2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

[Flagg]

I'm a good procrastinator.

Anyway, I've seen articles today about how Trump is shitting the bed already with WH staff positions, and has no clear understanding of what the job he applied for was, exactly. Oh, and they are looking for ways to enact retribution on his critics.

[The Romulan Republic]

I've been reevaluating my position on Trump, of late.

After the election, in the first few days, we saw what appeared to be moves toward conciliation, or at least bog-standard corporatist Republicanism, rather than full-blown white supremacist despotism as some had feared.

But now, already, the Trump camp appears to be shifting back to threats and despotic policies.

The more popular view is likely that Trump is an impulsive, know-nothing buffoon, and that his campaign and staff are a disorganized mess.

But the other, more frightening possibility is that they are deliberately sending mixed messages, with the effect of creating uncertainty and complacency about his intentions, letting everyone see what they want to see- and preventing opposition from mobilizing against his real intentions until its too late.

I suspect its the latter. Because I don't think Trump is stupid. He may be ignorant of subjects which don't affect him, his wealth, and his power personally, but he is not a fool. He is good at one thing: he is a master con man. He won in large part because he managed to rile up the specific segments of the electorate he needed, while keeping those in power from taking him seriously. And now he's doing it again.

His rhetoric and personality is that of an authoritarian. I think we have to assume that he has authoritarian intentions, and not be distracted or lulled by mixed messages.

Edit: To be clear, its not my opinion that Trump is an authoritarian piece of shit that's changed, obviously. Rather, that what I might have put down to incompetence or disorganization in the past, I am more inclined to regard now as a deliberate tactic of misdirection.

Trump isn't stupid, but he also isn't smart. He doesn't play 7D Chess. And he's been sending inconsistent messages about his political stances since before they mattered. He might rule as an authoritarian, but he is simply not implementing some grand plan to reshape the world to his whims. He's doing what he always did and he got into the office through luck and skill (being the only one who treated the election as what it's always been: a reality TV show.)

I don't think anyone can question, at this point, that he has a a great deal of political and media savvy. Unfortunately, since its all directed toward his self-interest at the expense of everyone else.

Actually governing- probably not so much, no.

He is scary and can do damage, but there's no need to treat him as if he's some puppet master. He never has been, and never will be. Even he never expected to win at every step of the contest according to new reporting. Treating him like an authoritarian means going to the lengths you'd go to depose one. And when people start trying to assassinate him or rioting, you'll give him all the excuse to actually seize power you want.

I am not trying to advocate or encourage political violence, and while I don't think a reasonable person would read my previous post that way, I'd like to clarify that now anyway.

I think Trump has aspirations to be an authoritarian, but I do not think he has yet come close to the point where threats or acts of violence would be justified, especially when their are still other potentially effective means to oppose him.

Treat him like a shitty president who will set us back 30 years. Once again raising the alarm bells and acting like the sky is falling (Even though your concern was borne out, it was not because you're a great prognosticator.) is going to do no good and may well result in the exact kind of Nightmare scenario yu're warning about. Well, not that you're going to personally be doing anything to begin with. But somebody who does actually participate might take your same sentiment and take a shot at him, which would be a disaster.

You're trying to turn the discussion into an attack on me personally again. I'm not going to humour it. I am not the topic here.

What about my post was in any way alarmist or unreasonable (aside from the fact that it was me saying it)? You yourself acknowledge that Trump has media savvy, and that he may have authoritarian aspirations.

It honestly sounds like you largely agree with me, aside from the fact that its me saying it.

[FireNexus]

You were indicating that you believe Trump is going to become a dictator. When a dictator seizes the levers of power while supported at all levels, there is nothing else to advocate.

As far as what was unreasonable about your post, the implication that Trump is planning to sow confusion and prevent opposition thusly. Trump isn't planning shit. He is doing what he's always done, which is flying by the seat of his pants and failing to maintain a coherent message for his ideological vision.

