satirist Jonathan Pie/Tom Walker, I am going to leave you with this. It really drives the point home. [Warning: language]
Anyway this is old news, so I will not speak of it again because clearly no one wants to learn this lesson. How do I know? This quote from Noam Chomsky - LINK...
The Democrats do not want to take any responsibility for the outcome. But they are loving the protests and riots and destruction of property. It couldn't possibly be because they spent 8+ years demonizing, degrading, insulting, shaming, disrespecting anyone who disagreed with their policies. I mean did Clinton really think that calling a large swath of potential voters a "basket of deplorables...The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it...irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America." was really going to win her votes in "fly-over country"?
And why did they assume that all women would just fall in line to vote for her? 53% of women did not. Of course many of them were deplorable working-, middle-class and white (well, 74% of the population is "caucasian", so math or something...). This statistic baffled all of them. How could women betray Clinton like this? (Yes, a friend really said that) Didn't we know it was "her time to make herstory?" Sorry, but women did not break from under the thumb of the patriarchy, just to be put under the thumb of the matriarchy. Women have brains and we won the right to use our brains and think for ourselves.
Remember when I wrote about how there weren't any signs, bumber stickers, or campaign buttons anywhere to be seen during this campaign season? There was reason for that. People were so afraid of voicing their opinion for fear of being called [see above] that there were no outward signs literally for the pollsters to consider. So all of those people who were scared to voice their opinions, did it in the voting booth instead. Surprise!
As I said in one of my comments post, when we rewrite/update the "Political Campaigns for Dummies" handbook, the first chapter should say this. "The only name you are allowed to call the voters is "the voters"...full stop." Of course convincing potential voters as to why they should vote for you rather than spending all of your campaign capital on the evils of your opponent is a good idea too. But we have to start somewhere.
And just because I really liked this post-election video by British satirist Jonathan Pie/Tom Walker, I am going to leave you with this. It really drives the point home. [Warning: language]
Anyway this is old news, so I will not speak of it again because clearly no one wants to learn this lesson. How do I know? This quote from Noam Chomsky - LINK...
"On Nov. 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government—executive, Congress, the Supreme Court—in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history."
29 comments:
Nobody should be naïve enough to think that a week after a tumultuous election that the waters would have calmed once again.
Remember, after 2012 Commentarama congratulated the retards and talked about how no one could go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public :) .
Give it a few (okay, several) months. I'm not saying that the bitterness will end, but from that point on people will focus less on what was for half of America, a shocking, dismaying defeat and start focusing on what they need to do to win the next fight (which includes but is not limited to rubbishing the guy they once defended because he lost the last fight).
So much for Google's spam filter!
OT: There are commericials warning Baby Boomers about Hepatitis C. When did that become a Baby Boomer disease? I don't get it.
Bev, This has been a fascinating end of election. When Nixon won, that NYT reporter famously whined that she didn't understand because no one she knew voted for Nixon. When Reagan won in 2000, the left went all whiny and "the world is going to end" but they didn't go full retard like they are today. When Bush won in 2000, they went hateful and screamed about trying to bring Bush down. They came close to full retard, but it was anger based, not shock-based. Today, they are in full whiny retard mode. It's bizarre. It's the most childish thing I've ever seen from a whole group of adults.
This is the worst I've ever seen them, and I think it really exposes who they are. The left are whiny, smug children whose whole self-value is wound up in their groupthink. They simply cannot understand that people can disagree with them. Disagreement = betrayal. And the fact that 50% of American voted against such intense group pressure shocks and horrifies them. They don't get it. To them, it's like being surrounded by hidden enemies. It's like their parents telling them NO for the first time in their lives.
It also shows that Democracy means nothing to them. The wishes of others means nothing to them. They have no good faith. They have no tolerance.
One more... on women. My wife is the perfect example of women Hillary lost. She kept saying, "I'd love to see a woman president. I would vote for her. But I won't vote for her."
She's actually become quite hopeful about Trump. And her eyes are being opened by her family, who are still in hate mode and attack anyone who votes against the woman who was going to give them goodies.
Anthony, This is beyond "give it time." This is mental problem levels. Disappointed adults may grouse and be worried and even be somewhat insulting. Disappointed adults don't riot, scream about assassinating someone, and break down crying on television. Disappointed adults don't need someone to hand them a puppy or playdoh and put them in a group playpen to calm down.
