Its gonna be President Trump ..!!! ??

[Jules-and-Boo]

there is one college with 8 eligible voters - which is a good explanation of why numbers in itself does not win.

[JohnL]

Look at this quote in the Hindustani times

"This is the real world, not DisneyWorld, The monster doesn?t become a loveable rogue in the end. He stays a monster.?

Ireland and India appear most miserable about this.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/columns/with-trump-no-hope-for-change/story-2JOcHg6DQ9zU5Qdqay9VJI.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-the-united-hates-of-america-has-raised-its-middle-finger-to-the-world-1.2861122

[BrandNewGuy]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Except the poorest voted for Clinton in the

> majority of cases and the richest for Trump. The

> data doesn't support the prevailing narrative.

> Whilst I agree that there are major issues with

> how globalisation has effected the poorest and in

> particular the young, look at who voted Brexit. It

> wasn't the under thirties. The problem with

> pretending that this was somehow an 'anti-elite'

> vote is that it ignores the fact that the most

> powerful and affluent people - the likes of

> Murdoch for example have been pushing a far right

> agenda which is anti immigrant, homophobic and

> misogynistic for too long. I'm not dismissing the

> real issues that have resulted from the loss of

> high paid, blue collar manufacturing jobs. But to

> say paint this as a working class revolution is

> simply wrong.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting it's a working class revolution, but I'll repeat what I put earlier about income brackets and votes: according to that exit poll (and we should beware of that*), yes, 53% of Americans who earn less than $30,000 a year voted for Clinton, while 41% voted for Trump, but that represented a swing of 16% from Dem to Rep, the biggest swing either way in all income brackets. For $30,000-$50,000 it was a 6% swing from Dem to Rep, while in fact both the $50,000-$100,000 and $100,000-$200,000 brackets saw swings from Rep to Dem.

* There's also a chance that the exit poll consistently undercounted Trump voters, as did the opinion polls before it.

[Earl Aelfheah]

There is some truth in this Louisa but the point is that a lack of high quality blue collar jobs can't explain the larger number of white collar voters. As I said originally, there isn't any one answer of course, and different people will have voted the way they did for different reasons...but there were some broad patterns in terms of what those voting in the greatest proportions shared in common (and there's some overlap with Brexit) and lots of similarities in what they voted against. It wasn't income, if anything Trumps votes were skewed towards the more affluent. They were predominantly white, generally older, and wanted to turn the clock back. Both campaigns were strongly anti-immigration and supported by the deeply, socially regressive elements of the right wing media.

[teddyboy23]

It didn't help Clinton when back in September.she slagged off millions of Americans at one of her rallies.stating. Half of trump's supporters.you could describe as deplorable.she. Said the racist islamophobic sexist xenophobic and homophobic .it wasn't just what she said; it was the way she said it.casually aiming insults at millions of people.

[Sue]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> no, I'd agree with DF.....

>

> The voters who didn't get the result they wanted

> are not accepting of it. That's pretty factual,

> Sue

There's a difference between "accepting" a result and "being accepting" of it.

ETA: I haven't seen anybody saying the result was not the outcome of a democratic vote.

I have seen a lot of people saying they don't like the result and trying to explain how it came about.

[JohnL]

teddyboy23 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It didn't help Clinton when back in September.she

> slagged off millions of Americans at one of her

> rallies.stating. Half of trump's

> supporters.you could describe as deplorable.she.

> Said the racist islamophobic sexist xenophobic and

> homophobic .it wasn't just what she said; it was

> the way she said it.casually aiming insults at

> millions of people.

Wrong

"Half of trump's supporters.you could describe as deplorable"

Right

"racist islamophobic sexist xenophobic and homophobic (are deplorable)"

[JohnL]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> There's a difference between "accepting" a result

> and "being accepting" of it.

>

> ETA: I haven't seen anybody saying the result was

> not the outcome of a democratic vote.

Clinton won on votes cast (but that's not how it works and we all knew it)

[teddyboy23]

JohnL her words not mine.no worries I will let her know.

[DaveR]

The race/class/income point is ultimately a telling one, because (as BNG has observed twice but, it seems, been ignored) the swing to Trump occurred most dramatically amongst poorer whites. The point about the rust belt states and the white working class is not that they are the poorest - the poorest states are in the Deep South and the poorest people are disproportionately black - but that they are the ones whose fortunes have declined most precipitously, both in terms of income and status. Just as with the former UK industrial heartlands it is not just that jobs have gone but that they were well paid jobs that sustained whole communities, and across generations, which supported a strong sense of identity. There are undoubtedly race and class issues as well but they are tied to income and status - white folks in Pennsylvania are now no better off than their black neighbours and worse off than the fast growing Latino middle class all across the USA, and much worse off than 'bankers' and West Coast tech types (who are probably, shock horror, also gay).

Is Trump likely to do anything to help these people (or at least anything more than Clinton)? No. Did he try harder than Clinton to reach out to them? Yes.

Edited to add - to be clear, I'm not suggesting this is the whole story. Hillary has some unattractive qualities and some unfortunate episodes in her recent past, and on the other hand I'm sure there was also a fair amount of outright misogyny.

[Earl Aelfheah]

This is pretty informative http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=1n

[JohnL]

teddyboy23 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL her words not mine.no worries I will let her

> know.

I didn't mean to imply you said it.

Anyone saying anything to Hillary this week might get slapped :)

[malumbu]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Look at this quote in the Hindustani times

>

> "This is the real world, not DisneyWorld, The

> monster doesn?t become a loveable rogue in the

> end. He stays a monster.?

>

> Ireland and India appear most miserable about

> this.

