Maybe American Men Should Sit This Election Out...

I've often expressed my desire for Donald Trump to suffer a humiliating defeat next month; not to just lose, but to have his orange ass handed to him. It would seem there is a fairly simple way to make this happen:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-women-are-defeating-donald-t...

Now there's just the small problem of convincing tens of millions of men not to vote...

ETA: first sentence - wrote "expressive" when I meant "expressed"

I hereby apologize for my membership in this terribly violent and irresponsible demographic group.

>1 artturnerjr: We're repeatedly told that Trump's loyal base isn't "men" -- it is "uneducated white men." I don't know how accurate a statement that is, or if it is accurate, how big a subset of "men" it represents. Last month "suburban white women" were also considered solidly in his corner, baffling as that is to me.

I think it's enough if all Trump supporters follow his appeal to get out and vote on November 28.

At this point I think it would take Trump saving a baby that Clinton was trying to run over to give him any chance of winning.

But what's interesting to me in the 538 stats is how all-or-nothing each state trends. There are two, maybe three states where the vote could be said to be in doubt -- Arizona, Iowa, North Carolina, maybe Ohio. But by and large in the rest of the country it shows figures like 90% Clinton, 8% Trump, or 97% Trump, 1% Clinton. So this election isn't really about choosing who you want for president -- I think there are basically zero people who are unsure about whether to vote for Trump or Clinton. I think the "undecided" voter here is trying to decide whether to vote at all. So when we talk about how polarized the election is, or that politics have become, I think this why -- people on the right or the left have always known where they are going to stand. But the people in the middle -- the ones that aren't sold on either side's full complement of talking points -- they might be sitting this election out because they can't in good conscience vote for either candidate. Clinton, because she represents everything they've hated about government for decades, and Trump because he has no principles at all. You can see why some people would say "fuck this."

>2 dukedom_enough:

The gender divide on this... person... is truly upsetting.

We'll have made progress when people like that are rejected equally by women and men.

>6 LolaWalser: We'll have made progress when people like that are rejected equally completely by women and men.


fixed that for you!

>7 southernbooklady:

Hey, just trying to be realistic. It seems it's impossible to be too bad to appeal to anyone.

Meanwhile, the equality point is worth emphasising, I think, not obliterating, because it's the essence of misogyny. If so many more men than women like or support Trump (regardless of how many women do), that's because so many more men don't care about or even agree with misogynistic violence and injustice.

The only good thing I can say about this shitstorm of an election is that it has lifted the rock off our society and exposed the squirming insects underneath to the sun. I will admit to appreciating the irony of this troglodyte being beaten by a woman, which I'm sure is his worst nightmare, but Hillary deserved a better opponent than this. However, everywhere I look on the Internet right now, I see women (and many men) saying this culture has to change, we cannot just silently accept this anymore. If this is the beginning of that change, then perhaps all this is worth it.

>8 LolaWalser: the equality point is worth emphasising, I think, not obliterating, because it's the essence of misogyny.

Oh, I agree. I was just been a little flip. But I remain uncomprehending as to what the women who support Trump . . . uh, support. What do they see when they look at him and think, "he's got my vote!"?

On that 538 site somewhere is a piece about the Republican women who are voting for Trump and why (I think it predates the sexual harassment tape):

“What scares me about Donald Trump is the way he conducts himself,” she said. “I think he is intelligent, I think he has our best interests at heart, I think he really does want to do things to make this country great again, but I worry about his … volatility,” she said, adding, “he says things that are totally inappropriate.”

But by October, DeMarco had decided to vote for Trump. “I feel I need to,” she said. “I’m still not happy with my candidate. But the more I hear about Hillary and what’s going on with her …” Her voice trailed off. “My vote is against her.”

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/suburban-white-women-weigh-their-options-in-...

Did y'all watch Michelle Obama's speech?

“In this election, if we turn away from her, if we just stand by and allow her opponent to be elected, then what are we teaching our children about the values they should hold? About the kind of life they should lead. What are we saying?” she said. “In our hearts, in our hearts, we all know that if we let Hillary's opponent win this election, then we are sending a clear message to our kids that everything they're seeing and hearing is perfectly okay. We are validating it. We are endorsing it.”

“We're telling our sons that it's okay to humiliate women. We're telling our daughters that this is how they deserve to be treated,” she continued. “We're telling all our kids that bigotry and bullying are perfectly acceptable in the leader of their country."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/flotus-speech-229741#ixzz4MzTbeEo9
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Here's a link with the full speech: http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497817419/michelle-obama-trump-comments-have-shake...

>6 LolaWalser: >10 southernbooklady: While telephoning and canvassing voters here in New Hampshire, I've encountered a number of people who feel conflicted. They understand that Trump is unacceptable, but 25 years of smears have left them unable to consider voting for Hillary. Usually they say they're voting for neither. At least that's better than voting for Trump, but it's discouraging to see people who evidently are competent in other spheres be so thoroughly deceived in the political sphere.

>12 sturlington: avaland and I watched it (on Youtube). Fabulous speech.

>6 LolaWalser:

This is a guy who is bragging - bragging! - about sexually assaulting other human beings. This should, in and of itself, disqualify him for everyone, male or female. The lack of empathy that the fact that people are still supporting him indicates is just staggering to me.

>9 sturlington:

There are positives that have come out of all this, as a recent New York Times piece eloquently pointed out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/magazine/was-it-a-depressing-week-in-politics-...

From the article:

You asked if I find it sad or poetically satisfying that two men’s sexism caught on a recording might propel the first woman into the presidency. I’m going to go with poetically satisfying, were it to happen — it would suggest that sometimes, when it really matters, justice does eventually catch up to those who abuse their power. The recording has amplified, for many women, their sense of the urgency of this election. It’s not just that they can’t bear Trump, or that they love Hillary; it’s that the election is about something bigger now than just the office of the presidency. The recording put many women directly in touch with their outrage about the outdated, the exclusionary, the sexist, the predatory, the power-and-otherwise grabby. Women are more eager than ever to see a girl waltz into the most powerful old-boys’ club in the world, the White House, and take a seat at the head of the table.

ETA:

>11 sturlington:

A moving and inspiring speech. "People who are truly strong lift others up. People who are truly powerful bring others together."

>13 dukedom_enough: They understand that Trump is unacceptable, but 25 years of smears have left them unable to consider voting for Hillary.

Growing up in Canada, US politics was always in the background* and I tried my best to pay as little attention as possible. Until the Bush-Gore election, that is, and then all of a sudden US politics got interesting. I wasn't a fan of Bill Clinton in the 90s (really, he did seem sleazy to me, although he doesn't so much anymore-- and the "don't ask, don't tell" and "I never inhaled" were ridiculous to most Canadians that I knew--sorry, I digress), but even I could see a blatant witch hunt of a whole range of people gunning for Hillary. That she had a voice on anything other than picking the White House china pattern really choked a lot of people. So when I see people now still repeating the same obviously stupid lies, I'm baffled. But US politics baffles me in general. (Off to look at pics of our prime minister, Justin Trudeau, who is far from perfect, but is sort of the opposite of Donald Trump).

*Watergate completely ruined a summer when I was away from home and my friends and had nothing to do but read books, watch TV, and try to sneak cigarettes. Nixon ruined the TV part of that. Damn you, Nixon!

#womenwhovotetrump is trending on Twitter this morning.

This election--I cannot turn away, even though I keep telling myself to do just that. It is mind-boggling, the levels of self-deception that are going on out there. These people have basically gotten to the point where they are denying that anything reported by any media outlet is true; it is all part of the vast, global conspiracy being orchestrated by Hillary and the democrats. (If Hillary is so powerful, why hasn't she just taken over everything already?) They have built a wall of noise around themselves so thick that nothing can get through. They are drowning in rabid, out-of-control anger and hate. I really don't know what will happen when she wins. I am voting early, staying home on election day, and being very thankful that I live in a liberal bubble (although someone down the street is proudly displaying a Trump/Pence yard sign).

Even though I think I am the only registered Democrat in my county, I kind of enjoy voting on election day, so I always wait.

Some Trump Supporters Demand #RepealThe19th

Some Trump supporters have taken to Twitter to demand a repeal of the 19th amendment — which in 1920 gave U.S. women the right to vote — after national polling indicated an extreme gender gap among presidential support.

On Tuesday FiveThirtyEight.com statistician Nate Silver published models of what the electoral map would look like if only men and then women voted. Based on a demographic breakdown of recent national polls, Silver found if only women voted Clinton would claim 458 electoral votes to Trump's 80 votes.

Conversely, if only men were able to vote Trump would claim 350 electoral votes versus Clinton's 188.

The hashtag, #RepealThe19th, began trending shortly after Silver's post, with both men and women lashing out at Hillary Clinton and attacking feminism.

Other Twitter users denounced the trend by sharing memes of strong female characters rolling their eyes and voicing their displeasure.

http://www.nbcnews.com/card/trump-supporters-demand-repealthe19th-n665406

I saw a photo on my twitter feed earlier of a woman wearing a shirt with "Trump can grab my" with an arrow pointing at her crotch, scrawled on it. Fucking disgusting.

I don't want to get anyone's blood boiling, I really don't, but this is happening right now, not 45 minutes away from where I sit:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-mocks-women-who-accused-him-of-...

To me, the "Lock Her Up" chants are the most chilling.

That "Hillary is a crook" meme really gets my goat and I'm not even particularly warmly disposed toward her. It's "she's a witch" for the modern times.

if only women voted Clinton would claim 458 electoral votes to Trump's 80 votes.

Conversely, if only men were able to vote Trump would claim 350 electoral votes versus Clinton's 188.

This is a horrible, horrible shame.

>18 artturnerjr:

There's some discussion of the #RepealThe19th thing on the most recent FiveThirtyEight podcast, starting at around the 24 minute mark:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/emergency-elections-podcast-what-a-week/?ex_...
http://www.espn.com/espnradio/play?id=17794200

Actually, the whole thing's worth a listen, as is usually the case.

For many GOP women, party loyalty trumps personal affront

“Do you have men in your family?” Mary Anne Huggins asked me when I brought up the now-infamous Donald Trump “Access Hollywood” tape. Huggins is the GOP chairwoman for Gaston County, North Carolina, and we were speaking in the county headquarters about the close race in her neck of the woods. “I hear that’s a lot of locker room talk,” she said. “Don’t you think that’s minor?”

I don't really know what to do with that.

Now this is happening:

http://www.newsplex.com/content/news/Legally-armed-protester-hangs-outside-Dittm...

