Donald Trump is the president-elect of the U.S.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/08/donald-trumps-path-to-victory-is-suddenly-looking-much-much-wider/?hpid=hp_hp-bignews3_fix-electoralmap-210am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

by introvertmac • 10 years ago

1817 2149 10 years ago

washingtonpost.com

smegel• 10 years ago

Every pollster/pundit quit your job now.

Edit: I know, not EVERY one of them.

pfortuny• 10 years ago

Where are the Nate Silver fans right now?

andars9• 10 years ago

Hello. Pretty disappointed.

ori_b• 10 years ago

Still here. Nate Silver's models were some of the most generous towards Trump's chances of winning out there.

adt2bt2• 10 years ago

Honestly, I'm still a fan. He, unlike most other models, gave Trump a healthy shot and cautioned repeatedly that a large polling miss was possible this year. That's pretty much what happened.

nilkn• 10 years ago

To be fair, he was consistently significantly less favorable towards Clinton than any of the other high profile models. He even took quite a bit of flak for this in the weekend leading up to the election, but he stood his ground. While he was ultimately wrong, he was closer than mostly anyone else running a serious model.

douche3• 10 years ago

He really did not have a handle on this election cycle at all.

fweespeech• 10 years ago

Lol. A 1 in 4 chance of something is not lottery odds.

Still a fan, sorry.

adevine• 10 years ago

I would hope people on this board would understand statistics. Silver gave Trump about a 1/3 chance of winning, and he said the outcomes could run from a Clinton blowout to a narrow Trump victory, which is what happened.

If people were interpreting his "33%" as "0%", despite all his warnings and explanations about what was possible, that's their problem, not Silver's.

inimino7• 10 years ago

He put Trump's chances at near 30% leading up to the election. How can you ask for better than that? I don't think you can argue that an upset like this would be expected to happen more than thirty percent of the time.

Nate Silver's calls for caution are looking like some of the most reasonable pre-election commentary at this point.

nl• 10 years ago

I'm here.

I think he came out of this with his reputation enhanced: he gave Trump a 28% chance of winning the morning of the election which was vastly more than any other model.

I think about polling and forecasting a lot, and I've concluded that the presentation of forecasts is a big problem. People often seem to conflate "30% chance" with "30% of the vote" which is clearly wrong - or something like this anyway.

Silver went though the last month going "25% is a big chance!!" and no one really listened. I'm not sure what a better way to express it is though.

unimpressive• 10 years ago

You know, sometimes, a 30% chance actually happens. That is not a small number.

With that in mind, I do think this is going to necessitate another look at how much we trust and do polling.

Natsu• 10 years ago

Just to be fair, Nate Silver predicted both this and the Cubs back on May 10th in a joke:

"Reminder: Cubs will win the World Series and, in exchange, President Trump will be elected 8 days later."

https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/730251094614528000

Klockan3• 10 years ago

Who would have thought that people are reluctant to express controversial opinions in a live phone interview?

dudul2• 10 years ago

A lot of polls predicted this outcome. They were just not taken seriously or given visibility in the media.

ZenoArrow9• 10 years ago

The thing is, the actions of those pundits worked in Trump's favour. Clinton was seen as a political insider, any one-sided story could be seen by Trump supporters as the establishment trying to protect one of their own. I lost count of the number of YouTube videos with one-sided Trump bashing leaving people in the comments saying it made them more likely to vote for Trump.

douche3• 10 years ago

Scott Adams called it.

rorykoehler• 10 years ago

Millions of Bernie supporters did too.

redial• 10 years ago

Peter Thiel is not looking so foolish right now...

rch• 10 years ago

Give it time.

simonh5• 10 years ago

It depends what Thiel's objectives are. If they are purely self serving, he might do very well out of this.

M_Grey4• 10 years ago

The man who thinks that young blood (literally) is going to keep him alive? That Peter Thiel?

Yes he does.

jules• 10 years ago

Believe it or not, there is a fairly solid scientific basis for that.

astrodust7• 10 years ago

If he's anything like that Countess that bathed in the blood of virgins to extend her life he's picked the right industry to work in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Báthory

scandox2• 10 years ago

Or more foolish? We don't have to respect success

ansgri• 10 years ago

We don't have to respect success

Taken out of context, this might have been said by one of Atlas Shrugged' antagonists.

adnzzzzZ• 10 years ago

I don't know why anyone would think he is foolish. Listening to his speech at the National Press Club a few days ago it's hard to find many things to disagree with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4

murbard22• 10 years ago

No it isn't. http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=32058

dharma12• 10 years ago

Guess Palantir can look forward to a few new juicy government contracts

dharma12• 10 years ago

They must have a very good data team to have forecasted the result so much in advance ;)

XJOKOLAT• 10 years ago

Only if you value absolute, raw opportunism with little consideration of the potential consequences or externalities.

smokedoutraider2• 10 years ago

He never did. Those shouting to boycott him sure as hell did though.

nightcracker• 10 years ago

My condolences.

michaelvoz• 10 years ago

Been living in the Bay Area for 17 years. Nothing will change.

andars9• 10 years ago

Niksko• 10 years ago

Unless you're gay, a woman, or part of a minority. Then your situation is that the leader of the free world is at best openly dismissive of you, and at worst actively encourages hate towards you.

thomasahle3• 10 years ago

Nothing in the Bay Area perhaps. That's not the same as the country or the world.

M_Grey4• 10 years ago

Only if you believe that the Supreme Court has no impact on your life, which would be... an interesting position to take really.

andars9• 10 years ago

SandB0x• 10 years ago

What happens when the value of equity grants plummets?

nostrademons12• 10 years ago

If it's part of a broad-based stock market decline, not much. The risk of plummeting equity grants to Bay Area tech companies is that your employees will go to the company next door whose equity is going up like a rocket. If everybody's miserable and poor, then they just go on inventing stuff and coming out with new software.

Honestly, I think the Valley is much more fun to be in during busts than booms. All the folks who just want to get rich quick leave, and you're left with the people who actually make things.

Symbiote• 10 years ago

What about for poor people?

(I'm not American, don't live there, so I genuinely don't know what effect the federal government might have on each state.)

dibstern5• 10 years ago

Goodbye healthcare!

raverbashing2• 10 years ago

Bay Area as it currently is is around 40 years old

Yes, some things may change

astrodust7• 10 years ago

It was nothing but vineyards and hippies before and it might return to that state in the not too distant future.

pcwalton• 10 years ago

The Bay Area's economy is heavily affected by the US economy. Based on data so far, Trump's election is having an effect on the US economy.

Scea916• 10 years ago

So far, those are only fluctuations affected mostly by speculation. We have to wait a few months to see the real effects.

Oletros• 10 years ago

Sad day for the planet Earth if he abides at his promises about EPA, NOAA, Paris Agreement, etc

michaeldorian• 10 years ago

Yes.

allemagne2• 10 years ago

I suppose we'll all see what he "really" meant by everything he has ever said during his campaign. Wall with Mexico? NATO? Putting Hillary in jail? Killing the families of ISIS members?

It makes sense to put the likelihood of any of that happening at a solid zero but it's hard to trust intuition at this point.

chasing• 10 years ago

:-(

sho_hn2• 10 years ago

So as a European ... Clinton didn't spend enough time in the Upper Midwest expecting to carry those states, but Trump had an actual message for them (NAFTA, etc.) while Hillary didn't, and they don't care that he is racist and sexist, they want their jobs back, so the election was called by a 40+ white demo in an economically depressed region just like old Middle England called Brexit. About right?

hubert1236• 10 years ago

he is not racist nor sexist

grus• 10 years ago

Particularly not compared to Hillary Clinton.

spraak• 10 years ago

Please explain

Edit: is a fish wet?

thomasahle3• 10 years ago

Upper Midwest? Wasn't it just a question of Florida and North Carolina?

xienze3• 10 years ago

Not exactly. He needed those states assuming he didn't win WI, MI, PA, OH. Which he did. Trump blew it out the water.

sho_hn2• 10 years ago

Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. are traditionally Democratic states, but it's a region Trump spent a lot of time targeting with anti-globalist messages around the decline of domestic industry.

The predicted safe margin in the other direction, the narrow win, the demographic stats, the issues on the table ... it's all highly reminiscent of how I experienced Brexit.

maxerickson4• 10 years ago

Michigan and Wisconsin were thought to lean Clinton and went Trump.

Ohio and Pennsylvania were considered tossups.

Kadin4• 10 years ago

Florida and North Carolina were considered competitive or "tossup" states, while several of the upper Midwestern states were considered fairly safe Democrat territories, probably because they were historically dominated by unionized manufacturing workers. That latter assumption has proved to be very unsafe, and it's become apparent that many of those formerly-reliable Democrat voters have switched sides, at least for this election.

noir-york3• 10 years ago

Yes.

You cannot ignore entire demographics - working class, uneducated etc - and not expect consequences. The Westminster bubble acted as if only London and the SE existed. Clinton and to be fair, most of the political establishment, have been in favour of free trade and NAFTA and ignored the consequences.

shmerl• 10 years ago

Feels like Brexit indeed. Except it won't help anything with their jobs...

raverbashing2• 10 years ago

So, just like Brexit then

peletiah• 10 years ago

Well, we have Strache, Le Pen, Farage, Wilders, Orban, Petry,... And we sure aren't as economically depressed as rural USA. Worse - we have unstable times ahead and people will vote for these populists even more. And even worse - a climate change denier as POTUS exactly at the worst possible time.

malloryerik• 10 years ago

Yes he will kill the COP21 agreement. And what happens when he scuttles the Iranian nuclear deal?

Scarblac10• 10 years ago

At least a deep recession means lower CO2 output...

Someone• 10 years ago

That's fairly close to #1 on Michael Moore's 5 points from July (http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/)

elsurudo7• 10 years ago

Wow, he was spot on, especially about the rust belt... And Trump ended up getting Florida, too.

nostrademons12• 10 years ago

TBH I don't think there was anything Clinton could've done to alter this election result, other than not being female and (possibly) not getting involved in so many scandals beforehand. This was a widespread popular-vote miss: Clinton lost across a large number of states (PA, WI, MI, FL, NC) that she had polled ahead in, and even in ones she carried (like NH, ME, or MN) the margin of victory was much less than expected. It seems like a large number of Americans just don't like the vision of America that Hillary Clinton represents.

wyager• 10 years ago

(possibly) not getting involved in so many scandals beforehand

I don't think there's any "possibly" involved here.

While I'm no fan of Sanders, I honestly feel like he could have swept the floor with Trump solely based on the fact that he has an impeccable background and seems like a genuinely nice guy. Instead, the DNC shut out Sanders and used dirty tactics to ensure that Clinton got the nomination. That galvanized a non-negligble number of the young people in my social circle against her.

gscott• 10 years ago

She could have won it if her platform offered hope and excitement for the future of a regular person.

She offered free college education... that doesn't work very well if you quit high school to work in a factory or if you are like me and horrible at math (I can do everything else but that).

Job retraining doesn't work very well because many people train for the same thing. One great NPR story had a person who retrained in HVAC but he said that around 100 other people in the plant trained for the same thing unless if people move they need some sort of manual labor job.

People who worked in a factory are unlikely to start building websites, apps, manage databases, go into business management etc... they need another factory job or a basic income.

Klover• 10 years ago

For the sake of you, me, and all other women out in the world, please don't let Clinton being a woman let the first thing that comes to mind. Your reasoning after that is much more sound and argued. But reinforcing the separation of sexes can only help men. Look at Western Europe: our gender is not even considered, so please don't let people consider it. It can only turn negative. Keep strong, friend.

melling2• 10 years ago

It's the economy, stupid.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid

wtallis4• 10 years ago

That catchphrase originated from a campaign that took place during an actual economic recession. The current overall state of the economy was not a decisive factor in this election, though perceptions or fears about it might have been.

astrodust7• 10 years ago

Just wait until the economy actually gets bad. Given how the markets are reacting, that'll be sooner than anyone expected.

inimino7• 10 years ago

Clinton losing in the midwest is what the polls missed. The analysis of why and how, that's probably going to be hot topic for a while.

Godel_unicode2• 10 years ago

Florida and Pennsylvania are not generally considered the mid-west. If she carries Minnesota as projected, they would have been enough.

prostoalex3• 10 years ago

In 2012 Mitt Romney lost Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which Trump now won, some solidly, some barely.

With no major demographic shift there, seems also fair to assume a good portion of the voting-age population in those states saw no noticeable improvement in the past 4 years.

B1FF_PSUVM2• 10 years ago

they don't care that he is racist and sexist,

They don't care that he got called racist and sexist.

They know it's a club regularly used to bludgeon opponents.

zigzigzag13• 10 years ago

Brexit wasn't called by "economically depressed old Middle England". Everywhere outside of Scotland and the cities voted for it.

TheGirondin8• 10 years ago

Simply put, rural or blue collar Americans only have one place in America where they are represented on the national level: the ballot box.

All of the shocked media people live in a bubble and have no idea what it's like to live in a working class community.

adt2bt2• 10 years ago

I, like many, did not see this coming and I am truly afraid for the future of the USA. We sure showed up Brexit, though.

snag• 10 years ago

I don't care much for america. after all they are consenting adults who voted for the best candidate they had. I am more concerned about the consequences for the rest of the world.

thesimpsons10227• 10 years ago

goodbye baltic states. you had a good run. im sure putin will enjoy his empire.

gragas5• 10 years ago

That's exactly why I'm glad that Donald Trump will soon be our president. He will ensure we serve the American people before tending to the desires of other nations.

simonh5• 10 years ago

Go USA. I've got to admit it, your insane failure of democracy literally Trumps ours.

dba7dba3• 10 years ago

So many blame or give credit to Trump for winning the election.

I think the real fault lies with DNC. Why were they so hell bent on having Clinton picked when Sanders excited so many young Democrats and did better in earlier polls?

politician3• 10 years ago

The brilliance of our republic is that the government transitions without violence -- where the loser concedes to the victor without fighting a literal war of succession. Don't let the personalities on the ballot this time around confuse you into thinking that they are the embodiment of our republic.

In four years, we'll gather and vote again, and transition peacefully again.

mrweasel4• 10 years ago

Honestly, I doubt you'll have very much to worry about. Sure a few minor but very visible things may change, but overall nothing major is going to change in four years.

Much of what Trump want to do isn't something that the US can actually afford to implement. The worst thing Trump could do is the take the US in an isolationist direction, but that's not going to happen because it would hurt the wealthy people... like Trump.

One extremely positive thing that could come of all this is that the rest of the world starts taking more responsibility, and intervene earlier in conflicts, now that the support of the US military isn't guaranteed.

komali28• 10 years ago

Affordable care act will likely be repealed. That will affect a good deal of us.

EPA may lose funding. The world will begin feeling that in about a decade.

Department of education will likely lose funding. The US will lose the STEM race to India and China. We'll feel that in about 20 years.

mikeash11• 10 years ago

My main worry is that he'll start a disastrous war in a fit of pique. He already said he'd start a war with Iran if they made rude gestures at our sailors. If that's what he says when he's trying to win votes, what will he do once he's secure in office?

Clinton is more interventionist than I'd like, but at least her proposed interventions have some sort of thought and reasoning behind them, even if I may not agree with them.

fgandiya2• 10 years ago

Ah well, and his party has house and Senate too. I've been looking through his policies and I'm amazed at how he won.

I'm gonna be angry about this for an hour before I give find something else to do.

prostoalex3• 10 years ago

his party

That's a fairly broad statement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_opposing...

fgandiya2• 10 years ago

Fair enough, bit he ran under the Rep ticket...

thomasahle3• 10 years ago

House and Senate and the Supreme Court...

dudul2• 10 years ago

I bet a lot of families will have an "interesting" Thanksgiving dinner.

royka118• 10 years ago

He did it his way can't fault the man on that!

Artoemius• 10 years ago

Brexit, then this. Life on Earth is becoming unpredictable again. A bit scary, but fun. It was way too boring.

estefan5• 10 years ago

"Fun" in the "emboldens Russian aggression safe in the knowledge the US won't back up NATO" sense? I think this is a complete disaster for world peace. I genuinely wouldn't be surprised to see Europe involved in a major war with Russia in the next 2 years. If that happens China will seize the moment too.

Also having someone who thinks climate change is a lie in the White House will affect everyone. He should ask the inhabitants of Delhi whether they think climate change is a lie [1].

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/08/world/asia/india-delhi-smo...

blahi5• 10 years ago

There have to be a lot of things going bad for a major war to happen. War is probably to start out in Turkey, trying to get back a chunk of the middle east back. Russia is always ready to oppose the status quo and get back influence in Eastern Europe. They do not stand a chance against the US.

Even if China sees this as an opportunity to jump to (that's a VERY big if), the US can easily handle all three of them. The problem is going to be whether or not the US can count on its allies in Asia. Not because it needs the military support, they don't, but because you cannot be alone vs. the world. The population will simply not support you.

As it is stands now, the US can count on its allies in Asia. No matter how much they dislike the US, they fear and hate China much, much more thanks to thousands of years of history.

The status quo might change but not violently, perhaps giving influence ground in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Also losing ground in future trade/economy deals which will have a real impact on US population if it were to happen.

triangleman• 10 years ago

You lost me with that link, it's a total non-sequitor, unless you want to explain what you meant by it.

curioussavage4• 10 years ago

Ah yes, the return of the Russian boogeyman.

Agreements like NATO do not promote peace. It's easy to be too aggressive when you have big friends who you can drag into your fights.

As crappy as trump is IMO there is a little more hope for peace. Hillary is such a hawk conflict was all but guaranteed under her administration

freetime2• 10 years ago

I'm guessing you don't have children...

stoikerty• 10 years ago

You want fun? Move to Nigeria.

fspear• 10 years ago

Nah Venezuela is where it's at.

cooper124• 10 years ago

It's only "fun" if you have the privilege to not be affected by any of it.

ebcode2• 10 years ago

bear in mind this paper is now owned by jeff bezos, and the actual results are still not in yet

edit: bozos -> bezos

andars9• 10 years ago

The full results are not in, true. But enough are in to know that Trump has won.

hatmatrix• 10 years ago

The paper doesn't confirm either, the post title is not true (yet).

Nadya3• 10 years ago

Even Hillary privately called Trump and conceded. Not sure what you're waiting on at this point.

ocdtrekkie• 10 years ago

It's been basically a done deal for about two hours now. AP, CNN, NBC, etc. have all called different states at different times, but there's really no doubt about where the rest of this is going to fall.

jrockway5• 10 years ago

The race isn't even close. Trump won. Don't blame Jeff Bezos for this.

ebcode2• 10 years ago

not blaming bezos. and the spelling mistake was unintentional. just trying to keep an open mind and an awareness of media bias.

bdrool• 10 years ago

This event and Brexit are proof that you cannot shame people into voting how you want. Calling them bigots over and over just galvanizes them if anything.

blahi5• 10 years ago

This is exactly the moral of the story. If you want to blame somebody for Trump, blame yourselves. Democracy, especially in the US is ruled by consensus. If 30% of the people are extremely opposed to something, like gay marriage, you cannot shove it down their throats. You cannot disregard their feelings and opinions. You just have to swallow it and move on. Because if you don't, somebody will take advantage of your foolishness.

QUFB• 10 years ago

40% of Alabama was opposed to interracial marriage:

https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Interracial_Marriage,_Amendm...

Should that be outlawed too?

Scea916• 10 years ago

The problem is that in your example there are 70 % who are pro gay marriage and you cannot ignore their voice either.

wool_gather6• 10 years ago

What is being "shove[d] down their throats" because my sister fell in love with a woman and wants to make a family with that person?

Stopping her from doing that is throat-shoving. Her freedom to make her life with a particular someone doesn't harm anybody. _You_ cannot disregard _her_ feelings.

henrikschroder5• 10 years ago

It's more of a case that us upper-middle class liberal elites think we are shaming this segment of the population when we are calling them bigots and racists and stupid and uninformed and homophobic and hicks and white trash, because those are horrible things that we don't want to be called.

But a large part of the population don't share that sentiment, they're not shamed, they don't care that you're screaming "RACIST!" at the top of your lungs.

And when you address their actual concerns that globalization and automation are killing their jobs, killing their communities, and killing their people with a shrug, with an "I'm so sorry, move to the cities, get an education!", they'll get angry. And political. And here we are.

tajen16• 10 years ago

Would you like to know how a normal person gets to vote for Trump?

I'm a male French, in France, and I intend to vote FN (extreme right). I have higer education, 10 years of experience in programming, including 5 in 3 different countries. I have social values, like companies should take care of the humans behind the employee, and we should give our maximum to include everyone who wants to be included. I turned my back on leftist movements because no matter how generous I was (e.g. thousands donated to charities, >1200hrs of volunteering, engaged in social causes, etc), leftists always find a way to depict me as a spoiled child with rich parents, and they dismiss any good work I've made as a result of luck.

Oh and my 8-year old cousin was raped by an Arab teenager – I still don't know whether that's due to probability or whether he identifies to the Arabs-against-whites cause. It did change a lot for me.

So now that I'm freed from liberal shamers, I've decided to vote depending on only one criteria. In my whole professional experience, promotions were given to women, to the point that it was unfair to me; In my whole life women have been bitter to me. I'm pretty satisfied that there are currently hundreds of laws in favour of women which offset any inequality they can claim; The only party which proposes to keep those existing laws and not adding new ones is FN, the extreme-right French party.

All in all, what you need to gain back someone like me is love. Give me luck with finding a girlfriend, give me a fair treatment at work, recognize my social engagement and the positive parts of my values, stop assuming all my rationale is just raw racism or raw machism, stop assuming I've just been lucky with work, and you'll get me back among the centrist voters.

But as long as it's not possible to expose my problems without hearing generalizations and shaming, I'll keep voting FN.

ternaryoperator• 10 years ago

This is probably the best analysis of Trump's victory that I've read so far.

beaned• 10 years ago

I don't think you really have your finger on the pulse of most voters.

I can tell you as someone in silicon valley who sort of vaguely supports trump, that I have been essentially not permitted to talk about it. What's the benefit to it? Why would I speak up and engage in a conversation? Any talk of Trump here isn't actually a real debate. It's everyone around you saying "Trump supporters are racists and bigots. They are disgusting."

Nobody _actually_ wants to hear any arguments from the other side. So I sit with my mouth closed. It's better than losing my friends and having my coworkers ostracize me for my political views. Which maybe they would have the chance to change if they were willing to listen, but aren't.

I know so many people like myself. I was surprised with the result of the election, but not surprised at the fact that there was a surprise like this. Places like SV don't know how many Trump supporters there are or even _why_ they really support him, because they've essentially put their hands over their eyes and their ears and spun in circles shouting "Trump is racist! You are racist!"

cJ0th3• 10 years ago

No it's not. They are merely two data points. Look at Germany. I guarantee you Merkel is going to be reelected next year. Okay, the AFD is going to gain some power but it is outright impossible for them to win the election. But this isn't just about the AFD. What the experts and the media forced down the throats of the people is that there is no alternative to what's currently going on. SPD, Grüne, Linke, FDP don't even need to bother finding a Chancellor candidate.

pluma3• 10 years ago

To be fair, Merkel's policies are fairly centrist compared to the usual CDU/CSU rhetoric and ever since the WASG split the SPD has been more center than left, too.

Merkel is also relatively popular with many non-CDU/CSU voters because her policies all in all have been very moderate. She's generally perceived as very static despite having had to deal with the economic crisis, the refugee situation and now Brexit.

The rise of the AfD is largely a result of conservatives (who probably would have voted CDU/CSU otherwise) being upset with Merkel's handling of the refugee situation. The far left still hates her because she's a conservative, the far right hates her because she's too liberal. She's in the sweet spot where her policies are just balanced enough nobody can propose any sane alternatives that don't sound like almost exactly what she's been doing and any criticism either sounds petty or hyperbolic.

The problem for the SPD is that they alienated their leftist demographic under Schröder (leading to the rise in popularity of the Linke) and later with the coalition government aside the CDU/CSU. Aside from traditional party loyalists they're now directly competing with the CDU/CSU for conservative voters.

The only thing that concerns me is that the CSU is taking a lesson from the revival of the AfD (which was pretty much doomed to fail when the Euro crisis waned but was rekindled by the refugee situation) and is now spouting even more populist xenophobic rhetoric than usual. Considering how much disproportionate influence the CSU traditionally holds in the Union, this might spell trouble for the CDU internally.

As an anecdote: I would never have voted for the CDU (I've previously voted for Linke and the Pirate Party) but unless one of the other parties surprises me with a great candidate, I would probably vote to re-elect Merkel.

InclinedPlane2• 10 years ago

If you don't call them out it doesn't stop them being bigots either. And with Brexit we saw just how much bigots were emboldened by the vote, thinking that it was a validation of their worldview. Hate crime in Briton went up by 60% after Brexit.

It's not that bigotry is a non-issue in these elections, it definitely is, the KKK endorsed a presidential candidate after all. The issue is that there are deeper underlying problems that are being exploited by race baiting politicians to win elections. The problem in pre-Nazi Germany, for example, was a deeply dysfunctional economy and trying to seek a scape-goat for the loss of WWI and the shame and humiliation that caused. Today the problem is largely economic inequality and a lack of economic opportunity and mobility for most people in the bottom half of the wealth distribution. Wages have stagnated while housing, college, and healthcare costs have skyrocketed. The recent recession left a huge crater in the economic histories and career developments of most folks under 30 in the form of unemployment and under-employment. Outside of the cities there hasn't been an economic recovery in the last decade. On top of that you have the opiate epidemic. It's gotten so severe that life expectancies for middle aged folks in middle America took a significant hit (due substantially to increases in suicide and deaths from alcoholism and drug overdose). All of that has nothing to do with gay marriage, Syrian refugees, or increased awareness of police brutality.

But a lot of the people who have been disadvantaged over the last few decades have been able to be convinced by demagogues that the cause of their problems is the elite establishment (especially liberals) and to capitalize on latent feelings of racism, anti-gay sentiment, etc. Make no mistake those bigots are not the entirety of the vote, but they are enough of it to swing the election. More so, as in Britain, there is a huge section of the electorate who may not be intrinsically bigoted per se but is perfectly content to sit around and run in a pack with true bigots and to support candidates and policies that will rollback progress in racial, gender, and sexual orientation equality. Sufficiently advanced indifference to issues of racial equality is indistinguishable from bigotry.

You're right that you can't fix this by calling everyone who voted for these things bigots, almost certainly not. But ignoring that aspect doesn't lead to a good outcome either. It's necessary to fix the underlying economic problems while at the same time maintaining a hard line on driving forward to improve equality, enfranchisement, etc.

intoverflow23• 10 years ago

Really shocks me that this wasn't obvious to people post-Brexit. I was a remain voter who was shocked by that result but this win has been obvious to me for a long time after that.

Calling leave voters racists achieved nothing and only strengthened their views. It was obvious when Trump voters appropriated the term Deplorables that personal attacks were going to fail. All you did was cause the polls to not reflect the final vote because people would say Hilary when asked but put an X next to Trump in private.

CM30• 10 years ago

True.

And let's not forget that the GamerGate fiasco shared a lot of things in common with Brexit and Trump's presidency in how the media covered it too. The media tried to attack people over and over while painting those it disagreed with as bigots, and it worked about as poorly then as it did with this election and Trump supporters.

But no, same general pattern occurred with both Brexit and Trump, with similar results.

meddlepal• 10 years ago

Democrats need a new strategy for middle America. Pretending the coasts and middle America are the same or can be made the same is a failure.

MisterBastahrd• 10 years ago

Had the media not made such a spectacle of Trump's candidacy early in the campaign, he never would have gotten anywhere near being the Republican nominee to begin with. They played chicken and lost.

Kadin4• 10 years ago

Both the Democrats, in large part, and the Republicans, in overwhelming part, made a sort of Faustian bargain starting in the early 1970s, embracing globalization in ways that were harmful to U.S. industries but, the implied promise went, would be in the long-term best interests of the country. Partially this was economic -- a bet on trade and comparative advantage -- and partially geopolitical, in that many of the early trade deals had the effect of countering Soviet influence (e.g. Nixon's famous China trip in 1972). I think it's safe to say that not everyone felt, in the decades that followed, that they benefited as a result.

It's hard not to read this election, and particularly the Republican victories in formerly manufacturing-heavy areas like the upper Midwest and Appalachia, as a repudiation of this deal. Many people aren't impressed by either the alleged economic or geopolitical benefits of globalization, and they're expressing that extreme discontent at the ballot box.

adrr3• 10 years ago

What is the strategy for the blue collar workers? Getting rid of NAFTA and other agreements doesn't solve anything. People are getting replaced with machines and no one has come up for a solution for that.

If social safety nets get removed, they'll be in a worst position.

seanp2k26• 10 years ago

As others have said, this is our Brexit. The manufacturing jobs aren't coming back. The supply chains aren't here anymore. The labor is too expensive. The environmental concerns are too grave. They'll now be left with even less than they had before.

dibstern5• 10 years ago

Absolutely agree. Total failure of a campaign.

MichaelBurge5• 10 years ago

Very nice! I voted for him in Oregon, so my state is one of the few holding out.

thewarrior• 10 years ago

It is possible to view this as an isolated event or a trend. Coming on the heels of BREXIT this is a trend.

The attempts at building an interconnected globalised world are beginning to fail. A bunch of elites decided to create their own trans-national utopia unchecked by borders and dismissed all criticism as racist or bigoted. The globalisation project has been rejected by a majority of the population. Whether it is for economic reasons or just plain bigotry is something for the sociologists to study and not something I can pontificate on.

Also people seem to care a LOT about immigration and preserving their culture. Instead of patronising these people it's time we tried to understand their concerns and try to assuage them.

There is no genuine leftist alternative. It's a choice between center-right "left" that's sold out to the establishment and the far right.Economists need to stop acting like priests in the medieval ages who justified the existing order . The rural voter who lost his job doesn't care about the theory of comparitive advantage.

If this trend holds this will soon take hold in France and other European nations. This is a return to the world of the 1920s. Not gloom and doom but a much more unstable global order with every country for itself. Not what we need when we face planet scale threats like global warming. Get out of your bubble.

Hang out more on subreddits you don't agree with.

The divide is bridged one person at a time.

PS - Reposted my comment from another thread as it got flagged. Hope its OK with the mods.

EDIT: His concession speech seems to indicate that he's beginning to appreciate what he's been entrusted with.

ohwello• 10 years ago

The globalisation project has been rejected by a majority of the population.

A majority of something, but probably not the population: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president?action=c...

forthefuture• 10 years ago

I mean Trump currently does have the majority of votes.

obastani• 10 years ago

The fact that the electoral college exists probably distorts the popular vote. People in non-swing states may not vote in the same proportions if the president were decided by popular vote. Of course, this trend could go either way.

jrockway5• 10 years ago

Globalization isn't the problem. Computerization is.

Other countries are not taking "our" jobs. We simply don't need those jobs anymore. Taxes on foreign labor will only do one thing: subsidize robots.

We're going to spend billions of dollars on a big wall, and I guarantee you we're not going to have a lot more jobs after that. (The wall itself is a pretty big project though.)

the_duke14• 10 years ago

There probably won't be a wall.

Most likely, few of the promises / threats of the campaign will materialize.

It just might turn out that Trump will be a very moderate republican president. He just might have played a role for the last few years. A role that got him voters.

Then again, he might not care at all about doing the actual job and let Pence run most of it.

I still can't believe how Americans could actually elect someone like that. I understand a protest vote, but with that candidate...

I guess the majority of voters just didn't care that he has no actual opinions, is an entitled, rich, insecure, macho, old generation 'man', and just projected their wishes for change, ignoring all of him they didn't want to think about.

Republicans hold both houses and the presidency now, though. I guess Obama's legacy has been wiped out today.

Oh well, the world will go on.

Scea916• 10 years ago

Maybe in the future, but I don't believe it is THE problem right now. Those jobs in China aren't automated, it is still cheap human labor.

sambe• 10 years ago

FiveThirtyEight linked to this paper on their live blog (http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/2016-election-results-c...): http://economics.mit.edu/files/6613. I find it hard to believe that globalisation has not had substantial effect. Probably both are quite relevant.

For me, the problem is more when people think: a) the different-skinned guy down the street is causing this problem; b) voting for right wing guy can stop globalisation. Brexit showed that the people most likely to vote on immigration/kick out foreigners basis were also those with the fewest immigrants in their region.

More left-leaning people seem a bit confused about inequality/poverty vs globalisation - inequality globally is on the way down, which is why it's on the way up locally (you're losing to the guy half-way around the world, some of your neighbours are not losing to their equivalents... yet).

mc32• 10 years ago

No wall is needed... Just make it so that employers cannot legally employ those not authorized to work in the country --and fine with an amount which will deter people/companies.

At least that's what I would do if I needed to control unauthorized workers for any place which wanted to do so.

prawn8• 10 years ago

Disagree that computerisation is this problem. It's a problem, but it's not what's driven this. Why would the vote fall so strongly down racial lines if the primary problem was the elimination of lower-end jobs?