>

As ever some great posts - that I can draw from but not add too in substance. Stil waiting for my US contacts to get back to me for how they see the broader picture. But the Hindustani comment brought back light hearted memories. The fist series of Spitting Image finished with a speical, where the 'evil' Thatcher was in fact a fake, and they realised the real imprisoned Thath at the end and everything was sweetness and light.

[malumbu]

On a separate point I've heard nothing about the real Americans, ie native American Indians. They have been shat on for the last four hundred years. Does their voice count?

[Louisa]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> On a separate point I've heard nothing about the

> real Americans, ie native American Indians. They

> have been shat on for the last four hundred years.

> Does their voice count?

If their were enough of them in terms of a significant voting bloc, I'm sure we would hear politicians screaming from the rooftops to try and court their vote. Politics always comes down to numbers and concentration of numbers. Let's also not forget the wealthy Latino vote came out in force in states like Florida and Texas to support Trump, 29% of their total bloc vote in fact.

Louisa.

[Louisa]

The great Michael Moore, who told the world they should take Trump seriously and stop with their sneering a good year ago now, has written a fascinating five point plan for recovering from the Trump victory. Here's an article outlining his points, my favourite line from this piece below.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/nov/09/michael-moore-donald-trump-morning-after-to-do-list-facebook

'people 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.?

Louisa.

[jaywalker]

DaveR Wrote:

---------------------------------------------------

> The point about the rust belt states and the white

> working class is not that they are the poorest -

> the poorest states are in the Deep South and the

> poorest people are disproportionately black - but

> that they are the ones whose fortunes have

> declined most precipitously, both in terms of

> income and status. Just as with the former UK

> industrial heartlands it is not just that jobs

> have gone but that they were well paid jobs that

> sustained whole communities, and across

> generations, which supported a strong sense of

> identity. There are undoubtedly race and class

> issues as well ...

I just love this post. What is the 'as well' doing here? How is identity formed, if not in opposition to others? What is the significance of finding your income falling 'precipitously' in relation to those of other ethnicities in the deep south if not a matter of race and class? This is why this expression of populism (the vote for Trump) is deeply racist, and why many cosmopolitan liberals are rightly protesting about the anti-democratic nature of this populist vote.

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> no, I'd agree with DF.....

>

> The voters who didn't get the result they wanted

> are not accepting of it. That's pretty factual,

> Sue

What, you mean like the ignoramuses who are howling about the High Court judgment? Indeed, except that protesting about a democratic result is perfectly consistent with democracy and attempting to influence an independent judiciary is not.

[Jules-and-Boo]

No, I was actually referring to the requests to have a re-referendum.

Protesting against an outcome is of course expected. To try and divert a democratic outcome because it's not what you want - is not.

The protests about Trump are of course expected. It will take a while to settle down. Clinton is not the first to win the most votes in number but lose overall.

The first 100 days will be riveting.

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

I know what you were referring to, but I'm highlighting that protesting - including requests for a new referendum - are not inconsistent with the constitution or democracy. It would have been political suicide to allow a second referendum, but given that it was advisory only and had such a low turn-out it certainly isn't anti-democratic.

I find it interesting though that you don't acknowledge the blatantly unconstitutional actions of those trying to intimidate the judiciary though. Whether you are leave or remain or undecided, the independence of the judiciary is the lynchpin of our constitution and I'd have thought anyone who claims to care about democratic process would be more outraged by the Brexiteer response to the judgment.

[rendelharris]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The great Michael Moore, who told the world they

> should take Trump seriously and stop with their

> sneering a good year ago now...

Michael Moore who says in the piece you link to ?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.?

Is that the same Michael Moore who wrote here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/trump-self-sabotage_b_11545026.html that he knew "for a fact" Trump only ran for President in order to get a better TV deal and that he was deliberately trying to sabotage his campaign so he'd be ditched by the Republicans? This was in August this year. Seems like he's rewriting his own history in a way that rather echoes Trump...

[Seabag]

Can we not say 'rust belt' anymore please and thank you

It is very getting on my tits

👍🏽

[Earl Aelfheah]

Let's cut to the chase here. People who vote in a dangerous Proto-fascist deserve to be called out for their choices. The things Trump has said and done aren't OK. If someone is a racist and a sexist and a bully and a liar and you support them, then personally I don't think that's some kind of legitimate form of protest.

[rendelharris]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Let's cut to the chase here. People who vote in a

> dangerous Proto-fascist deserve to be called out

> for their choices. The things Trump has said and

> done aren't OK. If someone is a racist and a

> sexist and a bully and a liar and you support

> them, then personally I don't think that's some

> kind of legitimate form of protest.

Well said, "I'm angry because the system has failed me and hung my community out to dry" is perfectly legitimate, "I'm angry because the system has failed me and hung my community out to dry and so I'm going to vote for an extreme right wing bully with a record of sexual assault, lying and bullying and who's as fit to run the country as a mouldy turnip" is not. That was what I tried to say originally, I think it patronises the working class to act as though they're too stupid to see who they're voting for - it's the same over here when people vote BNP, "Oh they're angry" as if they're a bunch of children who can't be held responsible for their choices.

[Louisa]

If anyone on this forum could grasp the degree to which Hillary was disliked by the American electorate, even a huge swath of her own political party, they may just about be able to grasp how and why a 'reality TV-billionaire-narcissistic-misogynistic etc etc etc' candidate managed to become the 45th president of the United States.

....and that's before we even take on board all the previous points about globalisation, sexism, immigration, racism, scandal etc.

She tried twice to become president, failed both times. Isolated many lifelong Democrats on that path too.

Louisa.