You are making Trump out to be Emporer Palpatine. You're implying that we should attempt to find intention in the actions of a man who is consistently winging it. Instead of looking at the past and the reporting and concluding that Trump has not changed, you're looking at his inconsistency and concluding that it is served by a goal. There is no goal. Trump is just being stupid in the way he has always been.

[FireNexus]

I'm a good procrastinator.

Anyway, I've seen articles today about how Trump is shitting the bed already with WH staff positions, and has no clear understanding of what the job he applied for was, exactly. Oh, and they are looking for ways to enact retribution on his critics.

I'd bet only his Republican (that criticized him after he'd won the primaries or weren't up against him) or media critics. I think Trump doesn't take it personally when a competitor goes all out against him. That's why i think he largely backpedalled on clinton and Obama: From His perspective everything they said about him was totally justified. And since Dems are also his opposition, they will get a pass as well.

He might punish Dems where he thinks it'll give him an advantage, but I bet you anything the bulk of his retaliation is directed firmly at NeverTrumpers and people in the center or right wing media. The Voxes and HuffPos of the world get a pass, the Wapos and Foxes get the hammer.

[The Romulan Republic]

You were indicating that you believe Trump is going to become a dictator. When a dictator seizes the levers of power while supported at all levels, there is nothing else to advocate.

I did not say that he was going to become a dictator. I said that he had authoritarian intentions. I made no prediction as to weather he would succeed.

I'm concerned, certainly. Their are times I feel despairing about it. But as you said, I am not a prognosticator. I cannot claim certainty about the future.

I also don't feel that a leader being a dictator, in and of itself, necessarily justifies armed revolt.

In any case, please do not project views that are not my own on to me. Especially not this one. I am not arguing for armed revolt against Trump. And if I ever do feel that violence is necessary, in any situation, I hope that I will be much less ambiguous in saying so.

As far as what was unreasonable about your post, the implication that Trump is planning to sow confusion and prevent opposition thusly. Trump isn't planning shit. He is doing what he's always done, which is flying by the seat of his pants and failing to maintain a coherent message for his ideological vision.

Both interpretations are possible, I'll allow. Your's, as I've said, is probably the more widely accepted. If you are correct, then mine is admittedly needlessly, and perhaps counterproductively, pessimistic.

Of course, if mine is correct, then your's is playing into Trump's hands.

Time will tell who is correct.

You are making Trump out to be Emporer Palpatine. You're implying that we should attempt to find intention in the actions of a man who is consistently winging it. Instead of looking at the past and the reporting and concluding that Trump has not changed, you're looking at his inconsistency and concluding that it is served by a goal. There is no goal. Trump is just being stupid in the way he has always been.

Trump isn't Palpatine. Palpatine had class.

[Iroscato]

So, who wants to take bets on when the first utterance of the words "State of Emergency" will be uttered by The Orange Avenger?

[The Romulan Republic]

If Trump is intending to be a despot, I almost hope he tries to move ahead immediately and overreaches. Democratic and legal institutions take time to wear down and undermine, and people like Putin and Erdogan have gradually shifted their countries further and further toward despotism, rather than trying to just go full dictator in one go.

If Trump starts arresting dissidents en mass or something or declaring martial law right after inauguration, then his goose is probably cooked. Their will still be too many people who will say "NO", loudly and emphatically, to such a rapid shift towards tyranny, and too many means in place to oppose it.

Mind you, I don't think he's dumb enough to quite do that, even if he wants to.

[Flagg]

So, who wants to take bets on when the first utterance of the words "State of Emergency" will be uttered by The Orange Avenger?

Don't insult The Avengers. Except Iron Man.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump seems less Avengers, more Hydra. If Hydra stopped caring about being covert and decided "Fuck it, let's just run for President".

[FireNexus]

If Trump is intending to be a despot, I almost hope he tries to move ahead immediately and overreaches. Democratic and legal institutions take time to wear down and undermine, and people like Putin and Erdogan have gradually shifted their countries further and further toward despotism, rather than trying to just go full dictator in one go.