Yeah I saw something yesterday about 2 "legally armed" men outside somewhere. There's going to be a lot of this bullshit, just wait.

Terrifying...

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/10/15/donald-trump-warnings-conspi...

Wow. Going by those specimens, Clinton will need more security than even Obama.

>24 sturlington:

"I'm just trying to provide a voice for someone who might be a closet supporter of Trump. Other people who are a little worried to speak out because of possible persecution," he said.

So the guy with the gun staking out the opposition campaign office is worried about being persecuted. I'm starting to think there is something in the water.

Trump's claim that the election is rigged was inevitable. What else could he say? His modus operandi is denials and insults.

>28 southernbooklady: I noticed that as well!

When there is a lot of negative stuff in the news, an antidote is always welcome, so I will leave this here even though it has nothing to do with feminism as a reminder that there are still plenty of good-hearted people in the world: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/15/canada-thinks-cheering-up-america-great.h...

i'm starting to be seriously concerned for hrc's safety. and especially unpleased with her vp pick if he has to actually step in.

(although i'm also - sometimes - still concerned about the final result; other times i think she's going to absolutely fucking crush him.)

2016’s Manifest Misogyny

In 2007, during the Presidential-primary campaigns, when she was the presumptive Democratic nominee, a supporter of Senator John McCain, the eventual Republican nominee, asked him at a gathering in South Carolina, “How do we beat the bitch?” McCain looked fleetingly uncomfortable, then called it an “excellent question.” The terms “bitch” and “witch,” and the associations they stir up, are slurs that Clinton’s detractors have resorted to freely. The political commentator Tucker Carlson said of Clinton, “Something about her feels castrating.” Rush Limbaugh asked his listeners, “Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?” Bumper stickers appeared bearing slogans such as “KFC Hillary Meal Deal: Two Fat Thighs, Two Small Breasts and a Bunch of Left Wings” and “Even Bill Doesn’t Want Me.”

(...)Mitt Romney and Ronald Reagan are not exactly celebrated as feminists, but it’s impossible to imagine either of them publicly invoking a newswoman’s menstrual period, or calling women “fat pigs,” or acquiescing to a request from Howard Stern to refer to his daughter as a “piece of ass.”

>31 LolaWalser: In 2007, during the Presidential-primary campaigns, when she was the presumptive Democratic nominee, a supporter of Senator John McCain, the eventual Republican nominee, asked him at a gathering in South Carolina, “How do we beat the bitch?” McCain looked fleetingly uncomfortable, then called it an “excellent question.”

So here is a serious question I have. Why didn't McCain repudiate the language if it made him uncomfortable? When Bernie Sanders's supporters started to get get vicious about Clinton he didn't hesitate to tell them knock it off. Whatever one might think about Sanders' positions and principles, no one can doubt that he was willing to stand up for them.

But across the line in GOP land, did any of the candidates ever say "knock it off, we're better than that?" Why would a man like McCain, presumably someone who has a lifetime of standing by his principles -- a man of character -- "flinch" and just swallow it when a potential voter calls his opponent a bitch?

>30 overlycriticalelisa:

(although i'm also - sometimes - still concerned about the final result; other times i think she's going to absolutely fucking crush him.)

I think we're going to be okay - FiveThirtyEight is giving HRC a 84.3% chance of winning in their polls-plus model today, which is the highest that number has ever been - and that's the forecast that's least bullish on her chances of winning.

ETA: Link:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus

>33 artturnerjr:
I think we're going to be okay

that looks likely, barring complacency and the ensuing non-voting, as happened with Brexit.

>34 Petroglyph:

that's probably what i most worry about - that people will be complacent and just not vote, thinking it's a forgone conclusion. or thinking she has it sealed up, and so voting 3rd party. mostly i don't worry about more than 50% of our country being so "deplorable" that they vote for trump, although i have my moments for sure.

I won't rest easy at all until the votes are in and she's announced winner. There is, insane and sad as it is, far too much risk that that will not be the case.

I worry.

>33 artturnerjr: It's up to 84.6 now.

>36 .Monkey.:

I will not rest easy until Trump has conceded and requested that his supporters respect the rule of law and the results of the election.

>39 lorax: There's the rub.

I seem to remember in 2008 there was a period where Obama had to deal with a wave of lawsuits challenging the validity of his election. They didn't go anywhere but they were annoying.

>39 lorax: Amen. Meanwhile, I am going through the antacids...

Men are treating 2016 as a normal election; women aren't:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/men-are-treating-2016-as-a-normal-election-w...

Shoot me if you want, but it goes to show a good man truly is hard to find. They SHOULD be finding Trump at least as vile as women do. That they don't, that so many of them are ready to risk having THAT as their country's face (to say nothing of actually supporting him) proves there isn't just a gender gap, but a gender war. Those men are ready to destroy women as men have been destroying women for millennia.

>44 LolaWalser: (and others) I've been filled with sorrow over this campaign. I used to say that those people filled with hate were a small minority, but the monster has proven that to be untrue. I go out of my way to encourage people that are voting for him to vote for Larry Johnson instead, and I continually exhort anyone I know who appears rational to go and vote, and not leave this to fate.

What mad beast slouches towards Bethlehem, waiting to be born, indeed.

I fear the election, and I fear the aftermath.

LT, you are indeed annoying (it constantly tells me I'm making double posts, except for those times I am).

>44 LolaWalser:

You can also shoot me if you want, and I'm not trying to dispute the statistics, but I can at least say that I do not personally know one single US male who wants to vote for Trump, and I do not personally know one single US male who is not appalled and disgusted by him. Of course that's the demographic of the US males (and females) that I personally know - they are mostly into social justice and have a more internationalist viewpoint.

As a noble lord of a Liberal-Democrat persuasion said to me in an aside when I was doing some advocacy work for South Sudan in London recently, he personally didn't know anybody who had voted for Brexit, and was as appalled as I am that it had got a majority. However, he added, the fact that people like him and me didn't know anybody who was pro-Brexit was part of the problem - a divided nation with different groups who don't talk (or listen) to each other.

>43 sturlington:

I saw that article and said to myself, "Hey, speak for yourself, buddy." Anybody that thinks this election is "normal" needs to get their head examined. I've lost count of the number of times I've used the phrase "unprecedented" to describe some aspect of this election (usually to describe something done or said by the Trump campaign). Fortunately, NPR has been keeping track. They enumerated 65 unprecedented events in this election... in July. The number has probably doubled since then.

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/03/484214413/the-most-unprecedented-election-ever-65-...

"...this election cycle just might deserve its own, surreal chapter in our kids' American History textbooks." Indeed.

>47 John5918: but I can at least say that I do not personally know one single US male who wants to vote for Trump

This Canadian hasn't either, and I have actually never met anyone who supports Trump for president. Every Canadian who I've ever seen in a conversation about it has been horrified.

I, on the other hand, know quite a few people who say they plan to vote for Trump, although their enthusiasm has been dampened lately. But I live in a red county in what used to be a reliably red state. (Not so much any more!)

The thing is, the folks I know are not tea party crazies. They are conservative people who have been ...not exactly against the progressive trends of the country (they don't support the idea of gay marriage but it is not what most concerns them), but more in favor of reclaiming a culture they think they are losing. And they are deeply worried about the economy (odd, since the economy has fared well under Obama). So they seem to support him primarily out of party loyalty, not because they find him to be a real leader. And they are more inclined to dismiss his really heinous statements as "not important" than try to justify them.

It must take a lot of energy to support a candidate like that. The kind of man you wouldn't want to meet your daughters, but nevertheless you have to convince yourself would be better for the country than Hillary Clinton.

>50 southernbooklady: I still don't understand this attitude, though. It is blind loyalty in the face of all reason. Every newspaper is saying he's a bad choice, every expert, many in the military, many world leaders. It's not just that he is a sexist pig. If that doesn't bother you, then what about his friendliness with Putin? His complete ignorance of how government works or foreign policy? His tax plan that benefits only the wealthy? His tendency to be irrational and not show good judgment? His attack on freedom of religion? His completely unworkable policies on immigration?

Basically, what you're telling me is that these people are willing to believe anything and go along with anything as long as it squares with the way they view the world. This is magical thinking, if you ask me. My aunt was telling me about one of her Facebook friends. When my aunt confronted her with facts, she literally said that she preferred her own version of reality.

This is what really frightens me. That people would be so willing to jeopardize our country's future and standing in the world just to protect their way of viewing the world.

If someone really truly believes that a human life begins at conception and that abortion is murder and one of the candidates for President will stop it and other won't, then it makes sense that that person would be able to ignore a little groping.

>51 sturlington: I still don't understand this attitude, though. It is blind loyalty in the face of all reason.

It's the same kind of cognitive dissonance that allows people to remain in denial about the effects of climate change, or fault a woman for being raped because she got drunk at a party. Human beings have a talent for believing things that don't hold up to any determined scrutiny.

>53 southernbooklady: I actually saw a Facebook comment on a NYT story where a man said that he had completely changed his view on rape culture because of the Trump tape and the rush to defame the accusers. He said he had never understood what was meant by the term, but these events made it crystal clear. That gives me hope.

>51 sturlington: A huge part of the Trump campaign is the discrediting of any media or experts who would speak out against him. He started pushing that narrative even before people were speaking out against him, and so now the idea that anyone who is against Trump is biased or corrupt is very well-established. Trump supporters are not reading the same newspapers or watching the same news programs as everyone else. They're seeing a completely different side of things. Trump says things that are untrue, whether outright lies or because he does not understand how gov't works, but the facts of the situation are not reaching his followers because they have already rejected any media that would report the facts.

>55 norabelle414: Yes, I'm seeing that in action as well. To me, this denial of credible sources as biased/corrupt is extremely dangerous and will definitely play into many people not accepting the results of the election. When I look at Trump supporters, I see a cult, pure and simple.

Coincidentally, here's an article I read on the subject right after posting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/18/what-donald-trump-is-d...

>57 norabelle414: Jesus, don't read the comments on that story.

>52 jjwilson61: But anti-choice people are probably not driven as much by concern for the unborn as by misogyny. The tell is that the major anti-choice organizations either don't promote birth control and sex education, or actively oppose them. A sincere desire to reduce the number of abortions would lead one to support measures shown to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

>58 sturlington: Never read the comments!

>59 dukedom_enough: The tell is that the major anti-choice organizations either don't promote birth control and sex education, or actively oppose them. A sincere desire to reduce the number of abortions would lead one to support measures shown to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

That's it, isn't it! It stuns me that they even try to get away with it, let alone that they've had success. To your list we can also add the lack of support for children and families, maternity-paternity leave, daycare, education, and so on.

