Donald Trump

[Robert]

Yes Chris, I heard she was being discussed as a future candidate - that's why I mentioned her.

[Karl]

I think Thomas Frank phrased it well in the The Guardian:

Clinton’s supporters among the media didn’t help much, either. It always struck me as strange that such an unpopular candidate enjoyed such robust and unanimous endorsements from the editorial and opinion pages of the nation’s papers, but it was the quality of the media’s enthusiasm that really harmed her. With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station. Here’s what it consisted of:
Hillary was virtually without flaws. She was a peerless leader clad in saintly white, a super-lawyer, a caring benefactor of women and children, a warrior for social justice.

Her scandals weren’t real.

Which media would this be? Granted, I'm a foreigner looking in from outside, but I never saw anything remotely like the above. On the contrary, everywhere I turned, I saw sentiments of concern and disappointment at her nomination. "At least she is eminently qualified for office" - that was as high a praise as one would likely encounter, even on the far left.

In truth, though, the scandals were blown way out of proportion. None of her so-called "scandals" couldn't hold a candle to the legion of skeletons in Trump's closet. Even now, he has I believe 75 ongoing lawsuits against him - what will happen with them once he is in office? And how many thousand lawsuits in the past? Tax evasion, mob ties, fraud... Trump's mantra of "crooked Hillary" was pure, unadulterated projection.

The economy was doing well / America was already great.

Working-class people weren’t supporting Trump.

And if they were, it was only because they were botched humans. Racism was the only conceivable reason for lining up with the Republican candidate.

How did the journalists’ crusade fail? The fourth estate came together in an unprecedented professional consensus. They chose insulting the other side over trying to understand what motivated them. They transformed opinion writing into a vehicle for high moral boasting. What could possibly have gone wrong with such an approach?

It's not as if the journalists are all on one side. You have Fox as well, as a very significant counter-weight to CNN.

Put this question in slightly more general terms and you are confronting the single great mystery of 2016. The American white-collar class just spent the year rallying around a super-competent professional (who really wasn’t all that competent) and either insulting or silencing everyone who didn’t accept their assessment. And then they lost. Maybe it’s time to consider whether there’s something about shrill self-righteousness, shouted from a position of high social status, that turns people away.

You are describing both sides of the media in equal measure. The more nuanced news outlets were pretty much the same: "Well, at least she's no Trump"/"Well, at least he's no Hillary". And both sides focused on how crooked the opposition was, rather than build up their own side. You really can't point an accusing finger at one side here without pointing the same finger at the other.

[ChrisGeorge]

Yes Chris, I heard she was being discussed as a future candidate - that's why I mentioned her.

Understood. Thanks, Robert. Michelle Obama would make a strong future candidate. Who knows -- she may become the first woman U.S. President. If Elizabeth Warren or Jennifer Granholm don't get there first.

Cheers

Chris

[Patrick S]

Which media would this be? Granted, I'm a foreigner looking in from outside, but I never saw anything remotely like the above. On the contrary, everywhere I turned, I saw sentiments of concern and disappointment at her nomination. "At least she is eminently qualified for office" - that was as high a praise as one would likely encounter, even on the far left.

In truth, though, the scandals were blown way out of proportion. None of her so-called "scandals" couldn't hold a candle to the legion of skeletons in Trump's closet. Even now, he has I believe 75 ongoing lawsuits against him - what will happen with them once he is in office? And how many thousand lawsuits in the past? Tax evasion, mob ties, fraud... Trump's mantra of "crooked Hillary" was pure, unadulterated projection.



It's not as if the journalists are all on one side. You have Fox as well, as a very significant counter-weight to CNN.



You are describing both sides of the media in equal measure. The more nuanced news outlets were pretty much the same: "Well, at least she's no Trump"/"Well, at least he's no Hillary". And both sides focused on how crooked the opposition was, rather than build up their own side. You really can't point an accusing finger at one side here without pointing the same finger at the other.

I'm not sure what you want me to say? I didn't write it. As I said, Thomas Frank from the Guardian wrote it. For the most part, I agree.

You keep referencing "news outlets". I don't watch Fox but let's say they were 100% pro-Trump. On the other side of the spectrum there is CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, NPR, NYT, WaPo, LA Times, Jamie Oliver, Bill Maher, Trevor Noah, The View, Michael Moore's movie, and on and on. We also had commercials and/or sound-bites from Katie Perry, Tom Hanks, Scarlett Johanson, Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Madonna, Cher, Miley Cyrus, LeBron James, P Diddy, Beyoncé, Jay Z, Sarah Silverman, Amy Shumer, Snoop Dog, Mark Ruffalo, JJ Abrams, Sean Penn, I can't possibly name them all and we heard from them ad nauseam. These are the "elites" we hear about and many didn't need nor ask for their guidance.

