spot on account

Upvote for so concisely refuting the white racist voters brought Trump in fallacy. Somehow they didn't come out to vote against a black guy...

They did come out to vote against a black guy, but the left and center came out to vote FOR a black guy....but they didn't go vote for an underhanded over connected white woman, IMO. Also, Trump was the first candidate to court the white racist voter rather than shun and insult them....so he got far more of their votes.

All it probably would have taken was a more interesting VP pick on Hillary's part. Did anyone really care about Tim Kaine being on the ticket?

I'm curious to see how the dem primary in 2019/20 goes. Hoping for someone like Franken, Warren, maybe Bernie again if he seems up to it. Hillary had best not even try again after this embarrassment.

Why does it have to be one or the other? It's pretty clear a huge group of racist/misogynistic people rallied around Trump for saying the things that they thought but couldn't say out loud in public. Him saying those things and not getting absolutely destroyed for it (thanks to mass media which just ate it up as fuel for ratings) brought them out of the woodwork, if not the woods exactly.

On the other hand, Hillary herself failed time and again to capitalize on his gaffs. Clearly her strategy of just letting him implode without actually trying to push him off a cliff herself backfired. Burr is right that the advice she got not to sink to his level, not to outright challenge the outrageous stuff he was saying (and now doing) was wrong. She picked the wrong team of people to advise her. She didn't campaign in key swing states. She (and to honest most Americans) vastly underestimated the desperation of the poorest blue collar workers around the U.S. She never had a clear campaign platform other than to show up, look smug, and essentially say "Hey, at least I'm not THAT guy!" There were people who took that to mean she represented the status quo. They might have hated what Trump was saying but they hated the status quo even more and voted accordingly.

So, in my mind, it's both things. She absolutely made mistakes AND a shitload of emboldened bigots came out to vote. It was the combination of these things that caused her downfall.

I don't know... does not seem such a bad loss in retrospect:

2016 Trump 62,985,105 Clinton 65,853,625
2012 Romney 60,933,504 Obama 65,915,795
2008 McCain 59,948,323 Obama 69,498,516

I'd forgotten McCain ran with Palin as VP, that would have been as ludicrous as Trump if they won and something unfortunate happened to him.

Is it that hard to agree with me?

Your just rewording exactly what I said. Your just rewording exactly what Bill Burr said. Trump didn't win by bringing out a whole bunch of brand new racist voters that stayed home when Obama was running. It was Hillary's failures, and her party's failures that were the difference in Trumps win.

I know that leads to a more uncomfortable reality were we don't have the black and white ability to blame everything on the evil racists who voted Trump in, but it is the reality. Clinton and her party LOST the votes of too many people, the numbers on the Republican side show pretty clearly it wasn't extra votes Trump gained by courting racists that turned the election.

That reality though demands a lot of self reflection from the Democratic party about how they failed and why, and they have to do it at the time when the country needs them as a counter balance the most. The trick is, if they don't get back the voters they lost they can't be a counter balance.

Here's part of the problem: people blaming Trumps win on racists voting for him, or choosing to believe that everyone who voted for Trump is a racist. That's just not the reality that is confronting you guys in the US. Most voters in this election, like all the past elections, voted their party ticket as they and their grandpa always have. That's the one of the biggest influences on how folks vote. Surveys also show that given the choice between a ideals and jobs, people choose jobs. The democratic party was promising carbon taxation at the same time as Trump was promising to bring back coal and oil jobs. Now all the counties that rely on coal or oil have a very different reason to vote for Trump outside of his racist remarks.

Oh, and check out Bill Clinton's remarks on Robert Byrd. Does that association to the KKK make it hard for racists to choose between Trump and Clinton?

People don't trust politicians in general and assume them all to be evil, corrupt and untrustworthy so dismissing some of Trumps worse parts came a bit easier for many.

No, I said the opposite of what you said. You said they didn't come out to vote against Obama, they did, but more came out to vote for Trump. Now you say there weren't enough of them to help Trump, who lost by 3000000 votes so couldn't afford to lose many, and you claim to have some numbers proving that, but don't offer any.

Here's the thing, it's not either or. Clinton lost tons of Democratic and independent voters, Trump gained tons of racist voters. Either one being different would change the outcome.

Trump won because of racists, not all Trump voters are racists, but they are all willing to stand with racists.

I'm pretty sure this election had more people voting across party lines than any previous.

Nope, the best survey, the election, showed 3000000 more supported her ideals over his promise of jerbs.