Noam Chomsky was going to say something that stupid. He's been full crazy for about 30-40 years now.
At least since he insisted that there was nothing going on in Cambodia and that claims of mass killings by the Khmer Rouge were nothing more than right-wing imperialist propaganda.
Andrew,
I agree nobody meltdowns like the left I'm just saying that it takes a while for the level of intensity to die down after an election.
The overarching problem to why this is more aggressive is that in those other election years pre-Obama, we did not have instant information and the ability for ready-made on-call flash mobs that could coordinate, not just on one college campus to grow slowly in a wave, but on EVERY college campus simultaneously. Well, and we've never had an entire generation reared having never heard the words "NO!"
There is now a call for a New "Tea Party" movement on the Left. Jonah Goldberg politely responded...ummm, wasn't that what they called the Occupy Wall Street? At least the TP picked up their trash and didn't destroy property just 'cause we wanted stuff. Of course we were pretty clear about what we wanted except no one listened...which is why we are where we are today.
The other issue is the call for the abolishment of the Electoral College!!!!! Hundreds of thousands of people have signed an online petition!! Okay, but since the only position that is really affected by the Electorial College is the President/VP position. Maybe Clinton did win the popular vote, but how does that really help. It doesn't explain why Republicans have taken the majority in the House, the Senate, 2 out of 3 Governors and State Legislatures over the last 3 election cycles - ALL by direct vote.
Bev, Before you accept the idea that Clinton won the popular vote, keep this in mind.
1. She only got 47% of the vote. 53% voted against her in one form or another.
2. Only 58% of voters turned out. So another 32% voted no confidence.
3. Exclude California and she lost the popular vote by 2 million people.
Ah, see, that is exactly what happened in NYC with DeBlasio. He claimed a "mandate" because he won 72% of the vote...but only 25% of the registered voters bothered to vote. That brought it down to about 18%.
But all that being said, the giant elephant in the room (pun intended) is that down-ballot direct votes demolished the Dems incrimentally in 3 elections and they were too stupid to see the big picture.
Interestingly too, there is a call to go back to the senators being appointed by the states instead of by direct vote. Okay, but again, how does that help? In this case instead of the Republicans having just a 1-vote majority like it is, it would give the opportunity for super-majority. Why are liberals so short-sighted?? [that's a rhetorical question, btw]..
Definitely a rhetorical question! LOL!
On the elections, you are right, Bev. The Democrats have been deluding themselves. They have been getting destroyed since 2010 and they have misread it each time:
2010: Racism + reaction to over-performing in 2008 + Obamacare jitters + gerrymandering + Dems-not-far-left-enough on Obamacare
2012: Obama won, all that matters. Oh, and racism + lies about Obamacare + anti-womanism + gerrymandering
2014: Racism + lies about Obamacare
2016: RACISM!!! + white voters are stupid + Dems-not-far-left-enough
Nice analysis. Keep up the good work, Dems!
BTW, I would say this...
2010: Dems lose on Obama overreach + Obamacare
2012: Dems win nationally on demographics and class war.... Dems lose on Obamacare backlash, state demographics, GOP competence at state level
2014: Dems lose on Obamacare backlash
2016: Dems lose on shift in electorate based on economic class and condescension
You know, in the 1980s, the pundits used to say that the GOP uses race to win elections and the Democrats use class, but I always thought that was backwards. I think this election really shows it. The Democrats used race to try to motive their demographic plan, but it was class which turned this election. The middle class verses the others.
Two of the stand-ups I saw last night while patiently waiting for my friend's slot before the headliner were in full-on full retard. They really think Trump will be herding Asians and gays into interment camps. Sigh ...
I really need to work on a 3-5 minute open mic night routine, mock the hell out of these "Ig'nant with a capital E" malcontents, tell true tales of IRS harassment + workplace intimidation over the past 8 years, maybe bring some safety-pins and Play-Doh for the audience's extra special snowflakes.
...the pundits used to say that the GOP uses race to win elections and the Democrats use class, but I always thought that was backwards.
