I've also been on Twitter! Like, six times!
Yeah, well, anyhow, I returned to good old ML for this day-before-election-day post, mainly because I wanted to go on a bit, lucky you. So I'll give you some predictions up top, and ponder what it's all about further down. (Hint: hell, hand basket, etc.)
Long story short: I predict Hillary Clinton will win this election. Donald Trump is within striking distance of her--especially in some key battleground states--so I could be wrong. He could pull off on upset; even create a repeat of the 2000 election, when George W. Bush lost the national vote but won the presidency due to the electoral college. That could happen again this year. But I don't think it will.
I predicted early on that this would be a landslide, or at least a very strong win for Hillary. I still think that's possible, although probably not to the extent I thought a few months back. Here's my thinking: when a candidate alienates large segments of the population, say, Latinos, African-Americans, women, etc., then that candidate may struggle to find a strong national following.
Trump has outperformed expectations, as usual. The late-breaking FBI investigation/nevermind letters hurt Clinton, a bit. And her own shortcomings as a candidate also were a problem for her.
But we're hearing stories of a very strong turnout of Latino voters. I think it's very likely that women will vote for Hillary in unprecedented numbers, due mainly to wanting to make sure a man like Trump never gets the validation that the Presidency would confer. African-American voting may lag behind the historic highs that Obama generated, but again, it looks like there will be a relatively strong turnout there for the Democratic ticket.
We're a diverse country. Relying on angry, aging white people is simply not a winning strategy. And everyone tells me that a strong "ground game" counts--and the D's seem to have an advantage there. Unless the rumors of a "hidden" Trump vote come true to an astonishing degree, he will not be able to overcome Clinton's advantages with a wide range of voters. But as always, I could be wrong.
So here's my prediction: I'll go big and say that Hillary wins nearly all the battleground states. I'll give Ohio to Trump.
Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com
That's a strong win. I could see it getting to 340 (add Ohio), or even 351 (Arizona). But that's probably wishful thinking.
As far as what it all means, I think it's safe to say we've really seen some of the fault lines in our society in the past year or so. White working-class people seem really fed up--with something. I just hope it's not the fact that they're not in charge in anymore. Because that's not going to change. We're going to have a more diverse country. We should be celebrating that, not fearing it.
I know people who have had it rough, economically. I kind of get why they might favor Trump, though his personal flaws seem disqualifying to me, even if you like the idea of a wall. But I also know Trump supporters who have had it pretty good over the last couple decades. And they seem angry too, over things that don't make a lot of sense to me. Is political correctness really destroying our country? Apparently it *can* kill you to be nice.
I often have said this election is a national IQ test. And even if HRC is elected tomorrow, I'd have to say we failed it. If Donald Trump can convince 40+ percent of the American voters that he deserves their vote, then something's wrong. And all of us need to get to work figuring out the fix. Our media, our educational system, our social networking--all if it needs to be re-examined to figure out why so many problems with our society remain: so much racism, so much misogyny, so much violence, and so much stubborn ignorance--even when the facts are easily obtained.
We need to be better people in order to be a better nation. And that's on all of us. Let's keep talking, as a first step.
I know people who have had it rough, economically. I kind of get why they might favor Trump, though his personal flaws seem disqualifying to me, even if you like the idea of a wall. But I also know Trump supporters who have had it pretty good over the last couple decades. And they seem angry too, over things that don't make a lot of sense to me. Is political correctness really destroying our country? Apparently it *can* kill you to be nice.
I often have said this election is a national IQ test. And even if HRC is elected tomorrow, I'd have to say we failed it. If Donald Trump can convince 40+ percent of the American voters that he deserves their vote, then something's wrong. And all of us need to get to work figuring out the fix. Our media, our educational system, our social networking--all if it needs to be re-examined to figure out why so many problems with our society remain: so much racism, so much misogyny, so much violence, and so much stubborn ignorance--even when the facts are easily obtained.
We need to be better people in order to be a better nation. And that's on all of us. Let's keep talking, as a first step.
2 comments:
First off, no one—save perhaps Trump’s family and coterie of true believers—foresaw this outcome. So you can be forgiven for your predictions. What isn’t so forgivable is the high viscosity condescension towards Trump’s voters oozing from every sentence. You echo what has been the imperious liberal refrain from the beginning of Trump’s campaign; only knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, racist, women-hating troglodytes would vote for him: “…a national IQ test… we failed it…” And here’s the problem: you seem to think that only Trump manifests a national idiocy, and that anyone who thinks that Clinton’s nomination is a manifestation of collective idiocy is racist, misogynist, violent, and ignorant; that it just isn’t possible for an intelligent human being to believe that Clinton represented a larger danger to the country than Trump. Well, it is possible; you just choose not to see it.
