Re: Decision 2016
 

I always hear how much more partisan politics are today compared to the past, but don't our representatives vote the way their constituents want? In other words, if I am in a district that votes largely democrat, I would imagine that the people vote democrat because they tend to support democrat supported policies. Shouldn't the representative for these voters support the will of their voters?

I can recall the political process going back some time. If I think to the 1980's for example, Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neal certainly were involved in partisan politics. Maybe the difference is that they were cordial through the process.

Re: Decision 2016
 

And this is where Gerrymandering come in.


If your district is diverse, you have to ensure your platform is such that, everyone is mostly happy with you, rather than catering to extremes. However when you cut up the population so that only your supporters are voting for you, you can become more extreme.


Also people have become tribal with their politics. The Pope came out and said that Climate Change is a thing that Catholics have to combat. What did Catholic Conservatives do in the US? They ignored the Pope and continued to believe Climate Change is a hoax. People are literally choosing their political party over their religion. This is why this year is so interesting. People are willing to stick with a party that has a leader they don't support, just because it is their party. This is why we see papers switching sides, but not people.

Re: Decision 2016
 

They are! But their voters have (in many cases) changed in two fundamental ways. First, their voters have been chosen for them by new, much more precise gerrymandering, so they are representing a more slanted district. Secondly, rather than those voters being motivated by whatever regional interests matter in that area, they are motivated by the national media sources they've chosen to listen to - many of them choosing to consume media that further reinforces a partisan viewpoint.

In short, many representatives are now more concerned about losing to a primary challenger from within their own party than they are about losing a general election to someone from the other party. (This is much much more true for Republicans than Democrats, which is why the Republican caucus in the house has become relatively much more extreme compared to the Democratic caucus.)

This argument - "we have gridlock because political opponents don't go to the same dinner parties any more" - is popular among the old-guard Washington media establishment. But it's wrong. Less cordial relations are an effect, not a cause. When you have to work together in order to accomplish the things that help you stay in office, you develop working relationships that lead to social relationships. When you have no incentive to compromise or work with the other side, those relationships don't develop.

Besides, there are plenty of completely intransigent partisan representatives in Washington who are friendly and polite in the way they deal with the opposition. David Brat (the guy who unseated Republican house majority leader Eric Cantor in a primary) seems like a well-mannered guy who isn't about to gratuitously insult anybody. But he'll vote to shut the government down all the same.

Re: Decision 2016
 

EDIT: Ninja's by others who essentially said the same I did. Ah well.

Your statements here are both correct in my opinion.

Politics are more partisan than in the past.

The representatives we have vote the way their constituents want.

So what could that mean? It's quite simple--the districts that decide what people someone is representing have progressively got more partisan.

This is due to many factors. For one, people tend to group with other people who share their ideological and cultural values. So you get clusters of voters who are more likely to share values, making the representatives have a more focused group to pander to.

Next, there is of course gerrymandering at play here too. Many races are just not competitive at all anymore. I already voted today. For my member to the US House of Representatives, Ron Kind, is running unopposed and has been the US representative for this district for many years. The Republicans know that they don't stand a chance in this district and so run no one. Similarly, my state representative, a democrat, is also running unopposed for my district. The Republican stands no chance. While this is due to me living in a fairly liberal county, for the US House of Representatives at least I can firmly say this is straight up gerrymandering. In 2010 Stevens Point WI was in the seventh district along with the rest of northern WI which is a bit Republican leaning. The suburbs of Eau Claire were also in this district, those suburbs are a bit democratic leaning.
When the new district lines were drawn in 2013, suddenly I find myself in the 3rd district, along with those Eau Claire suburbs. We are know in a very solid democratic district, while the seventh district we used to be in is no solidly Republican where it used to be more of a toss up.
(To those who care enough to look, the wikipedia article shows the maps clearly, you can see the 3rd district in particular looks pretty funky and I would argue is clearly a sign of some gerrymandering at work).