People at least expect politicians to be sane, rational, and not think they know more than everyone on the planet on every topic. There is no logical reason to think Trump won't bankrupt the country like he did so many businesses. He thinks that's good business.

Then your own personal bias is blinding you.

Do you truly believe that more racists voted for Trump than came out previously to vote against the first black president?

Your also not reading what I said, seemingly because you don't like the implications. Not once did I claim racists didn't vote for Trump. Not once did I say anything about Trump making any kind of an even half-decent president. For the record, I'd have voted Hillary if I had a vote. All of that is ENTIRELY outside the point.

The reality that democrats just can't seem to accept is that they LOST the support of the public. The racists didn't suddenly emerge this election cycle. The moderates, the silent majority, just said screw it and stayed home or said screw you and ticked of Trump. A major scare factor in that is folks just like yourself who refuse to even recognise that this huge segment of the population exists and that the democrats need to reach out to them as opposed to labelling them racists and entrenching them as future republican voters that dislike being called racists because they work on an oil rig...

Yes, I think more voted for Trump than voted against Obama because they finally had someone to vote FOR instead of AGAINST.

No, you said "refuting the white racist voters brought Trump in fallacy. Somehow they didn't come out to vote against a black guy..." and I'm saying that, without the white racists, he would have lost, so they DID 'bring Trump in' and did 'vote against the black guy', but in smaller numbers.....again. You didn't say they didn't vote for him, but you said their votes didn't make a difference, I disagree.

I guess YOUR personal bias is blinding YOU, because I also said EXACTLY that, repeatedly, starting in the first reply, that Clinton and Schultz drove independents and moral Democrats away....it was a combo punch. Racists emerged AND moderates stayed home, and had either been different, the outcome would have been different.
I never refused to recognize the hatefulness in America, I stated clearly and repeatedly when the DNC fiasco happened that Clinton had just lost to hate, because that's what Trump is, the leader of the party of hate and angst.

Some of us refuse to ignore blatant racism just because it might be more pleasant to do so. Clearly, you aren't in that camp. I have been clear that not all, or even a majority of Trump voters are blatant racists, but they all are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with blatant racists and support blatantly racist policy....nothing to do with where they work and all about what they say and do, plenty of left leaners work with their hands...I'm a trained welder for instance.

That's the funny thing about an anonymous vote, you don't need to be emboldened to be a bigot at the poll...

You need to be emboldened to come out on the street and wave awful signs around, but not to vote.

And bigots are the most motivated (along with authoritarian control types, many of which sit to the left of center). They are more likely to vote at every election even when the candidates don't necessarily fulfill their beliefs.

All things being equal, I'd hypothesize that Trump won because the centrists and disaffected Sanders voters ditched Hillary rather than embracing Trump. She didn't make mistakes, she wholesale spat in the face of many groups she just didn't give a fuck about, and it came back to bite her in the ass.

Perhaps emboldened is the wrong word. Excited is closer to correct, imo.
You don't need to be emboldened to be a bigot at the poll, but you have to be at the poll, and Trump made them excited enough that he might represent them that they went in larger than normal numbers.

I know many unapologetic bigots (some family) that clearly stated to me that Trump was the first candidate to get them excited to go vote.

I think it's clearly a combination of bigots being excited to vote and centrists having zero enthusiasm for Clinton....it was close enough for either to swing the electoral vote, but we had both, and Trump still lost the popular vote by millions. It would have taken FAR fewer than 100000 votes (as I understand the results) in the right places for it to have been a landslide for Clinton, but she ignored too many places smugly assuming she had them locked, and she didn't.

It's disgusting that the recounts were denied, based on Trump's administration's claims under oath that there wasn't fraud....a claim he's publicly reversed, now claiming there were 5000000 fraudulent votes. Many states were so close that a recount should have been required without request. We'll never know what the vote may have really been now, once again a Republican doesn't want the results verified. It's as if they want to be seen as illegitimate by 1/2 the country....but really more like they fear they may actually BE illegitimate and don't want to find out the truth.

@newtboy

My last appeal from a different angle.
You said:
I have been clear that not all, or even a majority of Trump voters are blatant racists, but they all are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with blatant racists and support blatantly racist policy....

You are writing off everyone that voted Trump for pretty much any reason as either racist, or willing supporters of racists. Stop me here if I'm misrepresenting what you are being clear on.