(Along with one of your respondents, I also don't think the wall or many other promises will eventuate.)

WillPostForFood9• 10 years ago

I support globalization, and agree computerization will be more disruptive (in the future). But that you, and democrats, and the establishment republicans ignore the jobs lost to globalization over the last 30 years is exactly what leads to a reactionary election and a Trump presidency.

tomdell2• 10 years ago

No - for scores of Trump voters, globalization and the resultant outsourcing of factory work that they relied on was definitely a problem.

It's not A isn't / B is. Both globalization and automation of work are creating discontent.

cm21873• 10 years ago

That will happen in the long run but that's not what happened the last 30 years. Secretarial jobs are certainly a casualty of computerisation. But the job losses that got Trump elected are industrial job losses, from factories that have been essentially outsourced to China. China is barely begining to computerise its production, Chinese factories are mostly competitive because of their ample and cheap manual labor.

dba7dba3• 10 years ago

There is no genuine leftist alternative. It's a choice between center-right "left" that's sold out to the establishment and the far right.

Lol, true that.

One thing I'd like to point out is that NATO and UN existed for decades before the massive immigration flow started.

Normal_gaussian• 10 years ago

NATO is a defence pact and the UN is an international forum. Neither is a super government.

greglindahl• 10 years ago

America had several massive immigration flows before NATO existed. And several racist backlashes. For example, a backlash against the slightly-less-white people from Italy in the early 1900s. There's nothing new about the current backlash.

spaceman_2020• 10 years ago

As a brown Indian dude, it seems to me that the western world is caught in some self-hating loop.

It simultaneously trivializes my culture while hating its own culture.

I watched Justin Trudeau dance the bhangra and people claim "oh what beautiful Indian culture". I've seen people eat butter chicken to partake in "Indian culture" experiences.

That's just wrong. Indian culture - any culture - is far, far more than a dance or some dish.

At the same time, I see white people negate their culture altogether. It might have been built on colonialism and imperialism, but what, say, Renaissance artists pulled off is significant, very significant.

Everyone needs to back off and think about this for a bit

wibr• 10 years ago

Of course culture is more than food or dance, but what's wrong with trying those as a way to have a glimpse into the Indian culture? I don't think anyone claimed to be expert on Indian culture after having a butter chicken. What would you propose instead?

matt_wulfeck3• 10 years ago

That's just wrong. Indian culture - and culture - is far, far more than a dance or some dish.

Maybe now you start to see the "damned if you do damned if you don't" nature of political correctness, and why it has been rejected in this election cycle with great success.

ZenoArrow9• 10 years ago

It's not about culture, people are still fine with their culture, it's about economics. Globalisation and corruption has caused a lot more instability for the working class. If you look at polls about what the number one issue was you'll see it's the economy, that's the main thing people are concerned about.

StavrosK3• 10 years ago

Yo, americans aren't the only "white people".

RandomInteger4• 10 years ago

You do realize that what the great renaissance intellectuals created, the right wing in the united stated looks down upon and scoffs at, right? They hate anything to do with art or culture unless it's their version of Christianity.

This is the same attitude of Boko Haram.

The left wing doesn't dismiss the great cultural achievements the west has created, but we try to create space for them within a nation known for accepting immigrants, rather than forcefully imposing our culture on them, which seems to have failed so brilliantly in places like France.

The politicians trivialize this shit, because they pander to the voters. The left embraces other cultures because we're sick of getting Christianity shoved down our throats.

modarts• 10 years ago

Not sure how electing an openly racist, sexist, vengeful narcissist furthers that goal, but okay.

TheArcane• 10 years ago

Speaking of India, the election of Modi further confirms the Brexit-Trump trend.

derefr• 10 years ago

That's just wrong. Indian culture - and culture - is far, far more than a dance or some dish.

I think there's a key concept missing from every discussion about culture, and that concept is that "X immigrant culture" is a completely different culture from "X culture." Indians in India have one culture, while Indians in e.g. Britain have a related, but divergent culture.

Two places this matters:

• Frequently, the people of "X immigrant culture" care a lot about 'preserving their heritage', because it's a constant struggle for them—while the people of "X culture" couldn't give a damn, because they're constantly steeped in their own culture and it's not going away. "Cultural appropriation" is an invention almost entirely of immigrant cultures.

• People "exploring a culture" frequently have the implicit goal of exploring the domestic-immigrant offshoot of a culture, not the native one. Because of the lack of connection and cultural touchstone organizations that immigrants face, things like dances and dishes are seen as far more relevant in immigrant cultures, similar to their role in itinerant cultures.

oldhermit2• 10 years ago

White guilt is a large reason why white people are afraid to assert themselves and their racial identity. You're basically labeled a bigot if you don't support the cause of nihilistic globalism and moral leveling.

PKop3• 10 years ago

This is the most concise explanation for what many on the left fail to grasp, and one of the many reasons why I and many are Trump supporters.

We are on one hand supposed to respect and honor other cultures, but are not allowed to cultivate, maintain and respect our own (American) culture.

Which is absurd for many reasons... one being it denies a very real reason for many wanting to come to our country, or fails to identify the characteristics that made western culture generally preferable to many others.

I appreciate your perspective on this issue.

buzzybee• 10 years ago

I've thought lately that the cosmopolitan outlook, which I do hold and generally enjoy, is also a rootless one. In accepting the ever-present change, respecting the multitude of outlooks, it often denies connecting with traditions in favor of a single "modern, rational, progressive" view that buries its internal contradictions beneath fleeting surface treasures.

At the same time, it supports the imperial concept of misappropriating original traditions as a convenient fancy, a reference to the exotic, or a belittling of the other, which you give a great example of - with the pretext that this is somehow contributing to progress. Appropriation can be "done right" and produce great new works, but it can't be done easily. It's so much easier to simply loot the past without thinking.

One of the books I like that considers similar thoughts at various points is Melzer's Philosophy Between the Lines: The Lost History of Esoteric Philosophy. [0]

[0] http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo186...

endisukaj7• 10 years ago

The thing about negating white culture is prevalent only in the US. Most Europeans are fiercely proud of their culture and nation.

RangerScience• 10 years ago

You know, this is kind of inspiring. I know where my blood comes from (Sicily and WASP), and I know where I grew up and got my ideas (Berkeley), but, it's not like I've really tried to turn into some kind of culture; I've participating in a thing that's been made into a culture (festivals), but that's not the same, is it?

Hmm. Are there cultural world's fairs anymore?

notacoward• 10 years ago

Indian culture - any culture - is far, far more than a dance or some dish.

I think most people understand that. What do you think would be an improvement? Surely not that they fail even to appreciate the dance or the dish. It's not likely that they'll embark on a years-long quest to understand the deeper history, religion etc. of a dozen different cultures. What, really, would you have them do? Without a suggestion, you're just bashing.

artursapek• 10 years ago

Very well put. I've been extremely turned off by everything you described but couldn't put words to it that well.

jacobolus2• 10 years ago

Immigration and gay marriage and women’s rights etc. are scapegoats. The real problems are international competition (unskilled workers in developed countries have to compete with unskilled workers in Thailand and Bangladesh and Indonesia), automation (the US has higher industrial production than ever before, but it takes much less labor), changing tax laws and easier travel/communication/money movement (letting rich people live far away from production and markets, and siphon their wealth into tax havens), break-down of civic institutions (labor unions, churches, public services, local newspapers, etc.).

eng101• 10 years ago

Your points mirror my experience, but could you explain why breakdown of civic institutions (an observation I've also made) matters?

MichaelMoser123• 10 years ago

I think she couldn't mobilize the black vote because of what the clinton foundation did to Haiti https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/11/what-the-clintons-did... also they are quite pro-business and somehow it all looks quite colonial https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/08/the-clinton-foundatio...

Calling your opponents deplorable also did not help.

i for one welcome our new orange overlord

also twitter and youtube seem to be more important than all the old media - Trump had a big presence on twitter that is.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/11/08/election-...

mikeyouse9• 10 years ago

Black Americans didn't vote for Hillary Clinton because Bill Clinton lobbied against a minimum wage increase in Haiti? That seems a bit far fetched...

fsck--off3• 10 years ago

The difference between this and Brexit is that more people voted for Brexit than against it, while more people voted for Hillary than for Trump.

matt_wulfeck3• 10 years ago

Trump won the popular vote as well as the EV (at the time of this comment).

patrickg_zill2• 10 years ago

The Electoral College exists for a reason, you know.

BTW the estimated popular vote is between 0.7 and 1.3% in Hillary's favor at this point , according to NYT http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president . Not really a big difference.

antirez• 10 years ago

Also people seem to care a LOT about immigration and preserving their culture

I don't understand that part. Isn't US a sum of N cultures that decided to have a common culture? So why the newcomers can't do what the predecessors did?

seanp2k26• 10 years ago

There's not really a good response I can think of here which fits with the guidelines of this site aside from basically we have a lot of ignorant short-sighted voters in this country.

jacobolus2• 10 years ago

There was all kinds of hatred for the Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Chinese, etc. 70–150 years ago.

Interracial marriage was illegal in the US south less than 50 years ago.

The arguments against Mexicans and Muslim refugees today are nearly identical, just with the names changed.

1940s Sinatra: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpO6mpYvyqQ

WillPostForFood9• 10 years ago

The US was the sum of N European cultures, mostly western, mostly northern. So assimilation wasn't as big a leap.

lsc5• 10 years ago

The attempts at building an interconnected globalised world are beginning to fail.

No, the attempts at building an interconnected globalized world are becoming less popular. Or maybe the people who opposed that sort of thing all along are finding a voice.

It's a different thing; Interestingly, you get different answers when you vote votes than when you vote with dollars; and in this case? the dollars have teamed up with the center (or what in america is called the center-left) - and lost to the votes. (I guess I don't really see why you think the center left (or center) has sold out to the far right. This is America, and we like our market-based solutions, but the center is capable of regulating that. I give you the ACA as exhibit A.)

There is no genuine leftist alternative. It's a choice between center-right "left" that's sold out to the establishment and the far right.Economists need to stop acting like priests in the medieval ages who justified the existing order . The rural voter who lost his job doesn't care about the theory of comparitive advantage.

uh, so really, 'left' vs 'right' doesn't work so well when describing "third way" nationalist movements; that's kind of why it is the "third way" - I mean, not that brexit and trump are actually fascist movements, but they are similar in that they have strong nationalist and nativist aspects to them, and are less clear where they stand on the economic side of things. All 'third way' movements, historically, have had some socialist and some capitalist elements; their argument is that the left/right economic divide isn't the primary issue; taking care of "your people" and protecting those people from the others is the big issue.

The real divide here is between what I call "the coalition of everything is fine" - people like me, for whom the economy looks like it's booming, minorities and women who see that their rights get closer to parity every year, vs... uh, what I want to call the rural poor, but this election showed that it's more than just the rural poor. I mean, I can see what is up with the rural poor... but what about everyone else?

And there's not a lot of understanding in general; it's not just me. I mean, I can understand voting for the other guy 'cause you don't have a job... but unemployment, by just about all measures, has been going down for about all of the time that Obama has been in office.

Where is this majority of people who think that things are so bad?

nightski2• 10 years ago

Two reasons -

1. Potential for a 20% reduction in corporate income tax, a huge boon for small business owners.

2. Repeal Obamacare and it's obscene costs to small business.

moduspol11• 10 years ago

I mean, I can understand voting for the other guy 'cause you don't have a job... but unemployment, by just about all measures, has been going down for about all of the time that Obama has been in office.

The unemployment rate only includes people actively seeking work. One often-toted statistic is that men have been dropping out of the labor market completely (i.e. not looking for work at all) at higher-than-normal rates. These are quite possibly also people who were Trump voters.

dibstern5• 10 years ago

Lol what are you on about. Plenty of countries have a very multicultural society, and they do great.

Look at Melbourne, Australia, we have huge immigrant populations, and all the different cultures have made this an awesome place to live - E.g. I highly doubt you'd find a more diverse selection of restaurants per capita anywhere else.

This election wasn't about race. Don't project your bigotry onto all Trump supporters.

And the 'world elite' is not actually the group of people that aren't racist, it's the middle class that isn't racist. The 'elite' and the 'worker class' are actually pretty similar in how bigoted they are.

njloof• 10 years ago

Sounds great, but I thought Australia was gravely concerned about so-called "boat people."

jwdunne• 10 years ago

That's interesting. The anti-immigration right in the UK hold your immigration system up as the way forward.

We have a multicultural society in the UK that many are rejecting, with racial tensions at a high.

The difference is that many immigrants are working class. They are scapegoated to great success with the white working class. I disagree with that - I think the real problem is meagre infrastructure investment to support new arrivals but perhaps the Aussie style system works on the other end of the spectrum: focus only on valuable people where value is how much money they would earn.

vondur2• 10 years ago

I've heard it's very difficult to emigrate to Australia, is that not the case?

pipio212• 10 years ago

In my opinion Australia is one of the most monocultural countries in the world, and I have visited over 100 countries.

It is a monoculture because they basically exterminated natives like they were bunnies in order for some guys to take all the territory to themselves.

There is only one culture in Australia precisely because all the minorities are not significant. It is one thing to have a Muslim or two, completely different having tens of millions.

Who is the owner of the land in Australia? White families. I have a friend in Australia who has so much territory he needs a plane to move around it. It is normal there.

What makes Australia a great place to life is having a continent almost as big as the USA,with comparable natural resources, but with less than 13 times less population.

In a similar country like China there lives 65 times more population. In fact most of China is mountains so the actual density is even higher in populated places.

nathan_f773• 10 years ago

Is that true about Melbourne? I mean, I believe that there are large immigrant populations, and that you have a lot of diverse restaurants. But I struggle to believe that they "do great" and that there is a lot of unity. I know New Zealand is a deeply racist country, and I had always heard that Australia was even worse.

Mikeb858• 10 years ago

You can't sacrifice large swaths of the population for the so called "greater" good. Globalisation, as it stands now, is neo-colonialism. It offshores blue collar jobs and concentrates white collar jobs in rich countries. It disenfranchises blue collar workers in the west, and causes brain drain in the developing world. All it's done is benefit the elite. Read progressive economists like Piketty, and combine it with visits to places like Detroit. The current model hasn't been working. I don't think Trump has all the solutions, but he diagnosed the problem better than the smug elites. Same goes for Brexit. This isn't xenophobia, working class jobs are disappearing from the west. It's a real economic phenomena. Maybe one day the world will be united, but its too soon.

ZeroGravitas7• 10 years ago

You don't need to sacrifice them, the right wing parties that are being voted in chose to do that and are now being rewarded by the blowback.

WillPostForFood9• 10 years ago

Software development and IT jobs that moved to India and China are blue collar? Call centers?

tormeh3• 10 years ago

All it's done is benefit the elite.

It's benefitted everyone except the working class in developed countries. That's a lot of people. The great majority, actually.

cm21873• 10 years ago

You could argue that globalization has pulled millions of chinese peasants out of poverty, and helped creating a middle class in China, which is already increasing the pressure on the regime to transition to a democracy.

In any case, as some pointed out here, outsourcing to China is only the first step in the destruction of these jobs. Robotics is likely going to replace many of these jobs in the next 20y, which might bring back some industry into the West, ie more jobs but more sophisticated jobs.

threatofrain4• 10 years ago

Globalism shuffled jobs around the world, and trade policies can change that to a modest extent -- one's trade policy can't change the fact that your citizens are too expensive versus Thailand or China. Tariffs against Mexico cannot make a Shenzhen. GM is not metaphorically coming back to Detroit.

US manufacturing employment is going down, and even if / when high tech manufacturing brings production back to the US, it will be robotic production. And with every company in the world racing for machine learning, I don't see how the future looks good for a specific generation of people in history too old to newly take up a globally competitive trade. Also, it's been mentioned around here that driving is one of the most frequent jobs in most states in the US, and that Uber recently made a deliver of beer by automated truck. Uber and every relevant company in the world is trying to destroy a category of worker from everywhere in the world.

jazzyk2• 10 years ago

I agree, but want to point out that it is not just blue collar jobs being off-shored. Many white-collar jobs (software development included) are being off-shored, too.

intopieces2• 10 years ago

Instead of patronising these people it's time we tried to understand their concerns and try to assuage them.

I use to think this too, before this election. But it became clear to me that the "other side" is not interested in being assuaged. They are not interested in facts, or empathy, or calmly discussing how to face an uncertain and complex world.

They are interested in control. Interested in hiring whatever strong-man seems most likely to make the bad people stop doing tbe bad things and make the good times happen again.

The politics of fear won, and I see no oppertunities to bring a divide where one side is hellbent on dynamiting every brick as it's laid.

alphapapa4• 10 years ago

They are not interested in facts, or empathy, or calmly discussing how to face an uncertain and complex world.

Doesn't this describe the other side? "Deplorables," "ignorant ruralites," "uninformed -ist -phobes"? Is that attitude interested in empathy or calmly discussing things?

Interested in hiring whatever strong-man seems most likely to make the bad people stop doing tbe bad things and make the good times happen

Isn't this exactly how Obama got elected? "Hope and change", and Obama's been practically worshipped as a savior ever since.

The politics of fear won

I think fear had a lot to do with this result, but those fears are grounded in reality. One candidate acknowledged the problems that have arisen in the last decade, while the other did not. Time will tell how well he actually handles them.

pedalpete6• 10 years ago

I am very Anti-Trump, but I have to ask, could the same thoughts not be said by a right-winger to a leftist? It seems like neither side is listening.

From what I understand, this isn't what democracy used to be. We've created a divide where somebody says "I'm a democrat/republican" and they look at the party for what that means.

It isn't only the system that is broken, but it is how we view it and how we view each other.

This is why I agreed with Sama and not removing Thiel from YC. We have to listen to the other side and empathize so we can understand. Without that we all lose.

Today, we all lost.

zigzigzag13• 10 years ago

I think the "uncertain and complex world" trope is a part of the problem here.

I have become very cynical over time about the way intellectuals, academics, trade negotiators, politicians and the media use/abuse complexity to get their own way. Many times when I examine an issue I see a whole lot of people saying how complex the world is, how impossibly nuanced it is and .... the kicker .... therefore you shouldn't attempt to figure it out or have an opinion. You should just do whatever the "experts" recommend even if it's apparently unintuitive or even quite clearly against your own interests. Anyone who doesn't obey this line is written off as ignorant, too stupid to have a vote, etc.

Yet are these issues really so complicated? Often they are not. The complexity, when you take the time to tackle it, ends up being largely artificial.

moduspol11• 10 years ago

But it became clear to me that the "other side" is not interested in being assuaged. They are not interested in facts, or empathy, or calmly discussing how to face an uncertain and complex world.

Yep. We're all racists and xenophobes and our views have no rational basis. Please feel free to make sweeping judgments about what anyone who voted against Hillary Clinton must be thinking.

Please keep up this rhetoric so we can win in 2020, too!

teekert5• 10 years ago

I feel that the US will now, finally, focus on the US. It's time for that. Instead of their usual imperialistic attitude that involves enticing Europe to boycott Russia, taking out stability providing leaders in the middle east without much (after)thought (or the wrong kind of thought), providing weapons the the Free Syrian Army mercenaries that now fight for the better paying ISIS side (this is not stupidity, it's rubbelization with economic motives imo). Etc. Let the US focus on the US for the next 4 years, the US has enough problems to solve within their borders. Clinton would just intensify the Syria situation, alienate Russia even further, make secret deals with Wall Street and keep things just as they are. And things are not fine as they are.

Yeah yeah, I think Snowden is a hero and I hate Trump for calling him a traitor. Also his abortions views are medieval. But hey, a more balanced anti-imperialist would simply never win in the corrupt, house-of-cards like US.

the_duke14• 10 years ago

Whenever I hear those arguments, I have to bring up a point:

There is a very good reason why big, powerful empires always have a big military, meddle and stick their noses into everyone's affairs.

Economic power doesn't come from thin air. It has a lot to do with political power, influence and domination.

Those are two sides of the same coin, they support and nurture each other.

You reach limits of growth when you just trade and build up your own economy.

Almost all foreign policy is dedicated to furthering self-serving goals. Often medium and long term, so not apparently visible. Often related to things the public know very little about. Just as often, completely misguided.

But there's always a reason.

jobu2• 10 years ago

It would be nice if that were true. Maybe Bernie could've pushed the focus back on improving the US instead of picking international fights, but Trump's rhetoric is far more Hawkish than Obama or Clinton.

noobermin12• 10 years ago

You can clearly tell the extent Trump's isolationist attitude by having John Bolton on as an advisor. Also, the Iran deal? He promised to shred it. The Iranians might finally obtain nukes.

threatofrain4• 10 years ago

It's important to realize that no voter imagines how US military actions do or don't coordinate or synchronize with US big corp action. That kind of stuff never shows up in the political discourse. Politicians aren't riling up Americans with talk of how military boosts economy. Nobody makes that connection on TV.

From my understanding, some industries depend tightly on the military, and not bolstering your own national industries would be a mistake as all the big global players cheat with nationalistic help.

People aren't going to get more or less imperialism. From George Bush Sr, to Bill Clinton, to George Bush Jr, to Barack Obama, when has the US military + international big corp coordination ever stopped, much less shown variability between presidents? When a president is elected, is there a sweep through the US armed forces command structure? No. Is there a sweep through industry? No. Is there a sweep through the CIA? No. National bureaucracies make plans longer than 4 years, and their programs don't stop executing in-between elections.

What I'm really worried about is what happens in a winner-takes all branches of government scenario, especially when conceivably the majority of the population supports different policies. It makes sense for the ruling party to do a makeover of power, as the GOP has tended toward redistricting as a strategy, and I think that's exactly what's going to happen.

Donald Trump cannot be an independent leader because no ruler manages bureaucracy alone. You must always listen to the bureaucracy machine because it has too many aspects that you don't understand but is someone else's little kingdom. And that's why Donald Trump is nominating all Washington insiders. It's not like Donald Trump decided, "Why not try for business elites through my network, instead of classical Washington?" Nope, didn't happen.

haberman• 10 years ago

You act as if isolationism is this new thing that Donald Trump invented.

The U.S. didn't start playing this role of World Power until it got dragged into two World Wars that were born out of nationalism and isolationism.

If the U.S. retreats from its role in the world, Russia, China, and Iran will be more than happy to fill the vacuum of power.

codingmyway3• 10 years ago

I hear so many more educated Trump supporters projecting their own largely sensible wishes and plans onto him since he has no coherent plan and essentially promised nothing, except to build a wall.

Not sure he's going to achieve that much.

codingmyway3• 10 years ago

I hear so many educated Trump supporters projecting their own largely sensible wishes and plans onto him since he has no coherent plan and essentially promised nothing, except to build a wall.

Not sure he's going to achieve that much.

vidoc• 10 years ago

You say it very well.

And much like brexit, this fiasco reveals how much of a fool the journalistic establishment has made of itself. At least we can stop debating one thing at this point, whether or not the media is somehow disconnected with reality.

Terr_• 10 years ago

It says more about the media -- in a short-sighted quest for ratings and quarterly reports -- stops doing journalism and starts being a vector for political click-bait.

Even just the Halo-effect of ridiculous claims being requoted verbatim is huge, even when followed with rebuttals.

gotofritz4• 10 years ago

Or, more simply, Clinton was the wrong candidate.

the_duke14• 10 years ago

Nobody dares to talk about this in the media.

But I think a lot of it is just due to her being a woman. And an older one at that.

Many people are not all that progressive in the US, as the campaign has clearly shown.

(I know she was a candidate with plenty of flaws, but a lot of dirt that got thrown at her would never have been directed at a man in that manner).

cronjobber• 10 years ago

attempts at building an interconnected globalised world are beginning to fail

The only certain conclusion I'd draw at this time is that traditional ways of manufacturing consent through broadcast media have stopped working.

Don't fret, the system will adapt.

cm21873• 10 years ago

After Brexit and Trump, the next milestone on this curious series is the French presidential elections in May 2017. The far right candidate Le Pen is leading the polls, but winning at the second round of the election is not going to be easy. Although, no doubt that Brexit, the Trump election, potential new terrorist attacks in France as well as the developping migrant crisis are going to give her a boost.

But like Trump she is unlikely to control the parliament. The republican party will likely temper Trump through the senate. And without a majority at the French parliament, a French president is more like a queen of England, just with the nuclear red button in her hand.

r00fus8• 10 years ago

Amusing that Sarkozy has rebranded his UNP to "Les Républicains". GOP should be flattered.

seszett• 10 years ago

The far right candidate Le Pen is leading the polls

But, she's not?

Alain Juppé is, an old-school right-wing politician. Le Pen is second and the third is a party that is not quite far-left but still far enough to the left for the communist party to ally with it.

winning at the second round of the election is not going to be easy

I don't think this has any chance of happening. But of course, who knows...

mike_hearn2• 10 years ago

Actually, not quite. There are a whole lot of flashpoints coming up in Europe over the next 12-18 months. It's going to be very interesting.

I wrote about this here:

https://medium.com/@octskyward/ok-what-now-e3f64d38f7#.po6ym...

Briefly, the next steps are:

• The Geert Wilders trial in Netherlands. GW is the most popular politician in NL right now. He is on trial for what is essentially pure political speech, he asked a crowd if they wanted more/fewer Moroccans (i.e. visa policy), they said fewer, he said "OK we'll sort that out" or words to that effect. He is boycotting his own trial. If he is found guilty and punished, it's hard to believe this will go down well or hurt his support. Should be resolved by end of the month.

• Austria rerunning its presidential election. Last time the "far right" candidate Norbert Hofer lost to his Green/left wing opponent. But there was voter fraud and the vote was so close that the amount of fraud was larger than the margin of the win, so the courts required a rerun. If Hofer wins ... well, the President of the EU Commission has said Austria would be frozen out of the EU as a punishment for voting the wrong way. Should be resolved in December.

• General election in the Netherlands next year.

• Election in France, as you note.

• Towards the end of the year election in Germany. Very volatile politics there. Turkey is threatening to unleash a torrent of migration on Europe unless it gives Turkey what it wants, which the EU doesn't want to do. Germany's Trump equivalent (Frauke Petry) started losing support when the migrant crisis began slackening after the Turkey deal. If it collapses then AfD may see a resurgence in time for the election.

So 2017 is gonna be an interesting time.

civilian• 10 years ago

The Republicans have congress, which is different than Trump having congress.

heifetz• 10 years ago

Trump's campaign might be anti-establishment, the people he will be bringing in will not be.

Jeff Sessions Giuliani Christy

just to name three of his "inner circle"

I cross my fingers that we will get through the next 4 years without any significant events. However, I think this is really a black eye in America. I think right now at least, we're going to be the butt of jokes for the rest of the world. Lets hope he proves us wrong, or at least the system works to contain him.

laughfactory6• 10 years ago

I noticed the same thing about how how establishment his "team" is. I predict that what we've elected as a nation is, in fact, a fairly run of the mill establishment Republican. But I guess we'll find out!

d--b2• 10 years ago

Just being picky here, but technically, it is not a majority of the population.

mcv18• 10 years ago

I sometimes worry that liberal democracy may turn out to be a temporary fad. The rise of uninformed populism and strongmen is everywhere. Right-wing extremism, often with little love for the free press or due process, has been on the rise all over Europe. The Brexit campaign was dominated by lies and took a seriously xenophobic turn, and now the US has elected a president who is openly racist and lies more often than he tells the truth. In in increasing number of countries, strongmen seem to have more staying power than informed democracy.

It may be attractive to spin this as merely being anti-globalist, but in every instance, racism is a big part of it. After the Brexit vote, people of colour got shouted at by people who claimed they voted for foreigners to leave.

Maybe the problem is that we have allowed right-wing extremism to take hold of the anti-globalist agenda. That used to be a left-wing thing, though anti-globalism never really became mainstream with the left as its champions, but now that the extreme right is championing the cause, suddenly it wins. Does anti-globalism do better when combined with racism? Do they need each other to get a majority?

Or is the problem with democracy itself? Is it possible that the world is too complex for the average citizen to make an informed decision about it? Or do we need a regular lesson in the consequences of our choices? After WW2, everybody (in western Europe at least) was united in their desire for freedom and opposition to racism and totalitarianism, but we've seem to have forgotten that lesson. Or maybe the lesson has been poisoned by becoming too rigid and part of establishment dogma?

politician3• 10 years ago

Polybius [1] would share with this point of view. He believed that governments iterated through a cycle of basic forms: democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy and their degenerate forms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyklos

pm905• 10 years ago

Democracy started off as an oligarchy of the nobles, then extended to free white men/citizens, then to women and then to every citizen. While it was idealistic, I suspect the people who designed the system did not expect large participation; usually the only participants would be city folk/wealthy landowners etc. who probably more or less held similar worldviews. Now, technology/media has made it very easy for many more people to participate in a democracy, and we have to deal with the uncomfortable situation that this gives a lot of power to people who may not be well educated; in fact, who might be rather shallow/easily influenced...

Anyways, I don't think democracy itself is the problem; it is the Establishment that has mostly lost touch with some of the things that Americans respect. A common criticism of Hillary was that she wasn't a straight shooter like Trump. Let's think about that: Hillary was a career politician, a First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, all diplomatic positions that require her to be, well, diplomatic. Obama did well because he could actually pull off both: be a straight-shooter in public, yet diplomatic when talking to other politicians. Hillary unfortunately did not have that skill, of public oration. That is probably what hurt her most.

Now I agree its rather unfair to discount Hillary for that reason. But the reality is: that is how US politics seem to work. And politicians need to understand that fact.

kbart9• 10 years ago

"Or is the problem with democracy itself? Is it possible that the world is too complex for the average citizen to make an informed decision about it? "

I believe, that democracy lost it when started to serve minorities instead of majority. Of course people are getting angry, when majority of them elect government which then won't care about their problems, but about immigrants, sexual minorities, big business, elites etc. Democracy, by definition, is the government of majority, and when it stops serving majority, it loses its purpose. I don't have a solution to this problem, but hopefully somebody will find it sooner rather than later, because I'm afraid some very dark times might otherwise be ahead.

moduspol11• 10 years ago

The problem is that people like you dismiss legitimate concerns as racism. If there's one thing you should take from this election, it's that we're tired of that.

qb459• 10 years ago

Is it possible that the world is too complex for the average citizen to make an informed decision about it?

Truth be told, your whole post seems to contain more questions than answers ;)

amai2• 10 years ago

We don't have democracy. What we have is called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy . And the solution to this problem was already know to the ancient greek: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

"It is accepted as democratic when public offices are allocated by lot; and as oligarchic when they are filled by election. (Aristotle)"

jokoon• 10 years ago

A bunch of elites decided to create their own trans-national utopia

Doesn't Trump belong to that elite you are talking about?

nostrademons12• 10 years ago

Something I've been wondering about:

We're seeing this pattern where the coasts of many countries are cosmopolitan and well-integrated into the world economy, but the interiors are very conservative and nationalistic. Scotland & London vs. Wales & the rest of Britain. The U.S. West Coast & Northeast vs. the Farm Belt, Rust Belt, and Mountain states. Croatia & Slovenia vs. the rest of Yugoslavia. The Baltic Republics vs. the rest of the USSR. Even in a Red State like Texas, Houston (on the coast) has gone democratic.

What happens if economic ties between coastal regions of major trading partners become greater than cultural ties within nations?

Here in California, some of the proposals about sending all the immigrants back to where they came from seem absurd. The economy would cease to function. On one of my teams of 10 people at Google, we had immigrants from Iceland, England, Vietnam, China, Taiwan, and India, and I was the only native-born American citizen. California would sooner secede than deport all of its immigrants.

What if it actually came to that? If push came to shove and the interior decided to push a nativist, nationalist agenda, what if the coastal regions that benefit significantly from trade were to say "Okay, you guys can play with yourself, we're going to play with the rest of the world." Scotland has threatened to do exactly that, and is planning on holding another referendum on independence if Britain actually follows through on Brexit.

What sort of organizing principle would the world have then? I haven't seen anything historically like that - the closest would be the Roman Empire that rimmed the Mediterranean. For most of recorded history, the primary means of production has been land and so fights have been over land, but over the last 150 years or so (contemporaneous with the nation-state as a social organizing principle, BTW), the primary means of production shifted to capital, and now it's shifting to information. What kind of social organizing principle does that imply?

s_kilk• 10 years ago

What sort of organizing principle would the world have then? I haven't seen anything historically like that

Basically City-States

bambax4• 10 years ago

It's an interesting question. But doesn't the fact that coastal regions are pro-trade and interior lands are against it tell us that people are pro-trade when they engage in it and against it when they don't?

So a response may be to get more people engage in trade and globalization instead of only seeing the bad sides, the closed factories, etc.

How does one do that I don't know. Maybe Google should move its campus to Iowa.

r00fus8• 10 years ago

The US civil war was fought in part because the southern states threatened to secede.