Consider just one issue, the Supreme Court. Scalia’s untimely and lamentable death and the Senate Republicans’ refusal to vote on nominee Garland presented voters with a stark choice; a vote for Hillary meant another justice utilizing out-come-based jurisprudence in service to an organic constitution (penumbras emanating as far as the eye can see), or an originalist jurist who might serve as a bulwark against the more pernicious totalitarian impulses of the leviathan state. If one believes that Scalia’s originalist vision of the constitution is correct and the organic vision is incorrect, then a vote for Trump is far from stupid, ignorant, violent, or racist. You may disagree with the vision, but it is plainly condescending and insulting to ascribe this calculation as stupid. Given the Supreme Court’s abrogation of the prerogative of all other democratic institutions to decide political matters, the makeup of the Court is arguably as important—or even more important—than who the President is. So voting for the candidate most likely to appoint a justice with a world-view in line with yours is exceptionally rational and intelligent.
I think that a lot of people voted for Trump for different reasons, and my guess is that like me, 95% of them held their nose while doing so. But I think that one of his appeals across the educational-level-achievement spectrum was that he was a giant middle finger stuck in the face of the arrogant and condescending liberal establishment. People who are tired of being told that because they think “gay marriage” is immoral they are homophobic. People who are tired of being told that because they object to unregulated and unfettered immigration they are racist and xenophobic. People who are tired of being told that because they think that the men’s room is for those with a penis and the women’s room is for those without said appendage they are homophobic and/or genderphobic, or whatever the label of the week is. People who are tired of being told that despite having 50% of their incomes confiscated by government they still aren’t paying “their fair share.” Clinton summed it all up very succinctly when she called all those unwashed masses too stupid to share her world-view “deplorables.” She may well have cost herself a million votes and an election with that insult.
Lastly, political correctness is not about “being nice.” I saw it humorously defined once as “The belief that it is possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.” But really, it is about silencing dissenting opinions through shame and intimidation and thereby advancing an agenda without having to engage in civil and rational discourse. People’s Exhibit A: Curt Schilling. Bet you a dollar he voted for Trump.
Jim, sorry I didn't see this sooner. I just wasn't much in the mood for coming back here!
Appreciate your comments and will consider them. I know that many are saying that those on the left were not appreciative of the conservatives who voted for Trump and their reasons for doing so.
Hard for me to see it. Trump is the worst candidate I've ever seen for president, ever. I respected McCain and Romney. If they had won, I wouldn't worry that they might start of nuclear war. But I do worry about that with Trump. I worry that he is a tool for the Russian government. I worry that he will make disastrous decisions on global warming. I worry that millions will lose health insurance as he guts Obamacare. I worry that he will effectively end Medicare and cripple Social Security. I worry that he will grope the interns. Yes, he wouldn't be the first. So you're OK with it, now?
Is it arrogant for me to say it was stupid to vote for Trump? I guess you'd say so, and I respect your opinion. But I honestly feel that way, based on everything I know about him. I honestly think those who voted for him, holding their nose or not, put their party and their politics above their love for country. There is no way this presidency will end well for our country. He's a horrible man. He will make a horrible president. My opinion, and obviously others disagree.
What else... oh, if you call marriage for gays immoral, then yes, you are homophobic. Kind of textbook case, there. Like when Ryan said Trump's statement was textbook racism. I don't agree with Ryan on much, but there's that.
I mean you say it kind of perfectly. Conservatives just wanted to say Fuck You to liberals after 8 years of a Democratic president. They didn't want to do the right thing for the country, they wanted to express their resentment and anger. It's not condescending to note that conservatives have been caught up in a resentment-based political mindset for years; complaining about this and that, saying that they want to take back the country (probably from those immoral gays and liberals), bellyaching because they think people don't like it when they say Merry Christmas. They make up tax figures and say the government is taking all my money--even when they have one of wealthiest lifestyles on the planet. They say they're justified in voting for sexual predator because the Supreme Court is so important, all the while ignoring that their party abrogated its constitutional responsibility by refusing to even discuss Obama's nomination of Garland. Yeah, that's love for the framers, right there. Just stonewall 'till you get the outcome you want. Very principled. Not worthy of contempt at all.
I mean, when someone can complain about arrogance and condescension, while saying his fellow man is immoral and not worthy of having the same rights that he has taken for granted his whole life, what *is* the proper response?
A weary shake of the head is all I can manage right now.
Post a Comment