Listening to the concerns of the other political side...

[ruby59]

There was no way I could vote for Hillary, too much junk in her closet. My conscience wouldn't let me vote for Trump. He did seem the better of two evils. However, I live in Illinois which always goes Democratic so even if I don't vote, 2 or 3 dead people vote for me.

I live in Rhode Island. Our state will slide into the Atlantic ocean before it ever turns red.

So my vote, or lack of, would not matter either.

 

[arkieb1]

This is an excerpt from an opinion piece written by Kevin Baker on the NY Times that I wholeheartedly agree with: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/opinion/sunday/the-america-we-lost-when-trump-won.html

I have listened to all the blame foisted on the Clinton campaign for doing this or that wrong, or the media for not exposing Mr. Trump, or for giving him too much airtime. I don’t buy it. Hillary Clinton’s campaign wasn’t that bad, and Mr. Trump was exposed enough for any thinking adult to see exactly what he is.

From assorted commentators I have heard that it is unfair or condescending to say that all Trump voters were racists, or sexists, or that they hated foreigners. All right. But if they were not, they were willing to accept an awful lot of racism and sexism and xenophobia in the deal they made with their champion, and demanded precious few particulars in return.

Yes and I think we are currently calmly and rationally looking at why that is, having said that these are the parts of the article you linked that I found myself nodding to;

"Yet when I say that I have lost the America I knew, I’m not talking about policy, or even fundamental rights, disorienting as their loss would be. I mean a greater, almost spiritual faith that I had in my fellow citizens and their better instincts, something that served as my north star in all I wrote and all I did."

"Today’s passive, unhappy Americans sat on their couches and chose a strutting TV clown to save us."

And that indeed is why I am so vocally anti-Trump on here, he is an extremely bad choice, that I think, was made in part out of desperation to many of the issues we have talked about so far in this post, in part as a backlash against the establishment, in part a whitelash, in part a reaction against Hillary herself as a candidate, and if this thread is anything to go by I don't think it's any one single factor that caused it, it is a complex mix of all of these things that allowed Trump to become your president. The more we understand this, the better or less likely we are to elect such an inappropriate choice in the future.

 

[arkieb1]

There was no way I could vote for Hillary, too much junk in her closet. My conscience wouldn't let me vote for Trump. He did seem the better of two evils. However, I live in Illinois which always goes Democratic so even if I don't vote, 2 or 3 dead people vote for me.

I think it's fascinating why "he did seem the better of the two evils" because lets face it he was and is a terrible choice.

 

[Dancing Fire]

There was no way I could vote for Hillary, too much junk in her closet. My conscience wouldn't let me vote for Trump. He did seem the better of two evils. However, I live in Illinois which always goes Democratic so even if I don't vote, 2 or 3 dead people vote for me.

I live in Rhode Island. Our state will slide into the Atlantic ocean before it ever turns red.

So my vote, or lack of, would not matter either.

And Ca. Will slide into the Pacific Ocean on the same day

 

[arkieb1]

There was no way I could vote for Hillary, too much junk in her closet. My conscience wouldn't let me vote for Trump. He did seem the better of two evils. However, I live in Illinois which always goes Democratic so even if I don't vote, 2 or 3 dead people vote for me.

I live in Rhode Island. Our state will slide into the Atlantic ocean before it ever turns red.

So my vote, or lack of, would not matter either.

And Ca. Will slide into the Pacific Ocean on the same day

They would probably be really happy - then they could form their own separate country and not have to accept Trump

 

[partgypsy]

There was no way I could vote for Hillary, too much junk in her closet. My conscience wouldn't let me vote for Trump. He did seem the better of two evils. However, I live in Illinois which always goes Democratic so even if I don't vote, 2 or 3 dead people vote for me.

Just curious about this statement. Are you saying that IL goes Democratic because of voter fraud? Please correct me if I misunderstood.

 

[AdaBeta27]

I think it's fascinating why "he did seem the better of the two evils" because lets face it he was and is a terrible choice.