As well, one key difference was the manner of attack. Nearly as much vitriol was directed at Trump supporters (even potential supporters) as was directed at Trump himself. Trump and his surrogates attacked Hillary for sure. I didn't see many attacks on her supporters, the democrat voter. Attacking a voter's candidate is one thing. Attacking the voter and his or her thought process and intelligence is another.

I'm not a Trump guy. I'm not a Republican. This is my observation. Thomas Frank is a liberal. He wrote the words I posted, that was his observation. I'm glad you're around to tell me who I can and cannot point an "accusing finger" at but I'd rather not have a political argument about an opinion. Last I checked we're still entitled to those.

Here is another good example of the phenomenon I'm talking about. I didn't freaking make it up.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/10/mark_halperin_rips_nyt_for_continued_anti-trump_coverage_this_is_the_day_after.html

[Patrick S]

And just so Trump voters REALLY get the message, they got this from Aaron Sorkin (creator of the West Wing) today:

"The Klan won last night. White nationalists. Sexists, racists and buffoons. Angry young white men who think rap music and Cinco de Mayo are a threat to their way of life (or are the reason for their way of life) have been given cause to celebrate. Men who have no right to call themselves that and who think that women who aspire to more than looking hot are shrill, ugly, and otherwise worthy of our scorn rather than our admiration struck a blow for misogynistic s**theads everywhere."

[Pcdunn]

CNN Article re Trump's agenda and problems he may face:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trumps-america/index.html

[John G]

CNN Article re Trump's agenda and problems he may face:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/09/po...ica/index.html

There's a quote on the link where Trump, pressed on his immigration policies, told Fox News on March that "everything is negotiable".

That must be very comforting to his supporters, who no doubt have full confidence that such an honest candidate will fully implement everything he's promised. I mean, it's not as if he made stuff up just in order to get elected!

[Patrick S]

There's a quote on the link where Trump, pressed on his immigration policies, told Fox News on March that "everything is negotiable".

That must be very comforting to his supporters, who no doubt have full confidence that such an honest candidate will fully implement everything he's promised. I mean, it's not as if he made stuff up just in order to get elected!

I doubt that's the case as much as his supporters seeing him as someone who may take the proverbial wrecking ball to Washington, the corrupt and incestuous political system, etc. I think that goes hand-in-hand with why Clinton couldn't make it across the finish line. Most, regardless of party affiliation, are ready to be done anyone named Clinton (or Bush for that matter) as they represent the political establishment which everyone recognizes is corrupt, broken, backward, awful, dirty, nasty....I could go on.

[John G]

I doubt that's the case as much as his supporters seeing him as someone who may take the proverbial wrecking ball to Washington, the corrupt and incestuous political system, etc. I think that goes hand-in-hand with why Clinton couldn't make it across the finish line. Most, regardless of party affiliation, are ready to be done anyone named Clinton (or Bush for that matter) as they represent the political establishment which everyone recognizes is corrupt, broken, backward, awful, dirty, nasty....I could go on.

I think even if that's his intention, and I'm not convinced it is, he's very unlikely to get his way, i.e. because there are so many checks and balances in the American constitution: Senate, House of Representatives, Supreme Court. I mean, at least one Republican senator, John McCain, didn't even vote for him, and Ted Cruz, who probably has similar ideological beliefs, is hardly his best friend!

[Patrick S]

I think even if that's his intention, and I'm not convinced it is, he's very unlikely to get his way, i.e. because there are so many checks and balances in the American constitution: Senate, House of Representatives, Supreme Court. I mean, at least one Republican senator, John McCain, didn't even vote for him, and Ted Cruz, who probably has similar ideological beliefs, is hardly his best friend!

I don't know what his intentions are either. I simply think that's what many who voted for him are hoping he'll do.

[Pcdunn]

What did Hilary Clinton do wrong in her campaign? She called Trump supporters "a basket of deplorables"-- that's it, pure and simple. A savvy politician may insult her opponent and his ideas as much as she wants-- but she should never insult the voters, even if they belong to a different party!

Trump's supporters accepted the moniker as a badge of pride-- "Proud to be a Deplorable" buttons and tees were worn afterwards-- and if anything it united them more.