>61 Nickelini: Right, all those points. I used to believe anti-choicers derived from their view of human-at-conception. Took a number of exposures to the feminist analysis before I saw I was wrong. "Human life begins at conception and ends at birth" is really the principle most anti-choicers really follow.

>51 sturlington:

in a "regular" election, any one of the things you mentioned (and 100 others you didn't) would have been enough to tank a campaign. it's incredible how many of these things his campaign has withstood. it frightens me as well.

>63 overlycriticalelisa: I dunno. I still remain surprised that Trump got the nomination. I would have thought that there were some rational, level-headed people in the party who would have taken steps to avoid that happening. As it stands, I think he's what you get when there is a power vacuum in the party -- your basic bottom feeder. But I don't think you can actually win an election or run a country that way, not one that depends so much on what many disparate localities decide.

If we elected presidents based on a straight popular vote, I'd be more worried, because people are impulsive and vote their emotions, which are pretty angry at the moment. But that electoral college puts a check between the popular vote and the presidency -- it takes someone who can strategize, who understands politics and can compromise for the long term goal. None of those things would characterize Trump, who is basically an opportunist who is all about instantaneous gratification.

Got in an argument over dinner last night with two older men, my father-in-law and his friend, defending Trump's nonsense and wondering why the women didn't come forward sooner. So angry afterward. Men have no clue about sexual assault and are so callous about it.

Of course everyone was shocked when I asserted that Trump was running as a white supremacist.

If you didn't watch the debate last night, Trump's muttered insult that Hillary is a "nasty woman" is taken up as a feminist rallying cry.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/20/13341416/nasty-woman-feminist-...

Donald Trump accused of sexual misconduct by 10th woman

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/20/donald-trump-sexual-misconduct-t...

Keep denying those allegations, Donald. This will keep happening.

Wait 10? I thought it was up at like 16 or 17 or something?

A nice essay on nasty as an insult to women and its reclaiming:

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/10/nasty-a-feminist-histor...

>68 .Monkey.:

Let's see. According to the Wikipedia article on the Donald's sexual misconduct allegations*, there have been three legal proceedings against him regarding sexual misconduct, eleven additional allegations against him of unwanted physical contact, and six reported incidents of Trump entering dressing rooms of beauty queen contestants while they were in various stages of undress. So it's actually twenty at this point, all told.

* yes, that actually is a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Abandoning Donald Trump and, for Some Women, the G.O.P., Too

http://nyti.ms/2dMjt7a

Is anybody else having election anxiety? I feel like I'm going to throw up. Not sure how I'm going to make it through the next two weeks.

Are you anxious because you think Trump might win?

>73 southernbooklady: Many reasons. I think it's possible he might win somehow. I also worry that this is some kind of tipping point for our country. Anxiety doesn't function based on logic, unfortunately. I literally feel it in my gut.

>73 southernbooklady: Also concerned about some a family relationship surviving the election. We're having a party on Monday and I'm worried there might be arguments, bad feelings, that I'll have to deal with over the holidays. The rhetoric in this election has been so hurtful and divisive. It's not politics as usual. People are taking things personally, and they have every right too, because a lot of the talk is at its base about the worth of certain human beings (women, gay people, trans people, Muslims, Mexicans, blacks, now Native Americans).

I really don't think Trump will win. I don't even think it will be close. But I have found the rationalizations people give for supporting him to be pretty alarming since they are so at odds with...well, reality. It's like a nationwide demonstration of willful blindness, and I think it is evidence of our continuously decreasing capacity for empathy.

On the other hand, this is the same country that elected Obama twice, largely as a show of support for what he represented -- inclusiveness, optimism, etc, etc. The people that put him into office haven't disappeared, and the reasons they put him into office haven't evaporated, so my guess is the strident decibel level of Trump supporters right now is a product of the election process, and probably lacks the, well, stamina, or cohesiveness to become a real political movement -- ei, some kind of spawn of the GOP. The last gasp of the Tea Party, maybe? Their recent political stands have dissolved in the face rejection by the rest of the country. Like those guys who "occupied" that wildlife refuge in Oregon. When you compare incidents like that against, say "Occupy Wall Street" or "Moral Mondays" I think the lefty-democratic types are stronger on the ground.

Update: The Bundys were all just acquitted! Good lord.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/bundy-brothers-acquitted-in-takeover-of-ore...

>72 sturlington:

Apparently this is not unusual this election season:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/20/well/mind/talking-to-your-therapist-about-elec...

From the article:

...the unusual nature of the election, with Mr. Trump pushing the limits of acceptable behavior in politics, is creating problems for people who struggle with mental health issues.

“Boundaries are an important part of mental health,” said Dr. Ducharme. “In order to feel safe, people need to have a sense that there are rules and norms. In this election our leaders appear to be out of control.”

Strong feelings about the candidates are causing not only rifts between Democrats and Republicans, but also among families and friends. Ms. Elias has patients who are avoiding friends and family members with whom they disagree.

“It’s like the Civil War,” said Ms. Elias. “I have never seen an election cause this level of conflict.”

“People are having a hard time seeing the perspectives of the opposite side,” said David Palmiter, a clinical psychologist in Clarks Summit, Pa.

***

The A.P.A. tells patients to “read just enough to stay informed.” Take breaks from social media to go for a walk, spend time with friends or do other things you enjoy. Be aware of how much election talk is dominating conversations with friends and family, and change the subject. Avoid politics altogether if a conversation is likely to escalate to conflict.

On a personal note, I have definitely had my moments this year, including at least one time when I was so upset I actually felt sick to my stomach, which is rare for me (and almost never happens due to what's going on in the news). I make myself take a break from it when it gets that bad.

Stay strong, think positively as much as possible, and remember that there are people out that give a shit about the same things that you do. :)

>77 artturnerjr: Thanks.

It does not help that the emails have risen up from the dead. And Anthony Weiner! FFS.

I'm sure it has not escaped anyone's notice that the election of the first woman president has been almost continuously sidelined by men and their penises.

This should be a historic moment for women in America. This should be a sprint to the finish for two qualified and viable candidates for the highest office in the most powerful country in the world.

But, with a scant 11 days to go, even a campaign that’s half-woman has turned into another dick-measuring contest.

We’ve come a not-very-long way, baby.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/28/hillary-is-haunted-by-men-s-dic...

The NY Times has removed the ticker tape with Clinton's chances of winning. It annoyed me that it was there, but now I'm even more worried that it's gone.

>79 LolaWalser: The NY Times is just as guilty as every other major media outlet for flogging this nonstory about the emails. FBI Director Comey should resign. I am disgusted with the media. All they want is drama drama drama.

Yes. And is Trump's lead in Florida surprising? I thought the surprise was that she ever got any inkling of the upper hand there.

>81 LolaWalser: The good news is that my home state of North Carolina seems to be swinging even more her way. There is a lot of early voting going on here.

>79 LolaWalser: NYT is still giving Clinton a 91% chance of winning.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html

She has dropped to a 78.5% chance at 538.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Concentrate on the positive... :)

Susan Faludi on Hillary Clinton:

Republican ideological absolutism, nourished by masculine insecurity, created an amalgam corrosive to pragmatic politics. For Hillary Clinton, it’s meant being demonized for traits that have little to do with her character. Not only by right-wing politicians, who found the Hillary-with-horns specter a convenient recruitment tool, but by the culture at large. Even the supposedly liberal mainstream media still seek out any bit of evidence that can be chiseled to fit that prefab 1990s narrative — and if she denies the caricature, she’s called a liar. Her famous “hiddenness” is, at heart, her refusal to cop to the crime of purloined male authority. A Spy magazine story in 1995 made that theft succinct: a cover image of a grinning Hillary, her skirt billowing up as in the old Marilyn Monroe photo, to reveal male briefs bulging with a penis. Across her legs ran the headline: “Hillary’s Big Secret.”

Her whole op-ed is worth reading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/sunday/how-hillary-clinton-met-satan.h...

Just on fivethirtyeight.com. Since last night, NC has gone red on their map, along with Florida and Ohio. New Hampshire is the only state standing between Trump and the White House. I literally feel like I am going to vomit right now.

Pennsylvania is still solidly in the Clinton camp and that should be enough to give her the win.

>86 sturlington: If you look at fivethirtyeight's snake to the White House, Trump can win if he gets NH plus all other leaning red states, even if Hillary takes Pennsylvania and Colorado. They seem to be the most conservative of all the models, but it's still pretty scary.

And here's me still can't get over the fact that he won the nomination...

>86 sturlington:

I'm right there with ya. On the positive side - the election's in five days. If the legit forecasters all say Hillary is going to win (and, as far as I can see, they all do, even if some are not as bullish on her as others), well, she probably will. It's not like it's August or something - there's just not much time to throw a monkey wrench into the works between now and the big day.

>89 LolaWalser: Word.

>90 artturnerjr: Yes. Basically, I think I should stop looking at Facebook or any news sites until after Tuesday... I will be volunteering to get out the vote this weekend. I live in one of the decisive states.

I read Nicholas Kristof in the NY Times frequently. He is a strong advocate for women and girls. This was his column today: "Five Reasons to Vote Trump."

It's quite a departure from his usual style. If you've used up your NY Times free articles, here's an excerpt:

2.) We’ve accepted that leaders need not be saints, so why not embrace a paragon of fraud? With his experience allegedly cheating consumers at Trump University, maybe we could even fund government by cheating foreign tourists.

Sure, it’s a little awkward that Trump boasts about sexually assaulting women, and has been accused by at least 17 women of groping or other improper behavior — and I know three other women with similar complaints who haven’t dared come forward. At G-8 summit meetings, Trump would have to be seated well away from any female leaders. But he could break the ice with male leaders by dissing Angela Merkel’s behind.

Enough with sanctimony and moralism from the failing news media! Time to shake things up with a sexual predator!

3.) Trump might become the most entertaining president in history. If Clinton is elected, she’ll give earnest, wonkish speeches about the benefits of increasing the child tax credit or raising the minimum wage. Yawn. In contrast, Trump will insult world leaders, barge into Miss Teen U.S.A. changing rooms and castigate the menstrual cycles of female critics. It’ll be the most riveting reality TV ever.

And whatever you think of Trump’s policies, you have to admit, no president would have better hot mike scandals.

So in an age of cord-cutting, when HBO is inaccessible to millions, a Trump presidency would keep us all amused, aghast or at least entertained. Until the nuclear apocalypse, after which we may all be dead anyway.

my wife and i had our first genuine, ok, "where do we move" conversation this morning. we'd joked before but talked actual logistics this morning. i'm in the melbourne camp, she leans israel, which really surprised me... i'll be pissed if trump makes me leave my home, though. (i've never felt like i belong in a place like i do in the pacific nw.)