I think he's going to be a short-term POTUS who gets impeached or forced out by his own party. I've come to the conclusion that the Republican machine is using him as stooge / fall guy / henchman / hatchet man, whatever you want to call it, to do their dirty work. And when it's done, they are done with him and the VP ascends. Trump may or may not have caught onto that, but I think his wife and kids have. Trump can be forced out based on history of erratic behavior and temperamental outbursts, and all those rambling incoherent and word salad utterances and Twitter posts will build the case. Maybe he'll develop "health problems" that cause him to abdicate. Either they are giving Trump enough rope to hang himself, or Trump himself is in on the deal. I could be wrong. But I'm starting to see the idea of a Trump exit being discussed by the media. I can't see Trump continuing 4 years the way he's been going, not growing into the job, continuing to act like a caricature, and maybe that is the plan. For a corporate exec, how is he such a p_ss poor speaker who can't even form coherent sentences?? wth! It's like listening to a dementia patient. Yet, he goes on Fox News and speaks like a rational person. wth, just wth!

 

[arkieb1]

AdaBeta27 - I've been saying repeatedly the same thing, wondering if he will actually last the whole term without getting impeached or removed by his own party or his own voters.... that's a really interesting conspiracy theory get Trump to introduce and implement all of the really polarising/radically right wing things the rest of the party wouldn't dare to do and then get rid of him....

 

[jaaron]

AdaBeta27 - I've been saying repeatedly the same thing, wondering if he will actually last the whole term without getting impeached or removed by his own party or his own voters.... that's a really interesting conspiracy theory get Trump to introduce and implement all of the really polarising/radically right wing things the rest of the party wouldn't dare to do and then get rid of him....

My own personal opinion (based on nothing other than opinion and conjecture, mind you ) is that the bulk of the Republican establishment was as shocked as everyone else when he actually won. But that as long as Ryan, Pence, et al are able to make use of his antics to distract, in the way a magician uses sleight of hand, while they push through as much of their radical right agenda as fast as possible--eradicating separation of church and state, filling the supreme court seat, trashing the ACA, etc.)--they'll keep him. As soon as his clown act becomes more of a hindrance than a help, they'll turn.

I don't think they were prepared for Bannon and his ilk, though, so we'll see...

 

[E B]

There was no way I could vote for Hillary, too much junk in her closet. My conscience wouldn't let me vote for Trump. He did seem the better of two evils. However, I live in Illinois which always goes Democratic so even if I don't vote, 2 or 3 dead people vote for me.

Just curious about this statement. Are you saying that IL goes Democratic because of voter fraud? Please correct me if I misunderstood.

I can't speak for AprilBaby (and I know you know this already) but this is a common tactic used by some who a) know better but want to influence those who don't and b) others truly needing to believe that they don't belong to the voting minority. For every 1 legitimate vote, 2 being cast fraudulently would be a huge scandal and would NOT go unnoticed by red counties in IL, if we're looking at this as cynically as possible.

Trump and others are doing the same thing accusing protestors of being paid (by George Soros ). It can't be that thousands and thousands are incensed by certain policies or ideas, they have to be fake. Fake protestors, fake news, etc. It's a pattern, and a dangerous one.

By the way, I saw on Twitter that Trump has pushed off his investigation into massive voter fraud. Something about it just "not being a priority right now."

 

[siamese3]

There was no way I could vote for Hillary, too much junk in her closet. My conscience wouldn't let me vote for Trump. He did seem the better of two evils. However, I live in Illinois which always goes Democratic so even if I don't vote, 2 or 3 dead people vote for me.

I think it's fascinating why "he did seem the better of the two evils" because lets face it he was and is a terrible choice.

I also find this fascinating... "he did seem the better of two evils" I really do wish that people who believed this would cite their reasons why. I am genuinely interested. For me his behavior (no respect for others, hyperbole, his blatant need for adoration, inability to stay focused or control himself, inability to apologize or take responsibility...)not political ideology, made him "unfit" for the job of the president of the PTA, let alone of the country.

 

[t-c]

This is an excerpt from an opinion piece written by Kevin Baker on the NY Times that I wholeheartedly agree with: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/opinion/sunday/the-america-we-lost-when-trump-won.html

I have listened to all the blame foisted on the Clinton campaign for doing this or that wrong, or the media for not exposing Mr. Trump, or for giving him too much airtime. I don’t buy it. Hillary Clinton’s campaign wasn’t that bad, and Mr. Trump was exposed enough for any thinking adult to see exactly what he is.

From assorted commentators I have heard that it is unfair or condescending to say that all Trump voters were racists, or sexists, or that they hated foreigners. All right. But if they were not, they were willing to accept an awful lot of racism and sexism and xenophobia in the deal they made with their champion, and demanded precious few particulars in return.