[Pcdunn]

This is enlightening about the most extreme of the "disaffected Americans" referred to in the story about the New York Times' coverage of the election.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-2016-preppers-214433

"Preppers" used to be called "survivalists." They look on the future with doom and gloom, no matter who is in charge. They plan to meet what comes with a clear eye and lots of weaponry.

Very few of us in the mainstream of America know about them, but I think they are out there in greater numbers than imagined.

[Karl]

I'm not sure what you want me to say? I didn't write it. As I said, Thomas Frank from the Guardian wrote it. For the most part, I agree.

You keep referencing "news outlets". I don't watch Fox but let's say they were 100% pro-Trump. On the other side of the spectrum there is CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, NPR, NYT, WaPo, LA Times, Jamie Oliver, Bill Maher, Trevor Noah, The View, Michael Moore's movie, and on and on. We also had commercials and/or sound-bites from Katie Perry, Tom Hanks, Scarlett Johanson, Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Madonna, Cher, Miley Cyrus, LeBron James, P Diddy, Beyoncé, Jay Z, Sarah Silverman, Amy Shumer, Snoop Dog, Mark Ruffalo, JJ Abrams, Sean Penn, I can't possibly name them all and we heard from them ad nauseam. These are the "elites" we hear about and many didn't need nor ask for their guidance.

You list far more than I would have been able to think of off the top of my head. Are you suggesting they do not have conservative equivalents?

As well, one key difference was the manner of attack. Nearly as much vitriol was directed at Trump supporters (even potential supporters) as was directed at Trump himself. Trump and his surrogates attacked Hillary for sure. I didn't see many attacks on her supporters, the democrat voter. Attacking a voter's candidate is one thing. Attacking the voter and his or her thought process and intelligence is another.

I suppose this is true. Though the supporters on either side attacked opposing supporters with equal fervour, I guess Democrat-friendly media was more guilty of targeting the voters of the other side. Mind you, I haven't watched the American conservative media all that much, but let us stipulate that what you say is true.

I'm not a Trump guy. I'm not a Republican. This is my observation. Thomas Frank is a liberal. He wrote the words I posted, that was his observation. I'm glad you're around to tell me who I can and cannot point an "accusing finger" at but I'd rather not have a political argument about an opinion. Last I checked we're still entitled to those.

I get it, you're not a Trump guy - you're the average Trump voter. That's what I said: this election was not about voting for a candidate, it was voting against candidates. But I can't help but remain baffled at how many simply bought Trump's rhetoric hook, line and sinker: Hillary is supposedly the corrupt one; Hillary is supposedly the crook; Hillary is supposedly the liar; Hillary is supposedly the criminal. Or "Hitlary" as I kept reading at every turn. All accusations which could - and should - be more accurately levelled at Trump. Demonstrably so. And now, are you trying to suggest the reason Clinton lost is because of the hostile rhetoric she used? Colour me amazed.

Here is another good example of the phenomenon I'm talking about. I didn't freaking make it up.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...day_after.html

I'm not sure what your point is, here. Are you drawing attention to people objecting to the NYT headline, or are you trying to draw attention to the headline itself? Neither surprises me. This has not been your average presidential election, and when the rest of the Western world stares on in disbelief, is it so hard to imagine that certain domestic news outlets will express the same? Anyway, had Hillary won, do you really think the Trump supporters - voters or media - would simply have sucked it up? I foresaw riots either way.

And just so Trump voters REALLY get the message, they got this from Aaron Sorkin (creator of the West Wing) today:

I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make here either, by quoting celebs.

[c.d.]

Thanks, Caz, it's appreciated.

Oddly enough, Clinton won the popular vote, but it was the electoral vote that put Trump in office. I saw somewhere that the last time they considered changing the election process was in 1969.

On a happier note, voters in Washington, D.C., voted to petition for statehood as "New Columbia", which make them the 51st state. I read that they'll leave a "federal district" in the center of the city for the monuments and memorials. Could shake things up a bit if it happens...

D.C. is heavily Democratic. Hillary Clinton got 93% of the vote. The Republicans will never let D.C. become a state.

c.d.

[sdreid]

D.C. is heavily Democratic. Hillary Clinton got 93% of the vote. The Republicans will never let D.C. become a state.

c.d.

As I understand the original agreement, unwanted land was supposed to go back to Maryland if the Feds were done with it-which is what I wish would happen. The only people who should be living in D.C. are the President, the Vice President and their families.