Do you think the US would let California leave? Can CA defend her own borders (especially against the rest of the US)?

zigzigzag13• 10 years ago

London isn't on the coast. What you're looking at here is not coasts vs non-coasts even if American maps might make it look that way. It's cities vs everywhere else. It just so happens that in America most of the biggest/best known cities are on the coasts.

nvarsj2• 10 years ago

What if it actually came to that? If push came to shove and the interior decided to push a nativist, nationalist agenda, what if the coastal regions that benefit significantly from trade were to say "Okay, you guys can play with yourself, we're going to play with the rest of the world."

I think if it actually came to that, it would eventually mean war. The interior economy falls apart, coastal regions secede, the poor countries would inevitably be driven to war against the coastal regions out of desperation. Extreme nationalism would just make this more likely. No one should think this is a good idea.

Also, saying coasts are "well-integrated into the world economy", implying the rest of the country is not, is just a horribly myopic view of the world. They are only "well-integrated" because the government chose and planned that explicitly - globalization and free trade as an economic policy, removal of protectionism (e.g. NAFTA, etc) and heavy subsidies of the industries involved (especially tech, via military spending).

It didn't have to be that way - it isn't because tech, finance, whatever is more meritocratic or anything. With more sensible protectionism you could have international trade while still preserving your country's manufacturing base, allowing the rest of the country's economy to also be "well-integrated". But labor is expensive in developed countries, corporations want more profit, and our government doesn't particularly prioritize the working class.

shams932• 10 years ago

They will leave the US before they start a war or try to force a california sucession. Ireland could become the next Silicon Valley it may change from Silicon Valley to Technology Island. It would be cheaper for them to pay for their diverse workforce to move to a different country rather than go to war for sucession.

makomk2• 10 years ago

It's basically urban vs rural, the cities are just on the coasts for historical reasons related to trade and shipping I think. Global trade means that the economy has centred more and more around highly-skilled jobs that require the network effects of being in a major city. Rural residents can't afford to move there and probably wouldn't be able to get jobs anyway.

Also, being dependent on imports to feed the population would have major national security implications.

oska• 10 years ago

What sort of organizing principle would the world have then? I haven't seen anything historically like that

The Hanseatic League was a federation of free-trading market towns along the North Sea and Baltic Sea coastlines. [1]

A number of people have suggested that cities (and federations of cities) may become more of a focus as a political unit in the medium term over the nation state.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanseatic_League

oselhn3• 10 years ago

"The Baltic Republics vs. the rest of the USSR."

Not good example. They were not voluntarily part of USSR (see Molotov-Ribentrop pact), Stalin sent a lot of them to Siberia. They have huge Russian minority too (remember Putin's policy for "protecting" russians in foreign countries). It it not easy for them to survive, they have to be as independent on russia as possible, so they have no other choice than integrate into international organizations.

dglass• 10 years ago

You're misunderstanding the proposal about immigrants. The proposal is to send all immigrants that are here illegally back to where they came from.

Yes, I agree it would hurt the California economy if that happened. But are you saying that on your team of 10 people at Google, all of them were here illegally? I can't comprehend the fact that Google would hire immigrants without proper visas or background checks. If they're legal immigrants or they have the required visas, they would be just fine.

edit: the proposal is also just that...a proposal. It's not guaranteed this will happen.

majewsky5• 10 years ago

For most of recorded history, the primary means of production has been land and so fights have been over land, but over the last 150 years or so (contemporaneous with the nation-state as a social organizing principle, BTW), the primary means of production shifted to capital, and now it's shifting to information.

I don't expect wars over land to be done anytime soon. We might be doing most of our work on computers rather than on land, but the resources for these computers gotta come from somewhere. This is why esp. China has been going around and buying huge troves of land in Africa: not only to feed their growing population, but also to call dibs on the minerals in the ground.

That doesn't mean that information wars are not happening as well. (Though not nearly as prominent since these need way less personnel and happen less openly.)

BjoernKW• 10 years ago

City states and some sort of 'neo-medieval' organisation principle with lots of overlapping allegiances and identities.

There was an interesting article on this some time ago that broached some of these ideas:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329850-600-end-of-n...

lgieron4• 10 years ago

Scotland & London vs. Wales & the rest of Britain

How is Wales less coastal than Scotland?

literallycancer• 10 years ago

Even before the Roman Empire, there were trade focused sea faring groups with significant influence, as seen on a map of Greek & Phoenician colonies[1]. The Carthaginians even sailed around West Africa and reached as far as Gulf of Guinea to search for precious metals[2].

I would expect the largest, most successful cities to be located on the coast, or in extremely fertile regions like the Nile Delta or Mesopotamia. Couldn't find any pretty visualisations that would show that though, so I might be wrong.

1 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Griechis...

2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanno_the_Navigator#Modern_ana...

angry_octet• 10 years ago

In Heinlien's Friday the US has split up into competing and fractious rival states, like a late 19th century Europe. The heroine is from a persecuted minority (namely genetically engineered people).

tremon• 10 years ago

What happens if economic ties between coastal regions of major trading partners become greater than cultural ties within nations?

Then those regions might form their own government, see for example the Hanseatic League [1]. These cities answered directly to the Emperor, instead of some local nobility or government.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanseatic_league

MandieD• 10 years ago

Kind of reminds me of the medieval Hanseatic League - city-states and merchant guilds around the Baltic Sea trading goods and culture (and providing for the defence of all that shipping) while the interior regions were more isolated.

Are we really all part of New Hansa?

aangjie• 10 years ago

so (contemporaneous with the nation-state as a social organizing principle, BTW), the primary means of production shifted to capital, and now it's shifting to information. What kind of social organizing principle does that imply?

Agggressive, negotiators with awareness of cognitive biases like base-rate fallacy, asymmetry of information advantage, etc.... will form or create the organizing principles most likely.. I think of it and it becomes a pain thinking about the asymmentry of information. Hopefully, if it happens, we'll build a better deterrant against withholding information.

eli_gottlieb2• 10 years ago

Here in California, some of the proposals about sending all the immigrants back to where they came from seem absurd. The economy would cease to function. On one of my teams of 10 people at Google, we had immigrants from Iceland, England, Vietnam, China, Taiwan, and India, and I was the only native-born American citizen. California would sooner secede than deport all of its immigrants.
What if it actually came to that? If push came to shove and the interior decided to push a nativist, nationalist agenda, what if the coastal regions that benefit significantly from trade were to say "Okay, you guys can play with yourself, we're going to play with the rest of the world." Scotland has threatened to do exactly that, and is planning on holding another referendum on independence if Britain actually follows through on Brexit.

It's a decent idea for large parts of America to be devolved into separate nation-states. Texas, California, and Massachusetts are looking not to be governable as a unified country.

throwaway9119112• 10 years ago

some of the proposals about sending all the immigrants back to where they came from seem absurd

Oh come on. Nobody is calling for sending all immigrants back. Trump's wife is an immigrant... The questions are:

* Big one: What to do about illegal immigration.

* Smaller one: What to do about the widespread abuse of the h1b program. For example, FY 2015, Infosys [outsourcing Indian company] leads the h1b pack with 23k visas, whereas Google has 3k visas.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/06/us/outsourcing...

http://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2015-H1B-Visa-Sponsor.aspx

lap42• 10 years ago

Trump will deport ILEGAL immigrants. Four paragraphs based on a false premise.

throw_away_7779• 10 years ago

No one is proposing sending all the immigrants back to where they came from, and if they did the economy would not cease to function. Maybe part of the problem is that companies like Google hire teams of 90% immigrants while Americans can't find good jobs.

LeifCarrotson• 10 years ago

I'm not sure it's "coastal vs interior" as much as "urban vs rural".

I think we're past the time period where water transport was hugely superior to land transport (and air didn't yet exist). It's not that much harder or more expensive to get a plane ticket or UPS package to the Midwest compared to California.

I think the election results by county support this. Even in red states, urban centers are blue, and in blue states, rural areas are red.

I'm not sure there's a sufficient segregating force to change this. Aside from election time and resulting legal frameworks that apply to both areas, the ease of transportation and also of moving information mean that there's little friction in being next door to or embedded within the other groups.

ams6110• 10 years ago

Is your team of immigrants here illegally? Nobody is talking about deporting legal immigrants.

magic_beans• 10 years ago

"On one of my teams of 10 people at Google"

You're so far from the average Trump voter that they would never see your point.

Coding_Cat• 10 years ago

Honestly, I'd quite like to have a world with a few large 'nation-states' in charge of 'the global scene'. I am not an economic liberal by any means, but I am a proponent of forming ties between nations and having democracy applied to smaller communities.

bogomipz• 10 years ago

"We're seeing this pattern where the coasts of many countries are cosmopolitan and well-integrated into the world economy, but the interiors are very conservative and nationalistic. Scotland & London vs. Wales & the rest of Britain"

London is the interior, it is not on the coast. Wales and and Scotland are both coastal.

"Croatia & Slovenia vs. the rest of Yugoslavia."

I assume you mean the former Yugoslavia? Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro are also on the coast. So what does that leave for non-coastal fomer Yugoslavia? Macedonia?

"The Baltic Republics vs. the rest of the USSR"

There hasn't been a USSR since 1991. Do you mean the former USSR?

pbhjpbhj3• 10 years ago

I think the situation in Wales is that the South and East are more cosmopolitan, lots of immigrants going back many years. The West and North less so.

Similarly in Scotland I think the major urban areas dominate, where populations are more diverse. But rural populations away from communications and conurbations seem far less accepting of [large groups of] migrants.

Similarly in the UK poorer populations that might feel threatened by incomers seeking low-skilled jobs (eg due to poor language skills) seem less welcoming of migrants.

Personally I think the whole "culture" aspect is a red herring and what people really care about is their own wealth. I mean the UK's history is epitomised by outside influences either due to invasion of Britain or British invasion and Empire.

Personally I think to survive and meet the needs of everyone the West will need give up some of its luxuries, get rid of our need to own everything we use, move away from the disposable lifestyle.

In short my analysis is it's liberal just greed that drives this whole thing - 'I deserve wealth but other people don't'.

Does that idea fit in other geographies or not?

rullelito• 10 years ago

On one of my teams of 10 people at Google, we had immigrants from Iceland, England, Vietnam, China, Taiwan, and India, and I was the only native-born American citizen.

How is this an argument? I'm not from the US and I'm not very well read on the issue, but isn't it illegal immigrants they want to deport?

Who said that people from those countries couldn't be well educated and be fully functional Americans?

Also, I live in Malmö Sweden (coastal city) and the right-wing party here is strong, and we have lots of problem with immigrants, both legal and illegal.

defen3• 10 years ago

On one of my teams of 10 people at Google, we had immigrants from Iceland, England, Vietnam, China, Taiwan, and India, and I was the only native-born American citizen. California would sooner secede than deport all of its immigrants.

If you think the immigration debate is about Google employees, I think you don't understand the immigration debate.

If push came to shove and the interior decided to push a nativist, nationalist agenda, what if the coastal regions that benefit significantly from trade were to say "Okay, you guys can play with yourself, we're going to play with the rest of the world."

The interior (culturally and geographically) is massively over-represented in the security forces and military. So good luck with that.

malcol• 10 years ago

What if, people vote with their feet? Would it be possible that sites like https://teleport.org or others, make moving as simple as booking a holiday trip? People will find their likeminded peers in the cloud and meet up physically at a place that fits best their needs? Not just to meet up for conferences but for longterm stays? Countries, cities, governments would have to compete for talent? Would this change the dynamic how governments act overall? Being in competition for people, for talent on a complete new level?

cicero• 10 years ago

Surely your immigrant coworkers are here legally. I don't think legal immigration is a problem for anyone except for a small extreme fringe.

TheGirondin8• 10 years ago

On one of my teams of 10 people at Google, we had immigrants from Iceland, England, Vietnam, China, Taiwan, and India, and I was the only native-born American citizen. California would sooner secede than deport all of its immigrants.

No one wants to send legal immigrants on your team back their countries of origin. Blue collar, unskilled laborers want to stop the influx of unskilled laborers and illegal immigrants who 1) take their jobs and depress their wages and 2) take up resources from social programs.

jerf2• 10 years ago

"What sort of organizing principle would the world have then?"

I don't know if this is what is likely to happen, but I've been pondering this: The Westphalian order for the world, which we currently live under, involves drawing borders for countries, and then basically insisting that the governments within those borders must have some sort of unity, regardless of what those borders are, do, or come from.

Do you have a group of people that are geographically localized but have borders going right through the middle of them, like the Kurds? Then they are not a country, not countrymen, and regardless of their affiliations they are subject to their country's policies for dealing with each other. The split of East and West Germany was an extreme case of this, where a national border was drawn, and you had families cut in half.

Do you have bunches of people that basically loathe each other with the fire of a thousand suns, but there's a border drawn around them on the world map? Then they live together, until the most pathological cases like Yugoslavia finally just blow apart.

And where did these borders come from? Did some bureaucrats in Europe in the 1700s or 1800s draw some conveniently straight lines in Africa? You're a country now in the 21st century, regardless of how anyone local feels about that. Pretty much anywhere in the world you see a straight line border you see something very artificial that took no account of conditions on the ground.

In the 1990s, the cyber utopians thought that technology would lead to more decentralization. With improved technology, you don't need industrial-era practices to deal with cities and counties and states and countries. You can have very sophisticated government and government services now at much smaller polities; even the small local cities take online payments now, for instance, and have online billing.

Perhaps the future looks like the Westphalian system cracking up, and polities being more willing to secede, easily join together in arrangements of convenience as needed, and easily break apart again as their interests diverge. There are certainly a lot of practical issues involved in that transition, but as diversity increases all around the world, there's increasingly a lot of practical issues involved in forcibly jamming people together because of borders drawn 200+ years ago. It wouldn't solve war; that's not on the table. But it might just prevent World War III.

shaurz2• 10 years ago

Global city-states need to become independent with open immigration, separate from the Nations which should enforce strong immigration controls to maintain the native population & culture.

curiousgeorgio2• 10 years ago

Here in California, some of the proposals about sending all the immigrants back to where they came from seem absurd.

FYI, I'm not aware of anyone proposing to send all immigrants back, only undocumented (also known as "illegal") immigrants. Like it or not, the current laws are such that people in that category are not here legally, so if we truly are a nation of laws, those laws should be upheld, no?

If you don't agree with the law, vote to change it rather than act as if the law just doesn't exist.

To single out a certain group of people and act as if laws don't apply to them in a country that is otherwise built on laws is to deprive them (and all of us) of one of the most fundamental American virtues. Whether we agree with the laws or not, if we don't uphold them, we cease to be a free country (it's the laws that keep us free, after all). It's absurd to believe otherwise.

Or, you know, we can keep going down the rabbit hole of selectively enforcing laws, and we can ignore your vote too because some people don't agree with it; the voting laws are just words on paper.

roymurdock• 10 years ago

What happens if economic ties between coastal regions of major trading partners become greater than cultural ties within nations?

Until you can fix your toilet, repair your house, teach your kids, pave your roads, and have your meals cooked for you remotely, I don't think this is a valid concern. The upper "coastal" class depends on local, blue collar labor that can't be outsourced (with current technology).

Rich folk can move to the suburbs but everyone will need to coexist within contiguous geographic states for the foreseeable future.

dacox• 10 years ago

Those cultural ties practically already are stronger. Living on the west coast of Canada I really feel that - to the south we have Washington, Oregon, California.

jv22222• 10 years ago

This link submitted to HN was flagged by mods but it should not have been. It helps to explain how Trump won:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-on...

bambax4• 10 years ago

One of the most informative articles I have read about the divide between rural and urban America. Probably very true. Highly recommended.

Fiahil• 10 years ago

It is possible to view this as an isolated event or a trend. Coming on the heels of BREXIT this is a trend.

I agree with this. Even if the causes are unclear, it would probably set up a path affecting quite a lot western societies (and maybe others too).

Interesting times.

bambax4• 10 years ago

Unfortunately, you appear to be 100% right.

People hate globalization and strangers.

What was also fascinating in this campaign is the divide between the media and the people; even if Trump had lost with 49% of the vote it would have been striking. Zero newspapers endorsed him, which means half of the US population is not represented in the media.

The melting pot has lumps and clots.

wsc9812• 10 years ago

  People hate globalization and strangers.

People like community. It's hard to have a community when people don't share similar backgrounds, when people don't share same values. People will feel less connected and less responsible for one another. People will also feel more distrust to one another. Social cohesion will break down. This is the reason why integration should be an essential part of immigration. Immigrants should adopt the leading culture, at least when moving outside of the confinements of their homes.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

vacri7• 10 years ago

Economists need to stop acting like priests in the medieval ages who justified the existing order . The rural voter who lost his job doesn't care about the theory of comparitive advantage.

Weird - most people on the left don't consider economists to be priests of their world. That's a right-wing frame of mind.

If you are interested in finding the truth here, the first thing to do is stop assuming that all the people who voted conservative are unemployed farmers. There are a lot of the educated elite in that bloc.

olalonde• 10 years ago

It is possible to view this as an isolated event or a trend. Coming on the heels of BREXIT this is a trend.

It's a seductive idea but I think you're reading too much into this. It's hard to tell what people are really voting for when there are two options each of which encompasses a bunch of largely disparate policies. I wouldn't be surprised if a large amount of the Trump vote was just a vote against "political correctness" or one against Hillary as a person. Humans sure love patterns.

ZeroGravitas7• 10 years ago

If people care so much about immigration, why do anti-immigrant groups need to lie so much? If I had to accuse deficit hawks of being rapists that were conspiring with the Jews to bring down the US then I'd maybe conclude that people didn't care that much about the deficit.

johndoez• 10 years ago

It's not a return to the 1920s. Globalisation proceeded too quickly, and many people got left out.

It is a revolt against a system which simply doesn't work for the majority of European descended whites.

Paul Buchheit once linked to an article from the American Conservative, which shows at least he had an open mind to hearing about these anti-establishment views.

Paul Graham and Sam A have instead just continued the political correctness anti-Trump agenda which in the long-turn actually plays into his hands, as there is a growing dislike of PC, especially from multi-millionaires who don't understand what its like to be out of work with no education behind you.

I think all this talk will come back to bite Silicon Valley and YC on the ass, as Trump will look to take revenge on the Tech Crowd. I expect the Tech Bubble to burst over the nxt year.

a3_nm• 10 years ago

Get out of your bubble. Hang out more on subreddits you don't agree with.

This probably isn't a sufficient step to get exposed to really different opinions...

wallace_f• 10 years ago

Whether it is for economic reasons or just plain bigotry is something for the sociologists to study and not something I can pontificate on.

In the context of the economic literature that exists in mainstream academia, which is in overwhelming support of globalism as a policy which supports economic growth of all people, it appears your comment strongly suggests anti-globalism is equated with bigotry.

I'm neither defending nor supporting globalism: is it reasonable to conclude that someone who is not in support of globalism is a bigot or racist? This seems to have more to do with political correctness and I think all people deserve the right to have a thoughtful discussion and represent their views without being effectively silenced, and when something is labelled as bigotry or racism it is effectively outlawed in western culture. Shouldn't we be more careful here?

lunula4• 10 years ago

In this case the popular result is very likely the opposite of what you assert. That is, Clinton will probably win the popular vote and lose the presidency.

So popular sentiment is actually in support of an open, connected world. The political structures in the US systematically oppress this majority, due to its concentration in cities and the legacy of a voting system that respects territory over people.

rimantas• 10 years ago

Or the simpler view: this is result of lack of critical thinking or any thinking skills at all. And a tendency to shoot themselves in the foot just in spite.

beefman• 10 years ago

understand their concerns and try to assuage them

You can't do both at the same time.

For starters, the "theory of competitive advantage" is incredibly weak. But it's pretty clear that trade represents a small constant factor in the GDP level, which is used up once all markets have sufficient liquidity. It can explain only a small fraction of economic growth since the Industrial Revolution. And it is not necessarily a Pareto improvement with respect to nations -- which is why protectionism has been a fact of global trade for 4,000 years.

erikb5• 10 years ago

I thought about your text a few hours. Because some of it sounds really right, but somehow it also feels strange.

You say, if I understand you correctly, that the rural voter is the majority, and that we should finally start to listen to his needs, ideas, fears and dreams.

And I agree that we should listen to the majority and figure out how to make most people happy. But exactly this "rural voter" is not the one who educates himself (independent of the education he receives through his government a lot of learning happens after school). He has very simple needs and doesn't care about the details of how these interact with the needs of people who "tick differently". Sometimes when I talk to "rural folks" (have some in the family) they don't even seem to understand what they themselves want and need. They just know when they don't have it and then they are unhappy.

Therefore there is not much to learn from this "rural voter", or from talking to him. But his needs are obvious and simple as well. And we all know them already. Give him a job that exhausts him, give him a wife, 1-2 children, a tv, if possible a single family home. Keep the taxes low enough for him to provide for his family, fly or drive somewhere cheap in summer and make alcohol cheap enough for him to have some parties and a few beer on the weekend. Then he's happy and won't trouble any politician.

Thus, I would say the question is not about understanding them better but about rich and social enough to provide them what they need. And the funny thing is that the politicians on the right usually prefer the well off population and make politics for them, while the left tries to provide for the commoner, the "rural voter". That's the funny thing in my eyes, the "rural" voter hates the people who fight for him and loves the people who try to exploit him.

scottmf• 10 years ago

Your comment comes across as fairly condescending, but I can't really argue with it.

Sure it can be dangerous to believe you know what's best for others and force decisions upon them, but clearly what we have now isn't working either.

More than ever we desperately need more resources put into education. But that isn't going to happen.

I don't see an easy way out of this mess. It's something we've been building toward for a long time and it's incredibly saddening.

moduspol11• 10 years ago

Your comment is incredibly condescending, which is a significant contributing factor as to why this "rural voter" got out and voted.

Perhaps rather than taking this tact (which we've seen a million times):

Rural voters aren't smart. They vote based on feelings and ignore the stuff that actually matters (which I can identify better than they can). They're simple folks that just need simple stuff, but they're frequently tricked into voting against their interests by the other party.

You could consider something like this:

Rural voters have different values than mine. My perception of their intelligence is irrelevant because I know there are intelligent people who share their views. Maybe if their viewpoints were taken seriously instead of dismissed outright as sexist and xenophobic, we could win their votes (or at least not cause such high turnout for the opponent) next time around.

Realize that Republicans can identify demographics that frequently vote for Democrats the same way. Take that first paragraph above and sub in "black people," "hispanics," and "women." See how incredibly offensive it is now? That's how "rural voters" feel when you post things like this.

qb459• 10 years ago

we should finally start to listen to his needs, ideas, fears and dreams.
his needs are obvious and simple as well. Give him a job that exhausts him, give him a wife, 1-2 children, a tv, if possible a single family home. Then he's happy and won't trouble any politician.

Yeah, right, sounds like you got it.

Please somebody tell me this is sarcasm ridiculing the leftists.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12909204

lamontcg• 10 years ago

Coming on the heels of BREXIT this is a trend.

This is also on the heels of Al Gore and John Kerry.

The track record of the Clinton-Blair center-right elite "neoliberal" machinery has pretty much been a failure now for 20+ years.

Obama wasn't part of that machinery (even though he immediately tacked center-right after getting elected).

TheGrumpyBrit• 10 years ago

I think the same mistake was made in both Brexit and this election. The people at the top looked around them, and they assumed the people they saw were a representative sample of the population. Because usually, they're more or less right.

There's a whole demographic out there that doesn't really care about politics. It doesn't matter who POTUS is because nothing will really change in my city. They don't bother voting because none of the policies particularly interest them. Suddenly you've got this guy who isn't a politician, and he's promising to do things that decades of politicians haven't been doing.

Trump got the people who are disaffected by traditional politics to come out and vote, and that's enough to make a big difference, just like it was with Brexit.

necessity• 10 years ago

This collectivist liberal fearmongering portraying others as the elites is pathetic. Time will tell, and meanwhile I'm laughing.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/23/uk-economic...

internaut• 10 years ago

I called both Brexit and Trump but I can't quite agree with your synopsis. You might be surprised to hear that from a quasi-neoreactionary. I see migration and globalization as important elements of a more disturbing pattern not many people seem to have picked up on.

I don't know that Trump understands this himself, but Thiel sure does.

Having been a fan of Thiel's ideas for some time, I concocted a hypothesis called the 'Wolfian World' that gives a high level look at older currents moving in the world. It is here if anybody's interested in something different from chronocentric newspapers and talking heads with their short sight and overconfidence.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12884413

zasz• 10 years ago

It's not economic reasons. Mostly cultural anxiety.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/19/12933072/far-right-white-riot-t...

return0• 10 years ago

I think it is more populism than far right.For example, in my country greece, under similar discontent, people voted the (supposed) "radical-left" party of Syriza.

The anti-globalization trend is very real though.

hiram112• 10 years ago

"Comparitive advantage" was about growing bananas in the tropics vs the tundra.

What we've had for the last three generations is a race to the bottom.

Fang_• 10 years ago

Get out of your bubble.

Would it be a stretch to say the "bubbling" that happens on the internet plays a role in causing these divides?

staticelf4• 10 years ago

I think you are making a great assessment and that is what fears me. I don't think your words are pretty useful on HackerNews folks in general.

My thoughts as a Swede is that I don't actually give a fuck if your president is a turd. His view on immigrations doesn't scare me, his view on NATO doesn't really scare me. Trump say he is going to invest in fossile fuels THAT scares me A LOT.

The future already looks super dark and leaders like Obama shed a tiny light on that things would turn out for the better. But now when two of the worlds largest countries doesn't really care (USA and Russia) I mean wtf. It doesn't matter what the rest of the world does if these two giants will fuck it up anyway.

Time to be a climate prepper.

qb459• 10 years ago

Sweden, seriously? You guys should be grateful ;)

And the biggest CO₂ emitter is China, not the US or Russia. Aactually, pulling industry back to the US could reduce global CO₂ output if efficiency was made more of a priority than in China due to higher labor and energy costs.

Shivetya4• 10 years ago

Oh the elites are headed towards a globalised world however that does not mean they need to include every country or people.

However what is happening in Europe if not the US is that people are pushing back against their governments and the elites because they are tired of being run over by the ideals of a group which suffers none of the negatives of the choices they force on others.

The elite, the political class and those connected to it do talk down to the masses, trying to embarrass or even intimidate them into accepting the needs of the elite. This means lower labor costs, more dependents on government, and long term more locked in votes. This ends up forcing the already pressed lower and middle classes further into an economic malaise they cannot escape. Worse any negatives, from loss of jobs and opportunities or worse, crime and violence, is confined to their areas as the elite tend to live in a very protected environment.

With regards to the US, at least we have been consistent in flipping the White House every eight years or so. It is pretty remarkable. However Democrats have been actually fighting a losing battle for a long time and not modifying their message but instead becoming more heated. By that I mean they are losing control over vast parts of the country with regards to the House and Senate but more importantly they lost a lot of governorship and local governments all of which feed upward

notahacker7• 10 years ago

One should be careful about extrapolating a trend from two disparate data points.

Trump and Brexit have one major thing in common: they relied on surprisingly high turnout from white working class men for ostensibly right wing causes after a lot of anti-Establishment and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

They have a lot not in common, like pro-Brexit voters very strongly disapproving of Trump, Brexit being a popular political cause for over twenty years backed by a vast majority of the mainstream press which actually picked up momentum because Establishment and liberal free trade figures came out in favour of it, the demographics for Brexit voters being heavily skewed towards older people[1] in a way that Trump votes almost certainly weren't, and Trump evidently picking up a lot of "the incumbent party haven't done anything for us; let's vote for change" votes that aren't really related to the appeal of his wall or birther remarks to ex-Obama voters living in Mexican-free areas of Michigan. Trump's "Make American Great" again spiel might well resonate more with an unemployed ex-factory worker than a broadsheet article extolling the virtues of comparative advantage, but it certainly isn't the sort of practical protectionist plan he needs to deliver a permanently change the status quo position on globalisation, and his new supporters aren't going to stick around if he doesn't deliver something.

It's also clear that other relatively recent major Anglosphere elections haven't been a major success for the radical right.

[1]that campaign certainly wasn't won on subreddits

pmontra• 10 years ago

the demographics for Brexit voters being heavily skewed towards older people[1] in a way that Trump votes almost certainly weren't,

From http://news.sky.com/story/us-election-demographics-show-bitt...

A similar divide can be found among the different age groups with younger voters favouring the Democrats and those aged over 65 years leaning towards Mr Trump.
However, Mrs Clinton's appeal among those aged under 30 years, where she has a 20-point lead over Mr Trump (54/34%), is not as great as Barack Obama's 23-point lead.

I saw a graph much more detailed but I can't find it anymore. It showed that Clinton won the votes of the under 40 and Trump the ones of the over 40 by more or less the same margin. The story on Sky seems to confirm that.

freshflowers• 10 years ago

Hang out more on subreddits you don't agree with.

Hanging out with people you don't agree with is one thing. Hanging out with people that want you to stop existing is an entirely different matter.

If people are willing to (vote to) cross that line, time for talk and bridging divides is not just over, it's suicidally naive to think otherwise.

I could go Godwin here, but you get the point.

drieddust• 10 years ago

The rural voter who lost his job doesn't care about the theory of comparitive advantage.

This is am important point. Current system does not foster competition. As a migrant myself, I think the whole system is rigged to the benefit of chosen few mega corporation.

Taking UK as an example, Skilled immigration category was abolished few years back due to which I cannot apply for a visa and compete in free market for a salary. However, I am allowed to come to UK on a lower salary for nine years easily under company transfer scheme practically bounded to my employer with no option.

If allowed to compete as an individual, I would either compete for higher wages or go home. Current system just puts myself as well local at disadvantage to benefit chosen few.

The whole objective of free market and globalization is lost to greed and manipulation.

gutnor• 10 years ago

Also people seem to care a LOT about immigration and preserving their culture.

I believe their care about that because they have nothing else to look forward to.

(Lower-)Middle class in the West has been funding prosperity around the world (can't find the chart at the moment). Basically every social class everywhere in the world is better off than 30 years ago, except middle class in the Western world.

There is this generation that have less than their parents and know that their children will have even less. They cling to what they have, this nebulous identity/culture. And a bunch of populist politician is just happy to give them that.

What they really need is prosperity. Very few care about their neighbors beliefs when life is good. People living in cities like London demonstrate that: they are way more liberal because being liberal does not (seem to) cost them a lot.

sklivvz1971• 10 years ago

Please leave conspiracy theories out of the internet. Seriously, not cool.

atmosx3• 10 years ago

It is possible to view this as an isolated event or a trend. Coming on the heels of BREXIT this is a trend.

No, you'd be extremely naive to believe this is an isolated event:

* Greece, SYRIZA and minor parties on the surge since 2014

* UK, votes for brexit in 2016, I'm not sure if UKIP is gaining votes or not though.

* France, FN (LePen) is leading the polls at least for the first round.

* Italy, M5S is awfully close to lead the polls in Italy

* In Germany AfD is on the raise

* FPO is leading the pools in Austria

Keep in mind that the mainstream media, often downplays the possibility of an alternative surging - I believe on purpose: In Greece the polls were nearly 15% off in the referendum. It's staggering! Now, Brexit and the US pollsters got-it all wrong. In Greece many people lie to pollsters on purpose.

I don't see any sort of isolation, I see a very clear and predictable pattern.

There is no genuine leftist alternative.

Wait a minute there. I have this strong sense that if the democrats had gone with the other candidate, they'd be celebrating today. Hillary, was the only candidate that was susceptible to a loss (emails, wall street money, legacy, the surname, etc.). Hillary == Establishment in every possible way. Sanders on the other hand was possibly the most scandal-free candidate of the last 20 years at least. I wouldn't say that the leftist is the problem.

However, at least in Europe, the ones who'd screwed up everyone were the Socialist parties by pushing a Brussels-based liberal agenda for a decade or so, so in a sense, at least in the EU the left or mild left at least, is rather dead in the water.

UPDATE: I think part of T. Frank's article in the Guardian describe my feelings in a detailed manner:

Start at the top. Why, oh why, did it have to be Hillary Clinton? Yes, she has an impressive resume; yes, she worked hard on the campaign trail. But she was exactly the wrong candidate for this angry, populist moment. An insider when the country was screaming for an outsider. A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine.

She was the Democratic candidate because it was her turn and because a Clinton victory would have moved every Democrat in Washington up a notch. Whether or not she would win was always a secondary matter, something that was taken for granted. Had winning been the party’s number one concern, several more suitable candidates were ready to go. There was Joe Biden, with his powerful plainspoken style, and there was Bernie Sanders, an inspiring and largely scandal-free figure. Each of them would probably have beaten Trump, but neither of them would really have served the interests of the party insiders.

And so Democratic leaders made Hillary their candidate even though they knew about her closeness to the banks, her fondness for war, and her unique vulnerability on the trade issue – each of which Trump exploited to the fullest. They chose Hillary even though they knew about her private email server. They chose her even though some of those who studied the Clinton Foundation suspected it was a sketchy proposition.