Yes and I think we are currently calmly and rationally looking at why that is, having said that these are the parts of the article you linked that I found myself nodding to...

I don't think this exercise will be all that useful unless those who support Trump actually answer the question: "why were they willing to accept an awful lot of racism and sexism and xenophobia in the deal..., and demanded precious few particulars in return."

There was no way I could vote for Hillary, too much junk in her closet. My conscience wouldn't let me vote for Trump. He did seem the better of two evils. However, I live in Illinois which always goes Democratic so even if I don't vote, 2 or 3 dead people vote for me.

I think it's fascinating why "he did seem the better of the two evils" because lets face it he was and is a terrible choice.

How many times have you asked this question? And has there been an answer?

How did they even judge that he's the "better of two evils" when he'd done nothing besides bloviate that he will 'make America great again', that he will 'bring manufacturing jobs back', he will 'get rid of ISIS', that he will provide better coverage and cheaper health insurance for everyone. Those are just words -- and with how much he lies, how can anyone even believe he would do that? But, of course, the people I've asked have said they didn't really believe what he said...so...what made them vote for Trump? He's shown himself to be a sexist, racist, xenophobic liar; they apparently didn't believe his promises. Why did they still vote for him? Because they think he is better than someone who has endured 20 years of investigations and is still walking free. Amazing, because, believe me, if they found anything on Hillary that is at all actionable they were going to use it. But these folks decided that those emails were just so so so terrible -- even though the worst James Comey could say was that it showed bad judgement. Please...Donald Trump's hair is the definition of bad judgement.

 

[AnnaH]

Thanks, Arkie, for your efforts.
Although the responses are thoughtful and polite, I'm not seeing much understanding and have no confidence that my participation will contribute to understanding either. This is probably a popular opinion, and that is why there's not more participation.
So not quite sure why I'm here except for respect for your and other's efforts.
First of all, there seems to be an agreement among the left that President Obama was a highly successful President. Certainly he is a wonderful family man, amazing orator, and has a great personality. It's just my opinion that these qualities, especially when compared to Clinton and Trump, contribute more to his approval rating than anything. Had his policies appealed to more people, Clinton would have won. Instead too many wanted change.
Quote all the former administration data that you want about the economy. Not everyone is buying the "numbers." People know whether or not the economy is better for them and their communities. They see the hopelessness of the astronomical debt. To be fair to the former President, he inherited a mess, but not everyone thinks his policies worked well. Most did not approve of the direction the country was going and sought change.
It wasn't just the economy. Many had a problem with the apology tour, the beer summit and the Iranian deal, just as a few examples.
The following isn't an idea for which I'm convinced, but probably has at least some merit and worth consideration.


The first element of Haidt’s “moral foundations theory” is that the vast majority of moral reasoning rests on six foundations:

Care/Harm
Fairness/Cheating
Liberty/Oppression
Loyalty/Betrayal
Authority/Subversion
Sanctity/Degradation
The resulting “moral foundations” continuum aligns left to right (liberal to conservative) in political ideologies. To illustrate, think of Care/Harm as cherishing and protecting the oppressed and think of Fairness/Cheating as rendering justice according to shared rules or values. These are the most “liberal” of Haidt’s moral pillars. The right-most two pillars—Authority/Subversion and Sanctity/Degradation—emphasize obeying tradition and legitimate authority and holding transcendent categories of behavior or belief as sacrosanct (or abhorrent).

These foundations help us categorize people based on their most essential moral beliefs. Those who tend to see morality mostly through the prisms of Care/Harm and Fairness/Cheating are “liberal.” If your moral compass tends more toward Authority/Subversion and Sanctity/Degradation, you are “conservative.” Simple enough.

But Haidt’s second major discovery is far more consequential: the concept of “the conservative advantage.” Based on painstaking cross-cultural social-psychological experimentation, Haidt establishes that the moral foundations of liberals and conservatives are not just different, they are dramatically unequal. The liberal moral matrix rests essentially entirely on the left-most foundations; the conservative moral foundation—though slanted to the right—rests upon all six.

This is a stunning finding with enormous implications. The first is that conservatives can relate to the moral thinking of liberals, but the converse is not true at all. Haidt, who is liberal himself, elegantly explains how and why conservatives will view liberals as merely misguided while liberals tend to view conservatives as incomprehensible, insane, immoral, etc.