If Trump starts arresting dissidents en mass or something or declaring martial law right after inauguration, then his goose is probably cooked. Their will still be too many people who will say "NO", loudly and emphatically, to such a rapid shift towards tyranny, and too many means in place to oppose it.

Mind you, I don't think he's dumb enough to quite do that, even if he wants to.

Putin and Erdogan have been building their power bases since they were in early middle age. They had the ability to end run around term limits (Erdogan by being prime minister and then President, and then increasing executive power; Puin by oinballing between them and having pawns in the other office). Trump is old, has an inconsistent mandate and no real grasp on the levers of power. Additionally, he has to stand for election in four years and has no real way of getting around his term limitation in 8 even if he wins.

Trump would not be able to do what Putin/Erdogan did. He's too old, he starts from too weak a position, and he has too little time. Worst he can do is get the Supreme Court to be conservative for a generation and fuck the country up. I doubt he'LL even succeed at that, since he only promised conservative judges to get elected and he's currently probably trying to piss Paulo tyan way off. I kinda think he might decide to reappoint Garland, esp since he was so effusive in his praise of Obama.

Either way, I anticipate he'LL be so bad that the Democrat in 2020 will have the mandate to stack the court if he gets too many appointments. I really think, esp if Dean gets the DNC chair again, that the Democratic rebound in2018 and 2020 is going to be a sight to behold. I am hoping like hell that it turns out Trump getting elected was actually better for the country, since Clinton would have been facing a strong headwind and there was no good 2018 for a Democratic incumbent.

[Flagg]

I find the talk of secession because you didn't get the election results you wanted stupid, dangerous, and hilariously hypocritical.

[The Romulan Republic]

If Trump is intending to be a despot, I almost hope he tries to move ahead immediately and overreaches. Democratic and legal institutions take time to wear down and undermine, and people like Putin and Erdogan have gradually shifted their countries further and further toward despotism, rather than trying to just go full dictator in one go.

If Trump starts arresting dissidents en mass or something or declaring martial law right after inauguration, then his goose is probably cooked. Their will still be too many people who will say "NO", loudly and emphatically, to such a rapid shift towards tyranny, and too many means in place to oppose it.

Mind you, I don't think he's dumb enough to quite do that, even if he wants to.

Putin and Erdogan have been building their power bases since they were in early middle age. They had the ability to end run around term limits (Erdogan by being prime minister and then President, and then increasing executive power; Puin by oinballing between them and having pawns in the other office). Trump is old, has an inconsistent mandate and no real grasp on the levers of power. Additionally, he has to stand for election in four years and has no real way of getting around his term limitation in 8 even if he wins.

Trump would not be able to do what Putin/Erdogan did. He's too old, he starts from too weak a position, and he has too little time. Worst he can do is get the Supreme Court to be conservative for a generation and fuck the country up. I doubt he'LL even succeed at that, since he only promised conservative judges to get elected and he's currently probably trying to piss Paulo tyan way off. I kinda think he might decide to reappoint Garland, esp since he was so effusive in his praise of Obama.

Either way, I anticipate he'LL be so bad that the Democrat in 2020 will have the mandate to stack the court if he gets too many appointments. I really think, esp if Dean gets the DNC chair again, that the Democratic rebound in2018 and 2020 is going to be a sight to behold. I am hoping like hell that it turns out Trump getting elected was actually better for the country, since Clinton would have been facing a strong headwind and there was no good 2018 for a Democratic incumbent.

I hope you're right, though I'm not quite so optimistic yet. Though correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't stacking the Supreme Court not permitted by law?

However, I personally expect Ellison to get DNC chair, since he has the backing of not only the big progressive names (Sanders and Warren), but also Schumer (who's set to be the new Democratic leader in the Senate, and thus holding the most powerful elected position left of any Democrat). And because their's a strong feeling of "we need new leadership".

