The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[Goatnapper'96]

I think Trump is capable of being far worse than Nixon. Absolutely. But I hope it doesn't turn out that way.

It will be interesting how he governs. He is not beholden to any ideology. He owes no political favors to any one group or constituency. I don't know how corrupt he is as a businessman, but certainly what I know of his personal life and personality convinces me he is as venal and selfish as any person who ever sat in Oval Office. I think he tends to reward loyalty and synchophants and eschews opposition. The way he ran his reality show "Celebrity Apprentice" does not inspire confidence in me to lead a country in a coherent and harmonious way. In government there is more to success than "success" and that is likely a difficult transition for a businessman who showed no inclination for it in his campaign - yea verily much of his victory is attributed to him purposely not campaigning to be harmonious. All in all it could be corrupt beyond measure. But since he is also a successful businessman he likely sees a deal as an endstate of success and since he is not beholden to any ideology and really is more interested in his place in the world rather than changing it it might lead to some pragmatic leadership which we have not seen in Oval Office since President Clinton.

[Non Sequitur]

Maybe the saving grace about Trump is that he's not really dogmatic about anything. He really doesn't believe in anything except monetizing everything; in his personal case, his brand. And apparently he's of above average intelligence.

That's precisely what makes him so scary. I don't dislike Trump because he's a right-wing idealogue, I dislike him because he's not an idealogue, because he's not bound by any sort of ethos. He's a political sociopath.

[BlueK]

I will applaud the demo leaders. At least verbally much better accepting working with Trump than the repubs were with President Obama

Hopefully this is true. I think they're actually more inclined to do this because the liberal idea is that government should do a lot, whereas the current modern conservative view has been that government shouldn't really do anything anyway, so gridlock almost for the sake of it, and especially if you can't get 100% your way is a good thing. I admit, I actually feel that way a lot of the time.

[SeattleUte]

That's precisely what makes him so scary. I don't dislike Trump because he's a right-wing idealogue, I dislike him because he's not an idealogue, because he's not bound by any sort of ethos. He's a political sociopath.

Haha. I prefer that to a dogmatic person. Bill Clinton>George W. Bush.

[Moliere]

I thought this was an interesting article that actually made me empathize with the populists who voted Trump.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reason...e-talks-about/

That was good (not very good) and hit on some very key points.

My inlaws live in a rural community that recently had the major employer shut down its factory and move out. It's hurt the community but thankfully they do have farming to help keep the town alive, somewhat. Whether justified fully or not, I don't blame any of them for voting for Trump based on his campaign promises. People vote with their wallets. These people aren't racist or bigoted or homophobic...well, maybe they are to a degree but that wasn't their reason for voting. They are just perplexed why the national conversation is about which bathroom to use when they want it to be about something they think is substantive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Goatnapper'96]

That was good (not very good) and hit on some very key points.

My inlaws live in a rural community that recently had the major employer shut down its factory and move out. It's hurt the community but thankfully they do have farming to help keep the town alive, somewhat. Whether justified fully or not, I don't blame any of them for voting for Trump based on his campaign promises. People vote with their wallets. These people aren't racist or bigoted or homophobic...well, maybe they are to a degree but that wasn't their reason for voting. They are just perplexed why the national conversation is about which bathroom to use when they want it to be about something they think is substantive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The coalition of those fed up with the absurd. The Liberals went to far with having so much power for 8 years and the pendulum is swinging back. I don't expect to see Senator Warren campaigning with Michael Brown's mother in 2020.

[frank ryan]

The coalition of those fed up with the absurd. The Liberals went to far with having so much power for 8 years and the pendulum is swinging back. I don't expect to see Senator Warren campaigning with Michael Brown's mother in 2020.

they didn't have that much power. The obstructionist GOP saw to that.

[frank ryan]

My take is different from most here. I'm biased and influenced by my philosophical world view, but so is everyone of you mofos. Liberal arrogance did play a role. Liberals invalidating people's core values as evil or backward was unhelpful, and ultimately divisive and horribly arrogant. But there was at least just as wide a gap as a result of conservatives' behaviors and attitudes. Talk radio is a huge industry dependent on strong, sometimes even hateful feelings about liberals. There is nothing in the mainstream media that matches the partisan rhetoric you hear on the shows. To those who listen to it over and over again they learned that liberals are without morals and anti-American. To the talk radio people and their massive audience, Obama was not dumb or incompetent or merely corrupt, according to Dinesh Desouza (however you spell his name) Obama was actively trying to destroy America. In congress GOP leadership prided itself on avoiding compromise with Obama. Most of you will disagree with me here (although most of the liberals I know would agree), but I thought Obama was too conciliatory and diplomatic with congress and not cutthroat enough. The GOP opinion leaders were invested in Obama's failures. This antagonism, like a drug, fueled the Tea Party movement.
Liberals also welcomed GOP failures of misdeeds. It was validating and let us feel superior or more enlightened. While some of the left have unbridled hatred, arrogance is more common.
I also wouldn't underplay racism having a secondary role in this election. Racists exist and they often don't walk around advertising it. Trump appealed to worst elements of the GOP, and that was ultimately smart. They were an unserved and recognized part of the electorate. Romney and McCain are honorable men and disgusted by bigotry. He galvanized these types through dog whistle racism and stoking fears about brown people. He did all but use overt slurs. He banked on the GOP "coming home." Against anyone not named Clinton, I don't think this would have worked.