Straight ticket voting has also increased--fewer people are voting across party lines and instead most just vote for members of a single party which helps increase polarization.

But anyhow, because so many of these districts and states are no longer competitive in the general election, the true challenge for candidates like Ron Kind will come from the primaries--whatever Democrat emerges from the primary will go on to win WI's 3rd district. Primaries tend to attract voters who are more politically engaged, and doesn't attract as many moderates or independents. Therefore candidates need to move further to the left or right to secure their parties nomination. Being closer to the middle doesn't matter as much anymore.

So we are getting candidates who are more partisan, leading to increased polarization. After I've stated most of this, I remembered reading an excellent fivethirtyeight article about it a few years ago which essentially just says what I just did.

Ultimately, the simple truth is that we have fewer competitive national races anymore, which means there are fewer moderate candidates. So we get more candidates that are more partisan, even though those candidates are simply doing what they always have--following the will of the voters. As has been pointed out here by Dok, until the incentives change for politicians, we shall continue to see increased polarization with fewer moderate candidates occupying the middle.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I just want to thank everyone here for participating in the discussion. In making my decision it has been very useful to read all the comments here and reflect on what they mean to me and what I understand them to mean with regard to our society as a whole. My intent no matter whom our President will ultimately be is to respect the position they hold and to pray they lead with wisdom.

~Aldin, off to vote in an hour and a half

Re: Decision 2016
 

You and me both, friend.

Re: Decision 2016
 

In today's internet based society, you can find media sources that are more advocacy based than you could find in the past. But when I speak to people, they don't seem as polarized as the candidates.

Regarding the primaries, you have to win a primary before you can get to the general election, but that's not new. Historically, that has led democrats and republicans to move to the left and right during the primaries and back to the center during the general election. I'm not sure why that has changed or why it would affect republicans more than democrats.

As someone who is Catholic, I am concerned about climate change. but it has nothing to do with the Pope. I like and respect the Pope, but he isn't relevant to my beliefs or actions. I know a number of republicans who are voting for Hillary.

As for Gerrymandering, the term is named after Elbridge Gerry, who died in 1814, so it certainly isn't a new practice. According to Wikipedia (admittedly not the best source), it is practiced in many countries including (among developed countries) Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Singapore, and the United Kingdom.

I agree. I voted for qualified candidates during this election in more than just one party. Vote for the best person.

Re: Decision 2016
 

You may have issues with Clinton on a personal level, but when you hear her themes in her stump speech, does she really sound any more polarized than past Democratic candidates? It sure doesn't sound like it to me. It's pretty boilerplate Democratic stuff, including the usual appeals to diversity and uniting (the slogan is "stronger together" after all). She does go after her opponent hard, but that's also typical (even if the specific things she's criticizing him for are unprecedented).

It's changed because of the same two reasons I brought up before. Gerrymandering has shifted the median of many districts, and the typical primary voter has become much less friendly to compromise with the other side. As a result, the risk of losing to an extreme challenger in the primary is greater than the risk of losing to a moderate challenger in the general election for many incumbents.

These things are particularly true on the right, because Fox News is much more successful and dominant on the right than any similar source on the left, and because (for whatever reason) the grass roots on the right have been much more active and successful at running primary challenges against moderate candidates of their own party.

Re: Decision 2016
 

EDIT: I keep getting ninja'd by Dok today. I guess that's what happens when I keep typing up a response and getting distracted, then going back and finishing it. Ah well, basically the same answers once more.

In the past, if a party sent a highly partisan candidate to the general election, they would usually lose to the presumably more moderate candidate from the other party as the district was probably more moderate.

Now however, you have many districts that are highly partisan. In the past you had more districts who were fighting over the moderate Democrat or moderate Republican. Now you have heavily Republican districts where the battle is between the very conservative Republican or the moderate Republican. Whomever wins will almost surely defeat the moderate Democrat that may get run (if the Democrats even think it is worth trying to spend funds to run someone). Therefore you can now elect more partisan candidates and actually get them to the House than you could in the past.