If you find this interesting, there's plenty of info available. Many here have probably read about this. There are articles, which interpreted the theory from a liberal perspective and those from a conservative perspective. A big criticism for me is that individuals don't actually fit categories.
Here's an example that occurred to me that is very current and can be explained by this theory. Let me preface this with stating that I don't think the government should have anything to say about marriage and little to say about sexuality. (Of course somethings must always be illegal, rape, child abuse.)
Regarding transsexuals and restrooms, I'm not concerned with a transsexual sharing facilities with me. Doubt I would even noticed. But I do have reservations about a 12-year-old trans boy sharing showers and changing rooms with girls. I'd rather continue the present solution of offering the child privacy. Many liberals would disagree. That's an example of protecting individuals or the collective.
So that's my little contribution.

 

[ruby59]

There was no way I could vote for Hillary, too much junk in her closet. My conscience wouldn't let me vote for Trump. He did seem the better of two evils. However, I live in Illinois which always goes Democratic so even if I don't vote, 2 or 3 dead people vote for me.

I think it's fascinating why "he did seem the better of the two evils" because lets face it he was and is a terrible choice.

I also find this fascinating... "he did seem the better of two evils" I really do wish that people who believed this would cite their reasons why. I am genuinely interested. For me his behavior (no respect for others, hyperbole, his blatant need for adoration, inability to stay focused or control himself, inability to apologize or take responsibility...)not political ideology, made him "unfit" for the job of the president of the PTA, let alone of the country.

For me, with Trump there are no surprises. He is who he is. He does what he says he will do.

So as much as I did not care for him and therefore did not vote for him, I was able to make an informed decision.

Hillary on the other hand is not honest about who she is. We had to learn about her through her leaked emails. I definitely could not vote for someone like her..

 

[Calliecake]

Re: Listening to the concerns of the other political side.

No surprises at all. He showed all of us what a racist, misogynist hateful person he is. Some us expect much more from our president.

 

[bunnycat]

Thanks, Arkie, for your efforts.
Although the responses are thoughtful and polite, I'm not seeing much understanding and have no confidence that my participation will contribute to understanding either. This is probably a popular opinion, and that is why there's not more participation.
So not quite sure why I'm here except for respect for your and other's efforts.
First of all, there seems to be an agreement among the left that President Obama was a highly successful President. Certainly he is a wonderful family man, amazing orator, and has a great personality. It's just my opinion that these qualities, especially when compared to Clinton and Trump, contribute more to his approval rating than anything. Had his policies appealed to more people, Clinton would have won. Instead too many wanted change.
Quote all the former administration data that you want about the economy. Not everyone is buying the "numbers." People know whether or not the economy is better for them and their communities. They see the hopelessness of the astronomical debt. To be fair to the former President, he inherited a mess, but not everyone thinks his policies worked well. Most did not approve of the direction the country was going and sought change.
It wasn't just the economy. Many had a problem with the apology tour, the beer summit and the Iranian deal, just as a few examples.
The following isn't an idea for which I'm convinced, but probably has at least some merit and worth consideration.


The first element of Haidt’s “moral foundations theory” is that the vast majority of moral reasoning rests on six foundations:

Care/Harm
Fairness/Cheating
Liberty/Oppression
Loyalty/Betrayal
Authority/Subversion
Sanctity/Degradation
The resulting “moral foundations” continuum aligns left to right (liberal to conservative) in political ideologies. To illustrate, think of Care/Harm as cherishing and protecting the oppressed and think of Fairness/Cheating as rendering justice according to shared rules or values. These are the most “liberal” of Haidt’s moral pillars. The right-most two pillars—Authority/Subversion and Sanctity/Degradation—emphasize obeying tradition and legitimate authority and holding transcendent categories of behavior or belief as sacrosanct (or abhorrent).

These foundations help us categorize people based on their most essential moral beliefs. Those who tend to see morality mostly through the prisms of Care/Harm and Fairness/Cheating are “liberal.” If your moral compass tends more toward Authority/Subversion and Sanctity/Degradation, you are “conservative.” Simple enough.

But Haidt’s second major discovery is far more consequential: the concept of “the conservative advantage.” Based on painstaking cross-cultural social-psychological experimentation, Haidt establishes that the moral foundations of liberals and conservatives are not just different, they are dramatically unequal. The liberal moral matrix rests essentially entirely on the left-most foundations; the conservative moral foundation—though slanted to the right—rests upon all six.