[Moliere]

My take is different from most here. I'm biased and influenced by my philosophical world view, but so is everyone of you mofos. Liberal arrogance did play a role. Liberals invalidating people's core values as evil or backward was unhelpful, and ultimately divisive and horribly arrogant. But there was at least just as wide a gap as a result of conservatives' behaviors and attitudes. Talk radio is a huge industry dependent on strong, sometimes even hateful feelings about liberals. There is nothing in the mainstream media that matches the partisan rhetoric you hear on the shows. To those who listen to it over and over again they learned that liberals are without morals and anti-American. To the talk radio people and their massive audience, Obama was not dumb or incompetent or merely corrupt, according to Dinesh Desouza (however you spell his name) Obama was actively trying to destroy America. In congress GOP leadership prided itself on avoiding compromise with Obama. Most of you will disagree with me here (although most of the liberals I know would agree), but I thought Obama was too conciliatory and diplomatic with congress and not cutthroat enough. The GOP opinion leaders were invested in Obama's failures. This antagonism, like a drug, fueled the Tea Party movement.
Liberals also welcomed GOP failures of misdeeds. It was validating and let us feel superior or more enlightened. While some of the left have unbridled hatred, arrogance is more common.
I also wouldn't underplay racism having a secondary role in this election. Racists exist and they often don't walk around advertising it. Trump appealed to worst elements of the GOP, and that was ultimately smart. They were an unserved and recognized part of the electorate. Romney and McCain are honorable men and disgusted by bigotry. He galvanized these types through dog whistle racism and stoking fears about brown people. He did all but use overt slurs. He banked on the GOP "coming home." Against anyone not named Clinton, I don't think this would have worked.

There's a lot of truth in this. I still think Trump supporters voted more with their wallets than anything else. There's many other undertones, but the almighty dollar trumps all. Here's, what i've found to be, the most interesting map of the election. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of racism in the rust belt, but there's more lost jobs and job flight in those areas than probably anywhere else in the country. Trump tapped into that, and won.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ight.html?_r=0

[beefytee]

...Most of you will disagree with me here (although most of the liberals I know would agree), but I thought Obama was too conciliatory and diplomatic with congress and not cutthroat enough...

Yeah, Obama was a weak leader and didn't take charge of situations like he needed to. I don't think he had the experience going into the presidency. Trump has the potential to be much worse. I really hope he is not.

[Eddie]

My take is different from most here. I'm biased and influenced by my philosophical world view, but so is everyone of you mofos. Liberal arrogance did play a role. Liberals invalidating people's core values as evil or backward was unhelpful, and ultimately divisive and horribly arrogant. But there was at least just as wide a gap as a result of conservatives' behaviors and attitudes. Talk radio is a huge industry dependent on strong, sometimes even hateful feelings about liberals. There is nothing in the mainstream media that matches the partisan rhetoric you hear on the shows. To those who listen to it over and over again they learned that liberals are without morals and anti-American. To the talk radio people and their massive audience, Obama was not dumb or incompetent or merely corrupt, according to Dinesh Desouza (however you spell his name) Obama was actively trying to destroy America. In congress GOP leadership prided itself on avoiding compromise with Obama. Most of you will disagree with me here (although most of the liberals I know would agree), but I thought Obama was too conciliatory and diplomatic with congress and not cutthroat enough. The GOP opinion leaders were invested in Obama's failures. This antagonism, like a drug, fueled the Tea Party movement.
Liberals also welcomed GOP failures of misdeeds. It was validating and let us feel superior or more enlightened. While some of the left have unbridled hatred, arrogance is more common.
I also wouldn't underplay racism having a secondary role in this election. Racists exist and they often don't walk around advertising it. Trump appealed to worst elements of the GOP, and that was ultimately smart. They were an unserved and recognized part of the electorate. Romney and McCain are honorable men and disgusted by bigotry. He galvanized these types through dog whistle racism and stoking fears about brown people. He did all but use overt slurs. He banked on the GOP "coming home." Against anyone not named Clinton, I don't think this would have worked.