As for why it is effecting Republicans more than Democrats, the short answer is roughly Tea Party related. But basically until you start seeing the more liberal wing of the democratic party really pushing for more change than they are getting out of their current candidates, they probably will continue to keep roughly their current ideological stances. (Which are solidly but not extremely liberal).

The Tea Party in particular though has found plenty of support and has had success in getting very conservative individuals elected, unseating more traditionally moderate Republicans. Therefore there is now a significant number of elected Representatives who identify as Tea Party members and tend to have very conservative opinions.

The Democrats probably could start seeing more intensely liberal candidates get elected in many districts, but it just hasn't happened yet. I'd agree the incentives are basically there and we could see it happen. But for whatever reason, we have more so seen increased partisanship with the Tea Party and the conservative wing as compared to the Democrats.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Hillary Clinton has not been more polarizing than past democrat candidates, but Bernie Sanders was certainly more polarizing than past candidates (or Hillary). Similarly, Donald Trump was the most polarizing figure among the republican candidates. The difference is that Reince Priebus didn't do as good a job as Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...c39_story.html
The DNC controlled Sanders better than the RNC controlled Trump. But remember that both the republicans and democrats had fairly radical candidates with significant support.

Re: Decision 2016
 

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

Anyone else care to join me watch the world burn? I've got plenty of popcorn!

Re: Decision 2016
 

THE HELL?

I'm watching and that's my general reaction. NYT's model is very confident that Trump will win at this point: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president. It seems to be the most data rich site I've found so far tonight, although some of the twiddling of the numbers is obviously just for show.

My General Thoughts
 

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...4a852d832c.jpg

~Dysole,

Re: Decision 2016
 

Clearly some higher power is punishing us for something if a psychotic umpa lumpa is probably going to be president.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I'm Sorry - it is the most Canadian Sentiment I have for you all.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I thought this wasn't an accurate assessment of the facts as they stand?

I will have more thoughts tomorrow, when things are confirmed. Really weird feeling in the country right now.

Re: Decision 2016
 

If your thoughts boil down to an "I-told-you-so," I apologize in advance for my response.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I mean, maybe that's a fair assessment. People were not able to hear the point I was making, and it turned it out being pretty close to the actual result. You can boil that to "I-told-you-so" pretty easily.

We will see if anything changes in the race, but if it holds, I think it changes the kind of presidential candidates we will see permanently. I said a lot about Trump not being a true apocalyptic force, but now that he's actually probably the president it feels a little different.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I don't know why we would blame the media for missing it when it was the polls that missed. Are you arguing that the media skewed the polls?

What happened here is that there were a unusually large number of undecideds even in the late polling. This is why fivethirtyeight gave Trump a 30% chance despite a fairly healthy lead. Those undecideds broke for Trump... big league.

I honestly think that Trump won because the news cycle of the last 10 days was dominated by Hillary stories. If it had been, say, another Trump tape (or just no big news) instead, I think Hillary wins. So, you know, Comey and wikileaks and that stuff.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I'm not sure you understand the thrust of what I'm getting at, in much the same way a lot of people in this thread have not really understood the nature of the complaints levied against Trump.

Some people will be able to take the results of this election, accept them, and move on with their lives. These people, whether they wanted Trump as their president or not, nonetheless do not think that their lives are seriously affected by the outcome. It will seem easy and natural to submit the facts of our political reality to frank and forthright analysis, and try to understand what it means for the nation in the future.

Maybe eventually I will be able to join this privileged group. But right now for me and many other people merely trying to conceptualize a Trump presidency is all-consuming. It's not a matter of trying to figure out exactly what this means for politics going forward, it's a matter of trying to figure out if or to what extent we or our loved ones are in actual danger. If that's the kind of statement that sounds like exaggeration or makes you roll your eyes, then you are obviously part of the first group. You literally cannot understand exactly how this feels. And it will take some time for anyone to figure out what all this means.