Personally, though, I'd be content with him, Dean, or even O'Malley.

I find the talk of secession because you didn't get the election results you wanted stupid, dangerous, and hilariously hypocritical.

On this, at least, I completely agree with you.

[Flagg]

Stacking the court isn't prohibited. The legislature simply doesn't allow it. In any case he was talking about "stacking" the court by filling the vacancies left by retired or dead justices.

[The Romulan Republic]

In that case, fair enough.

[FireNexus]

Stacking the court isn't prohibited. The legislature simply doesn't allow it. In any case he was talking about "stacking" the court by filling the vacancies left by retired or dead justices.

Nah, I was saying that if Trump really shits the bed to the point where Dems are looking at strong majorities in both chambers in 2020, they might try to stack the court by adding more members. It would be very unusual, but I expect everything Trump touches to turn hard to shit to such a degree that nobody wants his court appointments being the people who interpret the law for 20 years.

Trump got the whit working class to vote for him through a combination of member berries and racism. If he not only can't deliver a return to their previous economic position, but actually makes them worse off, there's no telling what kind of changes might be supported. Trump in abstract wasn't bad enough to drive people away. But that abstract horror Dems tried to convince others of was because there are going to be very real, very nasty consequences of a Trump presidency. And when those chickens come home to roost, all bets are off.

If he starts a trade war with China, he won't get through his first term. And the economic pain that comes from it combined with the complicity of the GOP in doing it is going to drive everyone away from them. Trump, I think, is still a GOP death sentence. Hillary Clinton just happened to be a herpes virus that reduced the size of the tumor temporarily.

[FireNexus]

I do think Ellison is likely to get it, unless these alt-right rumblings of his NoI ties are true and get traction in the mainstream press. But Dean has proven his ability to do what we need in the time period in question, and everything went to shit for the DNC downballot after he left (was likely booted at the insistence of Hillary Clinton for not taking sides in 2008 and, in her mind, costing her the nomination). Proven track record of winning so hard he got a black guy with the middle name Hussein elected with majorities in both houses of congress vs "Sanders likes him" is no contest from my perspective.

And I honesty don't expect Sanders to even live to see 2020, so I wouldn't be betting the farm on him being the new voice of the Democratic Party.

[The Romulan Republic]

NoI=Nation of Islam?

Well, frankly, I'd expect the Alt. Right to use that charge, and worse, against any Muslim running for office. Its the new McCarthyism. "Are you now or have you ever been..."

And that, to me, is an excellent reason to pick Ellison, to send a message that we won't accept that sort of bigoted tactic in America.

Sure, the Democrats might run away from him over that charge, but they'd be fools to do it. The Alt. Right will manufacture scandals against any Democrat, regardless of evidence. If we give into that, we're letting them dictate the narrative, and dictate who our leadership is.

Also, Jesus Christ, 75 isn't that old, and Sanders is exceptionally fit and active for his age. Their is no reason whatsoever to believe that he'll die before 2020.

[Gandalf]

Also, Jesus Christ, 75 isn't that old, and Sanders is exceptionally fit and active for his age. Their is no reason whatsoever to believe that he'll die before 2020.

Even being fit and active doesn't mean he's beating the odds completely. At his age it's easier for stuff to go from bad to catastrophic pretty easily.

[The Romulan Republic]

True enough, but their's no reason to believe his demise is innocent either. Especially since politicians enjoy better quality health care than the average American.

[Patroklos]

Either way, I anticipate he'LL be so bad that the Democrat in 2020 will have the mandate to stack the court if he gets too many appointments. I really think, esp if Dean gets the DNC chair again, that the Democratic rebound in2018 and 2020 is going to be a sight to behold. I am hoping like hell that it turns out Trump getting elected was actually better for the country, since Clinton would have been facing a strong headwind and there was no good 2018 for a Democratic incumbent.

Don't hold your breath. This is the senate election map for 2020:



There is little chance for a pickup for the Dems except for maybe Colorado. Add Maine if Collins decides to retire but I doubt it.