This is a stunning finding with enormous implications. The first is that conservatives can relate to the moral thinking of liberals, but the converse is not true at all. Haidt, who is liberal himself, elegantly explains how and why conservatives will view liberals as merely misguided while liberals tend to view conservatives as incomprehensible, insane, immoral, etc.


If you find this interesting, there's plenty of info available. Many here have probably read about this. There are articles, which interpreted the theory from a liberal perspective and those from a conservative perspective. A big criticism for me is that individuals don't actually fit categories.
Here's an example that occurred to me that is very current and can be explained by this theory. Let me preface this with stating that I don't think the government should have anything to say about marriage and little to say about sexuality. (Of course somethings must always be illegal, rape, child abuse.)
Regarding transsexuals and restrooms, I'm not concerned with a transsexual sharing facilities with me. Doubt I would even noticed. But I do have reservations about a 12-year-old trans boy sharing showers and changing rooms with girls. I'd rather continue the present solution of offering the child privacy. Many liberals would disagree. That's an example of protecting individuals or the collective.
So that's my little contribution.

Thanks for interesting info. I guess my takeaway here was arkie was asking why people voted for trump (and ruby answered her reasons, kudos to her). However, what you suggest above seems to me to be more of a "why we are better than you" answer and doesn't actually answer the question and instead drives more division, which I think arkie was trying to get away from. I'll go ahead and point out, even if it makes no difference, that the sum of your conclusion amounts to a logical fallacy of composition, ie, because some parts of a group exhibit something, then all must...

A lot of people who responded, responded without any reference at all about feeling "better" than another side, merely giving their personal views as to why people may have voted for trump, and experiences with trump voters. I'm sorry those personal views don't mesh with your own. That doesn't mean I have to be your enemy. Not everyone who holds a differing view to you is your enemy or trying to fight you. All arkiw was trying to understand was what are you views as to why you voted for trump?

 

[bunnycat]

There was no way I could vote for Hillary, too much junk in her closet. My conscience wouldn't let me vote for Trump. He did seem the better of two evils. However, I live in Illinois which always goes Democratic so even if I don't vote, 2 or 3 dead people vote for me.

I think it's fascinating why "he did seem the better of the two evils" because lets face it he was and is a terrible choice.

I also find this fascinating... "he did seem the better of two evils" I really do wish that people who believed this would cite their reasons why. I am genuinely interested. For me his behavior (no respect for others, hyperbole, his blatant need for adoration, inability to stay focused or control himself, inability to apologize or take responsibility...)not political ideology, made him "unfit" for the job of the president of the PTA, let alone of the country.

For me, with Trump there are no surprises. He is who he is. He does what he says he will do.

So as much as I did not care for him and therefore did not vote for him, I was able to make an informed decision.

Hillary on the other hand is not honest about who she is. We had to learn about her through her leaked emails. I definitely could not vote for someone like her..

Thanks for the honest answer ruby. I do understand why people are fed up with non-plain speaking people/people that can't relate and what they see of this in politicians. It's certainly a major reason Bush was elected. He seemed more like "the common man" (because he spoke like one) which was surely a big draw.

I think, in essence, what a lot of others have been trying to say in response, if you can look past all the emotional aspect, is that you have to take the very long view of things when it comes to running a country of many millions of people and a lot of people on here saw what that meant in trump terms and didn't like the conclusion they came to.

There were plenty of people on the left who felt the exact same way as you do about HRC....

Let me explain another way. I dance Argentine tango and in my city, there are some teachers who many of us feel don't really do a good job teaching people how to dance. They are great at network building and getting beginners interested in dancing. Yet, no matter how hard any of the other teacher's in town (some of whom are VERY well qualified and well known) the class size of this other pair of teachers is always larger, because they make everyone "feel good" that they are related to.

I didn't train with them for more than a couple of months. Early in I saw I was mostly spending lots of money and getting nothing in the way of actual dance training (and I've danced other dances most of my life and danced competitively in the US, so I know what it is like to be well trained) I went out of town to be trained, and now I work with the teachers in town whose credentials and experience I respect. My personal outlook (in all areas), is that I seek out a qualified person, moreso than someone who makes me "feel good". And I think a lot of people do that in their political choices too. Lots of people make gut instinct choices or "feel good" choices. That's kind of how Bush happened. It's just not my way.