In my personal case, someone saying "I told you so" merely as a point of personal pride or analytics is actually totally infuriating. In a few days or weeks, maybe I'll join the analysis brigade, but for now all I hope for is that I'll be able to say "I told you so" myself when this country goes down the tubes. It's rather difficult for me to make salient points from a place of such bitterness.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I guess my point was that the polls were incorrect, the win that Trump got wasn't due to sneaking out all the swing states, it came from winning the Rust Belt decisively. States that he was not at all favored to win in most projections. I'm sure there will be lots of discussion on how exactly it happened so I don't need to go any further right now.

Also, I didn't mean to offend anyone, I just wanted to talk about my thoughts right now. It is hard to think about the personal consequences at this time.

Re: Decision 2016
 

So, when the finishing of the great wall is planned?

Southpark S6E11 didn't learn you anything? Walls are bad.


I hope one day your country can get rid off this stupid system and just proceed the same as us: people votes, candidate with the most vote wins.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Let the weeping and gnashing of teeth begin...

- Raider30

Re: Decision 2016
 

I might go to college in Germany, wouldn't be a horrible idea right?

:sad:

Re: Decision 2016
 

In the clarity of morning it might not be so bad.

1. Gun control will remain unchanged and there are only a few shootings a year.
2. The finical sector has a vested interest in keeping things running smooth, so it might be okay. (Housing bubble not withstanding)
3. The Rich will get richer but they are already super rich so it might not be as noticeable.
4. The market will still likely favor Alternative energy as it is becoming cheaper, but the move from Oil will be slower.
5. There will be no wall - mark my words.
6. I don't think LGTBQ rights will be repealed. They may stagnate but unlikely to be repealed.
7. The Economy and Employment numbers will hopefully stay the course?
8. It will become harder to get an abortion, but not impossible.
9. Freedom of Religion will protect American Islamist from the Government.
10. The EPA will loose funding but will likely still do their job.
11. The DoE may change but it is unlikely to effect student results.
12. Trump has nuclear launch codes, but no one will let him use them. Right? RIGHT?
13. Trade will continue regardless and loop holes will be found for business's to keep doing business the same way.
14. NASA will loose funding for earth science but will still push to Mars.


A couple things that will likely be worse (but not by much)
15. I don't think they can entirely repeal health care act, but maybe.
16. The US's terrorist enemies have a new rallying cry.
17. Freedom of Religion will not protect American Islamist from the emboldened extremists.
18. Travel outside of the US will become more of a pain.
19. Immigration will take a hit but they aren't Americans anyway.
20. There will be no national investigation into Police brutality
21. The Poor will likely get poorer.
22. The rest of the world has lost respect for one of the Greatest countries on earth.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I dunno, have you seen what's been going on in Germany lately?


- Raider30

Re: Decision 2016
 

I wasn't cheering for Trump by any means (although I did call his victory), but it is kinda nice to see the media and hardcore liberals act like the end of the world is upon us.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Swamper, just pray to God that they're wrong. That would be helpful.

The President Elect is a man who has never held public office or served in the military. His campaign management included, over time, people with deep connections to foreign powers, and people in the business of fearmongering. He has given us no reason to think that he is equipped for the job. Whether you like him or not, he has no measurable history in the type of management or administration or policy-making role that he will now be required to fulfill, nor has he demonstrated an ability to surround himself with respected, experienced people.

So, Swamper. Is it reasonable to fear that the end of the world is upon us? Yes. Do I believe that it is? No. I hope it isn't. But don't mock the people who express that concern, don't f'ing gloat. It's not cool. We can all pray that he is guided by wisdom, without mocking those who have the reasonable fear that he is not.

Re: Decision 2016
 

To be fair, that began long before now.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Hmm to me this was already done since Bush Jr. And personnally I never saw anyone beside americans talking good about anyone from the Republican party.

Some french people (including me) think Bush government has a some kind of responsability in what happened in Paris last year. But maybe it would have been worse without the war we will never know.
So obviously that doesn't help...