Article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/donald...

akytt• 10 years ago

You make an assumption that globalisation is a man-made thing. That we could say "no" and it would stop. But this is not so. Globalisation stems from very primal human and commercial needs that have been enabled by the internet.

demian00• 10 years ago

I think you are right. Here in Germany the Afd is also on the rise, who has a strong stand against refugees and the EU.

What is the common denominator? Obviously it is about globalism and culture, but maybe it has more to it?

I think none is really looking at the big picture. What are our values and how do democracies work? Do we in the west have the better system or where we just lucky? Currently the west is in a crisis. Everyone notices, that we loose on economic terms while China is winning. And groups from outside the west get more and more influence (most prominently Islam).

So how can we turn this around? One answer might be Trump, but there will probably be better solutions if we think about these issues.

shripadk• 10 years ago

It's happening everywhere. Started with India in 2014, Brexit in June 2016 and now USA with Trump. Possibly France in the upcoming elections (2017)?

kleigenfreude2• 10 years ago

The Media (and you it seems) almost immediately went into "where did we do wrong and what can we do better" mode. While that's a completely important thing to do, and appropriate for many problem situations, it isn't appropriate here. Here's why:

1. Clinton won the popular vote.

2. Economists think Trump is a bad idea, so on that level, the popular vote was not wrong.

3. The electoral college is outdated, was originally created because southern states wanted to keep slavery: http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

Unless the electoral college decides to vote with the American popular vote in this election, very bad things could happen:

* California could try to hold a referendum for succession from the U.S., if they're not too stoned to do so: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-protest-trump-20...

* Riots.

Don't blame yourselves. The electoral college and Trump's campaign taking advantage of it (and the F.B.I.) are the reason that things are going to go bad.

notahacker7• 10 years ago

If the electoral college had been close there was always the possibility of a renegade Republican elector or two flipping things (especially if Trump's forthcoming trials gave them further excuse to do so). Though they certainly wouldn't have done that in the expectation of reducing riots.

The electoral college isn't close though. Given that they've won the popular vote in all but one of the Presidential elections since 1992 and lost three, it'll be interesting to see if electoral reform comes onto the agenda when the Democrats are back in power again. But in the mean time, the absolute best case scenario for the left is a revelation which leads to Trump's impeachment and four years of President Pence.

pricechild• 10 years ago

1. Clinton won the popular vote.

I can't get over how differently results seem to be reported in the US.

As of right now, reports I read suggest she's barely 100,000 votes ahead on that measure with "44 electoral votes still available".

i.e. there's a huge number of votes uncounted and that "fact" could easily turn out to be a poor prediction/

Why are news reports/speculation/predictions taken as fact without waiting for results to be announced?

tootie2• 10 years ago

Economists study data, make observations and come to conclusions. They can't just tell people what they want to hear. Trump told coal country he'd being back mining jobs in the face of a freefall in demand. That's just lying. Don't blame economists.

lr4444lr• 10 years ago

Get out of your bubble.

Hang out more on subreddits you don't agree with.

Quoted for emphasis.

smoyer• 10 years ago

I equated the discontent in the US with the discontent in the UK that led to the Brexit vote when it happened - my wife didn't believe they could have the same root cause but now I'm pretty convinced your predictions are likely to happen.

As an aside, Clinton would have given (will give?) a concession speech but Trump gave a victory speech.

CSMastermind• 10 years ago

Instead of patronising these people it's time we tried to understand their concerns and try to assuage them.

That to me is the key point. As someone who falls squarely into Mr. Trump's camp I've found the condesending way people talk about his supporters infuriating.

daveheq2• 10 years ago

Funny you say globalization has failed when we've had a corporate global economy for decades that has sent worker wages down in more-developed countries and corporate profits skyrocketing in more-developed countries. Believe me, these global corporations love the Republicans more than the Democrats; their profits come first, the people come last.

newsreader• 10 years ago

Also people seem to care a LOT about immigration and preserving their culture.

Thus the reason I voted against Trump. (I'm second generation US citizen -- Mexican grandparents)

maged072• 10 years ago

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Kurtz79• 10 years ago

Waiting for the 2017 update:

http://thebulletin.org/timeline

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock

We definitely live in interesting times.

norea-armozel• 10 years ago

If you watch stuff from YouTube you should check out Peter Coffin's break down of this. This is a failure of neoliberalism and it's something that needs to be addressed ASAP for sure.

snsr2• 10 years ago

The divide is bridged one person at a time.

This divide will not be bridged.

dcosson2• 10 years ago

The people who voted on the single issue of losing jobs overseas are in for a rude awakening when they realize that almost all of these jobs will be automated even if they do come back to the US.

dcuthbertson• 10 years ago

Just a nitpick, but you mean "acceptance speech".

rmwaite• 10 years ago

slight nitpick: acceptance speech

jpfed• 10 years ago

The attempts at building an interconnected globalised world are beginning to fail.

This is what Russia wants.

jaynos• 10 years ago

Also people seem to care a LOT about immigration and preserving their culture. Instead of patronising these people it's time we tried to understand their concerns and try to assuage them.

Many of the people that care so much about immigration and preserving their culture are the grandchildren of immigrants. It's very much an attitude of "I got mine, you can go F yourself".

debacle• 10 years ago

The attempts at building an interconnected globalised world are beginning to fail.

Because the interconnected globalized world had a lot of "buts" to it.

You can be interconnected and globalized... ...but we're going to still lock down copyright ...but we're going to export bad patent laws ...but we're going to externalize pollution even more than we were before ...but we're going to ignore competition and allow massive multinationals to form ...but we're going to maximize labor arbitrage while minimizing consumer choice ...but we're going to try and create a global jurisdiction that favors the guy with the most money ...but we're going to try and weaken the protections surrounding the most powerful tool for interconnection ever created.

This is why people are turning their backs on globalization - it hasn't worked for everyone, and it's hurt many people.

pc863• 10 years ago

I'm fairly certain copyright and patent laws played no role in out-of-work steel workers in western Pennsylvania and Ohio turning out in droves for Trump.

pyre2• 10 years ago

Hang out more on subreddits you don't agree with.

I tried hanging out on /r/TheDonald, but anything that doesn't tow the party line gets your banned for "concern trolling."

georgespencer5• 10 years ago

It is possible to view this as an isolated event or a trend. Coming on the heels of BREXIT this is a trend.

Good practice would suggest that you need slightly more than two datapoints to establish a trend.

There's a fairly well understood relationship between both slow GDP growth (& income disparity) and the rise of extreme political views (e.g. http://voxeu.org/article/global-crisis-and-political-extremi...). When times are good, people don't misattribute their misfortune to issues like globalisation and immigration. When times are bad, they do.

pc863• 10 years ago

There is no genuine leftist alternative.

Enough of this No True Scotsman bullshit that I see constantly here and basically anywhere with something approaching an international audience. In the context of the United States, which is where this election occurred and where the majority of people are reading this site from, the Democratic Party is a leftist party. Yes, if you want to lump in European democratic socialism, they fall elsewhere on the spectrum. When is the last time a US Democrat and the European Democratic Socialist were facing each other on the ballot? It's a meaningless comparison.

pessimizer5• 10 years ago

My right nipple is relatively to the left of my right shoulder, but that doesn't make it left.

legodt• 10 years ago

Well, time to finally arm the left

douche3• 10 years ago

The party of disarmament?

nostromo• 10 years ago

Such a watershed moment. A few things strike me:

* A Republican just won without being very religious and being wishy-washy on abortion.

* The loser out-spent the winner by huge amounts. Does money really buy elections? Maybe, but not this one.

* The rich abandoned Republicans, but many poor and working-class abandoned Democrats. [1]

1: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/elections/e...

ryanhuff2• 10 years ago

Regarding your first observation, I think that people who are very religious and anti-abortion expect their agenda to now be championed by the new administration. I have my doubts whether that will actually come to be.

goatlover3• 10 years ago

The religious right are ultimately tools. I wonder if they will ever realize it and form their own party. It's laughable that they think Trump is means to achieve their goals.

prawn8• 10 years ago

Will the real direction on those issues come from Trump or the mass of influence in political power under him? I think the latter. I think his grand plans will be largely neutered by a more level-headed GOP (relatively speaking), but they will also have more strength to push socially conservative issues.

More years spent getting caught up on intraspecies drama (bathroom use!) rather than working on big ideas.

wtallis4• 10 years ago

"The loser out-spent the winner by huge amounts. Does money really buy elections? Maybe, but not this one."

I would have said attention buys elections, and Trump was the kind of candidate that had the media tripping over themselves to give him free coverage. That definitely seems to explain the primary season, but the general election campaign turned things around a bit by consisting almost solely of negative attention that hurt the candidates when they were in the spotlight. I guess neither candidate could spend enough to buy anywhere near as much attention as the various scandals attracted, and perhaps this campaign season was meaningfully different in overall tone.

rayval• 10 years ago

The "free media" given to Trump throughout the election process has been estimated at $3B, just in the primary season alone.

See http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-has-gotten-nearly-3-b...

rdtsc10• 10 years ago

had the media tripping over themselves to give him free coverage.

Media treated people as idiots, in some cases CNN went to levels of stupidity and lies that would have put Fox to shame. They thought they were helping their candidate, but they were actually hurting the cause.

The fact that many Democrats have voted for Trump doesn't mean Trump is great necessarily, it means they really hated Hillary and what she represented (and no, not because she is a woman, if anything this will always be remembered as step-back for woman as a US president, people will remember Hillary and cringe next time).

m_mueller• 10 years ago

And from the looks of it, it was Clinton's campaign pushing liberal media to focus on the crazy outliers of the Republican candidates. Backfire it did.

ZenoArrow9• 10 years ago

I'd argue you're missing the most important point in this election.

Both leading candidates were despised by a large number of people. Many people were heard talking about having to vote for the lesser of two evils. Therefore it makes sense to frame the election in this way. What we have today is not a pro-Trump victory, but an anti-Clinton victory.

I don't think the Democratic establishment realised what a gamble it took by favouring Clinton over Sanders, if they had just let open primaries decide who their candidate would be I'm fairly confident a Democratic candidate would now be heading for the White House.

prawn8• 10 years ago

Sanders would've been a giant risk too. In retrospect, they needed a third option.

But then, 24 hours ago, both parties would've expected one result and have since received the other so that's easier to say with hindsight.

_pmf_• 10 years ago

Both leading candidates were despised by a large number of people.

One of them was hated by 50 percent and loved by 50 percent. The other was hated by 50 percent percent and accepted by 50 percent as the lesser evil.

woodpanel4• 10 years ago

Yep.

Been following the coverage since the primaries and though I don't know who I would have voted for, seeing the self righteous intelligentia being so blatantly wrong on the election outcome gives me an embarrassing satisfaction.

None of the established media did even try to keep a disguise of neutrality. Not in the US, not the BBC or here in Germany.

You can be against Trump all you want, but where has "journalistic standards" been gone? If your whole organization is made up of individuals who see themselves as morally-superior while being a Clinton-biased - how realistic is it that this organization is able to get a realistic glimpse at the outside world?

_vya7• 10 years ago

The media is entirely biased towards moral liberalism and I thought it was an "open secret" that only the most self-deluded didn't know about. Of course they're going to be biased towards Clinton, she's the morally liberal candidate. That's their job. If they don't go along with it, surely they get fired. They provide an avenue for confirmation bias, which is interesting because it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, considering most people are liberal because of the strong influence of the (biased) media on them.

cJ0th3• 10 years ago

spot on! In the end I (a German) was watching Fox News! Can you believe it? I know they have their own bias but this one time they were doing a somewhat better job.

johncolanduoni2• 10 years ago

I'll give the foreign media a pass since Trump was doing a lot of finger pointing at foreign countries and their citizens. The domestic media on the other hand...

rdtsc10• 10 years ago

I will always remember the media in this campaign. CNN's quote of "Also interesting is remember, it’s illegal to possess, ah, the stolen documents — it’s different for the media" really typifies the type of standards the media has lowered itself to.

How could nobody see that ignorance and stupidity on that level was not helping them... It is like they took a gun, paid a lot of money for it, and then used it to shot themselves in the foot.

byuu2• 10 years ago

The media wanted a razor-tight race because it was great for their ratings, so they gave Trump billions in free advertising on the 24-hour news cycle. And they got their wish: 48% to 48% of the popular vote.

Houshalter4• 10 years ago

The last point is super interesting. More and more the democrats are coming to represent the upper class and republicans the lower.

This election was hugely divided across class lines. Technically it's by college education status. But I believe that is highly correlated with social class.

nhaehnle4• 10 years ago

The sad part of this is that if this election was about economics and not about racism and bigotry, then a lot of people voted rather nonsensically. The Democrats aren't exactly a social/left party (at least by global standards), but they're the party that brought better healthcare while the Republicans are the party of Ayn Randism.

So if lower class people voted Republican for economic reasons, they're only hurting themselves. Of course they'll blame immigrants or whoever, so that it can all end up in a vicious cycle of stupidity.

digler9996• 10 years ago

divided across class lines. Technically it's by college education status

And thanks to the exponential increase in college tuition over the past couple decades, the class/education status has almost completely converged.

Iv3• 10 years ago

On 538 they also talked a lot about political theory during the elections. The "economic model" of the election says that the candidates do not matter, that what matters is the economic state of the country and variables such as the presence of an incumbent.

Most people at 538 seemed to think that this theory would be invalidated after the pretty probablye Clinton win, but was a reason for them to consider the uncertainty high.

I think tomorrow they are going to discuss if this theory is not vindicated after all.

henrikschroder5• 10 years ago

To be fair to 538, their final prediction was that Trump had a 1 in 3 chance to win.

This is what 1 in 3 looks like.

zamalek4• 10 years ago

From an outsider's perspective: superdelegates. Stein hit the nail on the head regarding the Democrat campaign[1]. Moderates swung to non-participation, their vote for Bernie actually meant nothing.

[1] http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/jill-stein-expect-trou...

rdtsc10• 10 years ago

A lot of Bernie supporters were college kids who spared whatever money they could and donated only to find, it was rigged, their money was stolen and given to Hillary instead.

I think people have no idea how much this was a vote against Hillary. Look at Trump, even with all his rhetoric and crazy statements he made, they still picked him! That says a lot about Hillary and the DNC and the campaign they ran.

WA• 10 years ago

What makes me curious:

I always wondered if the president really has the power people perceive him to have, or if he's still influenced and bound by many people in the background.

One can observe this with Obama. He made promises (like closing Guantanamo etc.), which he ultimately couldn't force through. But why? Possibly, because he isn't nearly as free in his decision making.

Now, Trump claimed to do a lot of things and I'm wondering if he really can pull that off or if many of his extraordinary claims and goals won't be doable, because of other people with power.

This is what I don't like about modern politics: So many things are claimed to be done, but ultimately, it's all bullshit and you only know what you've voted for long after the election – which could be something entirely different than you'd voted for in the first place.

OkGoDoIt• 10 years ago

I'd argue that checks and balances are very much a good thing. Less gets done overall but at least one side/person/party/opinion can't get pushed through without resistance if too many people oppose it.

Then again, Trump didn't just win the election, Republicans also won majority in the House and Senate. So it's going to be a lot easier for Trump to push policies through than it was for Obama.

ajankovic• 10 years ago

I think this video explains your observations correctly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

JustSomeNobody4• 10 years ago

* Yet again, Americans didn't even consider the third party. They aren't even allowed to debate.

paulddraper10• 10 years ago

Yet again, Americans didn't even consider the third party.

The presidential third party vote more than doubled this election compared to 4 years ago.

They aren't even allowed to debate.

Ron Paul begs to differ.

---

The challenge, of course, is the the system is susceptible to the spoiler effect. Trump won Florida's 29 electoral votes by just 1%. Gary Johnson alone had double that number in the state.

In 2000, the entire election was decided by 537 votes for George Bush in Florida. And the majority of Ralph Nader's 97k votes in the state would have gone to Al Gore in a two-party race. The Green Party lost the Democrats 4+ years of the presidency.

jpgvm• 10 years ago

Trump and is running mate Pence want to appeal Roe vs Wade, I wouldn't exactly call that "wishy-washy" on abortion. Given the rest of his political standing it's pretty clear that putting women's rights back a few decades is definitely on his agenda.

mason2404• 10 years ago

Now that religious social issues like gay marriage and abortion have been essentially settled, we have been in the beginning of a trend where left-wing politics begins to align with religion. We are already seeing with people using religious arguments for things like social programs and environmentalism. FFS the Pope said people should vote for Hillary.

bennettfeely2• 10 years ago

FFS the Pope said people should vote for Hillary.

He didn't. And he wouldn't do that either.

acjohnson55• 10 years ago

This is utter madness. If we're lucky, this wheels fall off this whole enterprise and these people are discredited before they do too much harm.

It's deeply frustrating to hear so much crap analysis of what's been going on. If we're really honest with ourselves about what's happening, we're seeing a massive vote for protectionism of a particular demographics that have long enjoyed it.

People talk a lot about the forgotten white working class voter. And while that's a real thing, that's only half the story. The Trump voters are on the whole wealthier than the Clinton voters. That means there are a whole bunch of people with real money who've decided they can stomach the open bigotry of Trump's campaign because they think ultimately his policies are what they want. That's why the incumbents of the GOP largely never fled his side, no matter how obscene his personal conduct.

To be really blunt, Trump's entire track record says "if you're white and wealthy, I've obviously got your back", and his words have said, "if you're white and struggling, it's brown people who stand in your way". In that way, he's managed to get an extremely energetic white vote.

This election will be forever remembered for just how lurid it has been. From the very beginning of the Republican primary, it's been Trump who continually lowered the bar. God help us all if we do in fact end up with literally the least qualified Commander in Chief of American history. Going to sleep now, deeply discouraged.

hubert1236• 10 years ago

To be really blunt, Trump's entire track record says "if you're white and wealthy, I've obviously got your back", and his words have said, "if you're white and struggling, it's brown people who stand in your way". In that way, he's managed to get an extremely energetic white vote.

yeah and exactly because of this kind of insane, bogus "analysis" you lost. When or if you find back the connection to reality, you will realize how Trump actually won. By talking about real issues that nobody else even dares to touch.

SolarUpNote• 10 years ago

What's an issue that Trump talks about?

victorbojica• 10 years ago

yeah, like NATO disruption and how he admires Putin ?

pmoriarty11• 10 years ago

Since when were American politics about issues rather than image?

People who voted for Trump clearly liked his bombastic asshole style, and want to stick it to the "liberal elite". There happened to be more of them this time around than there were people afraid enough of a Trump presidency to vote for a relatively subdued and conventional candidate.

That's, of course, given that there wasn't enough voting fraud to make a difference, which with electronic voting machines in the mix isn't really a given.

Scarblac10• 10 years ago

Those are the real issues that were discussed. People talk as if it's normal that blacks and latinos mostly vote as a block, well now white working class does as well.

dibstern5• 10 years ago

What 'real issues' are you talking about?

What was anyone else scared at all to touch?

denzil_correa• 10 years ago

By talking about real issues that nobody else even dares to touch.

Curious - What were these real issues?

ubernostrum3• 10 years ago

When or if you find back the connection to reality, you will realize how Trump actually won.

Trump won by appealing to people who historically felt they were and deserved to be the in-control majority but now feel they are the not-in-control minority, and he won by claiming he would make them feel like an in-control majority again.

It is that simple. It is also simply the case that the people who historically felt they were and deserved to be the in-control majority were white men.

Populism in American politics is nothing new. Nor is populism oriented on racial lines. There is no secret "untouchable" issue lurking behind it. You pick a large group, capable of forming a powerful voting bloc, a group that believes it has reason to feel resentful, to feel cheated out of power that's rightfully theirs, to feel that "elites" are conspiring against them to ruin the country, and you tell them they deserve power and you're going to give it back to them.

Exactly 120 years ago, William Jennings Bryan ran on a similar platform of "restoring" political and economic power to people who felt they once had it, lost it, and deserved to have it once again. In the process he delivered one of the objectively greatest political addresses in American history (the "Cross of Gold" speech). The only difference is Bryan lost the electoral college by about the same margin Trump won it by.

komali28• 10 years ago

Trump won because:

I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about n*, and they stomped the floor.

-George Wallace

He took a very simple road. He appealed to the fear of the Other.

sharemywin• 10 years ago

The problem with your analysis, he didn't pull any more voters than Romney. He didn't win, Hillary lost.

discardorama• 10 years ago

Trump actually won. By talking about real issues that nobody else even dares to touch.

Like Obama's birth certificate? Or Benghazi?

jkestner• 10 years ago

  This election will be forever remembered for just how lurid it has been.

I hope you're right. That'll mean it's an exception.

vatotemking• 10 years ago

In that way, he's managed to get an extremely energetic white vote.

Does this mean the majority of Americans are secretly inherently racist?

Note: I am not from the US and this a genuine question and no offense meant.

hueving7• 10 years ago

This is what Hillary supporters would like to portray about any Trump voter, and it's frankly the reason they got such a surprise. They failed to even attempt to understand why people voted for Trump. Just wrote everyone off as racists and bigots.

codeonfire• 10 years ago

Of course they fucking are. Why pretend at this point. All pretense is gone.

Jgrubb2• 10 years ago

Does this mean the majority of Americans are secretly inherently racist?

It is my opinion that all humans are inherently racist and that the only way to overcome it is to first acknowledge it. The majority of humans (and therefore Americans) aren't self aware enough to admit to themselves that they are racist and so the racism within lives on.

This is just something I've been pondering on and isn't a fully formed argument, but it seems to me that a large number of conflicts around the globe can be boiled down to "racist rednecks" trying to kill people that aren't like them.

hueving7• 10 years ago

Poor rural people voted for Trump. I'd like to see a citation showing that trump voters had a higher income.

croon5• 10 years ago

Here you go [1]:

Income Clinton Trump

Under 30K 48% 32%

30K-50K 44% 38%

50-75K 37% 44%

75K+ 41% 49%

[1] http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-elec...

qyv• 10 years ago

Disclosure: Canadian here.

Trump won because the Democrats railroaded their best candidate in favor of someone who is profoundly unlikeable and untrustworthy. Regardless of if she is truly a criminal, or not, the Democratic party choose a candidate who is under investigation by the FBI instead of a candidate that had real honest to god connection with the working people of the country. The voters have literally said that even Trump is better than what the Democrats have tried to ram down their throats this election. This election was lost, not won.

problems2• 10 years ago

You're not kidding. Wikileaks posted this on twitter just earlier. They even wanted to be up against Trump:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cwy_92NWEAAwyqe.jpg:large

Well, guess that worked out great for them. The DNC is the biggest screw up of this whole election I think.

pedalpete6• 10 years ago

Also Canadian (damn, we sound so smug now), I've been saying the same thing. But seems Americans think Socialism is a bad word. They've forgotten the opportunity they had with Bernie.

On the flipside, seems the "potentially" closest candidate to Bernie in this election is Trump. He actually has talked about controlling Wall Street, bringing back manufacturing jobs, less military, and if you look at money raised during this election, I'd say he has won the Presidency without bringing tons of big dollars in to politics (I could be wrong on some of these).

Of course, their methods are completely different and they differ hugely on other issues.

I'm not suggesting that Trump is a good replacement for Bernie, but you can see how Bernie supporters would see him as a better alternative than Clinton.

rdtsc10• 10 years ago

They should have woken up quickly when they noticed Bernie's level of support. He wasn't supposed to be that popular. Especially with younger people. On paper it looked like "oh she's a woman, young people would like that". When it didn't happen, it was time to listen, not throw everyone from that camp under the bus.

I don't even know how DNC will recover from that. It is viewed as a failure, a cesspool of corruption and anyone with morals would stay away from it.

This election was lost, not won.

So true. They had it in their pocket. Bernie would have wiped the floor with Trump. But of course corruption gets in the way...

crudbug2• 10 years ago

+1 Totally agree.

Democrats lost this. She was deep in Benghazi / Emails / Foundations .. which is all public. Trump might have same picture, but its not public not even his Tax record ! Bravo to american public !

Its a slap to the democratic establishment for not understanding the dynamics. Bernie or for that matter Elizabeth would have been right candidates.

I also think Hillary used a lot of other celebs for campaign - Beyonce, Perry, Michelle / Obama, Muslim family ... rather than talking about her strong points / achievements (none ?), and I saw the women card thrown a lot. On the other side it was just Trump and his bullshit.

kristopolous5• 10 years ago

This is what happens when reasonable people don't take the responsibilities of a Democracy seriously.

ubertaco• 10 years ago

As a Conservative in America (and, as of this year, a former Republican), I watched what was my party railroad one or two good candidates in favor of someone who is a cartoon villain. So I know the feeling.

Shivetya4• 10 years ago

I am pretty sure the voters tell that to the losing side each election. while its easy to lay claim that Sanders could have won it is anything but easy to prove. true he had support but not among groups known to show up to actually vote. he also did not have support of many Clinton voters and there is no guarantee he would get them.

The US is pretty consistent in flipping the White House. That in itself is amazing and a good thing. The sad part is all the hate that comes out on this site which is sadly typical of people not thinking but reacting

eloisant2• 10 years ago

I may not completely understand the US primary system, but wasn't Clinton chosen by the US democrat voters? (She won the popular vote, not just because of the super-delegates).

I don't really understand why she won instead of Sanders, maybe he was too much on the left for many democrats?

orthoganol9• 10 years ago

Sincerely, I am confused by this analysis. All the media outlets have talked ad-infinitum about how Trump supporters are predominantly uneducated whites, typically from rural areas, and how college educated whites support Clinton.

Hillary without question had Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the DC circuit behind her, which are large epicenters of wealthy white, elite people.

There is without doubt a terrifying aspect of white nationalism behind Trump, but unless you have statistics I am not aware of, the white elites, maybe outside of Texas, were not behind Trump.

EDIT - to add what I believe is a hopeful note, Trump's election isn't a great reading of the pulse of the nation; Bernie Sanders could have been in my opinion, easily, the president elect. The DNC selected the less competitive candidate as the result of a dishonest primary.

rdtsc10• 10 years ago

I think there are many hidden Trump voters. They might never disclose at work or among friends their choice, but I suspected many did. I was watching both the Hillary and Trump Reddit channels, and on Trumps' channel there was a constant stream of educated people (doctors, programmers, lawyers), a large number of non-whites, LGBT, ex-Bernie people there and so on.

On Hillary's side there was a constant -- "Ah look at those stupid sexists, hating us for wanting a a woman President" type of complacency.

So the result was surprising, but not too surprising at the same time.

Bernie Sanders could have been in my opinion, easily, the president elect

Bernie would have wiped the floor with Trump, no doubt.

WillPostForFood9• 10 years ago

Trump ended up winning the college educated white vote.

mstade5• 10 years ago

My highly unscientific analysis of the numbers is that Trump won in many rural and less populous districts, whereas Hillary won the more densely populated districts. This by itself probably isn't much of a surprise, and the less populous districts have significantly fewer votes – but there are more of them. Combine a strong Trump performance in these small districts with an underperforming Hillary in the others, along with a number of flipped districts, and it becomes clear how Trump won. (Note: how, not why.)

The WaPo map is pretty good:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-election-results/us-pres...

Check the results for Wisconsin for instance, and you'll find a lot flipped districts. In Michigan, the Detroit stronghold saw a drop of 8,6 points compared to the 2012 vote. To be fair, it looks like Wayne County (where Detroit is) according to that map isn't fully counted so this may very well change, but it's at 98.9% reporting so that'd have to be a pretty significant chunk of votes to widen that margin.

Again, this is armchair analysis so I may very well be writing bullcrap, but it looks to me that the Trump campaign where confident in keeping the red states and focused pretty hard on flipping some of the states the Democrats really didn't think they could possibly win, along with a strong push to win Florida. Those 29 electoral votes from the sunshine state really opened things up for Trump.

hellofunk4• 10 years ago

"if you're white and wealthy, I've obviously got your back"

What disappointments me more than anything is how all the minority American citizens will feel knowing that the majority of the people they know preferred a man who has for many months publicly and explicitly insulted their own race and ethnicity. How do you reconcile that? I have no idea.

Lich2• 10 years ago

"I think alot of people feel like that, uh, America told them exactly - African Americans, Latinos, Muslims, you name it...Asians...I think alot of people tonight are feeling like, you know, [the] United States told me exactly what they think of me." - James Carville, after Trump's win.

chillacy• 10 years ago

I'd think that latino voters in particular would be offended most by trump, but according to exit polls, a whopping 31% of latino voters went to trump in Florida: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/08/politics/first-exit-polls-2016...

imcrs2• 10 years ago

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing -- but Trump actually got less than Romney did in 2012 among white voters.

Race is certainly a part of this election, like it is all elections in the USA, but not all.

jesusthatsgreat• 10 years ago

If there's a huge racial divide as you're making out, with white people outnumbering all others, why was Obama elected twice?

Trump literally lives in a gold skyscraper with his name in large lettering on it so he's not exactly someone people should be able to relate to or vice versa but people like him because he doesn't talk down to them and doesn't schmooze his way around the celebrity and political circuit trying to cultivate an image of presidential perfection.

He speaks off the cuff, he knows how to draw a crowd, he tweets his mind and he's worked his ass off to get around to as many locations as possible and people also respect that. They're sick of pre-prepared speeches, evasive answers, lies and pure corruption.

Trump is a big wrecking ball that the people have chosen to smash up the current political system. The majority of politicians today are career politicians, detached from reality and detached from normality.

machbio• 10 years ago

He speaks off the cuff, he knows how to draw a crowd, he tweets his mind and he's worked his ass off to get around to as many locations as possible and people also respect that. They're sick of pre-prepared speeches, evasive answers, lies and pure corruption.

Number of Press Conferences - Trump 17+ Hillary 0

l33tbro2• 10 years ago

Call Trump what you will, but he played the media like Hendrix. They took the troll-bait and reported every outrageous soundbite gleefully, all in pursuit of a few clicks and ad-bucks. Meanwhile, Trump gained more and more of a platform and eventually established a cult of personality.

marchenko2• 10 years ago

Comedians appear to have been more perceptive about Trump's appeal and Clinton's weaknesses than the media: Scott Adams and Dave Chappelle both made some salient pints this cycle. Mainstream media:0; reclusive comics:2.

l33tbro2• 10 years ago

Agree. I was glued to Adams' observations, who called this result in August of last year (one month before Trump's first big surge).

venomsnake• 10 years ago

Can you provide links to Chappelle? I have read everything from Scott.

estefan5• 10 years ago

Given all the barefaced lies told during the Brexit campaign and the US campaign it does lead to questions about democracy, i.e. should the average man on the street really decide?

To be sure I'm not advocating Communism but perhaps up until 20 years ago the lack of social media helped contain outright lies and extreme views, perhaps with people asking the intellectual(s) in their social circles about candidates. There was also the social engineering aspect of TV soaps (e.g. featuring gay characters to make homosexuality more accepted). Social media has done away with that and allows anyone to broadcast to the world.

The media report the lies and it's impractical to research everything politicians say. Even if someone reports that the lie was a lie, by then the damage is done. Trump played this game all the way through. He knew what he said would be reported far more than the accuracy of the statements.

This result raises a lot of questions, few of which I suspect will be answered and will lead to even fewer changes I imagine.

goatlover3• 10 years ago

> should the average man on the street really decide? <<

As opposed to who? We had only land owning white males voting early in the Republic. They were educated and well acquainted with the issues. They voted their interests, which was those of land owning white males.

Limit the election to whatever group you prefer, and they will vote for their own interests.

Taek2• 10 years ago

I've never been in favor of democracy. We live in a world where specialization is a requirement to function. Politics really shouldn't be any different.

I know a lot about cybersecurity. When it comes to encryption, cyber warfare, anything cryptocurrency, you want me voting because believe me, I know more than 99.9% of the US population on those topics. It's an informed vote.

But for education, immagration, healthcare, gun law, it'd be dishonest to say I'm informed. And people who think it's my duty to be informed are being unrealistic. The number of significant issues make being fully informed a full time job. I'm not ashamed to not know what Aleppo is. I recognize that it's important and would like to yeild my vote to someone who knows more than I do.

There are other topics like energy and drugs where I would consider myself well informed, but perhaps just well informed enough to want something stupid. Should I be voting on those topics? Honestly probably not.

jmckib• 10 years ago

Given all the barefaced lies told during the Brexit campaign and the US campaign it does lead to questions about democracy, i.e. should the average man on the street really decide?

I think (I hope) that the problem isn't the average man, but rather our system of democracy itself. Currently, there is not any reason to do the hard work it requires to become informed, because with millions of other voters (not to mention the winner-takes-all electoral college) your vote literally does not matter. Contrast that situation with a twelve person jury, where the jurors spend weeks and sometimes months to decide, gathering every bit of relevant information, and letting each side argue in as fair a way as possible. Then the jurors spend days in discussions with their peers, often agonizing over their decisions. These are regular people, who usually make good decisions, because they know that their decision matters. Contrast this with the voter who gets all of their information from a limited number of biased sources and then makes their voting decision on a whim, and who can blame them when there is no probability of their vote changing the outcome? Elections ought to be more like juries, with a smaller number of voters randomly selected from the population and then thoroughly educated on the issues.

avisser8• 10 years ago

should the average man on the street really decide?