There are certainly elements of this that I agree with.

I'm sure that Trump's rhetoric played well with the racists. But I think "real" racists - the overt type not the naive type - are not as large a population as what you would need to win an election. As Bill Clinton would say, it's about the economy, stupid! And a lot of folks are struggling right now. Didn't help that the ACA increases were coming out as the election was winding down, and Obama was out telling everyone that a vote for Hillary was a continuation of the status quo.

I was also surprised to read that you believe Obama was too conciliatory with the republicans in congress.

Now - don't get me wrong. I'm not intending to imply in any way that republicans in congress were conciliatory or willing to compromise. I just didn't find Obama to be that way either. They obviously didn't express support for him. But he was the one saying "I won, you lost, deal with it". I don't find those words conciliatory. And I don't think that did anything to lower the defenses of republicans in congress.

Of the top of my head, I just don't recall there times when Obama would say "hey, we need to come together and do something about ___. Let's meet and see what we can come up with together." More often than not, he was simply telling everyone what needed to be done.

Now, I don't know if the republicans would've been willing to meet had he invited them. So I'm not saying this is all on Obama. Obviously it takes both sides. And I don't believe either side did their part.

[Omaha 680]

I don't get it, BT and Frank. Certainly there are Republicans in Congress who had no desire to work with Obama on anything, but there were enough that wanted to work with him. Until Obamacare. The way he approached that was certainly his right given the election results of 2008 but it led directly to the election results of 2010 and Scott Brown winning Ted's senate seat. When he pushed it through anyway without throwing any kind of bone to even the likes of Olympia Snowe, that solidified what his relationship with the Republicans in Congress would be for the rest of his presidency.

I'm not saying Republicans weren't ridiculous at times but it's just strange to hear you guys say Obama wasn't aggressive enough. Truly different perspectives I guess.

[beefytee]

I don't get it, BT and Frank. Certainly there are Republicans in Congress who had no desire to work with Obama on anything, but there were enough that wanted to work with him. Until Obamacare. The way he approached that was certainly his right given the election results of 2008 but it led directly to the election results of 2010 and Scott Brown winning Ted's senate seat. When he pushed it through anyway without throwing any kind of bone to even the likes of Olympia Snowe, that solidified what his relationship with the Republicans in Congress would be for the rest of his presidency.

I'm not saying Republicans weren't ridiculous at times but it's just strange to hear you guys say Obama wasn't aggressive enough. Truly different perspectives I guess.

I'm referring to stuff like the debt ceiling where it shouldn't have even been a debate and he let congress push him around and the whole process got bogged down.

I don't necessarily equate leadership with more aggression, although sometimes it called for it, he just needed to work the situations better.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

There's a lot of truth in this. I still think Trump supporters voted more with their wallets than anything else. There's many other undertones, but the almighty dollar trumps all. Here's, what i've found to be, the most interesting map of the election. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of racism in the rust belt, but there's more lost jobs and job flight in those areas than probably anywhere else in the country. Trump tapped into that, and won.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ight.html?_r=0

Reagan worked with the Democratic congress.

Ditto for Bush 41.

Clinton worked quite effectively with the GOP congress until they impeached (seems kind of funny to write that last part).

Bush 43 pushed through TARP in his waning days as President.

But poor ol Obama just couldn't crack that code because of those infamous partisans Paul Ryan, John Boehner and Mitch McConell. If only McConnell could be more conciliatory like Harry Reid was with Bush.

Whoops, meant as a reply to Frank.

[frank ryan]

Reagan worked with the Democratic congress.

Ditto for Bush 41.

Clinton worked quite effectively with the GOP congress until they impeached (seems kind of funny to write that last part).

Bush 43 pushed through TARP in his waning days as President.

But poor ol Obama just couldn't crack that code because of those infamous partisans Paul Ryan, John Boehner and Mitch McConell. If only McConnell could be more conciliatory like Harry Reid was with Bush.

Whoops, meant as a reply to Frank.

Yeah, I got that. Wasn't it Boehner who said it was his mission to make Obama fail? This bunch was more partisan than other congresses in recent memory. Jason Chaffetz decade long investigation over Benghazi is evidence of that. You really don't see those guys as being more obstructionist than usual? They had immense pressure to be that way. The Tea Party had them by the short hairs.

EDIT: I'd also add that refusing to even speak with Obama's supreme court nominee was disgusting and evidence of congress' recalcitrance. You can say he was disingenuous for nominating a moderate but he still nominated a moderate. Not to mention the threat to keep that seat vacant indefinitively if Hillary won.