Absolutely. It's been plain as day to me since my political awakening that the side who spends all the time crying "racist, racist, racist!" is the side injecting race into the conversation. There's no two ways about it. One can torture a single Lee Atwater quote beyond comprehension all he wants, but by declaring the very topics under discussion to be racist code-words, it makes it impossible to talk about anything other than race.
Wow, Chris Matthews gets it...
LINK
Good for him. He even dismissed the idea that Trump's wall stuff is racist.
tryanmax, I agree. My whole life, the Democrats have been screaming racism as a way to energize minority voters and then their analysts accuse the GOP "of using race to scare people" when the GOP never even mentions race.
From what I've seen, the Demos push race, the GOP pushes class and this election was decided along class lines.
Andrew,
I know you keep saying "wait and see" but this Washington Post story indicates that the Trump administration will reflect Steve Bannon more than Reince Priebus.
LINK
-----------------------
Cohen, meanwhile, drew widespread attention for his tweet.
“After exchange w Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay away. They’re angry, arrogant, screaming “you LOST!” Will be ugly,’’ tweeted Cohen, who served from 2007 to 2009 as counselor to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. He was a driving force behind an open letter last spring — eventually signed by 122 Republican national security leaders — who opposed Trump’s candidacy.
Cohen, who last week had urged career officials to serve in Trump’s administration, said in an interview that a longtime friend and senior transition team official had asked him to submit names of possible national security appointees. After he suggested several people, Cohen said, his friend emailed him back in terms he described as “very weird, very disturbing.”
“It was accusations that ‘you guys are trying to insinuate yourselves into the administration…all of YOU LOST.’…it became clear to me that they view jobs as lollipops, things you give out to good boys and girls,” said Cohen, who would not identify his friend.
Cohen also said the transition official was “completely dismissive” of concerns raised about Trump’s appointment of Bannon, who Trump’s advisors have strongly defended.
His friend’s email conveyed the feeling that ‘we’re so glad to see the bicoastal elites get theirs,’” added Cohen, who described the response as “unhinged.’’
-----------------------
How do you think Cohen got his job with Condy Rice?? Do you really think that he walked in off the street. Don't you think he knew her before? They were both academics. Btw, what they did wasn't exactly working as I recall.
Kit, Wasn't Cohen a nevertrumper. I don't really take what he says about unsourced friends reading tone into alleged comments very seriously.
And as an aside, I don't take the highly sensationalized articles about infighting and whatnot seriously either. Just as I dismiss the article by Klein about Bill and Hillary laying into each other a few days before the election. These things are meant to get attention. They are rarely true and are never accurate.
It does look like they're going to be getting out of violent/regression tantrum mode any time soon. Unfortunate for them, but possibly an opportunity for the right if they don't let their own bad habits get the better of them. I'm considering Trump's LGBT stance a good start but we'll see what else happens. That video should be a wake up call to the left but it doesn't look like they're going to listen any time soon.
- Daniel
All the political pubs read like supermarket tabloids, all of a sudden.
"Trump Transition Team in Chaos!"
"Prez-Elect Purges Ranks Like Stalin"
"Bannon: Get Out, Losers!"
"Panic in D.C."
Keep in mind, Trump has shut the press out. They're scrounging for leaks, rumors, anything they can find. This could spell a return for scoop journalism, but in the meantime,m they're in full-on gossip rag mode.
Tyranmax,
Relaxed now. Calmed down.
I wonder what the first White House Correspondents Dinner will be like?
Kit, I imagine Trump will use his first correspondents' dinner as a platform to legitimize publications that are currently considered outside the mainstream. This is already what is happening in regards to Bannon. Now that the initial panic has exhausted people, and they settle down to see Bannon still in place, they've begun the work of coming to grips with his presence. I just spent the last several minutes listening to an NPR interview, trying to learn who Bannon is from someone who would legitimately know, a former Breitbart employee of the non-disgruntled variety. This is how you do it. You confront claims of bigotry not by going away, but instead demonstrating that you are not, in fact, a bigot.
Back to the correspondents' dinner, I also expect some jokes of marginal taste. But that's normal, they just usually tweak the sensibilities of the right rather than the left.
I'll respond later today.
Anti-Trumper Matt K. Lewis agrees with Andrew:
LINK
It's interesting that he mentions Van Jones as well.
Post a Comment