 

[AnnaH]

Bunny, it doesn't appear that you carefully read my post. I clearly stated that I wasn't convinced that the theory is correct and that my biggest criticism was that people don't fit into categories.
Out of everything posted by everyone on this thread, it is my post that you criticize as divisive and self righteous. Clearly, we don't understand one another. Peace.

 

[bunnycat]

Bunny, it doesn't appear that you carefully read my post. I clearly stated that I wasn't convinced that the theory is correct and that my biggest criticism was that people don't fit into categories.
Out of everything posted by everyone on this thread, it is my post that you criticize as divisive and self righteous. Clearly, we don't understand one another. Peace.

Yep- you are right. I missed that part, and agree with you. It's hard to categorize. My apologies. I skimmed a little too much.

 

[AnnaH]

No problem

 

[arkieb1]

Bunny, it doesn't appear that you carefully read my post. I clearly stated that I wasn't convinced that the theory is correct and that my biggest criticism was that people don't fit into categories.
Out of everything posted by everyone on this thread, it is my post that you criticize as divisive and self righteous. Clearly, we don't understand one another. Peace.

I'm think I am trying honestly to understand your point of view, as pointed out my mother is a right wing conservative and I'm married to another conservative, so even though I don't share their political views, it doesn't mean I don't have respect for them.

I totally agree with you the whole thing I've been arguing on here is that putting a label that all Trump supporters are white, uneducated, possibly unemployed, poor, and disenfranchised clearly isn't true, just like saying all people that voted for Hillary must be x or y. Not everyone is going to fit into certain categories, however, I do like accurate statistics, they give us a tiny snapshots so to speak or part of a profile of whatever or whoever they are looking at. I think we can generally say if we choose our words carefully that some Trump supporters are x and y, some Trump supporters have x or y attributes and some Hillary supporters are x or y, and have x or y attributes.

I'd argue the problem I have with Haidt's "moral foundations theory" is that the foundations he choses are probably not neutral enough to not favour conservatives, if for example I picked 6 different foundations I could probably come up with the same results to show that liberals can relate to the thinking of conservatives and conservatives can't relate to the thinking of liberals. But I do agree plenty of people who are on either side might not fit neatly into one box or the other.

I actually agree with you on Obama, the things I liked about him is that he seemed like a decent, morally accountable person, so did his family. I agree with most of the attributes you list he has above. You might however, be surprised to know that while I think he was a lovely guy and he and his wife wonderful role models, I think he was a largely ineffectual policy maker. I think he could have done far more to help you economy. I think in part he was limited to what he could and couldn't do because many of his ideas, bills, policies, were blocked by his political opponents, but the thing that stands out about him to me as a failure, is that he and his political team could have been selling/marketing/suggesting better economic and social solutions to the many problems your country currently has and selling these solutions more vigorously to both your people and to the political opposition.

The only thing I was arguing in previous posts is that Obama inherited a post GFC economy, both Clinton and Bush were far more responsible for creating it. I've heard some people claim it was Obama's fault and that simply is not true. I do wonder if you had of had a middle of the line conservative president for the last 4 years if he would have been any more or less economically successful than Obama, I can only guess but I suspect the answer is that they probably would not have been.

Trump is unlike anything we have seen. As I keep repeating I wouldn't even be on here talking politics if you had a decent conservative president, the thing I don't like about Trump, is he is radically to the right, he seems to represent the very worst aspects of conservative thinking, I suspect, or indeed I would like to hope, that you possibly feel the same way, and if not then at least you can see why I think that.

 

[GliderPoss]

This is such an interesting thread! As an Aussie we did see a lot of election coverage so I'm vaguely familiar with it all BUT what I'd really like to know is... If voting was compulsory (as it is here) what do you think the result would have been?
I'm mean - is this the "uprising" of a particular sector of Americans as reported or just more people voted for Trump than usual? Im trying to understand the statistics.

Also in some sense whilst I understand a LOT of people are unhappy (both candidates did not seem the best choices!) it IS the result of a free & democratic election so ergo more people did want Trump than Clinton. Are these protests against Trump personally? His party? Democracy/process? I'm seeing a lot of rallies on TV but with mixed messages.