>90 artturnerjr:

Addendum:

To echo the sentiment of a FiveThirtyEight commenter, I actually kind of want the polls and forecasters to be indicating that it's a tight race now. I think Hillary supporters have perhaps been a little bit complacent over the course of the last several months: the forecasters have all had her ahead, and they have difficulty (understandably!) seeing how anyone with even a smidgen of horse sense can vote for Trump. I think the news of the last couple of weeks has motivated them to vote themselves, encourage others to do so, participate in GOTV efforts (like >92 sturlington:), etc. Those of us who abhor the thought of a Trump presidency are concerned, and that's a good thing - the more concerned we are, the more likely we are to take corrective action.

>93 sturlington:

Good piece. I'm actually a NYT digital subscriber. I don't have too many indulgences (don't have a fancy phone, still drive the same crappy car I've had for years, etc.), so I don't feel too bad about that one. :)

>95 artturnerjr:

that's the line i keep telling myself to keep myself sane - if it's close (or reported as close) that's actually better, so people don't sit it out or just vote third party. the swath of people who aren't excited by her and so might not vote (or vote for her) if they think she'll win by a landslide are hopefully more likely to vote for her if it looks tight.

still, i'm a ball of anxiety all the time right now.

So looking forward to getting this election over.

Something just popped up on my FB that made me realize that every single meme or post I've seen for Trump has had spelling or grammar errors in it. The Clinton ones don't. The most recent one says: " To bad my state is still blind."

I think if you can't spell grade one words correctly, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Yeah, these people should be deciding the fate of the free world.

I thought this was a good piece: http://www.vox.com/culture/2016/11/2/13497320/louis-ck-michael-moore-hillary-cli...

The Madonna or whore dichotomy persists even in presumably feminist men.

>98 sturlington:

We should have a woman as president because women are people who make up more than half of the US population, and because women deserve to see themselves represented in our representative government.

Amen.

That--mostly disingenuous anyway, I bet--"women are better" crap is just another way of defining, restricting and controlling who women are and what they do. Better be "better", you, or no womanhood for you!

Defining what a 'proper woman' is is such rot anyway. I saw a transvestite say on television that he was a better woman than most women because of makeup techniques and ability to walk easily in high heels. Well, fine. If that's your definition of a woman then I fail utterly. On the other hand, I gave birth to three children and breastfed them all. I doubt that he is going to match that anytime soon.

Ah, yes, the "wearing high heels and using makeup enthusiastically" litmus test of womanhood--where the drag queens have us all beat in a lip-sync minute.

The stereotypes are intensely and widely enforced. Thou shalt be boxed and the lid glued shut.

>93 sturlington:
>95 artturnerjr:

Speaking of the NYT, they are offering unlimited access to their website from 12:01 a.m. ET on Monday, November 7 until 11:59 p.m. ET on Wednesday, November 9:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/homepage/new-york-times-open-access-election-2...

How much more of this crap show? Until midnight?

>103 LolaWalser: Elections are usually called around 11pm EST, but then a whole other crapshow will start

>102 artturnerjr: The NYT would have a lot more chance of winning me as a subscriber if they just let me read. When I get constant popups asking me if I want to subscribe the answer is 'No!'.

>103 LolaWalser:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/11/04/what-ti...

>104 norabelle414:

There's enough spread around "usually" that I wouldn't want to rely on it. Poll closing times are available at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/07/us/elections/polls-closing-times.h... but remember it takes time to count the votes, and that lines are very long this year; everyone in line when the polls closed legally must be allowed to vote (although that law hasn't always been followed), so they may stay open later in some precincts.

>107 lorax: Already hearing that polls will remain open at least until 9pm in Durham, NC (near where I live), because of problems with the electronic checkins of voters, which caused delays. North Carolina is a battleground state.

Enjoyed this brief note on why they are called pantsuits*: http://theglintoftherail.tumblr.com/post/152863885602/ive-seen-a-lot-of-people-a...

*I don't own a pantsuit because I am liberated from corporate life. I donated mine when I quit my last job.

Boy are the next four years going to suck.

The Republicans hold every branch of government and most states for the first time since 1928. If history is our guide, the next decade is going to be a shit sandwich. And since we won't do anything about climate change during that time, I doubt it will get better after that. I am mourning my country today, and I am also mourning my son's future, because I don't think he has one anymore.

If I didn't have a family, I'd seriously be considering fucking off to somewhere remote and quiet for the duration. As it is, I'm going back to bed.

I'm probably going to dial back my participation in forums like this one. I feel like every one of my deeply held values has been thoroughly repudiated. I'm not sure what to do with that.

>111 sturlington:

I have been very quiet online and avoided participating in discussions of the election, even in forums like this one with you ladies I respect, because it was too stressful. I thought, when this is over those people will go back into the woodwork. We can put down the racism and stand up against sexual assault. We can be better, and when Clinton is elected, the trolls will mostly fade away.

Nope.

Whatever anyone does in forums (and I understand the desire to curl up and die), I hope everyone will find the strength to speak up and fight back steadily in real life. It has never been more necessary.

Panel: What does the US election result say about misogyny?

Fascism has come to the republic – no hyperbole.

The world is afraid.

The one thing we know is that women are more than half the US population, and the electoral gender gap was a chasm. Moreover, time, and the demographics of diversity and youth, are on our side.

We are digging in, and we will outlive them. The planet depends on it. (...)

I’m not going to give you some “This isn’t the America I know” bullshit. This is absolutely the America I know. My country is racist, xenophobic, fearful and ignorant. My country hates women, which is bad enough, and pretends it doesn’t, which is worse. Having supported Hillary Clinton in both 2008 and 2016, I am well aware that enormous chunks of the left – let alone the rusted-out, heavily armed right – loathe her beyond all reason. For the last 25 years, I’ve watched everyone from trash tabloids to the New York Times to the director of the FBI work to assassinate Clinton’s character. I have watched people I used to respect buy into every lie ever printed about her, rather than confront their own discomfort with ambitious and powerful women. (...)

All I can do now is leverage my relatively privileged position in the fight to keep as many of us as possible as safe as possible. I’ll finish crying about it tomorrow, but that’s not when the fight starts. It started generations ago. Centuries.

Earlier on Tuesday evening, before the unthinkable went thunk, I asked my husband: “What has this election taught you about how America sees women?”

“This election has taught me that anyone other than Hillary would have given up ages ago, rather than take this relentless, awful abuse,” he said finally. “That’s why there’s never been a woman.”

He’s right. There’s never been an American woman who could fully transcend the relentless, awful abuse that comes with wanting more for herself, or for her country. But so many have died trying. If I have to, I guess I’ll be one of them.

>113 LolaWalser: Yep, that's the decision I made -- I talked to people in real life, gave money, and encouraged other women to vote, but I just can't expend any energy on internet trolls anymore. Especially with the recent study showing it doesn't work anyway.

I did some work locally to try to replace our pro life, anti contraception Catholic state representatives but sure enough they both got releected too. How are people still anti contraception?

>115 sparemethecensor:

Offhand, judging at least from some examples in my environment (not here in Canada), it's rare people who are against contraception--in their own practice--but they will maintain support for the political anti-contraception stance because of what it's bundled with.

They'll get their pills and abortions surreptitiously--the Catholic Church thrives on having sinners to forgive, they must have sinners--but publicly they must toe the party line, in order to belong.

>114 LolaWalser: I’m not going to give you some “This isn’t the America I know” bullshit. This is absolutely the America I know. My country is racist, xenophobic, fearful and ignorant.

One thing that has coalesced for me is that I no longer believe the "conservative" voter has integrity. That voter that surrounds me here in Eastern North Carolina -- the ones that say they are for conservative family values, moral principles, a Christian way of life, accountability, less government intrusion, more personal responsibility, etc, etc. Because they voted for a man who is none of those things. Who, in fact, is the antithesis of many of those things. And who has never for a single moment hidden the kind of man he was.

So whatever happens now, I hold every person who voted for Trump culpable. And my general faith in the better nature of the electorate is largely gone.

I suspect the first thing that will happen is that my health care plan will evaporate.

>177 southernbooklady:

That voter that surrounds me here in Eastern North Carolina -- the ones that say they are for conservative family values, moral principles, a Christian way of life, accountability, less government intrusion, more personal responsibility, etc, etc. Because they voted for a man who is none of those things. Who, in fact, is the antithesis of many of those things. And who has never for a single moment hidden the kind of man he was.

It's beyond baffling. In Pro & Con you can observe a "Christian from Australia" hailing Trump as a representative of "moral right", an answer to the "icky decadence" and "sexial (sic) perversion" and educational abuse of children that have apparently been ruining your great country.

One is hard put to decide if it's a question of lack of integrity, native idiocy, or sheer moral evil. Maybe just a troll knuckle-dragger's appetite for liberal tears. But he sure seems to believe the drivel he's spouting.

In any case, such blatant cognitive dissonance, real or feigned, makes me wonder how any sort of dialogue can be established. Perhaps we have come to the point were only brute force can address brute force.

P.S.

I suspect the first thing that will happen is that my health care plan will evaporate.

Can't tell you how sorry I am to hear such things.

>118 LolaWalser: Perhaps we have come to the point were only brute force can address brute force.

I suspect that if it was the liberals that suddenly started "exercising their 2nd Amendment rights" the people who have been waving their guns around to date would change their minds pretty quickly about gun control.

"But first, let’s feel what this is. Things seemed like they might be okay, and now they are not. Nothing is ever going to be the same again, and it’s not childish or self-indulgent to take today to recognize that fact. We’re in mourning, and we are in danger, and nothing right now can make that acceptable."

http://theslot.jezebel.com/its-okay-to-feel-terrible-before-you-feel-anything-el...

I for one plan on drinking heavily tonight...maybe even before 5:00.

I went to a women's college, and on the various alumnae FB groups I'm on, there was so much joy and hope yesterday--and today, such grief. But also determination. I'm clinging to that.

Either contacted or been contacted by all my close women friends and the women in my family. We are all heartbroken, despairing, worried for our kids. Still grieving, not sure where to go from here.

Majority of white women stood with white men in this election. Race over gender or empathy for the oppressed. No concern at all for the women Trump has assaulted or insulted.

This was a whitelash: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/van-jones-results-disappointment-cnntv/

ETA I'm trying not to look at Twitter today. Stories of hate directed toward black people, Muslim women, Jews--real-life encounters, not anonymous online ones--already coming in fast and furious. This is going to be like after Brexit, only a million times worse.