I've always thought the issue was how big the street was. I trust the average man on the street in my town. I would be _very_ suspect of elites running a city of 50k.

But at scale... Personally I have no fucking clue how India runs itself.

I would trust something like the United States of New England to elect good, representative leaders. Maybe that's where we'll end up in 100 years.

simonh5• 10 years ago

It's not the media, it's the Republican Party. They had a tumour growing inside them and they failed to take strong action early enough to cut it out. Once Trump was the candidate for a mainstream party with an electoral machine full of people who live to serve the machine, it was too late for the Party leadership to get rid of him. The party machine went into automatic. At that point, for a Republican to reject him would be to admit that their beloved party was deeply flawed and capable of making a terrible mistake. That's a big challenge if you deeply believe in your party. If they can be wrong about this, what else could they be wrong about?

That wasn't enough though. Trump representing a mainstream party implicitly made him a viable choice to vote for beyond the Republican core. If he's the Republican candidate, he must be a valid choice that can be taken seriously, right? He can't be a joke.

Finally a big problem here in the U.K. with Brexit was people assuming the vote would fail and not bothering to vote remain. I wonder how big a factor that was in this case especially as Hilary was ahead in the polls for so long.

oldmanjay5• 10 years ago

I'm not sure you understand the American mindset terribly well. Party loyalty didn't play much of a role here.

ipsin• 10 years ago

I have to readjust my own mental model of what it means to be an American. It's not the end of the world, but shit, what happens to the Supreme Court will have implications for the next few decades.

kowdermeister• 10 years ago

Finally, somebody who will guarantee the future of the internet. He will totally get net neturality and stuff.

[irony shield activated]

sorokod2• 10 years ago

Peoples of eastern Europe may want to brush up on their Russian.

omnimus• 10 years ago

Shit. Again?

sorokod2• 10 years ago

Yes - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03...

jrockway5• 10 years ago

Who knew that not paying any taxes, asking your "second amendment people" to finish off your opponent, and using your position of power and authority to sexually assault people could lead to becoming the most powerful person in the free world.

We live in the darkest of times.

reitanqild2• 10 years ago

Upvoted.

At the same time:

Who knew that:

* cheating against wildly popular Sanders,

* being partly responsible for recent wars,

* have your campaign talking like many of your opponents (and a good number of potential voters) are dumb racists

wouldn't be a surefire way to get elected?

Edit: last bullet, blame it on campaign instead of her personally, also most->many

gragas5• 10 years ago

You're delusional. Trump has paid more in taxes than you will make in your entire life. Perhaps not income taxes, but some form or another.

He'd be in jail if he broke the law.

mcv18• 10 years ago

He'd be in jail if he broke the law.

Unless he bribes the prosecutor, of course.

mikeyouse9• 10 years ago

Yes, we all know that the extremely wealthy who break financial laws always see justice and punishment.

quonn• 10 years ago

He made his money within a society. Money is not necessarily adding value (increasing the pie), it is also just shifted around. If his income were distributed more equally between many others who would instead pay taxes, the amount of taxes would be far, far higher.

komali28• 10 years ago

He'd be in jail if he broke the law

Let's see, which should I pick for this particular occasion of encountering this fallacy... we've got the US housing crisis, US war crimes and torture, NSA spying... hmm so many choices.

wanda• 10 years ago

I agree with your points, but I take issue with this statement:

We live in the darkest of times

You're posting your individual opinion on an internet forum, accessible only with an internet connection, a computer and electricity, and you did so presumably from a place of warmth and comfort.

I do not think you have any understanding, historically or geographically, of what a dark time to be alive might be.

There were times and there were, and are, places, in our world, where you would have been ostracised, physically abused or even killed for expressing your opinion in this manner.

There was a time when you would not have wasted the last oil in your lamp to pen down some little epistle of your small disappointment at the political goings-on around you.

There are places today where there is no internet, even no electricity. You could have been born as many other people alive today and be in a much worse position than you are in.

You could have been born centuries ago, and may already have been killed in war, or by less civilised people more inclined to scavenging in the absence of a system of government or a reliable network of employers and payment fulfilment.

An orange, hypocritical, potentially bigoted/racist/sexist fatcat and chronic bullshitter has been elected to office. Someone who has no obvious qualification to 'have a finger in the nuclear button' or to preside over an economy that dictates the fortunes of millions of people, domestically and internationally.

Which, ultimately, makes him rather similar to his predecessors. No one is qualified to wield the power he finds himself with now. Very rarely are humans rational, and quite often it is the irrationality of a typical human being that precipitates the humane or emotional choices, while it is often the rational and pragmatic decision to pull the trigger.

Make no mistake: Donald Trump is not the only racist or sexist to sit in the oval office. His predecessors simply did not yell it to the reporters because it would have been unwise one or two decades ago.

Today, it was precisely the aggressive cultivation of mixed press that won him the election through increased exposure of a perceived decisiveness and demur character aligning with the electorate.

Hillary did not evolve, and so she lost. She would have been better for the country—as it appeared to be 24 hours ago—but it's a different country than anybody realised or wanted to realise.

Brexit was only the beginning. But do not mistake a few steps backwards for the 'darkest time' — such a millennial naïveté and sense of entitlement and ignorance is a very clear reflection of a problem in contemporary society that does indeed need to be addressed.

Trump may be a monster, Brexit may be a daft move, but they are realities brought on by real complaints and issues from real people. They don't stop being real people just because they didn't attend college or move from the pit to the office to the video conference—and the fact that they were not able to make the transition from dying industries is proof that there has been an issue in society in need of attention.

aikah2• 10 years ago

Maybe you should have picked up a better candidate. Losing against Trump is the real shame here. Hillary was just bad, Trump won by default.

orthecreedence2• 10 years ago

Maybe you should have picked up a better candidate.

Yeah, believe me, we tried =]. I guess the DNC has stronger safeguards against anti-establishment politicians than the RND.

anupshinde2• 10 years ago

>"Not paying taxes" He did it legally by exploiting (hacking) the loopholes. But is he responsible for having those loopholes? He is just acting like any other smart human. Just like us humans who found fossil fuels and irresponsibly burn those off.

euroclydon• 10 years ago

Here's the thing: Trump would have won by a wider margin if he had a clean tax history and wasn't on tape bragging about groping women. But, if you take away his early, inflammatory statements about (illegal?) Mexican immigrants, I think the net results might be fewer votes, but only because those comments seems to propel his media coverage. Trump was great for ratings, and frankly will continue to be. It's been a rich ride if you're CNN and FOX. But also, I think left-leaning media wanted him to be the candidate, because they though he embodied the "racist Republican" characterization Democrats always had in their playbook. I'm not sure if overt racism was a net vote-getter though.

Speaking of free media coverage... Citizens United, a.k.a unfettered super-pac spending seemed to play no part in this election. I think Clinton and her supporters outspent Trump in every measurable way.

sakopov• 10 years ago

I did not vote for either but the wrongdoings of Clinton, most of which aren't just empty claims but actual shady events she was involved in, greatly outweigh Trump's. This election is just an embarrassment no matter how you look at it.

pcglue• 10 years ago

Seeing that bozo at the podium as president-elect, I really feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone.

cooper124• 10 years ago

Yeah there are comics where Lex Luthor is the president of the U.S. I used to think they were absurd. Used to...

Ygg24• 10 years ago

Say what you want about president Luthor, but he was at least smart (albeit evil and corrupt).

ctvo• 10 years ago

Grew up in the US. I'm a minority. I think this is the only time in my life I've ever felt like I didn't belong in America.

Tonight a large portion of the country confirmed that the US is for whites. That it's not a melting pot. This demographic has been angry for a generation because they've felt like their culture, their socio-economic status and way of life is slipping away and this election (after 8 years of a black president), the line in the sand would be drawn. The numbers don't show any division in voting based on class, but an entire chunk of whites (women, men, making under or over 100k+ a year, college education or not), all voting for Donald Trump.

I don't know what the future looks like now for America.

joatmon-snoo• 10 years ago

Disagree with this, but will have more to say in the morning/day when I'm actually sober.

steveeq14• 10 years ago

Tonight a large portion of the country confirmed that the US is for whites.

Well, we elected a black man as a president for two terms in a row, so the country may not be as racist as people perceive.

masklinn5• 10 years ago

we elected a black man as a president for two terms in a row

And see how the republican base and party reacted.

so the country may not be as racist as people perceive.

Or the country didn't feel it could express its racism until Trump gave it a bullhorn and an endorsement.

BlackjackCF2• 10 years ago

Same here. Child of immigrants. This makes me sad.

goatlover3• 10 years ago

It's not like Hillary is some other ethnicity they were voting against.

gnipgnip2• 10 years ago

Grew up in the US. I'm a minority. I think this is the only time in my life I've ever felt like I didn't belong in America.

It's not that simple.

There was a large section of the Indian-American community that voted Trump; presumably this was also true of "non-minority" minorities like assorted Asians and Jews.

throwaway5752• 10 years ago

Did he outperform the 70-30 Clinton support that polls were showing for Indian, 75-20 from Jewish, and 70-20 non-Indian Asian peoples that support that polls had him at? He won because of non-collection educated Caucasians, with whom he outperformed models by 15% points.

ericras4• 10 years ago

I'm a white Trump voter in flyover country. You belong in America as do all Americans. This was a push back against an out of touch corrupt elite in Washington and mass immigration. Not all immigration, but the massive increases of the past several decades. Yes, we do want to preserve the culture - not white culture but American culture. I fully expect that Trump will reach out and moderate. If not, there's always another election that's just two years away.

Quarrelsome2• 10 years ago

and if he does what he's said and re-implements stop and frisk and every non-white citizen has to frequently deal with the indignity of being searched all the time? Your sentiment while delightful isn't in line with the sort of policies Trump has been promoting during his campaign.

postmeta• 10 years ago

Illegal immigrants ballooned under Bush and decreased under Obama... thanks Obama.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-abou...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/why-is-t...

karmelapple• 10 years ago

When you say mass immigration, do you mean undocumented immigration, or even legal immigration?

Are you recommending we have less overall legal immigration?

stouset• 10 years ago

How, exactly, have immigrants negatively affected American culture?

jessedhillon13• 10 years ago

I think that if you actually articulate in great detail what it is that you think comprises American culture, as something which is distinct from white culture and is threatened by immigration, you'll find that you are actually talking about white culture.

ookdatnog• 10 years ago

Yes, we do want to preserve the culture - not white culture but American culture.

I respect that that's how you think about it, and maybe that's even how Trump thinks about it; but I don't think you can credibly make such a blanket statement about Trump voters in general. There are still people in America who believe American culture is white American culture.

The arguments of the more moderate Brexit voters sounded similar to yours, but after the referendum they found out that an uncomfortably large number of their allies really are deeply bigoted. That in itself doesn't make their point invalid, but they can't claim that their opinion defines the whole movement.

crottypeter2• 10 years ago

I am struggling to understand how "corrupt elite" isn't a good description of Donald Trump?

drcongo• 10 years ago

But, aren't you also from an immigrant family? Isn't 99% of the country from immigrant families? I genuinely don't understand how a country that is built on and by immigration hates immigrants so much.

Mikeb858• 10 years ago

Exit polls show Trump doing better with minorities than any recent GOP candidate... Not sure how you come to your conclusion.

ryanhuff2• 10 years ago

I think you need to let things sink in a bit. There often seems to be an element of panic with the losing side of these presidential elections, but life goes on.

Ignoring the characters involved in this campaign, at a basic level, this sort of party switch is pretty normal, as there is often a party change once the President completes his second term. Its a pendulum swinging from left to right and back again. Reagan to Bush was an exception, but we know what happened with his re-election attempt. So, in 4 or 8 years, I wouldn't be surprised if things moved back to the left.

curioussavage4• 10 years ago

I think this attitude drove more people to trump. The real reasons most people voted for him were things like party loyalty, they dislike Hillary, perceived him as anti establishment etc etc.

People like you took the narrative from the big news networks of the mass numbers of bigots and racists and just ran with it. Problem was that story smelled like bull, which pushed more people to his camp.

zamalek4• 10 years ago

The extreme/regressive left was too busy frothing about white tyranny to pay attention to the true tyrant, Trump, "he'll never get voted in." At the same time, the majority of that vote was being called names. Hillary made the mistake of constructing her lies in order to gain favor with the loudest crowd.

I'm very far left and completely agree with you. The American left is an abysmal disgrace in terms of what I consider social progress. Instead of attempting to spread progressive thinking, the American left spreads hatred and name calling.

Next time try making friends and not enemies. More of this[1] and less of this[2].

[1] http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2016/july/how-one-black-blues... [2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/liberal-but-not-tole...

cousin_it2• 10 years ago

Tonight a large portion of the country confirmed that the US is for whites. That it's not a melting pot.

That's a bit strange, I thought the right preferred assimilationism (melting pot) and the left preferred multiculturalism (salad bowl).

barneygumble742• 10 years ago

My dad's family in India are very anti-gay, anti-muslim and they are elated at the result. When my aunt came for my wedding, she asked "Why is an African the president?" There's a amount of people inside and outside of the US that think it's only for whites, not knowing America's history or its current diversity.

ihsw• 10 years ago

How do you reconcile your post with exit polls indicating that 25-30% of the latino vote (for both genders) went to Trump?

Pxtl• 10 years ago

As much as the media tried to make this about racism vs liberalism, I don't think it was really about that.

Yes, it's a snub that the pro-Trump wing doesn't give a shit about women and minorities and LGBT. That much is clear. No matter what, to vote Trump you have to see certain people as "acceptable losses".

And yes, Trump is backed by a lot of vitriolic racists.

But the key thing, I think, that won Trump the presidency was anti-globalism, and the fact that he's a gigantic asshole.

Americans wanted an asshole. Pro-Trump voters see him like Apple saw Steve Jobs - the guy who cut through the BS and saw simple problems with simple solutions, and demanded that those problems be fixed.

Faced with the problem of America's increasingly anemic industrial jobs, the political wing and the press collectively said "we're okay with this". Trump said insane things like making Apple build stuff in the USA and pulling out of trade agreements.

Faced with terrorism in Europe, the press and the left collectively said "well there's not much we can do about that, we have to take care of the refugees". Trump said "screw the refugees, I'm closing the border and kicking out the muslims".

Trump offers simple, brutal solutions to complex problems. His solutions are generally pretty stupid, but they sound like solutions, which is better than the complex rationalizations we hear from everyone else.

This also explains why his opinion on the middle-east oscillates between "let's just pull out and let them kill each other" and "let's just carpet-bomb the crap out of ISIS". Simple, brutal solutions.

blfr2• 10 years ago

Speaking of tech bubble, just a few weeks ago people wanted to purge Thiel for supporting Trump.

cooper124• 10 years ago

And? Just because he's validated, doesn't mean he's in the right.

blfr2• 10 years ago

And it shows they're basically alienated from half the country. Hence the "bubble."

smackay• 10 years ago

Jeez, everybody is all bent out of shape on this. The Republican establishment hate Trump nearly as much as they hate Clinton so with Republicans controlling The House and The Senate how much "damage" is President Trump going to be able to do.

The really interesting part of all this was reading Scott Adams blog who proposed the idea that Trump is a master persuader (probably this is just a fancy name for populist). He has been blogging about persuasion techniques and about cognitive biases and how humans are irrational creatures 90% of the time and are open to persuasion techniques.

This seems to offend everybodies sensibilities but for me it's been fascinating and a real eye-opener. The reaction (bias?) in the media has been particularly interesting and has forever changed my world view.

If you have the time it's probably worth reading the posts for the past year or so, http://blog.dilbert.com/ It won't be so interesting now that we know the result but the ideas and methods of persuasion he talks about will shape the future for a long time to come.

The cognitive dissonance being shown by the media is particularly funny. It's amazing that they really don't understand that a large percentage of the population voted for Trump because he probably represents for them a reasonable hope for change. I'm waiting for somebody to suggest that nobody actually voted for him and instead he rigged the election all by himself.

Scarblac10• 10 years ago

Jeez, everybody is all bent out of shape on this. The Republican establishment hate Trump nearly as much as they hate Clinton so with Republicans controlling The House and The Senate how much "damage" is President Trump going to be able to do.

The President deals with foreign policy, and Trump is in Putin's pocket. Time for Ukraine and the Baltic states to become part of Russia.

chc3• 10 years ago

Media bias? If anything, the media has been weirdly accommodating to Trump. Trump literally hides his tax returns and they just kind of go "Oh well, guess that's that," but they kept reporting on Clinton's emails ad nauseum no matter how many times it was established that there was nothing there. When Comey broke protocol and commented on her emails again a week ago, the story was not, "Look how the GOP is trying to rig this election with a false scandal," the front page stories were once again credulous acceptance that there was something fishy about Clinton. And when Comey once again failed to find anything, that was a much smaller story.

IMO the media's hunger to appease Trump is one of the most interesting contributors to this result.

prawn8• 10 years ago

I agree. There's a big lesson in focus here. One side hammered the emails incessantly while the other had too many issues to get the media to lock down on one.

I tend to think that this was the meeting of three things:

  - media driven by drama
  - individual operating how they always have, unlike the norm
  - a populace with many negative feelings, reacting to both

mrweasel4• 10 years ago

Part of it is also that Hillary's emails was pretty much handed to the media, with very little work required from their part. Digging into Trumps taxes or other scandals would require actual work.

As for Comey, he had a lose/lose scenario. If he didn't go forward with the new emails, and it had turned out that there was actually something worth investigating, he's would have kept important information from the US public, just before an election.

While Trump perhaps isn't exactly the ideal candidate for the US presidency, I have the same take on him as I did on the Brexit: The world is simply to boring a place for this to become a major issue. In the long run everything will be fine.

toss19413• 10 years ago

I can't believe that someone can come to the conclusion you just did. The media was overwhelmingly anti-Trump, that shouldn't even be in dispute. He may have "won" a few talking points that the media was forced to report on as you indicated, but to say the media was accommodating to Trump is just fantasy.

elsurudo7• 10 years ago

I feel they were biased in another, more insidious way (and they went along with it). Trump has carefully crafter a persona for himself over the years (perhaps even accidentally, by virtue of his personality), where he can pretty much say anything (and especially things no other candidate would ever be able to say without saying goodbye to any chance at election), and the media (and people) will just go "oh, well, sure he said some racist, sexist things, but that's just Trump... you know how he is". Kind of like that racist uncle at the dinner table... you gotta put up with it, but at least he's family, so you understand him better, and perhaps realize he has other redeeming qualities.

So, this has allowed Trump to appeal to bases of people no other candidate could even hope to reach, with the current "acceptable" rhetoric.

forgottenpass• 10 years ago

they just kind of go "Oh well, guess that's that,"

Because this is what the media does for damn near every political scandal that politicians don't immediately capitulate to. Weathering the storm of news, attention and publicity to a "scandal" when a story hits is how it becomes a non-story next week.

they kept reporting on Clinton's emails ad nauseum no matter how many times it was established that there was nothing there

Because there were incremental changes and updates, the media gets to milk the story for every new morsel. Also, a sleazy, immoral and poorly implemented system for attempting to avoid (even without breaking) open records laws is not "nothing."

IMO the media's hunger to appease Trump

The media's actions are better explained as both lazy and desperate for reader/viewer attention. It explains everything they do from coverage of Trump and Hillary all the way to coverage of the Scout Bake Sale.

n8n3k• 10 years ago

Trump literally hides his tax returns and they just kind of go "we're going to break federal law to publish them"

B1FF_PSUVM2• 10 years ago

reading Scott Adams blog

Yeah, that was interesting. You did, I did. I tossed in here one of his better pieces over 3 months ago. Flagged off, of course. "La-la-la, not listening ..."

the_duke14• 10 years ago

I think the biggest amount of direct influence the president has is on foreign policy.

There's a lot of damage to be done there.

Also, he has shown that he can make the Republicans shut up and follow. Quite easily.

The "problem" that made them fall in line won't go away. The voters will stick with him for a while.

Sniffnoy• 10 years ago

Jeez, everybody is all bent out of shape on this. The Republican establishment hate Trump nearly as much as they hate Clinton so with Republicans controlling The House and The Senate how much "damage" is President Trump going to be able to do.

The Republican establishment, in terms of actual currently serving politicians rather than former ones or writers, have largely rolled over for Trump. With this "mandate", they'll continue to do so for fear of getting voted out.

And even if that weren't the case Trump would still be plenty dangerous. Sure, we can imagine they'd stop him if he tried to get some terrible policy passed -- but the biggest danger from Trump isn't some terrible deliberate policy. It's the constant screwups we can expect from someone who's not competent to run the executive branch.

neaanopri8• 10 years ago

Also I think it's likely that Trump's going to be a yes-man for whatever Paul Ryan passes.

Figs2• 10 years ago

how much "damage" is President Trump going to be able to do

Probably a lot less than people think domestically -- I suspect he's going to find his hands tied nearly as much as Obama. (And the outbursts of frustration we're likely to see from him as result will probably be epic.) Foreign relations are going to be interesting for a while though, and the stock market is probably going to crash, if it hasn't already.

masklinn5• 10 years ago

I suspect he's going to find his hands tied nearly as much as Obama.

Yeah no, he can just give free reign to Pence (as he explicitly said he'd do) and establishment GOP and they'll let him have his pet hates. Obama was "the enemy" and opposed at every turn, Trump just has to give the GOP their Supreme Court nominee and they'll be more than happy to indulge him.

elsurudo7• 10 years ago

Personally, I hope the silver lining may be that through these almost inevitable outbursts, the public will get a bit of a "peek behind the curtain" of how politics in the US (and the world at large) actually work. That's a tall order though, since Trump is more likely to just simplify everything to "me wants to do good, he try stop me, he bad!"

guessbest• 10 years ago

It is amazing that all the news organizations which are supposedly representing opposing views all lined up against him. You'd think if he was really a monster we'd know by now. Donald Trump is 70 years old, after all.

dguaraglia• 10 years ago

Well, I don't know if a "real monster", but if pandering to (and propagating conspiracy theories from) the alt-right doesn't tickle you as a bit bothersome, you might be part of the problem.

Anderkent• 10 years ago

We do know, and we always have. He's a conman, always been.

mcv18• 10 years ago

I'd completely forgotten about Scott Adams. Now we're never going to hear the end of it.

But I seriously question the idea that Trump can't do much damage because of the Republican controlled House and Senate. The Republicans have been quite eager to do damage to the US without Trump.

nathan_f773• 10 years ago

how much "damage" is President Trump going to be able to do.

His rhetoric is already escalating the "war on Muslims". Electing him further confirms that Americans are the enemy of Islam. This is exactly what terrorists were trying to accomplish, and I think we can expect many more people to become radicalized. We can expect an increase in terrorist attacks. Walls won't save you. Tighter immigration control won't save you. The damage was done today, and in the months leading up to the election. I am legitimately scared to visit countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia. I was already scared about Turkey, and the situation there will only get worse. I'm worried for my relatives and friends who live there.

Donald Trump doesn't trust the science behind climate change. He doesn't believe that it's real. He would like to dismantle the EPA and increase our dependence on coal and oil. Even if I ignore his deep character flaws, business failures, and sexual assault accusations, this single issue is a dealbreaker for me. Luckily we have many other people working on clean energy, like everything that Elon Musk is doing. But how can this be coming from the President of the United States?

People say that Donald Trump is a smart man. Smart people don't say things like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU2p6YakNJg

qznc3• 10 years ago

Smart people escalate the war in the middle east like Hillary?

neaanopri8• 10 years ago

I'm very worried about preemptive announcements of how his presidency will fail. That's the sort of thing that makes people resent "elites" in the first place! I think that the best thing is for the liberals to marshal their political support while saying they'll consider bills trump proposes. Keep all the leverage they can while not signaling that they'll be out to sabotage trump. Saboteur government, like with the republicans under Obama, didn't work, and I hope the Democrats doesn't try it.

belorn3• 10 years ago

When it comes to radicalization, I would be much more worried over the long-term use of drone bombers. Some people have already incorporated drones into local lore (if you don't behave, a drone will get you), and from myth and lore it is a short step to define the operators as evil and create rhetoric that is used by radicalization. We saw a similar effect in art when England was under constant bombing during ww2. Several years of bombing can cause a rather radical effect on peoples mind, and I suspect studies on stress can confirm that. The wrong president being elected on the opposite side of the planet seems minor in comparison.

The climate aspect is indeed bad, even if many of the trade deals that trump oppose and Hillary was active in bringing forth was labeled as negative for the climate. Hillary was likely the lesser evil all in all, but hopefully in 4 years we can see an actually advocate for the environment and clean energy.

throw_away94• 10 years ago

> "Walls won't save you"

Americans refuse to live in fear (at least, the block of Americans I understand and am part of). We don't really count on walls to save us. We count on the ability to destroy those who want to murder us.

That will probably freak a lot of people out here. I'm not a warmonger. But we are a strong nation, and those who want to kill our innocent civilians need to know, America will not cower.

Terrorism is on the rise because there are large groups of people who have devoted their lives to barbaric murder of innocents -- some on the front lines with bombs strapped on, others through financial and cultural support.

These groups of people have a culture in favor of anti-US terrorism. Note: I have not named the groups. You can't say "Islam", because many Muslims don't feel that way. You can't say "Arabs" because it is likewise inaccurate.

It's hard to name the group with a precise enough term. But they exist, and their culture makes them our blood enemies. They want to murder us, and therefore I want to murder them.

What really needs to die is the barbaric culture. But how do you kill a culture? (I can only think of one example off the top of my head ... atom bombs on Japan seemed to quickly, drastically change their culture. Hopefully there's a less drastic way).

Tolerance and peace are some of the greatest human ideals. But when someone desires with their whole heart to murder you and all that you love, tolerance is the wrong response. That enemy needs to be recognized, understood, and defeated.

muad2• 10 years ago

I have been following his blog for about 6 months because it seemed like he was a pretty rational and lucid trump supporter.

I have a newfound respect for him because he literally called every step of this election.

anigbrowl• 10 years ago

You have no clue. This is really serious shit, the genies he let out of the bottle during the election will not go back in just as victory has come into their grasp.

lyschoening2• 10 years ago

For one Trump will give them at least one, more likely two even more Supreme Court Justices, so some of the most right-wing conservatives we've seen in the past half century will decide the law of the land for the next twenty to thirty years.

The Republicans will have control of all three branches of government for the next few years and there is a whole lot that they can do with that. As a foreigner, what worries me most is that American progress on climate change policy will be set back by another 15 to 20 years as Obama's progress will be erased and there is no progress to hope for until another Democrat is elected in four or eight years. Russia can also be expected to threaten Europe with more confidence; hopefully our defense spending will increase to pick up the slack.

The Democrats certainly brought this upon themselves. People say the primaries against Sanders were rigged, but really the problem wasn't that the DNC pushed Clinton. The problem was Clinton herself. Clinton soundly rejected Sanders' populist ideals when almost half of the party and a great number of independents supported them. All it took at that point were a few leaks and a letter from Comey to rip the blue collar worker's vote from her.

panic• 10 years ago

At the DNC it seemed like she had adopted many of Sanders' ideals as part of her platform. Did that change at some point afterward?

te_chris2• 10 years ago

Can we stop with the 'Clinton rejected sanders policies' line? She pretty much accepted most of them. Bernie supporters are idiots for not getting behind her. You reap what you sow.

iwintermute6• 10 years ago

Re: Russia can also be expected to threaten Europe with more confidence; hopefully our defense spending will increase to pick up the slack.

Any real threats to Europe will lead to nuclear conflict. It's not 1910 - you don't need to be afraid of rifles and spending money on tanks.

You can say - but the Ukraine! - well, it's not European country, and it has no valuable partners that deeply invested and pledged to protect it.

cerved• 10 years ago

It's a long established fact that an appeal to emotion as opposed to rational argument or character, is a far stronger form of persuasion. I think a lot of people overlooked this in this election.

Sure, people will justify their support either through reasoning or judgement of character - "He's a racist bigot", "She's part of the establishment", his/her policy is better etc. but what it comes down to is the emotional appeal of the arguments.

I think Donald Trump was more successful at rallying people around his promise to "make America great again" whilst Hillary failed to rally people around the idea of "Stronger together". I think her campaign became preoccupied with attacking the character of Donald Trump, seeing this as his weakness, as opposed to founding it on a strong appeal to emotion. I would argue the Sanders campaign was much stronger in this regard.

mstade5• 10 years ago

Maybe the domestic damage will be limited, given the checks and balances the three branches provide. As much flak as congress gets, it's interesting to see that no one part of the government is all powerful.

But foreign policy and diplomacy falls squarely in the executive branch. It's impossible to separate the US election from the rest of the world, when the US is so incredibly influential. Diplomacy is tricky, time consuming, and can fall flat on the stupidest little things. Even a really good secretary of state backed by a strong state department can only do so much with an elephant in the china shop.

Like Brexit, it remains to be seen what will actually happen, but if the campaign is any indication of future performance I won't hold my breath.

jedimastert• 10 years ago

I've been thinking about this too. He might have no no history in government, but the years of selling himself and his name have made him damn near the perfect politician.

diyseguy2• 10 years ago

I'm waiting for the I TOLD YOU SO post on his blog any second now. (It's up and replete with smug gloating)

rafinha3• 10 years ago

Bernie Sanders could have been the president, but Hillary cheated in the primaries.

pnathan3• 10 years ago

Nah, he had no chance of building a coalition outside of the white urban liberal types.

anyway, he's a socialist.

thecrazyone• 10 years ago

I don't understand how socialist the way he describes it is a bad word. People just don't listen these days.

rafinha3• 10 years ago

That is questionable, after all even Trump managed to do so, even if the Republican party was against him at a given point.

snarfy• 10 years ago

anyway, he's a socialist.

That's not a bad thing. I'm not sure why people use socialist in a pejorative manner.

It reminds me of the 80s, except then the term was communist. At least then there was the cold war and in some ways communist made sense as they were the enemy, but using socialist today the same way makes no sense.

partycoder• 10 years ago

Well, not only that:

- Trump president

- Republicans won the Senate

- Republicans won the House

So it's going to be a very hard time to endure.

defen3• 10 years ago

I take this as the ultimate vindication of pg's "It's Charisma, Stupid" essay from 12 years ago http://paulgraham.com/charisma.html

gre• 10 years ago

Washington Post is a hack publication that helped to elect Trump by printing so many anti-Bernie ads as articles.

Literally the worst in journalism.

timdeneau• 10 years ago

Unbelievable. With the House and Senate.

mtgx2• 10 years ago

That's what you get with a Democratic "leader" such as Hillary Clinton. She inspired no one to come to vote. Most of those that voted for her did it so Trump doesn't win. But voting against someone rather than for someone is almost always a losing strategy, proved once again today.

sccxy• 10 years ago

Just tell me, how all those polls got it wrong.

People were afraid of telling what they really want?

adrr3• 10 years ago

Because it polls likely voters. The unlikely voters came out and voted.

laichzeit06• 10 years ago

The LA times poll did not get it wrong.

jonknee• 10 years ago

Yea it did, she will probably take the popular vote. It was the state polls that were the problem.

cobalt2• 10 years ago

extrapolation

tnmrnis4• 10 years ago

We don't really know yet. There are two (quite likely) possible options. A shift in the voter demographics and/or the "shy tory" (people not admitting to vote conservative because a negative social consequences).

Polls are never truely objective even if they try to be. You always have underlying assumptions about how to get a representative sample.

The third option would be that the polls were rigged. After reading the leaked Podesta mails this doesn't seem too unlikely but still less likely then other possible reasons.

sickbeard• 10 years ago

FBI effect was not captured in the polls

nickpp• 10 years ago

I don't think Donald Trump won these elections. Rather Hillary Clinton lost them.

Kadin4• 10 years ago

I've never been much of an HRC fan, but it's hard to see what she could have done differently, based on the information available. Aside from "don't be Hillary Clinton, with all the baggage that involves", of course. A candidate less well-known to the public might have done better in a "change"-focused election.

But she pretty much ran a campaign according to all the best practices, and lost to a guy who basically did everything wrong (within the scope of the campaign) that you could do wrong. The problem wasn't in the Clinton campaign. The problem was that the electorate didn't want what she was selling, despite a very good sales pitch.

I suspect there's going to be a lot of analysis focusing on exactly what level of positional compromise would have gotten the Democrats enough votes in the Midwest and Appalachian states to win (off the top of my head: an about-face on gun control and some sort of mea culpa on NAFTA might do it), but I don't think the Democrats could have known that in advance. Any more than any of the Republicans who lost to Trump in the primaries could have known how badly they were underestimating the latent anger of voters when they ran their own by-the-book campaigns.

thesimpsons10227• 10 years ago

she never decided to give a credible reason to vote for her other than Trump is awful.

mcv18• 10 years ago

I was really impressed with her performance in the debates. She must have unbelievable self-control. Her baggage isn't even her own baggage; people have been attacking and hating her for decades, apparently only for having the gall to be an ambitious woman in politics, while being married to a successful man in politics.

htns• 10 years ago

Agreed. The comparisons to brexit are a little clumsy for that reason.

buchanaf5• 10 years ago

Whelp, on the bright side future historians will now have an easy way to mark the decline of the United States.