Obama was very popular at international but (correct me if I'm wrong) never managed to get a big majority of americans behind him.

It's been worse since the 2016 campaign started who was just a ****show seen from here, especially the end. But don't worry our french election coming promise to be as fun:
Sarkozy said "As long as we are french, the gallic are our ancestors to us all".
Another republican candidate answered 0.15€ when asked on the price of a french pastry (pain au chocolat) while the price is around 0.95€-1.05€.
Another republican candidate said "The french history must not be critizied".
So the righside is basically all clowns, where the only non-clown guy is a 70 years old guy which is serious and diplomatic but we all know he will not change anything, and french people want change.
The leftside is litterally destroyed and lost tons of people from the worker class with the "working law" which act as a deep refund of working rules but in reality is a pro-boss and less taxes law in disguise, they forced it multiples times despide multiples riots and marches in streets (and people staying up all night in the streets).
Hollande is candidate whereas he has absolutely no chance with a popularity ratio of about 8%. The other "leftside" guy is the prime minister M. Valls. I put leftside between quotations marks because he's one of the major personnality responsible for the new working law and acted almost as a fachist the whole year (he also englued himself into a censorship fight against an anti-Israel humorist and said stuff as "criticizing Israel is anti-semite and should be punished.").

And between all that there is Marine Lepen which is basically the french Trump with the difference that she wants to "destroy finance world" and set even more self-effyciency than Trump, who is gaining more and more fans each day (about 33% in surveys right now).

So we are basically in the exact same state as you were about 6 month ago, and our election is in 6 months...

Most of french people believe our politicians are just puppets who don't have any weight in important things.

Add to this that terrorist attacks completely divided the french between the "we should continue to party and don't care about them to show them it doesn't affect or afraid us" people and the "we should go full security and then destroy them all" people and it's a complete mess.

So yeah, you're not the only ones in "bad shape".

I think most of occidental people (especially young people) are in a never-happy state of mind, in a lose-lose situation since 2008 and are basically not in agreement with the world they live in. And I think only a big change in the society will change that (ex: the greeks did rebel and elected a almost-communist guy but it didn't changed anything for them). The Trump presidency might be it (even if I highly doubt it) either it is a success or a disaster (of course I personnally hope it will be a complete disaster, sorry for you guys, which leads in a deep refund of our society, but I am just dreaming here).

Re: Decision 2016
 

Yup, Foudzing is correct. For those who have not been paying attention, most overseas options are also pretty rocky.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Case in point. If you'd paid any attention to anything I've said in this thread you'd know I definitely was against Trump.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I never said you were for (or against) Trump.

edit: Here is what you wrote:
Regardless of whether you advocated for Trump, this is (1) unkind gloating, in that gloating is always unkind, and (2) unfair, in that it is perfectly reasonable to be concerned that someone who has no experience piloting a ship will run it into a reef.

edit: Gloating = bragging about your own commentary on the election, then mocking others who are frustrated and also commenting upon it, is gloating. In case that part wasn't clear.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Well congratulations to Trump and Republicans. After spending the last eight years mostly being the party of obstructionism, they have managed to get power. Now for the tough task of governing and actually enacting policy changes that help make things better.

I'm not that hopeful that Trump will be able to manage his new position well, but I do doubt things are going to be as bad as many of my fellow liberals are making them out to be. Ultimately I think the disaster of a Trump presidency will not in any way be the policies he passes (I still think that deep down Trump is ultimately more of a moderate in his stances than some hardcore conservative) but in the way he handles himself and comports himself. I would expect for some strained relations with our allies, and rising tensions with our enemies. It may take some time for these to be resolved, even once Trump is out of power.

I do worry the Republicans will repeal the health care act and simply undo the progress that was made there in expanding healthcare. I hope they can actually come to some consensus on how to work on fixing and improving it. Still, if I was betting, I would say Obamacare will just be repealed without any replacement. Outside of that issue, I think wriggz is mostly correct. I doubt anything will really get passed to do much to change things. Rich will get richer, corporations and businesses will get more breaks, and the poor and middle class will likely see no real progress and continue their decades long morass of stagnant improvement.