>124 sturlington:

Yes, this. It's a terrible blow, compounding what's happening to people every day, when some of us hoped that the eyes have started opening...

But I can only say what I sincerely believe, that this is the worst time before a final change. The death throes of fascist populism, not a birth (populism has been a feature of American politics forever).

"This was a whitelash against a changing country," Jones said. "It was whitelash against a black president in part. And that's the part where the pain comes."

America IS a changing country. No walls, no deportations, no rolling back of progress will stop the change.

>125 LolaWalser: I hope you are right. I have faith in the young. Let's just hope that we haven't irretrievably fucked up the planet for humans before they get a chance to take the reins.

>124 sturlington: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fwLbDGX4qbk

I'm afraid this was funnier a month ago.

My new mission is to support organizations like these any way I can... http://jezebel.com/a-list-of-pro-women-pro-immigrant-pro-earth-anti-big-17887520...

Day two and I find this morning I am even more furious than yesterday. Yesterday I didn't want to go out of the house because I was appalled and depressed and didn't want to see my neighbors.

Today, I am looking at those same neighbors with new eyes. We've always been politically at odds, but socially we had common ground -- we saw each other's humanity, we could share recipes, watch each other's houses, chat about our families, etc. And I thought America was big enough, open enough, for both of us to live in it, and that despite our differences we had more in common than not. I thought we both could recognize and even agree on what a good community looked like.

Now, I only feel betrayed by each and every one of them who voted for Trump. It's like discovering that a friend you trusted was revealed to be a pedophile, or a member of the KKK. That vote they cast for Trump made a mockery of every decent human interaction that ever occurred between us.

So now I don't want to go outside because I know they will read my condemnation on my face. I have to learn how to live with their thoughtless duplicity, and I'm not sure how yet. I should have realized that the passing of Amendment One back in 2012 was a warning, not an aberration in their moral make up. My general policy of "assume the best" has taken a hit this week. I'm ashamed of them and angry at them and thus avoiding them until I have a better handle on my emotions and can find a way to be their neighbor again.

I'm not used to being this angry with people I've spent the last ten years liking, and I don't really know what to do with it.

>129 southernbooklady: I have had similar thoughts and conversations with some of my friends about it. This is the conclusion I've come to: We live in different worlds. Those who voted for Trump, who care about taking their country back, preserving their way of life, still see themselves as good and decent people, with a noble cause. I'm not excusing them. But these people sincerely don't understand why they are being called bigots today.

The question is whether we can continue to live in two different worlds but the same country. I'm not sure. I've seen chatter of California seceding. I don't take that at all seriously, but this question is something a lot of people are grappling with now.

Here's the thing, though. I think that we liberals were also in a bubble and that bubble has been popped. We've been rather smug in our conviction of our rightness. We thought common decency would naturally win out without taking the time to find out if we all agreed on what common decency is. I see that now.

What I'm searching for now is a third alternative.

>130 sturlington: We live in different worlds... Here's the thing, though. I think that we liberals were also in a bubble and that bubble has been popped. We've been rather smug in our conviction of our rightness. We thought common decency would naturally win out without taking the time to find out if we all agreed on what common decency is. I see that now.

What I'm searching for now is a third alternative.

Well said. "We live in different worlds", and both sides have failed to understand each other.

And in UK we could say the same about Brexit. An old university colleague of mine who is definitely well-educated and well-off, a retired senior civil servant, who voted for Brexit, used a very similar phrase to you when he met a group of us in a pub some time after the Brexit vote - he basically accused us of being "rather smug in our conviction of our rightness".

Department of small consolations: My state, New Hampshire, will have an all-woman, all-Democratic delegation to the Senate and House. New Hampshire used to be a fairly red state, so that's progress.

>131 John5918: Thanks.

This is an Onion article, but I'm not to proud to admit that this is me right now: http://www.theonion.com/article/area-liberal-no-longer-recognizes-fanciful-wildl...

>130 sturlington: I think that we liberals were also in a bubble and that bubble has been popped. We've been rather smug in our conviction of our rightness. We thought common decency would naturally win out without taking the time to find out if we all agreed on what common decency is.

I don't think it is smug to have celebrated the rising progressive tide that resulted in things like the recognition of same sex marriage or the sheer joy that having an African American president created. In fact, I'd say that if we aspire to "common decency" at all, then smugness is precluded.

No, instead I find myself suddenly told that I do, in fact, inhabit "a different world" from that of my neighbors. Only here is the thing -- I know, know that we do not inhabit different worlds. That our lives are involved with each other, entangled with each other.

I once posted my litmus test for how I navigate life in a community where I believe so fundamentally differently from everyone around me: I ask myself "Is there room in my world for you to be as you are? And is there room in your world for me to be as I am?" And if I answer "no" to that first question I had better have a damn good reason.

On Tuesday, they all answered "no" to the second. I've been unequivocally rejected.

I am hyper aware that my choices affect those around me, as theirs affect me. And yet I find myself surrounded by good people who nevertheless voted for a man to be President that they wouldn't want to leave alone in the same room as their teenage daughters.

Cognitive dissonance is the most generous way I can think of to describe it. But I'm not sure it will do anyone any good to be "generous" about a Donald Trump presidency.

In her concession speech Clinton said Trump deserved us to have an open mind. But the truth is Trump has always been completely honest about who and what he was. What you see is what you get -- that is the way he relates to the world, and he has never felt the need to apologize for it or excuse it. In fact, he embraces it. So no, there is no hidden statesman under the brash exterior. He is not secretly good hearted or kind. He is exactly what he has campaigned as, and this country chose that to be its President.

>130 sturlington:

But these people sincerely don't understand why they are being called bigots today.

Trump's own words and deeds more than amply provide reasons for that. If they "don't understand" how the racism and sexism he positively BOASTED of is horrific and harmful, then they are sorely in need of information, education, if not a whole another conscience.

We thought common decency would naturally win out without taking the time to find out if we all agreed on what common decency is.

I speak from a different perspective (not being an "American liberal"), and it's very easy to accuse me of anti-Americanism above all else, but I think the case is rather that Trump's voters don't give a hoot about decency, common or not. They are out for themselves, first and last--at ANY cost.

I doubt seeking common grounds on the question of decency will help at all to prevent the prospective tax cuts for the rich, the even stronger aid to corporations, the demolishing of environmental protection and so on.

>131 John5918:

An old university colleague of mine who is definitely well-educated and well-off, a retired senior civil servant, who voted for Brexit, used a very similar phrase to you when he met a group of us in a pub some time after the Brexit vote - he basically accused us of being "rather smug in our conviction of our rightness".

Speaking of "rightness", what does your well-educated friend have to say about the obscene lies and fabrications of the Brexit campaign, evident throughout to anyone capable of achieving a good education, and what was his take on the shameful manipulation of racism and xenophobia? Accusing other people of being "smug" in their convictions actually says ZILCH ZERO NADA about the quality of those convictions, did he notice that?

>132 dukedom_enough:

Yes. That is, there is, there will be.

ETA: cross-post w/ Nicki

>130 sturlington:

Those who voted for Trump, who care about taking their country back, preserving their way of life, still see themselves as good and decent people, with a noble cause. I'm not excusing them. But these people sincerely don't understand why they are being called bigots today.


They voted for a bigot. I cannot see what is in their hearts, I can only judge them by their actions. Some of them are bigots; some of them are not. I can't know who's who unless they show me. If they give money, join protests, and write their representatives to oppose Trump's bigoted policies, I will believe them when they say they're not bigots. But if they're just nice to their gay cousin at Thanksgiving and think the black family down the street is okay, without taking action to protect their neighbors and families? I don't really care if they aren't personally bigoted when they support bigoted policies.

>134 southernbooklady:

I didn't have the stomach to listen or read Clinton's speech but I caught a sentence as reported somewhere, about "never stopping to think that fighting for what you know is right is worthwhile" (it was much nicer and better said, but I don't want to look for it)...--that's a coded message, if I ever saw one, that I wanted to hear.

I did go to bed imagining her for once dropping all protocol and saying simply: This is awful, this is horrible, we're saddled with a talking orange alligator for the next four years, but we shall survive, and overcome.

Oh, which reminds me! We still have to look forward to Bob Dylan's acceptance speech in Stockholm!

>136 lorax:

Yes.

There's no call for some anguished soul-searching and wondering where you went wrong--it's those bastards who committed nothing short of a crime.

Let's remember that white people will be cushioned to some degree no matter what happens; that the majority of white people including the majority of white women voted in Trump, while black people overwhelmingly supported Clinton.

This is a terrible, shameful, utterly racist betrayal of America's REAL struggling underclass, the REAL oppressed.

Women of color, in contrast, voted overwhelmingly for Clinton: 94% of black women supported her, and 68% of Latino women. While exit polling data has flaws, the early responses underline a stark racial divide among American women: the majority of white women embraced Trump and his platform, while women of color rejected him.

These idiotic, craven, narcissistic, just plain stupid explanations of Trump's white female supporters sicken me to my soul: The real 'shy Trump' vote - how 53% of white women pushed him to victory

>138 LolaWalser: how 53% of white women pushed him to victory

It is a betrayal. Not just of women, but of every value they claimed they were upholding by voting against Clinton.

I understand the anger. I feel it too. I am so mad. I feel like my son's future has been stolen away. Literally. Under Trump, we have no hope of combatting climate change, and the earth may be uninhabitable for any grandchildren I might imagine. Whenever I think about this, I feel like someone is kicking me in the gut.

And I'm not saying that any of you are wrong. You absolutely are not wrong. I agree with you. We have all been repudiated.

What I'm saying is that the people who voted for Trump fundamentally do not see things that way. We can all shout about how they're wrong, and it won't make a fart's worth of difference. Just as the lies of Trump's campaign, the misinformation, the complete and utter denial when it comes to issues like Russia didn't make any difference.

I am not saying you are smug, Nicki. I'm saying that this is how the liberals were seen, and I think the Democrats and the media didn't help alleviate that perception one whit. I'm saying that there are two worlds here, and this is how the other world sees us.* The most racist person I have been close to was my grandmother (now departed). She grew up in the Jim Crow South. Racism was part of how she saw the world. She would casually say things that were shocking and reprehensible. But she didn't consider herself a racist. She didn't think of herself as a bad person, and really, she was a very generous and kind person. If you had tried to tell her how racist she was being, she'd look at you like you were from another planet. I know. I got many of those looks from her.