I feel totally numb. As an American, I could not be any more disappointed in the people of this country.

hyperdunc5• 10 years ago

I'm sorry to hear they don't live up to your standards.

I'm feeling rather excited that Americans decided to take a gamble.

codez4lyfe• 10 years ago

I"m glad we didn't elect a corrupt politician. Trump's a gamble, but it's a better choice.

#SilentMajority made their minds clear today.

nopinsight2• 10 years ago

Brexit and the Trump election share the same root causes:

* Inequality within developed countries, leading to dissatisfaction among working-class voters.

* Globalization benefits accrue largely to capital owners, leaving a lot of workers behind. Many blame immigration since it is the most visible cause. The blame is partly backed by human's xenophobic instincts.

Ironically, Trump's tax plan will mostly benefit the rich. Instead, we need a much better system to mitigate hardships from job losses to globalization and technological change. The 2017 Congress will be very unlikely to enact such policies.

I wonder how this tension will play out in the future...Thoughts?

BlackjackCF2• 10 years ago

Well, there's that saying about how the poor in America think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires...

oldmanjay5• 10 years ago

Yeah, it's one of those high-horse things elites tell themselves while they try to understand why they can't just instill their perfectly obviously correct opinions already.

mistermumble• 10 years ago

Poor whites in America seem to identify with rich whites more than others from different races who are working (or unemployed) right next to them.

To them, Trump is like the star NFL quarterback that everyone wishes to be, and wears that star's jersey on their back. Even if the fan is overweight and can barely waddle across the parking lot.

Except that in reality Trump does not have the skills necessary to do the job. (He is a great candidate, but will likely be a terrible president). Someone observed that Trump is a poor person's idea of a rich person. He is unfortunately likely a disenfranchised person's idea of an effective president.

JBReefer• 10 years ago

That's ironic, because that quote means the exact opposite of what people think:

“Except for the field organizers of strikes, who were pretty tough monkeys and devoted, most of the so-called Communists I met were middle-class, middle-aged people playing a game of dreams. I remember a woman in easy circumstances saying to another even more affluent: ‘After the revolution even we will have more, won’t we, dear?’ Then there was another lover of proletarians who used to raise hell with Sunday picknickers on her property. "I guess the trouble was that we didn’t have any self-admitted proletarians. Everyone was a temporarily embarrassed capitalist. Maybe the Communists so closely questioned by the investigation committees were a danger to America, but the ones I knew—at least they claimed to be Communists—couldn’t have disrupted a Sunday-school picnic. Besides they were too busy fighting among themselves.”

beejiu• 10 years ago

You've hit the nail on the head: inequality is at the heart of this. Unfortunately, people are quick to forget the democratic foundation of society. It is not big businesses that have the final say, neither is it the middle classes or any other segment of population. It is the people, collectively, that have influence. And when you forget that over a long period of time, it comes back to bite you hard. Lesson for the future: take inequality seriously.

ant6n10• 10 years ago

It seems so strange: Inequality makes people vote for billionaire.

nopinsight2• 10 years ago

Since the GOP now holds both Congress and the Presidency, with a possibility of the Supreme Court majority, they may enact some protectionist policies to appease the voters. However, they could in fact make the economic situations worse and some people would start to blame other things.

Could the backlash spill to the technology and related sectors as well? (e.g. a neo-luddite movement might get started)

Note: I did not grow up in the US, so I would like to hear your opinions on this, especially from Americans.

byuu2• 10 years ago

with a possibility of the Supreme Court majority

... possibility? They already have it. He gets to pick Scalia's replacement and that's 5-4. If Ginsburg or Breyer can't make it 4-8 more years (and Ginsburg is 84), then it'll be a guarantee for the next 30+ years, minimum.

Zpalmtree2• 10 years ago

Tax's lowering for everyone == mostly benefit the rich

What?

AstralStorm• 10 years ago

US is above its head in debt right now, on par with states like Spain or Greece.

Lowering the tax means it will be less money, meaning less social initiatives that benefit the poorer such as Medicare. Making taxes more progressive would work.

dangravell2• 10 years ago

Because they take home more in absolute terms. Capital accrues in a compound manner, that's why we have progressive income taxes. Or did.

prawn8• 10 years ago

Inequality should've been the/a big issue, but I don't think it was. I think this was driven very strongly by "human's xenophobic instincts".

2sk212• 10 years ago

Inequality and xenophobia are not mutually exclusive. One way in which resentment of inequality is expressed is in the form of xenophobia.

cjwilliams• 10 years ago

Its possible that the causes are more social than economic. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2822059

InclinedPlane2• 10 years ago

Indeed. Globalization is not the enemy. Overall wealth and productivity have gone up, up, up in the last 40 years. The problem is that a disproportionate share of the returns from that growth have gone into the pockets of the rich. There's about a zillion reasons why that happened, but there are also many ways to tackle the problem and improve the situation.

navinsylvester2• 10 years ago

Saddened to see the world heading towards a very unsavory place. The Brexit effect is going to take us backward and backward. We are going to see more hatred being spread :(. How did we come down to this place?.

#1 Americans policy in the middle east is a total washout. The repercussions of it is starting to rear its head.

#2 The rigidity of the staunch followers of religions in following the rule of the land. I mean the stupid followers. Your country men are also your brethren sort of attitude - not just people of your faith. In the highly inter-connected world if we don't shed hatred and don't learn to be tolerant towards other faiths - we will be doomed.

#3 The voting process needs a re-look. Look what happened with boaty mcboatface, brexit and now US polls. Age shouldn't be the only criteria to allow someone in voting process. I don't think this is a easy problem to solve but we definitely need a rethink.

russellsprouts• 10 years ago

Age shouldn't be the only criteria to allow someone in voting process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test

pavanred2• 10 years ago

Just curious, why is the concept of absolute majority not used a criteria? For example, to win an election in India, you require an absolute majority (if there are 3 candidates and A wins 40%, B wins 30% and C wins 30%, A is still not a winner because a total of 60% voted against A). I see it in this election and in the Brexit vote, a major decision is based on a simple majority with <5% difference.

navinsylvester2• 10 years ago

But US is basically a dominant two party system. In India it's not the case though.

sinkensabe• 10 years ago

Boaty McBoatface is a bad example :) That was a great name for a boat!

hyperdunc5• 10 years ago

If I read you right, you are advocating for tolerance of a fundamentally intolerant faith. My tolerance doesn't extend that far.

pgl• 10 years ago

And I thought Brexit was bad.

dibstern5• 10 years ago

So the world's most liveable city is Melbourne, Australia, we're very far from Trump, much further than Canada, VC firms and tech startups are more than welcome to come on over and enjoy the best quality of life on offer! Hehe

sjwright3• 10 years ago

Seriously. Even our McDonalds is several classes above the greasy, cheap muck they sell in the USA.

cturner• 10 years ago

Can confirm. A rite of passage for students in Adelaide is to drive to the big Mcdonalds on the nw outskirts of Melbourne, and then turn around and drive home again.

insulanian• 10 years ago

As soon as you fix your internet connection :)

cperciva2• 10 years ago

For Bay area VCs and tech startups which are looking for a highly liveable city a bit closer than Australia, Vancouver ranked a close third (after Melbourne and Vienna) in the Economist's ratings, and is just a 2h15m flight away from San Francisco.

If anyone is interested in relocating, I'd be happy to help in any way I can (realizing of course that I'm not an immigration lawyer).

ahh• 10 years ago

I find it interesting that most of the people I see on e.g. Facebook talking about moving to Canada are, in fact, not eligible to do so. (At least without a job offer in hand from a Canadian company to sponsor you.)

(Canada's a lovely country, I wonder if their immigration policies help keep it that way?)

FLUX-YOU• 10 years ago

Unfortunately you have large spiders that like to hide in sunvisors and drop onto unsuspecting drivers. :(

archagon3• 10 years ago

Serious question: any tips on going through with this? I don't think I can stand to stay in the US any longer.

vixen99• 10 years ago

What is it you can't stand? Nothing concrete has happened yet. Maybe this doesn't apply to you but it's interesting to see how a number of celebrities with massive resources (from my point of view) which effectively enable them to insulate themselves from almost any changes which a new government might introduce, have promised to flee the country.

ern2• 10 years ago

Australia relies implicitly on US security guarantees. Given Trump's previous pronouncements about allies paying their own way, at best, there is a good chance that Australia is going to have to budget more to protect its vast territory.

At worst, if Trump were to move to a more isolationist stance and upend the world order, there are some very populous countries to the north that might get hungry.

It's going to be very difficult to find a place to escape the consequences of what happened today.

astrodust7• 10 years ago

Bullshit. It's not the 1930s any more. Australia and Japan are on good terms and China's not interested in taking over Australia.

beachy3• 10 years ago

Australia's full of things that will bite you, sting you or just downright eat you.

Come to New Zealand instead. You can always pop across the ditch for the weekend whenever you want.

saganus3• 10 years ago

I've never been to either, but I was under the impression that in both Australia and NZ, there were lots of critters willing to bite/sting you without notice.

I know that a lot of countries on earth have nasty little things lurking around, but is it really that much more dangerous in Australia than in NZ then?

eng_monkey• 10 years ago

So the world's most liveable city is Melbourne, Australia

Do you mean the city with crappy weather, unaffordable real estate, collapsed roads, and a job market based on selling overpriced coffees to hipsters?

madeofpalk6• 10 years ago

To be fair, out of the 'big two' cities in AUS, Melbourne probably has the more affordable and promising real estate market.

jyriand• 10 years ago

Let's be honest, if you have to choose between two unacceptable candidates, it's not a choice at all.

_gfrc2• 10 years ago

This is one of the issues that the social media bubble creates.

We don't reach people that are different, neither do their voices reach us. We are all so connected nowadays and yet so separated.

PerfectElement• 10 years ago

How did you reach those people before social media?

code_duck2• 10 years ago

for the most part, we all watched the same 3 news networks and read the same newspapers.

_gfrc2• 10 years ago

I'm not sure if we did, but we didn't forget that they exist. We focussed so much on publishing facts (and rants) on social media, instead of talking to the people directly.

There are zero Trump supporters on my timeline, everybody is shocked and horrified. I would bet that there are people out there who have a diametrically opposed timeline with zero HC supporters. We need to get those people together instead of further alienating and separating them by "better", more personalised and targeted algorithms.

Broken_Hippo3• 10 years ago

That is only partially true.

Before, your bubble usually was the people around you, physically. You had network news and the newspapers for your information. You could read books about other countries and systems. If you had cable, you could watch the 24 hour news at the time - Cspan and similar things.

The bubble has simply shifted and become slightly more obvious.

Which really disappoints me. I was all hopeful that the internet would broaden people's bubble, but that was 20+ years ago.

mikeash11• 10 years ago

Strange, it's been the opposite for me. Social media has revealed to me diverse political opinions from friends that I never would have known about otherwise.

rl32• 10 years ago

This election proved that virtually the entirety of the election prediction space has no idea what the hell it's doing.

We live in a world of big data with vast computational resources, and this outcome is somehow an upset—a totally unexpected surprise.

Strilanc• 10 years ago

538 gave more than 25% chance to Trump winning. That's losing two coin flips, not "totally unexpected".

rl32• 10 years ago

The degree by which Trump won is the "totally unexpected" part.

tim333• 10 years ago

And in fairness to Nate, he was saying the polls were about 42 Trump 45 Clinton with ~13% undecided and those undecideds could send the election either way. With hindsight I'd say quite a few undecideds were Trump supporters who were afraid to admit it which I can understand. Just look at the reaction to Theil backing Trump with various calls for him to be fired. I can see why people kept quiet about it.

Florin_Andrei2• 10 years ago

Even modern computing is still vulnerable to the old GIGO phenomenon: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

The way data was collected has some very serious flaws.

rawnlq• 10 years ago

I wonder if facebook and google could've built a better model. Prediction based on polling doesn't seem as reliable compared to what people post to their newsfeed or search for.

ant6n10• 10 years ago

A major problem is that the electoral system is chaotic. In the sense of chaos theory: small deviations in input (votes) lead to large differences in the result (electoral college votes). The pollsters were off only be like 2-3% or so, and a bit the distribution.

Also, it appears Trump Supporters were often too ashamed to be honest to pollsters.

imh• 10 years ago

I like the new york times coverage better. It does a better job of acknowledging Trump's supporters and why he won, as opposed to just focusing on why Clinton lost.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/us/politics/hillary-clinto...

pmoriarty11• 10 years ago

It will be most interesting to see the fallout from this on the Republican side.

Will there be consequences for all those high level Republicans who dared to publicly come out against Trump? Will they still be against Trump now that he's won, or will they start supporting him all of a sudden?

I, for one, can't see any scenario where Trump is as mild and easy going once he has power than he's been when trying to get the popular vote. If anything, he'll be far more extreme now. Will such extremism further fracture the Republican party? Or will they look the other way and act as apologists for it as they have so often in the past?

jondubois2• 10 years ago

I hope they get replaced. I think that's the whole point of Trump; to give politics a good flush.

pmoriarty11• 10 years ago

If there's one thing you can rely on in politics it's that the replacements will usually be just as bad if not worse than those who they replaced.

As one editorial quipped, no matter what happens in this election, the Washington elite will remain the Washington elite.

Broken_Hippo3• 10 years ago

The thing is that most of these folks were elected officials. So he'd have to get them voted out. He can, of course, not appoint them to seats and things like that.

Those that aren't politicians? Unless they are in a position where he has some control over their career, there isn't much he can do.

tmptmp6• 10 years ago

It's not surprising. The left-liberal camp was always turning a blind eye towards many important national issues and importantly about the issue of Islam. This reminds me a talk given by Sam Harris about the blunder being done by left-liberals regarding their dishonest/spineless treatment of Islam. His video titled "Sam Harris : Liberals failure to talk honestly about Islam is responsible for the rise of Trump" is very educational [1]. This [2] also is informative in this regard.

Even democratic supporter Bill Maher has said "Bill Maher: I Wish Liberals Would Have Same Intolerance For Muslims That They Do For Christians" [3]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YCWf0tHy7M [2] https://www.samharris.org/islam [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL8rZTuGfZo

mikeyouse9• 10 years ago

It seems strange to blame the left for not having a stronger response against Islam instead of the right for drumming up this insane hatred of Muslim people..

I have no doubt that this issue cost many swing state votes but how many Wisconsinites have ever even seen a Muslim? It's such an insane boogeyman created for this very purpose.

I listen to Sam Harris, agree with many of his points but there are like 10,000 Syrians in the US - many of whom are Christians, all of whom were fleeing ISIS. Shame on Republicans for using them to score votes.

golergka3• 10 years ago

The parent comment was talking about relatinship with ideology of Islam, and you've changed the subject to relationship to Muslim people. Don't you see the difference?

komali28• 10 years ago

It is the fault of the enemy religion

I don't like where this is going.

tobltobs• 10 years ago

The left-liberal camp was always turning a blind eye towards many important national issues and importantly about the issue of Islam.

First I wanted to say something about that "issues of Islam" might not be the biggest problems we have, but then I looked at your profile page and now I guess you would disagree.

The seeds of the brainwashing start to grow. I am scared about our future.

komali28• 10 years ago

I want to have a serious discussion with people about how to tackle the second coming of hyper nationalism without people laughing me off and calling me an SJW, cuck, or quoting "Everyone I disagree with is Hitler, a child's guide to politics."

It is clear that we're about to have a second wave of prejudice based on race, religion, and sexual orientation/preference, and I want to be ready to tackle this intelligently.

namecast7• 10 years ago

"The issue of Islam" pretty much says it all right there. Reducing 1.6 billion people and 57 countries around the world down to a few youtube clips that agree with your priors is what I'm going to politely describe as "an interesting worldview". Here's your flag.

tartuffe78• 10 years ago

This dismissive attitude doesn't help bring people over to your point of view.

tmptmp6• 10 years ago

I wish to make it clear that I am not against Muslim people. But I am against the vicious and barbaric ideology of Islam. Many Muslims (especially Muslim women) are the foremost victims of Islam. So, please do not confuse Islam as an ideology with Muslims as people.

Similar thing applies to Christianity and other religions too. The Western world has been so successful on various fronts (especially on the modern, liberal and progressive cultural front) essentially because they defeated and discarded the barbaric Christianity by what we now call "separation of Church and state".

But Islamists (Muslims who wish/strive to bring Islam as ruler in the world) are trying to bring Sharia in the western world and the liberals here are quite dishonest about it.

hyperdunc5• 10 years ago

Concerns about Islam were certainly a fairly major contributor to Trump's victory.

Many on the left - especially the so-called progressives - are blind to the danger of Islamism. To those who recognize and prioritize the problem, Trump was the obvious choice.

The charges of bigotry so often heard no longer work. Such labeling cannot suppress the fact that Islamist values (based on revelation) are incompatible with Western secular values, (which are based on evidence and reason).

Now if it turns out climate change is a bigger concern than creeping Islamism then we're in trouble.

iuhgdwij• 10 years ago

A good first step might be to require a yellow half moon to be attached to every muslims chest while in public. And one starry night, let's go crush the windows of muslim-owned shops.

That is how we started dealing with the Jewish issue here in Europe a couple of years ago.

(this comment is obviously sarcasm)

imode• 10 years ago

we know not what we've done, but we will soon.

the end of days is upon us, and I fear for us all.

pnathan3• 10 years ago

Not a good thing. Not at all. Multiple systemic failures over a long haul led to this.

Better batten the hatches, we might be in for quite the ride.

einrealist2• 10 years ago

A President who considers Climate Change a hoax. I am now really afraid for mankind.

adrr3• 10 years ago

Irony is Florida voted for Trump. They have the largest risk for rising sea levels.

seanp2k26• 10 years ago

FEMA will for sure save them all, just like before.

swalsh• 10 years ago

The Irony is that rich countries not only benefited the most of the use of fossil fuels, we're also now in the best position to deal with changes. The people it will impact the most are poorer countries.

hmate92• 10 years ago

Only 70% of America believes that climate is changing. This will keep rising and soon people will focus on this. I think in 2 years Trump will acknowledge climate change too. He will have to.

orthecreedence2• 10 years ago

Yes, and by then it will only be a decade or two too late.

http://wondermark.com/c1177/

einrealist2• 10 years ago

The problem is that his political peers think, fossil energy is required to "make America great again". And unfortunately, they are right if its about the strategy that takes the least effort to achieve the economic goal.

That's in big contrast on what Clinton advertised with pushing renewable energy to a point, where it helps the economy.

flamedoge• 10 years ago

2016 what a year

astrodust7• 10 years ago

Oh, it's not over yet.

Beltiras• 10 years ago

Can we stop referring to the wisdom of crowds now?

Florin_Andrei2• 10 years ago

Can we stop referring to the wisdom of crowds now?

The crowds are "wise" on the most base, trivial issues.

Now give them world-spanning complexity and crowds turn into complete idiots.

dredmorbius2• 10 years ago

Humans are anti-ants.

Ants collectively are unintelligent. Collectively, the solve complex problems.

Humans individually are intelligent. Collectively, they create complex problems.

JumpCrisscross• 10 years ago

How does this change Silicon Valley'a relationship with Washington and the American cultural narrative? In an world where urbanisation, diversification and a global American technological hegemony are "good" American values, Silicon Valley for right in. But now our values are under fire and our titans likely liable for payback.

Does this restructure the entrenched powers? Or merely force them to rebrand as rebels?

gkya• 10 years ago

I just want to reproduce here part of my comment on the today's AskHN regarding Trump:

My interpretation of Trump is as follows, though note that I'm not american nor a close follower of US politics, or politics in general.

The main concern of his is the flow of capital out of the US, be it through delocating companies or employment of cheap workforce mainly in southeastern Asia. He wants to exploit the national potential of workforce and has a more introvert, more domestic politic inclination, planning minimal involvement in international questions. And he seeks the support needed through a populist policy with a xenophobic and banale rhetoric targeting the unread american proletariat, the unemployed, and the elderly who does not appreciate the today's increasingly internationalised society and culture.

inimino7• 10 years ago

Given that this has been among the most polarizing campaigns ever, could a new, truly centrist third party start building support among the many "no to both" voters and have a chance in 2020?

I realize it's crazy to suggest a third party could have a chance in American politics, but prove me wrong.

scott_karana• 10 years ago

I'm hoping for general electoral reform.

The US is too large and diverse to adequately satisfy its populace with the current system.

beachy3• 10 years ago

In 1994 my country switched from first past the post to MMP.

Incredible fear mongering was put about (and sometimes still is). But despite our near brushes with craziness (like Kim Dotcom almost buying his way into parliament) the situation now is immeasurably better than when we had political parties who did not have to compromise and cooperate. Everyone's more...reasonable.

To an outsider it looks like getting rid of the two party system would be a great thing for the US.

wtallis4• 10 years ago

I don't think our system leaves room for three parties to coexist for any length of time, and with partisan identity being so strong these days the two major parties will continue to exist in name at least. But they have pivoted before, and in big ways. This Republican sweep has probably forestalled such a shift, but it'll be interesting to see which factions of the Republican party end up in conflict over the next few years, and which ones come to the fore the next time they're up against strong Democratic opponents. I think it's too soon to tell how the Republican Congress will get along with this Republican president.

inimino7• 10 years ago

But this was an election where voters strongly disliked both candidates, and voting "against" rather than "for" was at an all-time high. Doesn't that intense partisanship pushing the two parties further apart create some room in the middle?

omarchowdhury• 10 years ago

Just bring back Ron Paul.

gfodor• 10 years ago

Trump destroyed the GOP and the DNC. He's the third party.

Illniyar• 10 years ago

MMM... so silver lining - is the TPP going to die now?

dredmorbius2• 10 years ago

Obama's promised to punch that through the lame-duck session. Maybe he can do that.

That would indicate a revolt of the GOP against Trump though.

Otherwise: fairly dead, at least in this guise.

Rainymood• 10 years ago

I've read somewhere that the president is the captain of a very large ship with a small rudder. Not sure how correct that is factually but it is somewhat reassuring.

To think that Donald Trump is possession of the nuclear codes, dear god...

jefffan241• 10 years ago

He is but republicans are projected to win the House, the Senate, and most state governments. If they can work together that rudder just got bigger.

rdtsc10• 10 years ago

Also this wasn't as much a vote _for_ Trump it was a vote _against_ Hillary.

The Democrats had this election in their pocket, if it only wasn't for their corruption. They should have really stopped and paid attention to what happened with Bernie Sanders. That wasn't just something to shrug off, it should have been a stopping moment. I believe Bernie would have had no problem winning against Trump.

Also I really liked the media in this campaign, I watched it for entertainment. Some channels thought they were helping by pretty much becoming an off-shoot for DNC and Hillary's campaign. But it blew up in their face, because people saw through that, so it had the opposite effect.

ainiriand3• 10 years ago

Yes, I agree completely with what you say. It is my impression that picking a fight against Trump by someone like Hillary is a poor choice. There is no way of beating him in its own ground, so Hillary was a poor choice. Someone like Bernie Sanders would have been a good rival because he is not involved (as far as we know) in dirty secrets or messy politics.

snarf21• 10 years ago

Even after the fix was in against Sanders, adding him as VP makes this election a slam dunk for the Democrats.

Nadya3• 10 years ago

Surprisingly, namecalling doesn't sway votes. Calling people with genuine concerns about their country and well-being racist and sexist doesn't win you votes. Calling half the country Deplorable doesn't win you votes.

It doesn't help that the DNC rigged the election against Bernie, Clinton isn't "relatable" and struggles with public image, Clinton was under FBI investigation, both Clintons have had years and years of scandals. I'm honestly surprised it was even as close as it was for the popular vote.

I did not vote, but it should be fairly obvious from this post or my post history that I lean pro-Trump and very strongly against Clinton. For those who disagree with it, I'm sure the first response is blaming bigots and racists and sexists and blah blah blah. Rather than listening to half of your country - you shout over them and call them names, names which are only sometimes "earned".

The country can either grow more divided or we can grow together. The next four years will determine which direction we head.

mcv18• 10 years ago

Surprisingly, namecalling doesn't sway votes.

Looks like it did. Trump was easily the biggest name-caller, and got rewarded for it every time.

Nadya3• 10 years ago

Sorry for the confusion, that line wasn't about the elects. It was about the people.

Yelling and screaming and threatening half of the country pushes them away - it doesn't bring them closer. I've had a lot more hate for being pro-trump and transexual from the "Never Trump" crowd than I did from the Trump crowd. Staggering amounts of hate.

Which is why I used the line: names which are only sometimes "earned". The names were used to try and persuade the public and to make people "not want to support Trump". All it did was turn huge parts of his crowd "silent". After all, "free speech is protected - but not without consequences!" and supporting Trump had its consequences. Look at how people treat Peter Thiel.

"But the flag is upside down! No real LGBT supports him!" - https://i1.someimage.com/4UaCCr7.jpg

allemagne2• 10 years ago

Name calling doesn't sway votes is exactly the opposite of what every power hungry politician is going to take away from this.

laichzeit06• 10 years ago

So the LA times poll is the only poll that was right, from the beginning? Perhaps time to take their methodology seriously.

Also, perhaps the extreme form of multiculturalism is a failed experiment, much like communism was a failed experiment. Time to wake up, ultra liberals.

wangii• 10 years ago

don't understand why this comment gets down voted.

daxorid2• 10 years ago

This is HN. Conspiracy theories of "rigging" or establishment collaboration, which are rife in discussions of polling accuracy, are downvoted.

No matter how true they turn out to be.

noir-york3• 10 years ago

It is fitting I suppose that on the anniversary of the 18 Brumaire, Napolean's coup d'etat, we should get a Trump presidency.

And it doesn't end there, you need to look at the entire ticket; it is a clean sweep by the GOP who also have control of the Senate and the House. The GOP will be able to pass any legislation unimpeded, such as repealing Obamacare.

More consequentially, Trump gets to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. The effects of that will last for a generation, way beyond his presidency.

Elections have consequences, and this election has significantly shifted the political landscape.

tomdell2• 10 years ago

In addition to Trump winning, the GOP will hold a majority in both houses of Congress, further empowering conservatives.

This is not the outcome many on the left expected.

kristopolous5• 10 years ago

Well the left needs to get their act together and form some political party and then start running candidates in elections. They don't have one right now.

harry8• 10 years ago

Obama rode to power on change ticket and immediately abandoned it, wholesale.

OK that didn't work so who else you got? Bernie, outsider with nothing, no money, no establishment friends, too old, been a democtat for 5 minutes and nearly got the democratic nomination and the dem establishment hate him and broke the rules fighting him. Donald has fame and got the republican nomination. Republican establishment hate him.

American voters want change. Change at any cost right now. And they'll keep trying for it.

There has been no meaningful political reform. Regulatory capture and gerrymander are the norm. People hate it. They genuinely hate the status quo, the political establishment. Really hate it.

Whoever is judged the most likely to do something, anything, in the way of reform has a huge advantage. You can be inexperienced and African American, you can be a blow-hard who inherited a billion dollars. Doesn't matter if people actually believe you are more for change and reform than the opposition.

It's not the only important thing but having credibility as an agent for change is extremely valuable. Hilary had precisely no credibility on that count and was proud of it .

Brakenshire4• 10 years ago

Obama rode to power on change ticket and immediately abandoned it, wholesale.

He had two years where he had legislative power, and spent that time shoring up the US economy after the financial crisis and passing healthcare reform. Had he passed political reform instead he would have been accused of putting elite concerns before the practical things affecting ordinary people.

One of the problems in the US seems to be that the President has all the rhetoric of a ruler, but in fact only has power with Congress.

People invest an enormous amount of hope and effort into the federal system, but in fact it's mostly ineffective, if the two parties are at one another's throats no one is capable of action a majority of the time. The system is set up to rely on the states for action, but people move around so much the states aren't seen as worth the effort (because you might be taking a job on the other side of the country in a year or two). It's a system which doesn't really match up with how people live their lives.

pjmorris2• 10 years ago

He had two years where he had legislative power, and spent that time shoring up the US economy after the financial crisis and passing healthcare reform.

Respectfully, he shored up the banks that had precipitated the crisis rather than the people most affected by the crisis. Some will call that virtuous and necessary, or 'deeply unfair' and necessary (Timothy Geithner), but the people who benefited are not the people who voted last night.

As for healthcare reform, he chose health insurance rather than health care. From the point of view of most of the people who voted last night, that means another bill to pay, not better healthcare.

He invested his power, to the degree he had it, more in keeping things the same than in the change people voted him in for.

mikeash11• 10 years ago

Obama only had 7 weeks of legislative power. That's how long his party had enough votes to overcome the filibuster in the Senate. Criticizing him for not getting enough done is nonsensical.

pavanky• 10 years ago

American voters want change. Change at any cost right now. And they'll keep trying for it.

And yet they keep voting in the same Congress which can affect the most change.

incogitomode• 10 years ago

Absolutely the most depressing political event of my life. I would have generally written off an outcome like this as a product of personal mosanthropy and pessimism, only held in check by past results that surprised me in a good way.

While my filter bubble isn't solid enough to not understand this, I truly wish it wasn't the case.

As our new president-elect says; so sad.

Houshalter4• 10 years ago

I hate democracy. Most voters aren't informed at all. Attractive candidates win 2.5 times more often than less attractive ones. Money and crappy 30 second ads apparently influence the outcome. First past the post voting means no one can even vote for what they really want to begin with.

It wouldn't be so bad if the president didn't have enormous power. And they aren't supposed to. But it's been growing so much over the years. Maybe now people will understand why its so important to limit it.

jhasse• 10 years ago

Attractive candidates win 2.5 times more often than less attractive ones. Money and crappy 30 second ads apparently influence the outcome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau...

mtgx2• 10 years ago

You just hate crappy democracy. Actually, the U.S. isn't even a democracy anymore. If anything, Trump winning is a return to the lost democracy, although it remains to be seen whether the country will be more democratic or even less than when he became president, after he leaves office.

But I think the US model of democracy (or republic, whatever) is a pretty bad one, and the country is in a dire need of top to bottom electoral reform. But I barely even see anyone talking about this.

Also, in more democratic countries, the media is significantly more regulated during elections. For instance, they have to give all parties equal time on TV, and other stuff like that to ensure the media bias is limited.

So if you think the U.S. is a democracy, it's a dysfunctional one at best.

staticelf4• 10 years ago

Democracy is not the issue, the large country is. USA is way too large for it's own good. So it Russia and China.

themckman• 10 years ago

The country was designed initially so that the Federal branch (i.e. the remote branch) of the government was limited in its scope and power. The State and local branches of government are supposed to be the ones with the power as it pertains to everyday citizens lives. If that were really the case, people wouldn't feel as though their personal well being is so directly tied to the outcome of these national elections and, hopefully, they wouldn't end up being the circus they are today.

You hear about it talked about all the time with regards to large technology organizations. The supposed best ones have small, autonomous teams focused on their little slice of the organization, collaborating with other teams as need be while upper management aggregates the best ideas from all teams and presents those to the rest of the organization so that other team leads can decide on whether or not those ideas would work for them.

I believe the Federal branch of the government absolutely has a role to play in the success of our country, I just think we'd be better off if it was a much reduced role.

mikeash11• 10 years ago

I'd like to offer a more optimistic view.

The true advantages of democracy are things that are rarely talked about and which people are mostly unaware. In my opinion, they are:

1. The availability of non-violent ways to push for change and seek redress.

2. A way to reliably and peacefully transition from one leader to another.

These are big problems with non-democratic governments. If people don't feel like they have a chance to change the system from within, they'll eventually resort to violence. If there isn't a widely agreed upon way to choose the next leader and transition power to them, then there will be succession struggles.

In a healthy democracy, people are encouraged to seek change politically, and the people accept the outcome whatever it may be.

As Scott Alexander put it in his Anti-Reactionary FAQ: "If you remember nothing else about the superiority of democracies to other forms of government, remember the fact that in three years, we will have a change of leadership and almost no one is stocking up on canned goods to prepare for the inevitable civil war."

Note that these advantages do not depend on making good choices. They only require the availability of choices, and widespread acceptance of the outcomes. Obviously, making good choices would be really nice, but they aren't the best feature of the system.

This is actually what troubles me most about Trump. Bad policies and terrible morals are one thing, but he directly attacked the very notion of democracy itself. All the talk of the election being rigged and perhaps not accepting the results is setting up his followers to reject the entire system, not just his opponents. And I find myself sincerely wondering if he'd willingly leave office in 2021 if he loses the next time around, or in 2025 if he wins.

Houshalter4• 10 years ago

No I agree. Democracy is better than monarchy. But that's a super low bar to pass. Not something to be proud of. I think there are alternative systems that are even better.