I think when we look back on this in decades or so, the worst part of the Trump presidency will be foreign relations and foreign policy, continued income inequality (that may actually worsen), along with a lack of progress on climate change. I suspect the recent Paris agreements will crumble with the United States likely backing out of its promises under president Trump. It will take a few more years before climate change is prioritized (or even viewed as a problem once more), which will be bad given what is required.

But we shall see.

My only other thoughts this morning are that if Clinton does wind up winning the popular vote as she seems likely to, I will continue to be shocked by we still have this idiotic system of the electoral college, and I cannot wait until enough states join together to get rid of it or circumvent it. I've been alive for seven elections now (1992-2016) and it will be pretty sad if two of them had the person with more votes fail to win.

Re: Decision 2016
 

"sigh"

~SoA, browsing grad school options abroad

Re: Decision 2016
 

In the past I've found it pretty emotionally satisfying to paint Trump supporters (and conservatives generally) as bigots and fools. I've mocked rednecks, joked about re-fighting the Civil War, shared that Bugs Bunny/Florida gif, etc... But the stark truth I'm facing this morning is this – I share this country with a huge number of people who do not see life at all like I see it, and my options seem to be:

1) go to war with them
2) wait for them to die and hope their children are different
3) leave the country to them
4) find a way to coexist with them

Only the last option sounds good to me, and the first step in doing that seems to be dropping the name-calling and assumptions, along with making honest attempts to engage with those who disagree with me, or even hate me. I'll still hold to the things I believe in, but I'll try to talk first, and fight when I must.

Re: Decision 2016
 

2016 - welcome to the God-damn Twilight Zone. Sweet Jesus....

~ Lazy Orang, commenting from the UK, which also failed its IQ test this year. (And also not wishing to debate this - this is my only word on the matter here and now). I do not belong in this universe. Holy crap....

Re: Decision 2016
 

That was actually the argument I used to convince my wife's 91 year-old grandmother (who lived in France from the 1980s until about 6 years ago) to not vote for Trump.

Re: Decision 2016
 

If nothing else, I am looking forward to South Park's recap tonight.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I think the crux of it is this. I'm not saying you did, but there was a large group of leftward people (at least a loud minority) of people who demonize those who they assume to be enemies of their social justice agenda.

If I'm not allow to speak out for minorities because I'm white, or if I'm labeled as privileged because I was born into a middle class family in a fairly nice town, or if I am told that I can't speak up for the LGBT groups because I'm straight, it's going to sting. When I'm told that my family is corrupt and pigs because almost every man in my fathers side of the family is an officer, it hurts. When people celebrate the death of officers, what message does that send to people like me?

I want to support these people and help them get out of their position, but they wont let me because the circumstances of my birth make me less of a person to them. There are only so many times that someone can be told that they can't have a voice based on being born before they have a desire to push back against those who they feel wrong them.

This victory wasn't from the racists, misogynists, xenophobes, or any of that. It was from the people who are not in marginalized groups who feel marginalized because they were born white, male, middle class, etc.There are plenty of things we can look at, from the reaction of Gamergate, to BLM and Occupy Wall Street to see how the far left pushed away plenty of potential voters.

I'm hopeful that this election will lead us to being more united as people, where we support those who may be hurt without hating those who wont. Part of me looks forward to the unknown, most of me is expressing the same caution that I express with any new presidential elect.

Chances are that if Hillary won, I would be typing this from the opposite perspective, about how the far left managed to recruit those who felt wronged and who didn't realize they were wronged until many events occurred that included them, but maybe that can be my post 4 years from now.

-X, who classifies himself as Center-Left and wishes Bernie won

Re: Decision 2016
 

It's a hard road to walk, X. Despite this thread, in other contexts (Israel, law enforcement) I find myself arguing against people who normally agree with me. What can you do? You have to be walk your own path. Be open to others, as you suggest, and over time perhaps they will be open to you.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Out of simple curosity - can one or the other of you help me understand why a Trump presidency makes schooling abroad more attractive?