Assuming I'm safe so far, here's my fear: You are almost enthusiastically embracing the us versus them mentality that hate thrives on. What's worse, is this mindset, which it would appear a great many democrats and media outlets share, strengthens the us versus them dynamic.

Maybe that doesn't scare you. It would seem likely even that the democrats aren't scared of it either. It seems that being 'right' on the matter is believed to be enough.

Here's why guys like me are scared though. Your guys LOST the election. I'm afraid I'm watching the democrats chase off Trump voters that just wanted jobs to feed their families at EXACTLY the time when you need them. Chasing them off is how you lose the next election all over again. If the democrats can't get the message that the Donald was considered the lesser evil by a huge part of America and change themselves to reach the people, then what will wake them up?

Stop. Because I think that doesn't mean I write them off. No person is perfect, I don't write people off because I disagree with them, or even if I think they do things I find distasteful. The minority blatant racist faction, however, I can't forgive, even though it might be the best solution. Some behavior shouldn't be tolerated, imo, but that's just, like, my opinion, man. I don't expect others to agree, and don't shun them if they disagree. I get that I'm abnormal.

Clearly, a huge percentage, mid 40's, found him the lesser of two evils or better. I agree, if the center wants them back, they'll have to reconcile, but forgetting what they're willing to accept to deny a Clinton power is a horrible idea, imo.

I'm not a democrat, but technically, Clinton won the election, she lost the electoral college. The Senate and house, your totally right on, though, which is more frightening to me, because THEY are elected democratically, unlike the president. At least they weren't actively appealing to and courting racists, though.

More people voted for Obama BECAUSE he was black than against. That racist.

So how many racist whites are there? What % of the population is this white racist are there?

That may be true, and yes, that's racism of a sort, but it's positive racism, or racial pride rather than racism against another race.

First you must define racist with a clear, easily defined and observed line to delineate racist from not before any answer would be possible. If you mean swastika wearing, cross burning, white nationalist racist, probably around .05% would be my guess, but it's just a guess....if you mean I don't want my white daughter dating a black man racist, closer to 20% or higher.

@newtboy,

You said:Stop.

Glad we might be getting somewhere .

I agree on not forgiving the blatantly racist factions. I've said the same thing of ISIS, jihadists and their ilk. They and guys like Richard Spencer remain the mortal enemies of civilization. We never accept them or their ideas, if they want peace or cooperation, they are the ones that need to change.

I do still fear that for all practical purposes your position, and seemingly that of the democrats and protesters out in force, is little different from writing off everyone that voted Trump. If the expectation is that Trump voters need to be the ones that swallow all the change or make all the compromises then the difference doesn't matter. If you want to get people to vote your ticket or candidate, you've got to be the ones reaching out. Demanding the prospective voters come apologetically to your party isn't drawing them in, it's driving them away.

Neil Mcdonald from CBC I think summed up where a lot of Trump voters came to the conclusion that Hillary was no lesser evil:
You can bet they're listening closely every year at Halloween, when progressives reliably denounce as racist anyone allowing their children to dress up as a member of any other culture. Like, say, sending a little girl out dressed as Mulan.

Or when they're denounced as Islamophobes for even discussing the question of why so many people who commit mass murder of innocents do it in the name of Allah. Or as transphobes for using the pronouns "he" or "she" without explicit permission. Or as homophobes for obeying their priest or imam. Or as some sort of uninclusive-o-phobe for uttering the phrase "Merry Christmas."

There are millions of people out there who aren't terribly interested in a lecture about the difference between "cisnormative" and "heteronormative," and how both words supposedly describe something shameful.

No. Compromise implies give and take, not a one sided one way capitulation. I think 'both side's (as if there are only two factions) need to work together for common goals, not try to force their agenda down the other's throat. Trump voters need to change, especially the far right ones, same for Clinton voters on the far left. Neither extreme is good for the nation, but centrists are a dying breed. Sanders did reach out and had Republican support.....the DNC fucked us all by fucking him.
I understand the idea that Trump is the lesser evil, if you don't believe anything bad about him and believe he's successful, like most of his supporters. I contend the only evidence they have for that is his worthless word, because he wrote a book about how to get ahead by lying and screwing people over....but they didn't read it.

The pc crowd has damaged the left as much as the Nazis have the right. They both suck, but moderate dems at least fight the pc thugs, not so much on the right.