I know its cathartic, but all these fantasies based on nothing is sort of how you got into your current mess as a Democrat. The chances are you are going to lose Senate and Houses seats in 2018, and hold what you have left in 2020. Thinking anything other than that at this point is just setting yourself up for disappointment or worse laying the groundwork for another failure mode.

[Gandalf]

At least that gives time for the Democratic Party to work out what the hell sort of party they are. If Bush didn't scare them into coherence, maybe Trump can.

[The Romulan Republic]

To me is seems like a bad idea to simply accept that we have nowhere to go but down for the next six years. Its one thing to recognize long odds. Its another to preemptively accept defeat (as much as I'm sure Patroklos would like us to, given his political sympathies).

[Gandalf]

To me is seems like a bad idea to simply accept that we have nowhere to go but down for the next six years. Its one thing to recognize long odds. Its another to preemptively accept defeat (as much as I'm sure Patroklos would like us to, given his political sympathies).

But it does represent an opportunity. Democrats have to be on the defensive for the next few years, which grants them time to regroup and work out who the hell they are as a party before going into 2020.

[The Romulan Republic]

Perhaps.

Though if we're not just conceding 2020 off the bat, then we really need to sort our shit out in 2-3 years, tops, because then the Presidential campaign will be starting up again in earnest.

[FireNexus]

NoI=Nation of Islam?

Well, frankly, I'd expect the Alt. Right to use that charge, and worse, against any Muslim running for office. Its the new McCarthyism. "Are you now or have you ever been..."

And that, to me, is an excellent reason to pick Ellison, to send a message that we won't accept that sort of bigoted tactic in America.

Sure, the Democrats might run away from him over that charge, but they'd be fools to do it. The Alt. Right will manufacture scandals against any Democrat, regardless of evidence. If we give into that, we're letting them dictate the narrative, and dictate who our leadership is.

Also, Jesus Christ, 75 isn't that old, and Sanders is exceptionally fit and active for his age. Their is no reason whatsoever to believe that he'll die before 2020.

Average life expectancy at his age is 11 years. I can't find the median, so can't be sure, but assuming the median is the same, he is as likely to be dead 11 years from now as alive. He's also at an increased risk of cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease and stroke. He probably smoked in his youth, most adults did, which means he is at heightened risk of all kinds of cancers. He also spent his life until age 40 impoverished, increasing his risk (members of congress are usually middle/upper middle class and not guys living in a shack wth dirt floors and inconsistent power). A white man his age has about a 12% risk of death in any given year, and that risk increases annually.

There is certainly not "no reason" to believe a 75 year old man might be dead in four years. There's at least enough reason to believe it that you don't include him needing to be alive as vital in your five year plan.

As far as Ellison, saying "the Democrats would be fools to run away" from someone due to his association with a group that is broadly related to one about half of Americans just agreed should be banned from entering the country, and which also has been historically associated with charges of "reverse racism" is pretty fucking stupid.

It was believed until last week that the white racist vote could no longer swing an election. That was proven false. While I don't think the Dems should be courting David Duke, I do think that leaning in to racial and ethnic diversity over the next decade to the degree that they have someone associated with the Nation of Islam (again, if this charge has merit) in charge of them would be unbelievably fucking stupid.

You seem to be operating from the assumption that we shouldn't be acting like white racism is a serious electoral issue we have to sidestep. Hillary Clinton had similar ideas, and it resulted in her losing the electoral colllege despite winning the popular vote.

If Democrats can't compete in a mix of states that win the electoral college, meaning among white racists, then they will cede the government to the alt right for at least a decade. Now is not the time for the moral high ground on that issue if we want to be able to do what's best over the long term. We should not be advocating racism, but we should not be pretending that racist voters must be persona on grata.

We just loudly sent the message that that sort of bigotry won't be accepted in America. That sort of bigotry swept all three houses of congress and a number of state legislatures.