Just as a start, switching to an alternative voting system would be amazing. It's been shown that systems like approval voting are a better improvement over plurality voting, then plurality voting is over monarchy (http://rangevoting.org/UniqBest.html#HugePos). And that still works in the framework of democracy. I'd ideally like to get rid of voting entirely and replace it with something like randomly sampling representatives from the population.

pianowow• 10 years ago

Money did not have the intended effect on this election. Clinton outspent Trump by quite a large margin.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-electi...

Houshalter4• 10 years ago

Whether or not spending actually influences elections, most politicians certainly believe it does. Or they wouldn't spend so much effort on fundraising, and wouldn't bother with the stupid ads. They clearly believe it works. Surely they know. Modern campaigns track this stuff religiously with polls, statisticians, and A/B tests. And this belief corrupts our democracy.

One example doesn't disprove it anyway. Clinton lost. But she might have lost even worse without the spending. It's impossible to say the spending had no effect. As the election was pretty close in many states, even small effects can make a world of difference.

gotofritz4• 10 years ago

I think it boils down to Clinton not being a good candidate - she's "the establishment", a woman, and has no charisma. You can't have all three and still win.

Obama had the "handicap" of being black and "a funny name" but has plenty charisma and was seen as an outsider. Trump has charisma (for some) and is an outsider. Clinton has no redeeming quality in the eye of the electorate, even many who voted for her did so to stop Trump, not because they believed in her.

sergiotapia• 10 years ago

It's been an incredible journey and frankly it's amazing he managed to cross the finish line. What a winner!

I'm excited about the future of my country. OPTIMISM! No more self loathing and defeatism. Time to rekindle the American dream.

mark_l_watson• 10 years ago

+1 I did not vote for Trump, but I sincerely admire your enthusiasm.

Trump's victory speech was gracious and I hope Americans rally behind him. I intend this to be a general comment: once a candidate wins the presidency, I think it right for Americans to offer best wishes and as much support that they can, given their political views.

mcjiggerlog2• 10 years ago

Why? If you deeply disagree with everything the person stands for then why would you offer anything but opposition?

I get that you think that sometimes bipartisanism is needed, but this man's views seem so deeply offensive and dangerous to the rest of the modern world that trying to be "balanced" is actually just making holding those views seem acceptable.

astrodust7• 10 years ago

The American dream took a beating with Nixon and died with Reagan. You'll need another FDR moment to bring it back, but since apparently the closest thing to FDR was unelectable because he was "socialist" you're fucked.

There's no future for America now. It's going to squander everything it's earned in the last 240 years inside of two.

Way to hand China the keys to the world.

plandis2• 10 years ago

Yes, let's grab America by the pussy like our president, who admitted to sexually harassing women on video!

beatpanda2• 10 years ago

How coul you be optimistic about someone whos main campaign promise is to unleash wave after wave of state violence against people living in the US? How could you be that sick?

icedchocolate• 10 years ago

Honestly Brexit and Trump both tell me that democracy doesn't work, because the majority of the population is undereducated, bigoted, and has absolutely no idea about how to run an economy - it makes no sense for the working class who don't understand the most basic of economic concepts to influence how the economy is run.

I hope he doesn't screw America's economy by preventing skilled immigrants coming in and helping the tech industry, and by screwing up America's free trade deals. The return of protectionist & economically idiotic policy could truly screw the US.

Zpalmtree2• 10 years ago

People don't vote how you want DEMOCRACY DOESN'T WORK

nice job calling them bigoted and undereducated while you're at it

jakebasile• 10 years ago

Can you cite an example where a modern dictatorship substantially improved its subject's lives?

This kind of demeaning talk is what got us here. Most people are, by definition, of nearly average intelligence. And someone's intellect doesn't preclude them from the right to have a voice in how they are governed just because they disagree with you.

I voted for Clinton, so I'm just as disappointed as you are. Let's work to fix it, not further divide our already fractured country.

catshirt• 10 years ago

Most people are, by definition, of nearly average intelligence

that's... optimistic. doesnt that also mean half the population is below average intelligence?

xyzzy123• 10 years ago

Singapore?

mikeash11• 10 years ago

China? I'm not rushing to move there, but hundreds of millions are far better off today than in 1949.

pearjuice• 10 years ago

Read this as "only allow people to vote who have the same opinion as me!". That's not how democracy works. You lost to the majority. Simple as that.

muad2• 10 years ago

Typical.

You didn't get the expected result so you blame democracy. History is filled with countries abandoning democracy in favor of dictatorships.

It never works out.

smokedoutraider2• 10 years ago

Calling the population undereducated while saying the dumbest shit imaginable. You're truly leading by example.

provemewrong• 10 years ago

Well the whole reason that we have a representative democracy is that the average citizen has no idea how to run the country, so they elect more competent officials that represent their interests to do so. Obviously the flaw is that those same (on average) incompetent people are the ones who elect the leadership. But as far as I know we haven't come up with a better alternative. What do you propose then? A dictatorship? Authoritarian state?

794CD014• 10 years ago

Of course. The only downside of dictatorship is the transfer of power on the inevitable death of the dictator. Now that machines are rapidly approaching the point of being smart enough to rule humans, that downside will soon disappear.

intoverflow23• 10 years ago

because the majority of the population is undereducated, bigoted, and has absolutely no idea about how to run an economy

"I've called them racists, I've called them idiots... nothings working, why won't they vote like me"

You can't throw democracy out just because it didn't go your way.

koliber• 10 years ago

No one is really for democracy. Everyone wants a dictator who reflects their views.

kaolti2• 10 years ago

Maybe the majority of the population is dealing with issues you are not aware of, hence you don't understand why they vote the way they do.

mikeash11• 10 years ago

It looks like Clinton will win the popular vote, so at least part of the blame rests with quaint 18th century notions of "democracy" rather than with the electorate.

ant6n10• 10 years ago

If the US was a modern, pluralist, parliamentary democracy, then Bernie Sanders, Trump, Clinton and some traditional GOP candidate may have all run at the same time. Trump would probably have never won -- or possibly, he would've not even tried, because his flavor of populism probably would've only gotten 15-20% in a multi-party system.

Xisiqomelir• 10 years ago

Congratulations to the President.

Good luck with your time in office, it's probably the most challenging job in the world (after systemd debugger).

esja3• 10 years ago

I didn't want this to happen, but I believed it would. There were a lot of signals, for those ignoring the group-think. e.g. Clinton needed a lot more help than Trump to get big crowds to her rallies, and Obama had to get involved at the last minute in allegedly "safe" states.

There is deep frustration with our economic system, which isn't being addressed. Clinton is unfortunately a very clear embodiment of the current system.

Trump is far from a perfect vessel for his messages, but he only needed to be better than Clinton, and he hit the key notes (e.g. regarding trade and jobs) over and over.

Sanders would have won.

esja3• 10 years ago

Just to add:

Trump won despite being massively out-spent, despite his party being against his nomination, despite the entire mainstream media being against him, despite his business "issues", and despite all the publicised gaffes and scandals. In the face of that he seems to have won significantly more of the "white women" vote than Clinton.

Anyone seriously believing he won due to bigotry etc. needs to reassess. The USA is a better country than that, and he has won convincingly.

Edit: I forgot Wall Street. Almost unanimous support for Clinton.

thesimpsons10227• 10 years ago

you had no argument he didn't win off bigotry. all you said was "USA is a better country than that". Too bad it isn't. Half the country is in fact uneducated racist bigots. they can have the country for 4 years and democrats can try to obstruct it.

mikeyouse9• 10 years ago

To be fair, money in presidential elections typically just buys exposure. In a ceaseless chase for ratings, every media source for the past two years has shown every Trump speech and event live and in whole. Even with her stash, Trump saw more airtime than Hillary.

Ygg24• 10 years ago

Trump played as an outsider. And media, his own party and everyone treated him as pariah or an outsider. This just confirmed Trump's credibility in eyes of voters looking for outsiders. I'd say that's a large part of why he won.

EDIT: Sorry, hard to detect sarcasm.

markharris99• 10 years ago

I am very happy that Trump won.

I thought it was very interesting looking at what states won.

Looking at CA and the East voting for Hillary and the rest of the country voting for Trump.

I think we should admit it. If you are rich and in tech, well of course you want to disrupt, you want to carry on that gravy train. But what about everyone else that exists? Not everyone can retrain. Even though retraining is a huge undertaking here. It's simply not going to happen.

Also protecting ones borders is not xenophobic. Are Austrialia, Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada, Japan wrong for not allowing streams of illegals in? Look at Germany. Many who voted don't want the US to become like that.

Finally, basic income. I hope we can all see this is dead. Like many other liberal dreams. I'm hoping for a new future for the US. Jobs and the end of this PC nonsense.

I do support diversity, but real diversity. Not at the expense of other people.

jupp0r• 10 years ago

I think we should admit it. If you are rich and in tech, well of course you want to disrupt, you want to carry on that gravy train. But what about everyone else that exists? Not everyone can retrain. Even though retraining is a huge undertaking here. It's simply not going to happen.

So what is going to happen? I happen to live in Germany where the Government is trying to regulate disruption in all sorts of areas, mostly digital-related. You cannot get rich by isolating your country economically, it's been tried hundreds of times in history and never succeeded. You get rich by innovating and improving, and global competition is the best way we have to make sure our economy is competitive.

echelon• 10 years ago

And here I thought my Donald Trump TTS engine [1] would be irrelevant by Wednesday morning. I guess now I need to make it not sound like garbage.

[1] http://jungle.horse

sidcool• 10 years ago

I can't fathom how people can vote for him after listening to his speeches. He might be good, but his speeches are crap. Can't vote for him. Sad day for competency.

mcv18• 10 years ago

That's the problem with democracy: a lot of people aren't very well informed, and are easily taken in by his crap. Other than investing more in education, I'm not sure what can be done about this.

_RedPanda2• 10 years ago

aren't very well informed
easily taken in by his crap

pretty big words for someone who just posted this:

"... Her baggage isn't even her own baggage; people have been attacking and hating her for decades, apparently only for having the gall to be an ambitious woman in politics ..."

while ignoring/not being aware about all the bad stuff she pulled off/wanted to pull off (i.e. war, making gay marriage illegal, destroyed documents ...)

hellofunk4• 10 years ago

I used to think that, as the saying goes, we are all Greek. But that is no longer true. Now, we are all Russian.

har777• 10 years ago

Was this a result of protest votes against Hillary or do people genuinely support a Trump presidency ? Would Bernie have fared better against Trump had he been the democratic nominee ?

Iv3• 10 years ago

It was not a genuine support: this election was historical in the amount of unfavorable opinions toward both candidates.

Today he gets a lot less unfavorable rating than either candidate, but no one knows what would have happened if he actually would have had to campaign against Trump.

Fifer82• 10 years ago

America's greatest outcome today was their shunning of the Media. I am so proud. As a Skeptic and outsider, 95% of the media was anti trump. America made its own choice, and it has the balls to stand by it and make a success of it.

shams932• 10 years ago

I took a look at his economic plan. He seems to want to do everything at the same time, if hid campaign was a startup it would never be funded you can't present 3 bullet points as a pitch deck.

gragas5• 10 years ago

You're delusional if you think economic plans for nations as large as the US are comparable to startup pitch decks.

erikb5• 10 years ago

Dear American friends, some info in case you need it: http://www.bmi.bund.de/EN/Topics/Migration-Integration/Asylu...

simosx• 10 years ago

Both the BREXIT campaigners and Trump over-promised on how they will fix the financial crisis.

Neither started to deliver yet, and will be seeing what they can actually do in 2017.

It kinda does not make sense because their promises are either mutually exclusive (strict fiscal policy but spending) or do not play well with the rest of the world (tariffs and other trade restrictions which eventually would be matched on the other side).

In many smaller countries, the politicians would run a whole campaign on the disaffected feeling and over-promising on how good they will be in fixing it. Once they were in power however, they would not achieve much and the next party would over-promise in order to get elected.

In the following years we will witness how over-promising will play with a super-power.

2sk212• 10 years ago

I think this is the heart of the matter. Automation and AI will ensure that many jobs will never return.

intoverflow23• 10 years ago

Both the BREXIT campaigners and Trump over-promised on how they will fix the financial crisis.

Important to keep in mind that even large amounts of the pro-Brexit campaign didn't actually expect to win, it was meant to be a bargaining chip.

golergka3• 10 years ago

Neither started to deliver yet

Election day was yesterday. Shocking how Trump hasn't fixed US economy yet.

jroseattle2• 10 years ago

Big data and big polling (Nate Silvers) took a major credibility hit in this election. People will be studying this for years.

Of course, it's not that big data itself was to blame, just the interpretation of it. Nate, not sure what to tell you but that was a significant miss in this election, going all the way back into the primaries.

dagw2• 10 years ago

Fivethirtyeight said the odds for Clinton where about 70-30 and trending narrower. Given how close the final win was I wouldn't really call that a miss. The miss where the models that where calling it 90+ for Clinton

Shivetya4• 10 years ago

well it simply comes down to they aren't much better than other groups and its most likely because they stopped being really objective. for those who have followed that site its not been fun to watch

anthony_romeo• 10 years ago

And Silver had repeatedly stated that the reasons the odds were higher for trump in his models than in others was the much larger number of undecided voters than in past elections. It's somewhat apparent that a large chunk "undecided" voters were actually Trump supporters, perhaps afraid of being labeled as "deplorable".

Maybe the result of maligning (and I'm using the term loosely here) the opposition voters results in statistically significant polling errors (echos of Brexit). Maybe word clouds can be used to suggest a lean toward one side of the error? An embarrassment index of sorts? I dunno.

Obviously not really a win for Silver, but I'll give him credit for being more conservative in his estimates than other models. You work with the data you have.

bdz• 10 years ago

Well Nate did predict back in May that the Cubs will win the World Series and Trump will win the election

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/730251094614528000

ploomans• 10 years ago

But the chances for a Trump win were still above 20% if I remember me well. So it's not really a big surprise that Trump won. These are the kind of the odds in russian roulette. Nobody would be surprised if someone got killed playing it while the most likely outcome is to survive.

DanTheManPR3• 10 years ago

On the contrary, FiveThirtyEight came off looking pretty good this year. Where other poll aggregators where giving Clinton very high chances, their models continued to maintain that Trump had something like a 1/3 chance. They also correctly identified the level of polling uncertainty in the rust belt, and how tight the race was in Florida (a state which continues to be the most important swing). There is this ongoing narrative that the polling wrong, when actually the results fit neatly into the level or uncertainty that the polls were suggesting. The same narrative had taken hold about Brexit polling, which is also wrong - the polls in the UK correctly indicated a close race.

jroseattle2• 10 years ago

Sure, the facts bear that out, but why let that complicate a good story? ;-)

I mean the public perception of data, analytics, pollsters, etc. is now being discussed in the press as something that blatantly misses the "human" element.

nabla9• 10 years ago

Trump is not an isolated event. Populism is growing everywhere

- Italy: Silvio Berlusconi era (- 2011)

- Philippines: Rodrigo Duterte

- Hungary: right wing populist party in charge

- Poland: populist Law and Justice party in charge

- Britain: Brexit, Boris Johnson

- Turkey: Erogan

mcv18• 10 years ago

And right-wing populism has also been growing stronger in countries where they're not yet in power. Geert Wilders, Front National, Alternative fur Deutschland... I don't like the direction the world is taking.

V-24• 10 years ago

"Populism" is sort of a weasel word, but Law and Justice (in Poland) is arguably less populist than the party they replaced at power (Civic Platform), and certainly much less corrupt, whether you like their conservative outlook or not.

d333• 10 years ago

Ah, the ultimate PO vs PiS discussion ;) I would disagree. They keep coming up with ideas and not implement them later because despite having enough resources to pass any law they please. It just shows that their ideas cannot actually be translated into legislation. PO, the previous party didn't have a clear vision either, but I don't recall as much "breakthrough" changes being announced back then.

As for being corrupt, keep in mind they're completely bought by the church. This by itself is a huge red flag of corruption for me.

ergo142• 10 years ago

I remember quite a few corruption scandals when PIS was ruling in 2005-2007. They have a few now too.

Hell...the vice-prime minister of justice was sentencing oppisition members to prison and his father was stalinist murderer that convicted Pilecki to death.

I would really like for people to check facts - the one that is screaming "im patriotic" louder than other is not better for us.

karakal• 10 years ago

Is it a good idea to invest a little money now that the market plunged?

seanp2k26• 10 years ago

Go for it. I'm sure 2008 won't repeat itself.

grp• 10 years ago

I don't think so.

Unless you already invested money in your own life, your family and friends and there is still some money that really serves you nothing for the next 5-10 years.

saganus3• 10 years ago

Is it really plunging?

It's been a few hours since your comment, but right now (about 5hrs later) the market seems to be having a bit of an uptick actually:

https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/%5EDJI#eyJjb21wYXJpc29ucyI6I...

du_bing• 10 years ago

China now has a big chance to make more influences on the whole world now, because USA will focus more on her own problems.

curioussavage4• 10 years ago

Fine with me.

The mindset most Americans have bought into is ridiculous to me. The idea that we should let our leaders waste fortunes wreaking havoc on the world out of fear that the Russian or Chinese boogeyman will rise is getting old.

shanwang• 10 years ago

I'm surprised how many chinese support Trump, when I ask them why, one of the main reasons is that Trump will withdraw military support to Asia, Japan especially.

gragas5• 10 years ago

Does this not prove that "diverse" liberalism isn't so diverse after all? Shouldn't a diverse group of people have seen this coming?

Or is liberalism actually systematically excluding people by labelling them as "racist" and "sexist", when in fact they're just fiscal and social conservatives?

Kliment• 10 years ago

I reiterate my post-Brexit-vote offer of giving immigration and relocation and general advice to anyone wishing to move to Germany. Contact info in my profile.

IndianAstronaut• 10 years ago

One of my coworkers is seriously contemplating moving to the Germanic world, either Zurich or Germany. Had little to do with the election, but just in general for a much better lifestyle.

notliketherest• 10 years ago

God bless america!

bignell• 10 years ago

I'm sorry, but if there were ever a time for the black bar, this is it.

SFJulie• 10 years ago

Donald Trump is the president former european colons have elected on concern about immigration. What an irony.

Sioux, blackfeet, algonquins, montagnais, apache, yahi ... you are the real americans and the world is telling you Donald Trump is the president of a nation that once welcomed the pilgrims that were persecuted in Europa.

I guess thanksgiving meaning has been lost.

If only trump could be consistent and self kick all the white americans him included as illegal immigrants from the country.

Simaramis• 10 years ago

there is no Sioux. it's a name the french gave them when they supplied them with guns and whiskey to fan a counter-insurgency. Sitting Bull was a Humpapa Indian.

eva1984• 10 years ago

Several things come to my mind:

1.It marks as the final blow to US hegemony ever since USSR clashes. It is hard for me to believe, after this election, US will still be hailed as THE example that others should follow. Too many scandals and ugliness have been unleashed. That era is now officially over.

2.US will start look inwards other outwards. I mean globalization will halt to correction, or we will see the start of reverse of it.

3.Immigration will be tamed, across all level of skills. There will be more political pressure and obstacle for company to absorb foreign talents. Not good news for developers to seek job here in US.

4.History will not end after all, human as species is too complex for that.

5.Last not least, this election breaks a lot of values, or the illusion of having them, but fails to bring up its own. This is the ultimate devastating part. The boundary between democracy and populism is vaguer than ever, and its benefits, other than a national ritual to legalize a new administration, is putting under questions.

pasta• 10 years ago

To me this shows how hard it is to come up with good solutions for problems.

I think both Trump and Clinton know what the problems in the US are. The difference is: Trump is naming all problems but doesn't provide real solutions, Clinton is only naming problems she has a solution for.

That's why the working class votes for Trump because he is the only one who is talking about their problems.

The same is happening here in The Netherlands. Politics doesn't likes to talk about problems with immigration. Wilders does. That's why he is very popular. But just like Trump his solutions are unrealistic.

This is also why I don't think a lot is going to change in the US. The unrealistic solutions are what they are: unrealistic. So the Mexican wall is never going to be build.

The only sad outcome is that this populistic talk is dividing the nation.

d333• 10 years ago

There are at least two problems here: one is figuring out a solution and the other is communicating it to the general public in a politically correct manner. Perhaps if we agreed to talk in a more straightforward fashion without making it kind of a "who's going to feel offended first" contest, things would improve faster...

d3ckard• 10 years ago

Well, as a Pole... it's nice to know Americans are as dumb as we are. The problem is, number of places to run away just reduced considerably.

welanes2• 10 years ago

Will the people who denigrated his supporters so vehemently here and on Twitter pause to ask themselves why Trump won so convincingly, and whether their reflexes to publicly shame his supporters may have played a role in the outcome?

I'd hope they would. There are many important conversations to be had but we need to begin by understanding and respecting the opinions of the other side.

rbanffy2• 10 years ago

Humanity, meet the Great Filter.

aoeu3452• 10 years ago

the Great Filter

There had better be some serious conviction behind you. If you are aware of the great filter, then you better go get a job at SpaceX and work 100 hours for the rest of your life. We have about 20 or so years to set ourselves up for the future before it is too late.

EDIT: Just want to clarify that I'm not mad, it's just that if you realize what the Great Filter is, and you're not hopelessly selfish, that you should be working all the time to help get us safely across it. The universe hangs in the balance, friend.

GFK_of_xmaspast• 10 years ago

That's some reckoning on the level of 'Roko's Basilisk.'

aikah2• 10 years ago

Well it turns out Thiel was right on the money. How many people are still going to call for his head on a plate now ?

knguyen0105• 10 years ago

So the wall will be built?

lightedman• 10 years ago

And this is what you get when you eviscerate education budgets and remove things like civics and government from the classroom, or make it AP-only.

The awesome part is that since I can't legally vote, I get to point at the rest of you and act like I'm George Carlin for the next four years. Brace yourselves.

baccheion• 10 years ago

WTF happened in the last 6 hours? Oh f*ck!

myf01d• 10 years ago

Justice has been served.

giis• 10 years ago

As someone followed this election from India - I'll compare 2014, India's Right-wing party election with this one , my thoughts:

* Ruling party tried to seek vote by projecting opposition candidate as evil, Instead of selling their own-accomplishment to the people. (Exactly the similar case with Current Indian PM in 2014.)

* US Main Stream Media is corrupt. They didn't understand they can't fool people anymore, thanks to social media. There is lot of way to reach out common-people using social media, rather than just MSM. IMHO, US media ran campaign to projected one candidate as very bad person. (Exactly same again, with Modi where virtually all media refute the claim 'Modi Wave' across the country in 2014). Intentionally came out fake poll reports.

* Result may look close, but I'm pretty sure, If there was fair trail of both candidates by MSM, Trump might have won by bigger margin than current one.

* Fear of minority : Once you become 'head of state'. Elected leader must adapt themselves to their new role with more responsibility. So If you found something insane statement during campaign - most likely they won't be implemented. - Its just way to polarize people behind one candidate.

* I think most people voted for Trump is fed-up whats going with-their political systems and corruption. Not necessarily agree with Trump on each & every thing he said during campaign. They might have thought, why not give him chance, if its not good. We can switch votes in 2020.

Ending note: In 2014, Tea-seller Modi was running against ruling PM (phd scholar 2004-2014). People saw his development and anti-corruption promises (yes there are some political gimmicks to polarize votes). People fedup with scams & corruptions from ruling party for last 10 years, thought Why not give him a chance? and the end result is massive 171,660,230 votes to get majority to form the govt. In these two years, he still popular, way better than previous 2 govt by well-educated PM. (Just yesterday he announced surprising move to scrap Rs 500 and Rs 1000 currency notes to eliminate black-money) . Media still trying hard to create fake fears among minority since they want their master to get back in power in next election. Country is largely peaceful & economy is growing. I hope same will be case with Trump too, he will focus on most important economic and development tasks. He wont/can't implement this controversial plan which may affect his development plans.

anupshinde2• 10 years ago

First - Trump is not Modi. Modi is much better and experienced leader than Trump (or Clinton). I like Trump too.

Second - The entire election season was nasty. US is now seeing the real face of democracy with diversity.

Third - The voters did not have a great choice. If the elections were to occur like India, it would have ended up in a hung parliament. And that would be the worst thing to happen.

Fourth - Would you like if your job is offshored for low-costs? NO!... or Would you like to see veterans, elders or seniors live unhappily? NO!... The US (govt) will not be able to stop offshoring without allowing lower minimum pay. The only way to do that is by applying protectionist measures that will work in the short term. And most-likely that would weaken the currency over a longer term.

john_reel• 10 years ago

Manufacturing isn’t coming back. Five Thirty Eight has a nice explanation of this.

trymas• 10 years ago

Peter Thiel's dreams have beocme a reality.

noir-york3• 10 years ago

Hillary has been marked by betrayal.

Jennifer Flowers

Monica Lewinsky

Vince Foster

Whitewater

Benghazi

State Emails

John Podesta's emails

Anthony Weiner emails

And the seeds of today's defeat: NAFTA, the 1993 free trade bill passed by her own husband that unleashed globalisation on an untrained and ill-prepared American workforce and rebooted Reagan Democrats as Trump democrats.

nxc18• 10 years ago

Our U.S. Democracy was the one and only thing I truly believed in.

Now I have nothing.

jondubois2• 10 years ago

Wow, this is so unexpected. Reading the news a few hours ago, it sounded absolutely certain that Hillary Clinton would win.

I think it shows that there is a limit to how far people can be manipulated by the media. It's a win for the people.

evils• 10 years ago

The new MacBook Pro doesn't seem to be that big of deal any more.

Slackwise• 10 years ago

Only because Trump also doesn't have an Escape key.

known3• 10 years ago

Thanks to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

known3• 10 years ago

Will US exit WTO under Trump regime?

greens231• 10 years ago

i dont know about america but he certainly made the news great again

imron• 10 years ago

Trump's acceptance speech was quite magnanimous.

If he can pull off the things he mentioned in that speech then it's not going to be so bad.

hmate92• 10 years ago

Honestly, I think that is mostly how he will behave. His "headline" behaviour in this election has been done to get media coverage. Hillary outspent him but if you look at how much coverage has been on Donald Trump, than it is almost an unfair race. But now that he's president, I predict that will change.

id122015• 10 years ago

How many times has the word "globalisation" been used in the comments ? Do you know what it means ? Does it have only one meaning ?

Just previously a subject was opened "Why is electricity so hard to understand? (1989)" http://amasci.com/miscon/whyhard2.html

throw2016• 10 years ago

I honestly thought the Trump presidency attempt was a big internal joke. I didn't think Trump himself believed he would become president ever.

This guy is clearly a sociopath lacking in empathy typical of the american elite and his behavior has just been rewarded. It's really troubling what this means for Americans who are not rich or white. It also troubling we celebrate wealth to an extent we do not view having an elite class of extremely selfish and self serving individuals as a problem which has directly got us to the Trump presidency.

Hilary Clinton was completely untrustworthy and tedious so the alternative was a bad choice. The democrats have themselves to blame for not taking their own policies seriously, posturing, paying lip service to the poor and unprivileged for decades, and failing completely to put up an inspiring candidate. They have supported and built the surveillance state, ignored the poor and destroyed millions of lives in the middle east.

I don't think Trump can be called a good person. His perspective on life is shaped by wealth, privilege, ego and acqusitions. It all economics and very little humanity. Some of his positions are unquestionably racist and unpleasant.

It's troubling and telling that a majority of this country thought such an individual should 'lead' them. All pretensions are off, the mask has dropped to reveal the deep ugliness within. All those smug comedians making fun of Trump look like clowns themselves.

akerro• 10 years ago

I still can't believe Hillary disrespected all people who supported her and came close to her stage by not giving a final speech. Was she not paid for it?

reddytowns• 10 years ago

The bottle was a'calling

unabst• 10 years ago

The victor will never be asked if he told the truth. / I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature. / Great liars are also great magicians. / I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.

Trumps handbook. He shouldn't be mistaken for the same person, since people of that caliber only happen once, but that is exactly how he elected himself. Psychology wins elections. Not policy, not integrity, not even sanity. And now he has the power.

Nothing he said or says matters. He is a magician. So I hope he's full of white doves.

His victory speech wasn't all that bad actually.

einr3• 10 years ago

The Baltic Republics vs. the rest of the USSR.

Just FYI, since I assume you're not very familiar with these countries: this kind of lumping together the so-called "Baltic Republics" with the "USSR" is generally very offensive to Estonians, Lithuanians and Latvians, who have nothing to do ethnically or culturally with Russia and generally view the Soviet era as very dark times.

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were invaded and taken by force because of geographical proximity to Russia. Nothing else. There are no relevant conclusions to be drawn by making comparisons like yours because these are different peoples with different histories and pretty much nothing in common.

crottypeter2• 10 years ago

Isn't that the point of the parent post? The two regions are very different.

creshal• 10 years ago

No, because they never had any ties to Russia to begin with.

einr3• 10 years ago

So different indeed that the comparison is meaningless. That is my point. If you're going to draw conclusions from comparisons -- like the OP did with his coast/interior thing -- the things you're comparing have to be at least somewhat similar.

DominikR7• 10 years ago

He is highlighting the difference between these regions within the Soviet Union so what's the point of you comment other than signalling political correctness?

I believe that this election signals if anything, a popular rejection of political correctness to the point where discussions can't be had anymore.

the_duke14• 10 years ago

crottypeter is probably objecting to the "Croatia & Slovenia" vs Yugoslavia / UDSSR and other generalizations.

Which no one familiar with these regions would formulate it that way.

The world is big, it's hard not to generalize countries and cultures you barely know.

nostrademons12• 10 years ago

I was a little perplexed by the parent comment as well since I thought I was highlighting differences, but I upvoted it because, well, I learned something. He was polite in his correction, at least.

FWIW, coastal Democrats are equally offended with being lumped in with Trump supporters, Scots would probably be equally offended with being lumped in with English, and Croatians would be equally offended with being lumped in with Yugoslavians, so at least I'm an equal-opportunity offender.

einr3• 10 years ago

The OP was trying to generalize and make conclusions about culture, politics and economy based on geography -- coast vs interior -- of regions of a larger whole. But the USSR was not a nation or a homogenous union and Estonia (for instance) having been invaded, illegally annexed and made part of the USSR at one point does not in any way make it comparable to Russia.

The point: there are a lot of very fundamental differences between these countries that are arguably more important and that would more easily account for differences in politics and economics other than geography.

(Besides, Russia has coastline, too...)

I want people to know when they rely on things that are wrong to prove a point, because that probably renders the point at least partially invalid. You can dismiss that as "signalling political correctness" but it is nevertheless the truth, and on a US-centric forum like this I think many are not aware of the situation.

gotchange2• 10 years ago

I don't think that winning by a margin of 100-200K votes constitute a popular rejection or repudiation or a mandate for Trump to destroy the "Political Correctness" boogeyman.

Don't pat yourself on the back too, as this PC culture is not only exclusive to leftists but right wingers too have their own emotional buttons that when pushed right, they will be triggered and exhibit similar if not more intense behavior to those they openly despise and deride as SJWs on the left.

oddx• 10 years ago

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were parts of Russia for 300 years with small omissions. It is longer than the time of existence of the United States. So they have a lot cultural and ethnical similarity with Russia. But yes, they try to ignore it officially.

DominikR7• 10 years ago

I believe Estonia and Latvia didn't even exist as a countries before the fall of the Soviet Union. Not even before the Russian Empire conquered these lands.

kbart9• 10 years ago

I was born and live in Lithuania. No, we don't have much in common with Russia. Sure, being occupied by Russia left some scars, but culturally and ethnically we are totally separate nation. USA and Mexico has about the same in common as we do with Russia. There are big Russian minorities in Estonia and Latvia, smaller in Lithuania, but that's another topic.

EDIT: also, the fact that during the >150 years occupation we've managed to stay separate nation (despite huge efforts by Russia to integrate us) and keep our identity strong, says a lot of how different we are.

lgieron4• 10 years ago

In the same way as an abused prisoner has a lot of similarity to its oppressor prison guard I guess...

type0• 10 years ago

These countries has been ruled by germans, danes, poles, swedes, etc for many hundreds of years. So what is your point? There is much more german loan words in estonian language than russian ones which would tell you something about which culture had the bigger impact.

k0htlane• 10 years ago

Just a quick nitpick regarding to cultural/ethnical similarity with Russia: although the Baltic states were part of Russian Empire, the local culture had also strong German influences. Up until end of 19th century the Baltic Germans were the ruling class (although the region was in Russian Empira). So the local culture was mix of German and Russian influences, which makes it somewhat different with rest of USSR states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_governorates

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Germans#Russia.27s_Balt...

rmind• 10 years ago

It is worth to point out that the Lithuanian statehood started in XIII century. Way way earlier than the US statehood. It was once a largest country in Europe. Also, in XVI-XVIII centuries, together Poland it formed a union state with a progressive political system and the first codified constitution in modern European history.