They aren't islamaphobes for discussing that question, they are islamaphobes for saying only Islam makes violent extremists.
Transphobes for pronoun use...just dumb to me.
Homophobes for obeying a priest that said to hate them, or attack them, or deny their humanity....absolutely....especially since they must cherry pick what's ok and what's not to justify their hatred but excuse similar sins they commit (shellfish, blended fabrics, both just like homosexuality, all three from the old testament, so not for Christians anyway).

The war on Xmas is bullshit. I've never once seen a real person upset in the least over merry Xmas....unless it's displayed on public property, that's unacceptable for any religion.

I really think the outrage over pc thugs is a red herring. If you don't live on a liberal campus, you'll probably never meet one. I live in liberal hippy paradise and I haven't. What they want is nuts, but who cares, Nazis want a Nazi state, which is nuts and anti American, who cares, it won't happen.
Maybe I'm wrong and pc has taken over, but I don't see it outside of South Park.

I do think you underestimate the resentment that the PC culture has created. Watching "Merry Christmas" turn into "Happy Holidays", safe spaces on college campuses, trigger warnings, cultural appropriation, etc. I almost never hear the left talk out against dumb ideas, it is very much a groupthink exercise at this point. Bill Maher says it well https://videosift.com/video/New-Rule-Stop-Apologizing

@newtboy,
Compromise implies give and take, not a one sided one way capitulation.
I'm glad to hear that, I dearly hope that both parties attempt the same. Failing both, the democrats absolutely must compromise. They need more voters and it's on them to reach out. Maybe back track on carbon taxation. Maybe allow that there is a distinction between cracking down on illegal immigration and racism against non-whites. Maybe entertain more protectionist policies on trade agreements to encourage domestic production. Regardless of any of those individual compromises being a good or bad idea, they are all ideas that resonated with voters that ditched Clinton and they at least seem potential olive branches to reach out with.

You also said:
I really think the outrage over pc thugs is a red herring. If you don't live on a liberal campus, you'll probably never meet one.
As I said, I'm from Canada so I see it daily. The over the top PC agenda and social justice fights are everywhere up here. The examples Norm gave are ones we see everywhere up here.

Example, the local university student union had an active year. They had shutdown a student club because it was pro-life and then found themselves being sued.

Our public education system bars any christian activity in schools, even so far as barring the Gideons from extending an offer of free Bibles to students who would request it. At the same time as that separation of religion from the schools is happening though, Aboriginal religion and spiritual practices and beliefs are part of the normal curriculum. And I don't mean cultural background, but as active participants in cleansing of spiritual auras and learning the function of the spirits of everything.

The silent mass of white christians up here see where the PC stuff goes and are getting a bit sick of it.

I think not. Maybe I underestimate their numbers and clout, but never the anger and outrage they cause...I just think it's overblown insanely.

Consider atheists who have endured millions of merry Xmas's, happy Chanukahs, and myriad of other religious holidays we might find insulting or divisive. We don't complain until it's espoused in publicly owned areas. If not spreading your beliefs on my dime causes you utter resentment, you are the one with the problem of entitlement.
If someone gets upset that you said merry Xmas, they have personal issues.

I did love what Bill said.

Considering Sanders appeal, I don't think abandoning all their ideals is called for, but examining which are important and which equate to morality bullying would be good. I think most leftists agree that the name calling isn't helpful (with exceptions for total douchbags).
Really, I think an honest, non bombastic candidate from either side would be preferable to either choice we had.

Sorry to hear that pc thuggery is so prevalent there. That does sound overboard, but I totally support banning proselytizing of any kind at a school that takes public funding. Spreading your belief on my dime is unacceptable.

I'm an atheist.

No once has merry Christmas offended me.

Other people's mouths are not my property. They're welcome to wish whatever the hell they want. I'm welcome to not give a crap.

Talk is cheap. I'd be embarrassed to be emotionally affected enough to actually whine about it.

In general, I think the 'type of person' that would try to create law to use the police to silence people they disagree with, are the fundamental problem. Whether it's right wing churchies, or left wing SJWs, they share the same character flaw that is the root cause of suffering for much of the world. The only good thing about them is that they often manage to cancel each other out.

Re. atheism in public, crap I care about would be things like: marriage tax benefits, or marriage co-100%-ownership benefits. Because marriage (a historically religious arrangement - and before that an arrangement of human chattel) has no business being in the government sphere, and no business having tangible effects on people's economic and legal lives.

-scheherazade

I grew up with 'sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me'. I wish my generation had taught that to their kids.