So there are choices here. You don't have to engage with these people at all. Many will not. Most of us are very segregated where we live. I myself live in a liberal bubble. I would argue that this separation has put our country in a very dangerous position, though. Our country is becoming or may already be ungovernable as one group of people.

You can go into full-on battle mode with neighbors and family. That is your choice. I wouldn't fault anyone, especially anyone who feels this election was a personal repudiation of who they are, for making that choice. But just know that you are probably not going to change any minds that way. That may not be your goal, and that's fine.

Or you can try to engage with them. If you do that, then you have to engage with them where they are, not where you wish they were or where you think they should be.

Now, these are choices regarding the people we see in everyday life. When it comes to our elected representatives, I feel very strongly that capitulation and promises to work together are the p***y's way out, to use the vernacular of our times. It should be clear by now that the Republicans have been at war with us for 8 years, and the Democrats have refused to acknowledge that. The Republicans refused to even consider our Supreme Court nominee ffs. But yet the Democrats are showing every sign of rolling over yet again, and this is why Democrats lose.

So no, I don't agree with Clinton that we should have an open mind about Trump. We should fight him for every inch of ground. But are the Democrats going to do that? Ha!

The Democrats have completely failed us in this election. They failed to stand up--in a strong, non-mealy-mouthed way--for minorities and women and the people at the lower end of the income scale. They failed to speak directly to the people they needed to come out and vote for them in numbers. Remember that 43% of voters did not vote. The Obama coalition did not turn out. When Obama was elected, change was promised. For many people, that change never materialized. That was largely due to unfettered obstructionism, but guess what, folks? It worked. Look who's in power now. So rolling over and cooperating with these people is not going to result in any gains for the issues that we care about, and it's not going to win elections. That has been proved, unequivocally.

I no longer consider myself a Democrat, and I will be letting them know that they can no longer expect to receive money or volunteer time from me unless they grow a spine, and quick. My mother is doing the same thing. It is clear that the way we have been doing things isn't working. We had 8 years of Obama, and I love Obama, but the gains we made under him are going to be wiped out now, and the country is at each other's throats. Some of this has to be on the Democrats.

(*And just to make it clear, I'm not talking about the flat-out neo-nazis, alt-right, trolls, and those who are clearly aware of and proud of their bigotry. I'm talking about people like my father-in-law and Nicki's neighbors and your friends and family who you can't believe voted for Trump.)

I read this story a few weeks ago. I would urge you all to read it. It is about a former white supremacist who changed and what caused that change.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-white-flight-of-derek-black/2016/10/...

>140 sturlington:

I'm curious, given the resistance to truth, facts and reason (eerily similar to the Brexit forces) these people have defiantly shown, how you think one can "engage" with Trump's voters "where they are", whatever that means. The horror of Trump's "Mexicans are rapists" and similar isn't that most of his voters genuinely believe that Mexicans are rapists, it's that his voters want, need, seek and support that rhetoric, that FEELING--"facts" and "truth" be damned.

So it's not as if the problem is that nobody would listen, sit them down and patiently, seriously, discuss whether or not Mexicans are rapists and so on. These people want the sound and the fury that Trump provided, logic and truth be damned. They want to PREVAIL, by any means necessary. Like that bitch in the article above says, the orthopaedic surgeon, that she struggled to get out of poverty and become a rich doctor and doesn't want to see her income diminished.

The median income of Trump's voters is higher than the national. His supporters aren't some homogeneous class of poor whites who haven't been heard or some such, but a mishmash of very rich and rich people, alt-right, and the sort of "working class" who finds fascism more attractive than anything on the left for exactly those "identitarian" reasons they love to execrate in leftists.

As for looking for an alternative to the Democrats, it's never been clear to me why everyone thinks a two-party system is the best American democracy can muster (or best FOR American democracy), and that's what I'm asking about in the "2020" thread over there...

I think Naomi Klein's argument goes too much to "ultimate" causes here (I think there are many more and more pertinent "proximate" causes in races as incredibly tight as this one), but she is generally right--however, this was right already decades ago, when the Dems first went for mimicry of the Republicans:

It was the Democrats' embrace of neoliberalism that won it for Trump

And, maybe I'm too cynical, but I don't believe this:

A good chunk of Trump’s support could be peeled away if there were a genuine redistributive agenda on the table.

Or, rather, I can't believe that ANYONE, truly ANYONE, could seriously expect a "genuine redistributive agenda" from TRUMP.

>140 sturlington:

You can go into full-on battle mode with neighbors and family. That is your choice. I wouldn't fault anyone, especially anyone who feels this election was a personal repudiation of who they are, for making that choice. But just know that you are probably not going to change any minds that way. That may not be your goal, and that's fine.

I don't care about changing minds. I care about protecting my family. And right now that means assuming that Trump voters are bigots until they prove otherwise by their actions. Does being called racist just because they voted for a racist and aren't opposing his racist policies hurt their feelings? Not as much having his skin color be lawfully considered probable cause for being stopped by the police under any circumstances will hurt my son. If they want to reach out and find common ground, they can damn well take the first step.

At this point I think it's also good to remember, as someone else pointed out, that Clinton won the popular vote. By about mere 200 000 or so--but she WON the popular vote, it is an actual, mathematical, factual fact--more people voted for her than did for Trump.

>135 LolaWalser: what does your well-educated friend have to say about the obscene lies and fabrications of the Brexit campaign

Brexit people tend to gloss over that, simply (and erroneously) accusing both sides of lies and fabrications.

>140 sturlington: You can go into full-on battle mode with neighbors and family. That is your choice. I wouldn't fault anyone, especially anyone who feels this election was a personal repudiation of who they are, for making that choice. But just know that you are probably not going to change any minds that way.

We are frequently told to be the change we want to see in the world -- which is really just a new agey version of the Christian's call to live in the imitation of Christ. By and large I do try to live this way, even though doing so means you forgo the security of that "bubble" we all wish we could stay in. But we change more minds by setting an example than by preaching at people. In fact, my favorite solution for world peace? Get everyone to share a meal together. You can't dehumanize someone who has just passed you the potatoes.

Which begs the question -- what example does anyone think Donald Trump will set? Has set? How is he looking to the average GOP member as a role model?

The truth is, we all have to face up to the reality that we could be wrong. I was positive about the better nature of the American public right up until about 9:30 pm on November 8, when I realized that Clinton would probably not win Florida. Then I had to admit I had been wrong. That Americans were more motivated by fear than by hope for a better future.

And the people who cast their ballots for Trump? That was the price they were willing to pay so they wouldn't have to admit they were wrong about the direction of the country.

>145 John5918:

Which is plainly mad. If someone hears "we send £350 million a week to Brussels that we'll give to the NHS instead"--a lie that was immediately easily demonstrable as such to anyone, let alone people with good educations--and thinks "that's a lie but hey everyone lies", then the question still remains why they are voting for these and not those "liars". The outcomes were sufficiently DIFFERENT to make that argument insane. But, frankly, I think THAT's a lie. I think anyone who implies they sort of shrugged and voted for Brexit because "both side lie" is sufficiently embarrassed by the real reason to keep stumm about it.

>146 southernbooklady:

That Americans were more motivated by fear than by hope for a better future.

Motivated by fear that someone else's better future is ruining their own.

I'm sorry, I can't take this anymore. You all figure out a way to break bread with Trump's voters.

I'm going to spend a few days imagining their fucking heads exploding.

>147 LolaWalser:

Absolutely.

>143 lorax: I hope that no one here would criticize you for doing everything you can to protect your family and stay safe.

As I said, we have choices here. I'm not interested in breaking bread with Trump supporters either, except as much as I need to in order to preserve family relationships. I'm figuring out what my priorities are in this current reality. They do not include changing the minds of Trump voters. I just feel like it's helpful to try to understand the perspective of the person who opposes you.

>146 southernbooklady: Yes, we were all wrong about the better nature of the American people. It was a fatal mistake. Now what do we do?

margd posted this by Michael Moore in a Pro and Con thread and I think it's worth repeating here:

Morning After To-Do List:

1. Take over the Democratic Party and return it to the people. They have failed us miserably.

2. Fire all pundits, predictors, pollsters and anyone else in the media who had a narrative they wouldn't let go of and refused to listen to or acknowledge what was really going on. Those same bloviators will now tell us we must "heal the divide" and "come together." They will pull more hooey like that out of their ass in the days to come. Turn them off.

3. Any Democratic member of Congress who didn't wake up this morning ready to fight, resist and obstruct in the way Republicans did against President Obama every day for eight full years must step out of the way and let those of us who know the score lead the way in stopping the meanness and the madness that's about to begin.

4. Everyone must stop saying they are "stunned" and "shocked". What you mean to say is that you were in a bubble and weren't paying attention to your fellow Americans and their despair. YEARS of being neglected by both parties, the anger and the need for revenge against the system only grew. Along came a TV star they liked whose plan was to destroy both parties and tell them all "You're fired!" Trump's victory is no surprise. He was never a joke. Treating him as one only strengthened him. He is both a creature and a creation of the media and the media will never own that.

5. You must say this sentence to everyone you meet today: "HILLARY CLINTON WON THE POPULAR VOTE!" The MAJORITY of our fellow Americans preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Period. Fact. If you woke up this morning thinking you live in an effed-up country, you don't. The majority of your fellow Americans wanted Hillary, not Trump. The only reason he's president is because of an arcane, insane 18th-century idea called the Electoral College. Until we change that, we'll continue to have presidents we didn't elect and didn't want. You live in a country where a majority of its citizens have said they believe there's climate change, they believe women should be paid the same as men, they want a debt-free college education, they don't want us invading countries, they want a raise in the minimum wage and they want a single-payer true universal health care system. None of that has changed. We live in a country where the majority agree with the "liberal" position. We just lack the liberal leadership to make that happen (see: #1 above).

Let's try to get this all done by noon today.

-- Michael Moore

The media also failed us horribly this election: http://www.salon.com/2016/11/10/how-the-media-made-this-monster-they-normalized-...

>151 sturlington:

Yes, that's good. Almost cheering. I know a lot of "elite" look down on Moore, but he's good people.

>152 sturlington:

And that's true too. Every single Hillary Clinton "scandal" turned out to be a pile of monstrously hyped bullshit and unadulterated lies.

And yet--and this is where I think misogyny crucially enters the picture, decades ago (at least--from the time Bill Clinton was a nominee) and created and stoked this standing wave of hostility towards her, that nothing could, at this point, break. Since 1992, at least, it's been something sitting on her like a hump, and growing. How can I put it? It's not the only ingredient, but it was the yeast that helped animosity grow out of all proportion and for reasons that would never attach to man--she was ambitious, harsh, not enough of a mother (only one child! I remember that!), not pretty enough, not submissive enough, and then when she stood by her husband, that was evil too.