~Aldin, in a quasi non sequitur wondering how many people equate varying levels of education with intelligence

Re: Decision 2016
 

I'm not SoA, Aldin, but I think you might be reading something into that post he didn't put there. It's my sense he's getting ready for grad school, regardless of who is President, but he is also very anxious about a Trump administration. So he's considering taking that next step in his education abroad.

It's standard "I'm moving to Canada" fare, which you see once every four years from anguished people of one party or the other.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I'd rather not be drafted to fight Trump's petty wars when he ticks off the wrong person, that's all. I'm currently looking at Colleges in British Columbia. But it's free for Americans in Germany, so why not consider there as well?

EDIT: And I don't see it as ditching my own country, so don't think that. I just honestly don't wanna be around at all when he makes his inevitable poor decisions.
-NS

Re: Decision 2016
 

I just want to point out that this was true yesterday, and it would be true today even if Hillary Clinton's popular vote majority had been more optimally allocated among the states.

Should these things really sting, though? Are you happy when those you disagree with choose to speak for you? Disagreement and debate should be welcomed, and I do lament some efforts on the margins to suppress debate. But I don't see anything wrong with people not wanting others to tell them what they should want and what they are allowed to find offensive.

It wasn't (mostly) from them. But, unfortunately, it was a victory for them. Not even close to everyone who voted for Trump is a bully or a mysogynist or a racist. But Trump is, at the very least, those first two, and his victory emboldens those who believe those things.

For a middle class male person to feel marginalized because of the reaction to Gamergate, or because of OWS protests... to be blunt, this is a kind of a victimhood complex. Neither of these things actually marginalized you or me or anyone like us in any meaningful sense. (BLM is a more complex issue and there are elements of it that I could see making you feel justifiably marginalized.)

I, too, am hopeful that we can move forward that way. But frankly, it would mean Trump breaks a lot of campaign promises and angers a lot of people who supported him.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Thanks for the response, NS.

I... honestly never considered the idea that we would somehow end up in a situation where a Trump presidency leads to a national draft in the next four years.

~Aldin, who lost his draft card sometime in the last decade but doubts it matters for an old fogey like himself at this point

...
 

There's much I want to say and have kind of already splattered over facebook or in private messages. I had a gut feeling since last week this would happen. I hope my other gut feelings are wrong (mostly encapsulated in other posts I've had in this thread). I'll move forward eventually and I'll continue to work to help things improve, but right now I feel hurt and numb.

~Dysole, leaving it at that. She'll be happy to discuss things in PM. Might be better that way.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Basically random thoughts to things in this thread

The divide in this country is not based on race or gender but rural vs. urban. Race is somewhat correlated with that divide I guess. The reason why it's so hard to understand why so many people went to Trump is because of the massive culture difference there.

Yeah, um, I don't think Gamergate had any political effect whatsoever. Maybe you can say that supporters of Gamergate went to Trump because of a similar rejection of the media, but I think we will see in days to come that Trump's victory came from extremely high turnout among working class white people in PA, WI, and MI.

I also don't know if you can look back on yesterday's result without questioning the Democratic party's choice in nominee a bit. Sanders definitely would have succeeded in PA, WI, and MI. This article sums up my feelings on this issue, albeit a little dramatically.

With the second president this century winning the election without winning popular vote, I think we definitely need some sort of electoral reform. I actually like the principle of an electoral college over the popular vote, at least the idea of having votes from particular areas weighted to their population. But using states as the particular areas creates variance likes this, which is unnecessary. I think switching to weighted electoral votes by county would be an easy fix to still make sure everyone's voice is equally heard, but getting rid of the variance of getting all of the electoral votes of a state at once. Alternatively and probably more simply is to just split electoral votes likes the democratic primaries do. I don't think a pure switch to popular vote would be good though.