So, I would not underestimate the centuries of cultural identity. This is, perhaps, one of the reasons why the Baltic States are doing so much better than any other countries in the former USSR.

stackallocator3• 10 years ago

Territories comprising modern Latvia has also been part of Germany (~300 years), Swedish Empire and Poland (~200 years).

The only thing Latvians share with Russia is the border unfortunately.

There are no major cultural or ethnic similarities.

The language is so different it doesn't even belong to the same branch in the language tree. (compared to family of Slavic languages - Ukrainian, Belarusian, Slovak, Polish, Czech, etc)

Latvians do not want anything to do with Russia or it's culture or it's politics.

The same is true for Estonia and Lithuania.

Spooky23• 10 years ago

They were conquests of an occupying empire. They were no more integrated with Russia than Ireland with the U.K.

StavrosK3• 10 years ago

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were parts of Russia for 300 years with small omissions. It is longer than the time of existence of the United States.

Probably the only thing this tells us is that the US is a very young nation. 300 years is a blip compared to how long European peoples have been around.

ignasl• 10 years ago

Lithuania was occupied for ~120 years by Russia empire and ~50 years by communists. Other than that it's different religion, different language, different culture. Similarities of course exist and Russian people are fine people but I would like to emphasis that we don't want people in other countries think that we are the same so current aggressive government of Russia have "rights" to start trouble here again because we belong to their influence zone. F* that. Lithuania and Lithuanians are free and independent. I hope you understand why this kind of innocent "they are similar" is not perceived well here in Baltic. It plays right into Russian propaganda machine (they are very very good at it, divide and conquer experience for hundreds of years). Don't be naive - this trend that resulted in brexit and Trump was a direct result of Russian information war campaign. I think next target will be EU and there is a lot of material to work on for them - France, Italy, Greece on top of current trend and traction of marginal political groups. I think it was easy to initiate such a trend as those aggressive leftist ideologies which had support of political elites basically discredited itself as no sane person can look at some of those people and say - yeah right that is smart and totally make sense. And those people got an alternative to aggressive idiocy.

godzilla82• 10 years ago

Well, many countries were parts of the British Empire for more than 100 years, including India, China etc. It would be wrong to assume that would cause ethical similariy between Britain and these countries.

kislotnik4• 10 years ago

Don't forget Ukraine, bro. Now we're trying to keep distance from Russia as far as we can. We had some shared history, but that's only because of our geographical proximity. Everything else - culture, traditions, ideas, language, folklore and literature is different.

konart7• 10 years ago

folklore and literature is different. traditions

Excuse me, but this is complete bullshit.

some shared history

Unlike some other countries Ukraine was almost never independent.

aldanor• 10 years ago

Ukraine was pretty much never independent.

No shared history, with Kiev having been capital of Russia for 3-4 centuries?

EugeneOZ6• 10 years ago

Very funny to read this absurd. I respect Ukrainians, and we (russians) have a lot of common traditions and culture. Ask yourself, what nationality had Gogol? Is it russian or ukrainian writer? You have reasons to hate Putin, not Russia.

Mikeb858• 10 years ago

This is revisionist history if I've ever seen it. Ukraine and Russia have more in common than, say, Paris and Lyon.

guard-of-terra7• 10 years ago

They were a part of Russian Empire for quite some time. Also Latvian sharpshooters were the driving armed force behind communists.

Soviet state was a catastrophe you don't get to opt out.

dang3• 10 years ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12907882 and marked it off-topic.

grandalf• 10 years ago

Let's use this as an opportunity to hold president Trump accountable in a way that we've failed to do for the past few decades. This could lead to unprecedented checks and balances and unprecedented democratic participation leading to a resurgence in the rule of law.

mindcrime3• 10 years ago

Threads here are all over the place, and I guess there's a lot that can be said in response to Trump's election. So I'll just chime in with this, which is a hasty, from-memory, partial rehash of something I posted on Facebook earlier.

If you have a problem with Trump being elected, or with our political system as it is in general, consider this old saw

"If you keep doing what you've been doing, you'll keep getting what you've been getting."

Now, full disclosure, I'm a "third party" guy (Libertarian, specifically) anyway, so I am absolutely biased, no bones about it. But I believe that part of doing something besides "what we've always done" means starting to vote for 3rd party candidates. Screw Duverger's Law, forget "lesser of two evils" voting, and quit voting out of fear. I posit that people need to start voting for candidates they support instead of voting against candidates they are afraid of.

Along with that, of course, belong efforts to switch voting systems to approval voting, or Condorcet voting, etc., as well as efforts to eliminate restrictive ballot access laws, open up the debates, etc.

Basically, we have to break up this duopoly that has been in place for 100+ years, or nothing is really going to change. Of course my hope is that all this will lead to more Libertarians in office,but even if you don't support the Libertarian viewpoint, I hope most everybody can agree that the current system isn't working as it should.

dmux• 10 years ago

"If you keep doing what you've been doing, you'll keep getting what you've been getting."

In George Carlin's skit about not voting, he says "garbage in, garbage out" when referring to our politicians. We get what we deserve.

OMGWTF• 10 years ago

The problem is not that we ended up with Trump (or Hillary). The problem is that we ended up with Trump vs. Hillary. The majority didn't care enough for the earlier stages of our democratic process.

jimnotgym2• 10 years ago

Libertarians of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your bigots. Lets put away national boundaries and show the world that the old order have become obsolete

jimnotgym2• 10 years ago

Libertarians of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your bigots. Put away national boundaries and look to a worldwide connected future. Make bigotry obsolete

plandis2• 10 years ago

I've never felt less American than I do right now. The country that voted for a man who has been recorded stating that he sexually assaults women is not a country in which I want to live.

lxrbst• 10 years ago

Well with the Clintons you'd have a criminal and a rapist in the whitehouse so you can't win.

PeterStuer• 10 years ago

I personally believe Clinton was almost uniquely qualified as the only democrat that could lose this election from Trump. The political establishment underestimates the underlying resentment. "The winners know that they’re winning but have been very slow to realize that the losers know that they’re losing and are enraged about the fact." The linked article, put in hash words but look beyond that, was written after the Brexit poll, but it is as relevant here: "Corrupt elites always try to persuade people to continue to submit to their dominance in exchange for protection from forces that are even worse. That’s their game. But at some point, they themselves, and their prevailing order, become so destructive, so deceitful, so toxic, that their victims are willing to gamble that the alternatives will not be worse, or at least, they decide to embrace the satisfaction of spitting in the faces of those who have displayed nothing but contempt and condescension for them.

"There is no single, unifying explanation for Brexit, Trumpism, or the growing extremism of various stripes throughout the West, but this sense of angry impotence — an inability to see any option other than smashing those responsible for their plight — is undoubtedly a major factor. As Bevins put it, supporters of Trump, Brexit, and other anti-establishment movements “are motivated not so much by whether they think the projects will actually work, but more by their desire to say FUCK YOU” to those they believe (with very good reason) have failed them"

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/25/brexit-is-only-the-lates...

crudbug2• 10 years ago

This sums up the whole saga.

rafinha3• 10 years ago

Very true. Allow me to add the fact that it has been shown (via wikileaks) that Hillary and the DNC conspired in the primaries process, specially against Bernie Sanders, invalidating her even more in the final voting.

Blahah• 10 years ago

Jimmy Carter: "If we succumb to a dream world, we'll wake up to a nightmare."

Trump: "I make the best nightmares."

krmboya• 10 years ago

Most fascinating for me as an outsider, is that perhaps, maybe, Americans decided to go against status quo, to vote against the establishment.

shomyo• 10 years ago

MAGA

pknerd• 10 years ago

So the this anti immigration and Anti Muslim factor worked for US and UK well. Who's next, Australia?

Grue3• 10 years ago

Hillary Clinton presidential campaign is probably the worst managed presidential campaign in history. How do you even lose to a joke of a candidate like Trump? The writing was on the wall when they named fucking Pepe the Frog the "symbol of white nationalism". The entire campaign, somehow, existed in a bubble with no connection to reality. It was painful to watch. Doesn't help that Clinton herself is suspiciously corrupt and unlikeable.

CptJamesCook• 10 years ago

Please stop calling people you don't agree with racist and sexist. It's wrong, it's mean, and it does not seem to have the desired effect.

Human beings are basically good. We are trying to go about our lives and do the best we can. The vast majority of us are neither sexist nor racist.

Mahn• 10 years ago

Where does this rhetoric come from? Trump has made remarks that are inherently racist and sexist, whether you agree or disagree with him.

ck425• 10 years ago

That doesn't mean everyone who supported him is racist and sexist, just that they have other concerns. As hard as it might be to understand there are people who think there are most important issues than the fact Trump is racist and sexist, even if they're still aware and disgusted by that fact. This election has been one of the most divisive ever and the rhetoric of "all Trump supports are racist and sexist" has only made that worse.

mcjiggerlog2• 10 years ago

I hate this view. I think you're just trying to be balanced, but really you are legitimising views that ARE racist and sexist by saying things like this.

hyperdunc5• 10 years ago

The point is that these words are overused, and are used to label people and shut down conversation.

If confronted by a true racist or sexist, the decent thing would be to engage in honest conversation. But people don't seem very interested in understanding other points of view.

emblem21• 10 years ago

1076 comments?

I can literally say whatever I want and no one is going to flag or vote. Great.

Do you think Glass-Steagall liberalization or Silicon Valley brilliance made flyover-state citizens say "Wow, thanks for innovating all of that technology to help Walmart bean counters find ways to keep price points for common goods low enough to justify why my boss pays me near minimum wage"?

Or, maybe, do you think social media made flyover state citizens with no opportunity says "WTF WHY DOES THE INTERNET THINK I AM AN INBRED RACIST SEXIST HOMOPHOBIC BIGOTED EVIL PERSON BECAUSE I DON'T THINK ELLEN IS ALL THAT FUNNY AND THEY DOGPILED ME ON TWITTER?"

Disregard a population long enough and you'll find they discover ways to hack your morality.

Broken_Hippo3• 10 years ago

"I can literally say whatever I want and no one is going to flag or vote"

Fibs! I did, I did!

TulliusCicero• 10 years ago

I agree with you. I'm definitely in the 'Silicon Valley liberal elite' category, but the conversation around people from 'flyover states' is generally unproductive, or even non-existent.

thesagan3• 10 years ago

That's definitely a BIG part of it from what I'm seeing in my rustbelt state.

udshu• 10 years ago

we need to create something on internet more powerful than old nations !!

XorNot3• 10 years ago

I am selling my US ETF holdings. I'm hoping for a bounce to get out at break even, but I'll clear whatever the price before Trump is sworn in. Presuming nothing world-endingly catastrophic happens, I'm pretty sure I'll pick it up on a discount later.

Shivetya4• 10 years ago

What I am most interested in going forward.

His cabinet. That will tell us where he really is going. If he meets with both sides quickly.

Also, I want to see if President Obama is gracious today or not. He has a chance to make the transition smooth but at the same time his own rhetoric has not been encouraging as of late. If he poisons the well all bets are off

robalfonso3• 10 years ago

At the end of the day I hold hope he'll approach this like a business. He'll hire the best he can find, fire the incompetent (of which government has many) and generally clean things up. What remains to be seen is how much the politics of any one group may stop that type of thing.

throwaawwaayy• 10 years ago

Ok, I'm trying to think of a silver lining of all this.

Trump and brexit are about bringing changes. For brexit to work, it has to be hard brexit, for Trump to work, he has to follow through the things he said. And they must show the changes they bring are good, for example, there need to be more jobs, less foreigner, working class people take home more money, etc. When my thought reached this point, I'm thinking: it's impossible for them to do it. They either bring the economy down and hurt more people, or they betray their supportors. Either way will spell disaster for this Trump/Brexit ideology and put an end to it.

Brexit/Trump fail => People support them realise they made a mistake => less people support far right Isolationism => we restore the happy central liberal world.

But then I realise how wrong I was, they don't have to make it work for everyone, they just need to please the people who supported them, which is only half of the country, they have the other half to screw over with. They CAN make it work in the short term for some people, like Hilter did between 1933-1939. But then what..?

So no silver lining after all.

pdkl95• 10 years ago

This was ignored when I tried to post it recently, but maybe now is the time for Brown U. Prof. of Political Economy Mark Blyth's discussion of "Global Trumpism" - the discontent with the establishment and general revolt against technocracy and globalism.

Full lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkm2Vfj42FY

TL;DW 4min summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzl4B3mrKQE

pavlov• 10 years ago

With the Senate and House controlled by Republicans, Trump has an enormous mandate now. Nothing stands in the way of his delivering on his campaign promises.

We know he loves to assign blame to anyone but himself. He doesn't take responsibility for mistakes. That's been proven over and over again, by everyone from business partners to former wives.

In four years when America hasn't become "great again", who is he going to blame? That's the really scary part to me. Electing a populist isn't when things go off the rails -- it's when the in-power populists start looking for scapegoats.

dev1n• 10 years ago

Unless trump has this grand, hidden plan to invest heavily in infrastructure, people in the middle of the country will see increasing unemployment.

efaref4• 10 years ago

It's not really hidden. I mean, it's right there on his website: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/an-americas-infrastruc...

I don't know how he plans to pay for it, though. I assume Mexico will be occupied paying for his wall.

mstade5• 10 years ago

It's obviously not going to happen, but let's play hypotheticals for a minute. Do you have to have at least 270 electoral votes, or is the requirement just an electoral majority? Hypothetically – and the chance of this happening is obviously nil – if 10 people who are supposed to vote for Trump in the electoral college decides to be faithless and abstain or vote for Hillary, what would happen? At that point Trump would have 269 electoral votes and Hillary would have 218-228. Does Trump still win or does it go to the house for a vote? (Where Trump most certainly will be voted president anyway, so moot point.)

I find the US electoral system fascinating, and scary complex.

robalfonso3• 10 years ago

I won't get too much into the various possibilities, but simply put, if neither candidate has 270 electoral votes, then the election is decided by congress, the incoming one. So really there is no chance its not trump.

mstade5• 10 years ago

Right, and congress must vote from the available candidates, and couldn't pick anyone? Obviously none of this will happen, but it's fun to think about I think.

If you've seen the tv show Veep, they play around with a similar scenario, but one where the electoral college is tied. In the show, congress also ends up in a tie, and so elects the vice president into office instead. As far as I understand the rules though, the vice president would only be elevated to president in case congress can't resolve the matter before inauguration day, and will only hold the office until congress resolves the tie and picks a president.

I probably have most of this wrong, but I think it's very interesting to hypothesize about the possibilities, no matter how remote. I obviously don't think any of this would happen, but it's fun to think about.

zump• 10 years ago

As an Indian in San Jose, I'm very scared. Am I going to be deported?

netheril96• 10 years ago

Are you illegal or legal immigrant?

iamgopal• 10 years ago

When back in India, Congress won with majority, I was flabbergasted, I mean how can people can be so retard to give vote to stupid congress ? Then I realize, Its just only me with some above average income have time to think about global warming or global harmony, most of the people plainly worried about where their next meal comes from. or at most which TV serials on air. For those people other things does not matter, until, basic necessities get solved.

losteverything• 10 years ago

We all need to start to ignore mr. Trump and eliminate the fear he brings into our minds.

aerodog• 10 years ago

Obama, 2 weeks ago - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC1NGWM8gP8&feature=youtu.be...

vcool07• 10 years ago

I think this strongly reflects the hypocrisy of the modern society. On the outside (especially on social media, most people wanted to be seen as a liberal/ pseudo intellectual bashing Trump and his policies. But on the inside they seemed to have appreciated some of his policies or attitude or whatever, and went ahead and voted for him. It's hard to take anyone at face value just based on their social media profile.

lumberjack2• 10 years ago

What's interesting about this whole thing from my perspective:

1. Mark Cuban, Peter Thiel, Bloomberg and others might decide to run for president now that Trump has shown that it is possible.

2. Trump says he's anti-establishment, but he's also a billionaire. Wouldn't it me more accurate to see this as infighting between US elite? Or maybe a new group of elite wanting their share of power? Or maybe disagreements between elite from different sectors of the economy.

bikamonki• 10 years ago

Polls do have a margin of error yet the wider chances that Hillary was getting just a couple of days prior are NOT an error: private media responds to private interest. I've seen it happen before: in the US and elsewhere, to influence a presidential election or to make one choose coke over pepsi; it happened on printed media, it now happens online.

EGreg• 10 years ago

The Alternative Vote would have prevented so many of the structural problems with USA's democracy that keep this country deeply divided, and people holding their nose when voting:

http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=254

As it is, the party that nominated the establishment candidate lost all the anti-establishment, anti-globalist fervor and vote that "Bernie or Bust" people represent. This fervor is not understood in today's Establishment including the media. The Alternative Vote would have properly channeled it.

aryehof• 10 years ago

I'm reminded of the saying "every nation gets the government they deserve". Let's hope for the American people it's for the better, not the worse.

kaolti2• 10 years ago

Is it not possible that people just voted against politicians?

Confusion• 10 years ago

  Instead of patronising these people it's time we tried to 
  understand their concerns and try to assuage them.

That seems pointless to me. This part of the population seems permanently unhappy and angry, no matter what happens. They blame their problems on outside causes, but their problems are actually their own and there is no change in the world that would solve them.

Every country, including utopias like Norway and the Netherlands, has a lot of these people. At least in the US they can truly complain about being poor and mistreated. In Norway and the Netherlands, even these people have a better standard of living, better health case, better prospects, an objectively better life, than 95% of the world population. Yet they vote for populists, complain about immigrants and generally act is if they are being wronged in some way.

Can democracy work if part of the demos don't have the best interest of all other demos in mind?

anuraj2• 10 years ago

Bernie Sanders was the candidate who could have defeated Trump. The DNC establishment and media rigged the primaries for Clinton but failed to gauge the anger that is building - Trump is the outcome.

ph4• 10 years ago

Is there a clear, objective, and accurate list of the ways in which the DNC rigged the primaries? All of my searches turn up shady conspiracy web sites.

anuraj2• 10 years ago

Rigged media coverage and polls, selective voter registration, Debbie Wassermann Shultz incident, Super Delegates - too many to list.

appreneur• 10 years ago

wow you are spot on with Bernie and Demonetisation of currency. I think I can say trump won because of independents were not allowed to vote for Bernie...effectively DNC did a self goal.

Bernie is the most popular guy ever.....somehow hillary and her machinery scrwed him, independents inturn screwed her.

Gatsky• 10 years ago

The general sadness is unwarranted. Trump has already toned it down in the acceptance speech. There is no better way to sedate a demagogue than to let them gain office.

There are two types of elections these days - those where candidates are career politicians that are rather moderate, and opposing parties have very similar policies. These elections are always very close, nobody gets much of a majority, and nothing is achieved. The second type is where demagogues talk a lot of nonsense with impunity, and get voted in because of vague notions about their ability to disrupt 'the system'. They usually espouse conservative, paranoid, xenophobic views. They also don't achieve anything substantial, because fundamentally, they don't see running the country as their job, their job is to win, and whatever happens after that, well who cares? The weird leadership vacuum after Brexit was a classic example of this. Trump will probably fall into this second category, but there is a small chance he could actually turn himself into effective President. The most likely outcome though is 4 years of aimlessness. I also doubt he will get 2 terms. I think as an incumbent, the advantages that helped him win this election will probably evaporate.

kayamon• 10 years ago

I doubt he wrote that speech. Don't believe for a minute that he's had some kind of change of heart.

Just listen to the non-scripted stuff he's been saying at his rallies lately -- that's the guy we're going to get.

dennisgorelik2• 10 years ago

It was a competitive game for Trump. Election campaign was one stage (that required being aggressive). Actually running a country is another stage, so he is using a different tactic (cooperation with other politicians).

dennisgorelik2• 10 years ago

4 years of aimlessness.

Keeping political engine running without dramatic changes - is a good outcome for the country.

baybal2• 10 years ago

Nya nya nya;)

juiced• 10 years ago

Let's reject the low-impact politics going insane and instead focus on the advancements of high-impact technologies.

daveheq2• 10 years ago

Congratulations to the party that supports corporate profits over clean water, clean air, health, wealth and mental health of the working class, religion over science and education, and power over empowerment. We'll know what it's like for the Republicans to rule the world for four years, and the who just had his staff convicted will now pick Trump's staff.

maged072• 10 years ago

i don't beleave

veeragoni• 10 years ago

A good reminder to the hackernews article posted a while ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12043428

blondie9x• 10 years ago

#RepealElectoralCollege yet again this system has failed us with someone being elected with less votes than opponent. This system is broken.

cryptica• 10 years ago

I'm surprised by how many of my non-US friends are calling Americans 'Stupid' right now on social media for voting for Trump.

I think that the Trump victory actually shows the opposite; that Americans are smart enough to think for themselves regardless of what the media tells them.

They got to the meat of the information without buying into all the spin that the media put around it.

I strongly disagree with several things that Trump stands for but I think that overall this is a really good outcome. It shows that the people are still in control - Not the media, not the celebrities, not the elites.

That is reassuring.

d--b2• 10 years ago

You don't think this is the results of years of twisted information by news outlet like fox news and friends? I mean we're talking mostly white people living in the countryside voting to curb illegal immigration. We're talking about fairly unwealthy people voting for a tax-evading billionaire because they relate to him as a simple man. The media has a role to play for sure, but it's not as simple as "at least people aren't spoon fed left-leaning media bullshit."

vinaybn2• 10 years ago

It shouldn't be surprising though, because outsiders would only know as much as the media tells them. They have no vested interest, like the citizens do, in making an informed decision

angry-hacker2• 10 years ago

While I never ever wanted Trump because of the geopolitical situation in eastern Europe, I can understand Americans who voted for him.

You can't turn a dead eye on half of the population, call them stupid, racist, bigoted (heck, some even argue here democracy doesn't work and the people who voted shouldn't be able to vote, go figure.) and then expect the worst habitual liar, a psycho candidate to win.

It was literally the easiest elections in the history for the Democrats, but somehow they were able to fuck up. Let's see what the future brings.

From a personal point of view, I hope Nato stays (somewhat) strong. Again, I understand the anger of your people for us, Europeans, outsourcing the defense budget to American taxpayers (while it does come with some benefits).

chillwaves4• 10 years ago

I understand the anger of your people for us, Europeans, outsourcing the defense budget to American taxpayers (while it does come with some benefits).

This is not an act of altruism. US global hegemony dictates our military spending, regardless of what Europe does. We (at least the select few elite) reap the benefits of this arrangement. Hell, even the folks complaining in America aren't complaining about the money being funneled into the MIC in their district that creates good jobs to build weapons of war.

ant6n10• 10 years ago

"It shows that the white people are still in control - Not the blacks, not the hispanics, not women."

There I fixed it.

dang3• 10 years ago

Please don't do this here.

tormeh3• 10 years ago

I think we worry for nothing about his campaign promises. I guess he's a sociopath and a con man. He doesn't give a shit about what he's promised. Before he won he was going to jail Hillary, but now he says that "we all" owe her.

What's he going to do in office? He'll want what he always wants: To win. Doubtlessly he'll try to enrich himself, but other than that it's kind of hard to tell.

thrillgore• 10 years ago

Tomorrow I am going to contact a legal firm to start the processes needed to prove my UK Citizenship, as the son of a UK Citizen.

kabdib• 10 years ago

So, how likely is it that the election was tipped by electronic fraud?

readhn• 10 years ago

May be, just may be, after these elections the USA will pause and think about how we got here in the first place? when the only choices we got left are the "same old crooked politician" vs "egocentric billionaire with bathroom fixtures made of gold".

As George Carlin would say: "This is the best we got folks. These are the best people the country got to offer! So.. ENJOY the circus!!"

throwaway274739• 10 years ago

This is absolutely horrifying. To know that there are so many rural, angry white men who are so driven by hatred. There are just no words. This is a huge win for racism, misogyny and hate. I just don't know how this disgusting country is going to survive.

adamrezich• 10 years ago

Boy am I ever glad that the world I live in doesn't in any way resemble the world you live in.

aardshark• 10 years ago

There's a number of people throughout this thread espousing the same opinion, using similarly divisive doomsday rhetoric.

Doesn't this reaction seem hyperbolic? It's impossible for angry racist white men alone to elect Trump. What about all the Hispanic, black, Asian, female and other minority voters who must have voted for him? Would you dismiss their view as 'misguided', or would you listen to their opinions and concerns?

I respect that you are passionate about the candidates, but I feel that the certainty you have when you dismiss all Trump voters as racist hateful misogynists is surely misplaced.

DavajDavaj• 10 years ago

I think that this is also a backslash against the PC, SJW, safe-space, trigger-warning, micro aggression tendencies that have been spreading in the U.S. for the last couple of years. This has become too much and millions of Americans are fed up with it, they have now spoken out.

criley2• 10 years ago

I hope everyone in this thread realizes that what they do: writing software and creating machines to replace uneducated lower income white workers -- is probably the single greatest driver to white economic anxiety and the rise of modern white nationalism.

The scary thing is... none of us will stop. Our software, our robots, our big data, how many millions more will be displaced by the next election? How long until taxis and trucks are being massively displaced?

With automation we're digging a grave and the people whom are getting put into that grave will turn to anyone -- anyone -- who promises they can change it.

Donald Trump will be the first of many populist white nationalists in the West who meekly promise they can stop globalization and automation.

They can't. Those jobs are dead men walking. The white working class is a zombie, undead, going through the motions, with twenty million more jobs on the cutting block in the next decade.

A billion guns, a hundred million angry poor white people, and all we're doing is displacing them and validating their anger. What an industry.

shawn-butler• 10 years ago

I don't know why anyone listens to social science "experts" at all without asking significant methodological questions in the future.

I keep hearing how it is unbelievable how there is a 55% approval rating of the current sitting president and yet...

If it were me I guess I would be asking how exactly yet another made-up "fact" is calculated / rendered believable rather than just parroting more nonsense.

pcunite2• 10 years ago

Thoughts on the election: For the past year, I've have been made to feel stupid (only the uneducated back Trump), violent (we cause rioting), abusive (can't treat women correctly), uncool (Lady Gaga tells me), and you name it. Fake patriots are everywhere and they did not even have the courage to explain what this was all about.

Last night was nothing short of a miracle. God stepped in and brought the victory over all the lying, cheating polling stations and managers. It was amazing. Trump won even though they had totally rigged it against him!

There is still a lot left to do. And just like finding out your best friend is not perfect, Trump has a lot to learn. He needs our future support and prayers. There is so much corruption and he is not experienced with this. Many will claim to be on his side (people "love" winners) and it will take time to identify the fakes.

The news media is lying to you. Think for yourselves.

Avalaxy• 10 years ago

God stepped in and brought the victory

Ehh yea... No.

paulddraper10• 10 years ago

Well it certainly wasn't the pundits.

SCdF2• 10 years ago

Think for yourselves.

I'm not sure this is a constructive phrase. Others may be different, but I've never managed to work out what it actually means: how is my thinking not my own, while yours is? What devices or strategies do you have that allow you to think on your own, while I am not doing so?

I feel like that phrase really means: "Don't read the things you're reading, they are wrong, read what I'm reading instead, they are right, because I'm reading them."

Trump won even though they had totally rigged it against him!

This being an example. Aren't you just parroting what Trump has said to you? There is no evidence of this election being rigged in any direction. If you were "thinking for yourself" you would presumably have been reading direct sources such as studies and reports, as opposed to Trump's twitter feed.

pcunite2• 10 years ago

I meant it as a compliment to the reader. Namely, that you are smart enough to figure out and discover the best path forward. You don't need everyone in the entertainment community to guide you on economic, moral, and national betterment.

For that matter, you should not need my comments either, you truly have the capacity to think. I'm only here for conversation, to provide strength and support.

nthcolumn• 10 years ago

TIL that you can be an intellectually challenged, racist, misogynistic, lying, tax dodging sex pest and still be president of the USA.

ant6n10• 10 years ago

* cheating against wildly popular Sanders

Do you have any source for this? It seems that Clinton won even without the super delegates.

agumonkey2• 10 years ago

Whoelse thinks that Trump is and will mostly be a joke. That none of is populist antics will really reach our realm (mexican wall, anti climate research deeds, ...). That he and his team will get a reality check when nature, life, mind changing people will start to resist bits by bits to nonsensical projects ?

DanBC• 10 years ago

Just being elected will unleash all sorts of stuff.

After Brexit the rates of hate crime in the UK rose significantly, and they're still at those high levels.

Since people were openly chanting "Jew S A" at Trump rallies it's not hard to image that some people will feel that more than speech is fine.

agumonkey2• 10 years ago

Ah, I thought the violence in UK went back since and was only an event spike.

Concerning state indeed. So a path toward sustained crazy isn't that impossible.

supergirl• 10 years ago

Who cares

CyberSkull5702• 10 years ago

...

radisb• 10 years ago

U.S Elections 2016: "Pure Evil" vs "Corrupted Good" Some people see this a battle between purity and corruption, Some see this as a battle between good and evil.

I think the difference in meaning,interpretation and semantics in the context of politics is much more distinguishable when we compare purity and corruption than when we compare good and evil.

mtw• 10 years ago

At least Twitter will be saved! He won't allow a company to go under while it's his favorite media :)

dang3• 10 years ago

It pains me to see HN serving pages so slowly, so I'm going to try an experiment and bury the current thread for a minute or two. Don't worry, we'll restore it or an equivalent; momentous stories like this one (or Brexit) are exceptions to the general rule against politics here. I just want to see if not having to render 2000 comments so often will let us catch a breath.

Edit: ok, that definitely helped. I think the easiest solution might be to post a different story, let that one make the front page, and link to this thread from there. The WaPo article is a bit old at this point anyhow.

If you'd like to be a good citizen—and what would be a better time for that?—then please log out to read HN today, unless you want to comment. Then we can serve you from cache and HN's single-core Racket process will creak slightly less under the strain.

ohyoutravel• 10 years ago

I am logging out to read as requested, but out of curiosity, why does logging out help the page loads?

elsurudo7• 10 years ago

Probably due to caching. The page looks exactly the same to all logged-out users, but need customization for logged-in users.

manojlds• 10 years ago

Unauthenticated requests can be and are cached.

devy2• 10 years ago

Whereas almost no political pundit would expect Trump to be the president-elect, there is one guy consistently predicted the result. His name is Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert[1].

Also worth mentioning is that Bloomberg ran an length article about Trump's campaign team and how they operate. One interesting tibits was the fact that the same team behind Brexit was also the major helper in the late stage of Trump's campaign. That team is Cambridge Analytica[2], funded primarily by Hedgefund manager/computer scientist Robert Mercer from Renaissance Technologies.

[1] blog.dilbert.com

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica

tgb29• 10 years ago

I'm disappointed in YCombinator and SamA's attitude towards Trump and his supporters throughout this campaign. However, it's not YCombinator's fault, and I will blame the Mainstream Media for successfully distorting the views of so many smart and good Americans.

devy2• 10 years ago

Whereas almost no political pundit would expect Trump to be the president-elect, there is one guy consistently predicted the result. His name is Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert[1].

[1] blog.dilbert.com

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica

[3] http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-brexit-us-presid...

amai2• 10 years ago

Germany says: "Refugees welcome! (But don't bring your guns with you)"

https://www.facebook.com/martin.sonneborn/posts/102111688008...

mikorym• 10 years ago

I wonder if the Russian Troll Factory is active on this thread.

diyseguy2• 10 years ago

He won because the extreme left is devolving into an oppressive free-speech vacuum http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/09/trump-won-because-leftist-...

taxipleasanton• 10 years ago

let see the his new policies

GottsKreider• 10 years ago

Thank the Lord Almighty for Divine Interevention

berserkpi2• 10 years ago

Here is an opinion of a Mexican guy.

I remember back in the day when Mexican president Carlos Salinas promoted the NAFTA deal as a solution to our problems. I started to disagree when reason came to me (I was too young when it happened), few reasons:

- I believed in a more protectionist system that encouraged internal growth. I still do to a point. - Trading is good as long as you don't compromise internal production and employment. NAFTA is way too aggressive in this sense. - It will triggered this bad "us-american?" behavior of consumerism and materialism.

Well, here we are 22 years after and it's evident the system got exhausted, even for US-Americans who were supposed to be the strong link in this chain.

Is killing NAFTA a good idea? maybe. I don't know. We are so deep into these waters that it has to be a small "chunk by chunk" change, and even so, it'll be chaos.

What I am sure we need, is to find a new balance, going all protectionist will be a huge mistake, just like this crazy aggressive neoliberalism that allowed companies behave irresponsible. Believe me, the consequences of this 20+ years trade system in Mexico are massive.

Wait, I'm not a pro-Trump crazy Mexican, keep reading.

As I said, we need a new balance. To my eyes, Trump is an extremist and a dangerous man, he doesn't sound or act like a guy that could bring this balance. I think USA voters made a huge mistake on electing him. But, at the same time, they had 2 very poor choices. They just chose the worst one.

The years to come will be interesting ones... that is given.

Donald Trump is the president-elect of the U.S.

Related Stories