To hate her became a habit that had nothing to do with her objective faults.

Does anyone believe a candidate with qualifications and general features identical to hers, but a male, would have lost to Trump?

Roxane Gay, short talk with WNYC:

http://www.wnyc.org/story/roxane-gay-hopelessness-wake-election/

nice:

http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/11/10/501468031/somali-refugee-mak...

Also:

National Post's trio of front page headlines made me laugh: Trump proves anything is possible--Trump's Agenda (We Think)--Canada might yet benefit

Charles Blow: America Elects a Bigot

... Mr. Trump will become this country’s 45th president. For me, it is a truly shocking fact, a bitter pill to swallow. I remain convinced that this is one of the worst possible people who could be elected president. I remain convinced that Trump has a fundamentally flawed character and is literally dangerous for world stability and injurious to America’s standing in that world.

There is so much that I can’t fully comprehend.

It is hard to know specifically how to position yourself in a country that can elect a man with such staggering ineptitude and open animus. It makes you doubt whatever faith you had in the country itself.

Also, let me be clear: Businessman Donald Trump was a bigot. Candidate Donald Trump was a bigot. Republican nominee Donald Trump was a bigot. And I can only assume that President Donald Trump will be a bigot.

It is absolutely possible that America didn’t elect him in spite of that, but because of it. Consider that for a second. Think about what that means. This is America right now: throwing its lot in with a man who named an alt-right sympathizer as his campaign chief.

How can I make sense of the fact that the president appeared in pornos?

How can I make sense of the fact that the man who will appoint the next attorney general has himself boasted of assaulting women? What will this president’s vaunted “law and order” program for “inner cities” look like in an age where minority communities are already leery of police aggression?

How do I make sense of the fact that a man who attacked a federal judge for his “Mexican heritage” will be the man who will nominate the next Supreme Court justice and scores of federal judges?

I can’t make it make sense because it doesn’t. I must sit with the absurdity of it.

I must settle this in myself in this way: I respect the presidency; I do not respect this president-elect. I cannot. Count me among the resistance.

This was beautifully written but it's very hard to read; if you are in self care mode, you may not want to click.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/mirajacob/a-letter-to-my-brown-son-about-trumps-america...

>159 sturlington:

Thanks for that. And thanks for posting when it's so hard.

Okay, time to stop analyzing, and griping. What has happened has happened. What we need to do is look forward to our 46th presidential candidate. This was an idea presented to me by a friend and it makes perfect sense. Michelle Obama should be our candidate for 2020. She's intelligent, has dignity, is articulate, tough, has been around Washington, and doesn't have the baggage Hillary has. She would be the perfect antidote to wash the foul greasy taste out of Americans mouths after the trump legacy. Just a thought.

>159 sturlington: That was a great piece. I wish there was a way to make the people who should read it, want to read it.

If you look over Trump's right shoulder at the beginning of this clip, you can see a bust of MLK. I was half-surprised to not see tears streaming out of its eyes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T21v-jmxiC8

Some good advice from Rachel Maddow (it's the video entitled "Trump threat to American foundations best met with civic activism"):

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show

My friend and neighbour works for Canada Customs her in Vancouver. Her current shift is clearing people who come off the Amtrak train from Seattle and points south. People are coming off and trying to claim refugee status.

>135 LolaWalser:

Speaking of "rightness", what does your well-educated friend have to say about the obscene lies and fabrications of the Brexit campaign, evident throughout to anyone capable of achieving a good education, and what was his take on the shameful manipulation of racism and xenophobia?

This is the big problem. There wasn't one single reason behind Brexit, just as I think there isn't one single reason behind Trumpkinism. In the case of Brexit, there was the rump of Europhobes who were always going to vote en masse to leave. Then there was a small (probably, hopefully) minority, who actually believed all those stupid claims and ridiculous lies told during the campaign.

But there was a third group, and this is where Brexit and Trump have a strong commonality, and who probably comprised the numbers required to gain the somewhat unexpected result in both cases :

- these are the people who had come to loathe the establishment elites, in Washington, in Brussels, and in Westminster too. They voted not necessarily because they wanted what they were voting for (which sounds counter intuitive, but is definitely in the nature of a protest vote), but because they wanted to voice their dissatisfaction, and to hell with the actual outcome. And this is what we have to contend with - the stale and completely out-of-touch ruling elites who just assumed that 'the masses' will swallow whatever they're fed and do what they're told. Sadly for the future of civilised society, that smugness and complacency has brought about Brexit and Trump.

>141 sturlington:

I just read that in full. Amazing and inspiring. It deserves to be very widely "out there".

>147 LolaWalser:

It's a stunningly poor generalisation, but I'm going to make it anyway : MANY of the Brexit voters were either less well educated than the Remain side, OR they were more inclined to vote emotionally rather than rationally, and their current illogical defence of their votes ("Hey, you lost! Get over it! Stop whinging!") is also based purely on emotion, among which is the fear that their victory (toys) might be taken away from them.

Oh, one more thing: you in the States have one thing missing that makes you lucky lucky lucky - the quite awful tabloid press owned by obscenely wealthy foreign or ex-pat individuals and corporations that we in the UK are stuck with - principally The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, and that ridiculous comic The Sun (Murdoch). To give one glaring example : when the Appeals Court ruled that Parliament had to have a say in the Article 50 application for Brexit (it's in our 1689 constitution for God's sake), The Mail printed a front page showing portraits of each of the three judges above a headline that read ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE. Then, in Facebook, someone started circulating this front page alongside a reproduction of a Nazi Germany newspaper front page from the 1930s, which showed a line of portraits - all judges - above a headline in German that read ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE.

>167 Tid:

Americans don't need tabloids (and they do exist--The National Enquirer and similar--successfully selling bat-child stories and Illuminati conspiracies since Ramses XXIII), they have the Fox News and the zillion rightwing noisemakers on social media.

What Lola said. Fox News is a pernicious influence in American society.

All of the major media outlets jumped all over the Comey story and shouted on front pages that the Clinton investigation was being reopened before knowing the facts. I was most ashamed of The New York Times, once my go-to source for rational news, was one of the worst offenders.

>170 sturlington:

Yes. I never want to look at the NY Times again.

>171 LolaWalser: I am searching for alternative news sources. Right now, I am mostly following individual journalists on Twitter.

>171 LolaWalser:

Yeah, between that and their mendacious meters on Election Night that had random movements of the needles built in (you'd see swings in predicted EV and popular vote fraction even if you had wi-fi turned off) I'm done with them, too.

>173 lorax:

!!!

I didn't notice that, but that effing dial and the ticker tape before made me livid. It was just ludicrously, almost JEERINGLY incredible--and yet there it was, day after day... It caused me more anxiety than the stuff I heard reported as said or done by Trump's supporters, which was simply what one could expect.

Women's march on Washington planned http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/11/11/million-women-march-being-...

If you want to understand Trump voters, and remember that to understand is not the same as empathizing with them, I suggest reading this article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/the-real-reason-donald-tru...

>176 sturlington:

But he was especially bothered by the change in complexion in his city. “Look around you, half the signs are in Spanish,” he said. “They come in, not even legal, work for cash, and they get help from the government. I don’t get any help, and I keep paying more and more for health insurance.” He talked about “elites” in Washington more interested in minorities and refugees than in people like him; the idea of giving them citizenship rights appalled him: “They’re getting a free ride into the middle class when I have to work for it,” he said. He didn’t personally know any Central Americans, but he felt drawn to Mr. Trump’s bid to solve the problem through mass explusion.

“This doesn’t feel like my country any more,” he said – a phrase I kept hearing from Trump supporters. He liked Trump, he said, because he could restore the United States of his childhood.

Oh, boo hoo. Whiny racist.

>177 southernbooklady: You can't successfully oppose someone you don't understand. We have lost everything because of this.

>178 sturlington:

If I may encroach on this topic and everyone's patience for a blabby foreigner a little longer, I'm not sure the problem is that people generally didn't "understand" Trump's voters. From my POV they are not only very understandable, they are familiar. I've seen "Trump's voters" not only in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, they were the first--and most numerous--Americans I became aware of in the States. (And they exist in Canada too, in not insignificant number. Hell, the city of Toronto legitimised a Trump-avant-la-lettre, Rob Ford, may he rest in grease.)

I can believe there was a problem of environment bias--causing a failure of recognition of how MANY Trump's voters there were, but not necessarily a failure of "understanding" their "psychology".

Beyond that, there's also the fact there's only so much "understanding" can do. Is it a call for better manipulation? For re-education? For compromise?

There are severe limits to all that.

>178 sturlington: Here's the thing. I understand. That guy, I live surrounded by people who think as he does. I am friends with them. I learned a very long time ago how to live among people like him, and walk that line that respects their views while still holding true to mine. I decided, ages ago, to be the example they couldn't refute -- that change did not mean sacrificing all their values, that we had common goals and ground worth working for.

That has meant navigating a lot of iffy conversations, of learning the fine art of challenging their assumptions warmly and with an open heart. So I get it, I do.

But I don't excuse it. They don't get a pass from me because they are frightened of the future. They voted in a guy who is a sexist racist pig. An overt, blatant, proud of it sexist, racist pig. People like to talk about taking responsibility. Well I agree. They need to take responsibility for their vote. For who and what they voted for.

I think the whole "Make America Great Again" slogan was a massive joke. People want an America where they have control over their future? Where hard work is rewarded? Where people don't live off welfare? I'm all for that. People should have the opportunity to make something of themselves.

But they can't stomach the idea of learning a little Spanish? That's crossing the line? Asking too much of them? Pathetic. What they really want is a world where they don't have to adapt. That is not being great, it is being weak. You know what I want to say to that guy? Man up.

>177 southernbooklady:

Exactly. What's not to understand about that? Man thinks there are too many minorities in his fair city, is willing to agree to mass expulsion--a violence, among other things--to get rid of them.

Probably futile to "discuss", difficult to compromise on, and impossible to agree with. But not hard to understand at all.

>181 LolaWalser: My biggest problem this week has been learning how to deal with this deep -- possibly bottomless -- well of anger I've got. I actually had to avoid talking to my neighbors for the last few days because I knew I held them culpable.

I've been reading a book called The House of Twenty Thousand Books -- (you might like, Lola), and there is a long section in there early on about how a difference of political opinions about Stalin destroyed a friendship. And at the time I thought, how could you let something like that poison the regard you held for each other.

But now I know. And I don't want it to happen. So I'm avoiding people until I can figure out how to forgive them.

OK, I get what both of you saying. Here's where I am coming from.

I sincerely thought Clinton was going to win. In fact, I nurtured high hopes that it would be a blowout. It was the opposite. I am struggling to understand because I want to know what to do different next time--if we even get a next time.

I am not about compromise. I am not about excusing these behaviors. If you think I am, then I might as well have never posted anything to this group. But I am a realist. I don't know if the Democrats will continue to exist in any meaningful form. But there has to be some opposition.

There are op-eds galore about this being about disaffected low-income blue-collar workers, that their woes are economic. They are wrong. The voting statistics don't support it. The people who voted were middle-class or higher and white. This article suggests that they were also segregated.

A lot of people just stayed home because there was no message for them, though. Those are the people the opposition needs to reach.

I try to be a pragmatist. People need to take responsibility for their vote. They need to own their racism and homophobia and misogyny. But they won't. Why should they? They won. They control all three branches of federal government. They control almost 2/3's of the states. If they continue to win state governments, they will soon be able to make constitutional amendments without opposition.

Understanding is about strategy. For instance, the whole idea of the "contact effect" is promising. How can we reduce segregation?

Probably this is not the thread to discuss strategy, though.

The more ruthlessly blunt you are about your reality, as horrifying as it is, the better you will be equipped to change it.

— Sarah Kendzior (@sarahkendzior) November 12, 2016

>183 sturlington: I nurtured high hopes that it would be a blowout.

It should have been a blow out. It's shameful that it wasn't a blow out.

Unlike many people, I'm not inclined to "blame" the Democrats, though. I only blame the people who voted for Trump. I think the Democrats have offered a generally consistent message -- not as left of center as I would have liked, but in terms of choices it was a viable one that people from any position could have worked with. And generally more forward looking than backward looking.

As for opposition, it is there. It's not going anywhere. But I think the people who are longing for the 50s have forgotten that they were followed by the 60s. We're in for some interesting times.

the people who are longing for the 50s have forgotten that they were followed by the 60s.

HA! This is now my daily quote! If we had sigs it would be my sig!

>183 sturlington:

It's not strategy. Far from it.. but note how well Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn have done in an age when real socialism was thought to be dead and buried forever. Maybe it will turn out to be a false dawn? But maybe, just maybe, it will prove to be the day the worm first began to turn. Against? Against the Reaganomics and Thatcherism (however diluted) that have ruled since the 1980s.

>182 southernbooklady:

there is a long section in there early on about how a difference of political opinions about Stalin destroyed a friendship. And at the time I thought, how could you let something like that poison the regard you held for each other.

But now I know. And I don't want it to happen. So I'm avoiding people until I can figure out how to forgive them.

Forgiveness is overrated. By which I don't mean the thing to do is stew and dwell on people's iniquity and nourish hatred for years and years to come--absolutely not, we got better things to do. But neither should what was done--and who did it--ever be forgotten.

First, they've stabbed you once in the back--or the front, as the case may be--and they might very well do so again. Second, maybe a stab isn't where those people end. Third, forgiving them makes what they did seem tolerable. I could go on.

Countless people, including myself, have lost not just friends but estranged family members over politics. It sounds trivial, "over politics", but there's nothing trivial about warmongering, racism, misogyny, deportations, genocide. If we want others to take responsibility over how they vote, we must ourselves recognise there IS a responsibility attached to every vote. Anyway, that's how I see it. Rather than a burden, the memory of what was done and by whom is a reminder to keep fighting.

I'm not forgiving this:

LGBT Suicide Hotlines See a Spike in Call Volume After Trump Win

Trans Hotline, a nonprofit that focuses on suicide prevention for transgender people, has received at least five times the call volume it normally gets. And the Trevor Project, the nation's only LGBT youth-focused suicide prevention hotline, received more calls, texts, and online chats on Wednesday than it's gotten on a single day in four years, more than double its normal daily volume.

I don't think they really want to go back to the 1950s.

There may have been colour television, but no cell phones, no internet, no personal computing.

The life expectancy was 10 years shorter. Infant mortality rates in the US have gone from 29.2 to 6.1 per 1000 births.

>189 MarthaJeanne:

Yes, but Father Knew Best, and "colored" and white didn't mix.

There is also the little fact that even if the US were to go back to the 50s, the rest of the world wouldn't. Building a wall would be futile.

Possible donation recipient if you're looking for orgs to support: http://www.womenonwaves.org

Consider donating: http://www.womenonwaves.org

So much I want to respond to here.

>177 southernbooklady:

He didn’t personally know any Central Americans

Ah, there's the rub. I have black friends, Hispanic friends (my last girlfriend was from Columbia), Asian friends, liberal friends, conservative friends, Catholic friends, Jewish friends, gay friends, lesbian friends... you get the idea. Not because I'm a paragon of virtue, but because I would get really fucking bored talking to straight white liberal guys all the time - I need a different point of view every once in a while (at least). Can most Trump supporters say the same? Do most of them even make the effort?

“This doesn’t feel like my country any more”

And now it doesn't feel like my country anymore. Was this about putting the shoe on the other foot?

>183 sturlington:

There are op-eds galore about this being about disaffected low-income blue-collar workers, that their woes are economic. They are wrong. The voting statistics don't support it.

That's correct. People making under $50,000/year tended to vote for Clinton.*

>184 southernbooklady:

As for opposition, it is there. It's not going anywhere. But I think the people who are longing for the 50s have forgotten that they were followed by the 60s. We're in for some interesting times.

Yes it is. There have been anti-Trump protests all over the world since 11/8.** People that think we're just gonna lay down and die have got another thing coming.

* http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.ht...
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_Donald_Trump#Post-election_protes...

>194 artturnerjr: Not because I'm a paragon of virtue, but because I would get really fucking bored talking to straight white liberal guys all the time - I need a different point of view every once in a while (at least).

If we value equality, if we believe in the value of every human life, then it doesn't matter whether or not we know any Muslims or gay people or whatever. The simple fact that they are human beings is enough to make a claim on our compassion, our tolerance, our respect, and our recognition of our shared humanity.

>195 southernbooklady:

Well said.

>195 southernbooklady:

ditto

The alt-right enters the white House

Donald Trump Picks Reince Priebus as Chief of Staff and Stephen Bannon as Strategist http://nyti.ms/2ev1kev

If you want to see where our country is heading under the trump administration read The Handmaid's Tale.

>199 morningwalker: And Parable of the Talents: http://www.press.uillinois.edu/wordpress/?p=21211

But I think the people who are longing for the 50s have forgotten that they were followed by the 60s.

I'm not convinced that some of them aren't longing for the 1850s.

Which were of course followed by a decade including the Civil War, so your comment about "interesting times" most definitely applies in spades.

>201 lorax: I can't find the reference but I saw a comparison between this election and the election of 1856. Made a good case. I'm not fluent enough in presidential history to reproduce it, though.

In case anyone is interested, this link was shared on another site - http://www.racked.com/2016/11/11/13598916/shop-proceeds-to-planned-parenthood Shirts and other stuff, making statements and giving money to Planned Parenthood.

>202 sturlington:

James Buchanan won the election of 1856 (he's often named as the worst president ever), so adding his name might help find the article.

I usually don't believe in online petitions but this one goes to White House and may help, probably can't hurt: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/appoint-garland-now-senate-has-waived...

You know, it has been what....six days now? And I seem to only be getting angrier.

I feel like a knife is constantly twisting in my belly.

I contacted all three of my congressmen today and told them I expected them to oppose Steve Bannon's appointment as senior advisor. Phone calls are more effective than writing. Again, it can't hurt. I told the two Republicans that I expected them to oppose white nationalism as official US policy.

>206 southernbooklady:

You know what gets me? And--if we live--it might even be funny some day... So, Clinton lost, and amid the horror of the significance of Trump's win I felt a tiny, tiniest ever stab of relief--no, nothing that could remotely "compensate" for this, nothing of the sort... but something just that tiniest bit not-entirely-negative. And it was this: I was sure and still am sure that if she'd been elected there'd be every second of every minute of every hour of every day etc. for her entire term such a shower of shit and hate and blame for literally everything, that it almost made me wonder if it would have been worth having a female POTUS. I even thought of posting something about how now we knew who'll be bottom of those "best POTUS" lists for eternity.

But, she lost. Hillary Clinton will never make any POTUS lists. And yet. And yet. And yet...

THE SHOWERS OF SHIT AND HATE ARE STILL POURING OUT ON HER!!! IT'S STILL HER FAULT FOR RUNNING, LOSING, BREATHING, BEING...!

"BAGGAGE!!!"

"BAGGAGE!!!"

Sorry, had to give with the shouts a little there... :)

Goddamit, not only was she drawn and quartered by the rabid dogs on the right, and strenuously slandered by others, including supposedly her "own" side--to some people SHE will be guilty for everything Trump does.

The thing I found personally about Clinton was that as the campaign went on, and the hostility against her rose from all sides, my respect for her only grew. She dealt with more crap -- untrue, hysterical, outright lying crap -- than even Obama and she refused to back down. By the end of it my feelings, which had been lukewarm (I really aligned politically more with Sanders), were 125% admiration. I'm ashamed we didn't elect her, but I think the complaints people make about her, and the machiavellian agenda they invest in her, are pathetic.

>209 southernbooklady: Same. Absolutely.

Oh I am not feeling the holidays this year. I am so thankful everyone on my side is liberal and we can just get drunk together. I've decided to ask for charitable donations or to donate any presents I get.

The radicalization of young white men https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/15/alt-right-manosphere-mains...

A wonderful piece here, well worth your time: https://thecorrespondent.com/5575/our-fate-was-sealed-long-before-november-8-and...

>212 sturlington:

That is what I felt ever since Trump got the nomination. That was the watershed, that was already damage done that would not be undone.

Women after the election: Ms. Taylor, 33, noticed another change in her dealings with colleagues: “My patience is thinner.”

Mine too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/style/election-women-gestures.html?smid=tw-sha...

>200 sturlington:

Which, as the article you linked to points out, is a 1998 novel which predicts a dictatorial president using the slogan "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" :/

>206 southernbooklady:

Right there with ya. Like >207 sturlington:, I'm trying to find productive things to channel that anger into IRL, which is why I haven't been here as much.

Great piece by Chimamanda Adichie http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/now-is-the-time-to-talk-about-...

Not safe for work, but bravo:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/kassycho/signed-by-trump

Fantastic!