 

[bunnycat]

This is such an interesting thread! As an Aussie we did see a lot of election coverage so I'm vaguely familiar with it all BUT what I'd really like to know is... If voting was compulsory (as it is here) what do you think the result would have been?
I'm mean - is this the "uprising" of a particular sector of Americans as reported or just more people voted for Trump than usual? Im trying to understand the statistics.

Also in some sense whilst I understand a LOT of people are unhappy (both candidates did not seem the best choices!) it IS the result of a free & democratic election so ergo more people did want Trump than Clinton. Are these protests against Trump personally? His party? Democracy/process? I'm seeing a lot of rallies on TV but with mixed messages.

That's a really really long topic....

Did y'all get any coverage of how the electoral college system works here?

Voter apathy is another reason, I think. The divisions on the liberal side were brutal during the democratic nomination, with Surely at least some Bernie supporters voting other, or switching sides in protest.

And a host of other things....

 

[arkieb1]

This is such an interesting thread! As an Aussie we did see a lot of election coverage so I'm vaguely familiar with it all BUT what I'd really like to know is... If voting was compulsory (as it is here) what do you think the result would have been?
I'm mean - is this the "uprising" of a particular sector of Americans as reported or just more people voted for Trump than usual? Im trying to understand the statistics.

Also in some sense whilst I understand a LOT of people are unhappy (both candidates did not seem the best choices!) it IS the result of a free & democratic election so ergo more people did want Trump than Clinton. Are these protests against Trump personally? His party? Democracy/process? I'm seeing a lot of rallies on TV but with mixed messages.

I wonder if voting was compulsory in the US if Trump might have gotten even more votes, we will never know because that's not how it works there.... They also have a different "college system" to us which means Hillary actually had more people voting for her, or got more votes but they do it (and this is a really basic description) by adding how many states won rather than the total of the people overall who voted. We calculate ours based on the number of votes plus preferences, not based on how many in each state voted for a particular party.

I think that a lot of lefties and even middle line voters believe Trump isn't fit to be the leader of the free world for a variety of reasons, some due to his rambling narcissistic personality, but because so much of what he says represents the viewpoints of many people on the extreme right, I guess to make a comparison it would be like saying we just voted in a sexist, narcissistic white male version of Pauline Hanson, with even more extremist views and policies than she currently has, to be our next Prime Minister...

 

[bunnycat]

This is such an interesting thread! As an Aussie we did see a lot of election coverage so I'm vaguely familiar with it all BUT what I'd really like to know is... If voting was compulsory (as it is here) what do you think the result would have been?
I'm mean - is this the "uprising" of a particular sector of Americans as reported or just more people voted for Trump than usual? Im trying to understand the statistics.

Also in some sense whilst I understand a LOT of people are unhappy (both candidates did not seem the best choices!) it IS the result of a free & democratic election so ergo more people did want Trump than Clinton. Are these protests against Trump personally? His party? Democracy/process? I'm seeing a lot of rallies on TV but with mixed messages.

I wonder if voting was compulsory in the US if Trump might have gotten even more votes, we will never know because that's not how it works there.... They also have a different "college system" to us which means Hillary actually had more people voting for her, or got more votes but they do it (and this is a really basic description) by adding how many states won rather than the total of the people overall who voted. We calculate ours based on the number of votes plus preferences, not based on how many in each state voted for a particular party.

I think that a lot of lefties and even middle line voters believe Trump isn't fit to be the leader of the free world for a variety of reasons, some due to his rambling narcissistic personality, but because so much of what he says represents the viewpoints of many people on the extreme right, I guess to make a comparison it would be like saying we just voted in a sexist, narcissistic white male version of Pauline Hanson, with even more extremist views and policies than she currently has, to be our next Prime Minister...

Sort of....here the electoral college is set up with each state having a set amount of electors (based on census population). So California has a huge population and a sizable number of electors. But....but...even if every single person in California voted D or R it wouldn't give them any more electors. They have what they have. Same for small states. The rub here is that if enough smaller states vote a certain way, it can counteract the overall vote (as we saw in November). So 10 smaller states could essentially with their combined electors cancel out the larger state. Once you start adding in the problem of gerrymandering it gets even more complicated. Gerrymandering (like the state senate did to my state a couple of decades ago) is generally used to break up voting districts to give another side an advantage. In my state's case, democratic districts were split and attached to republican districts so that, in effect nothing from a democrat ever gets a majority, even in a presidential election....

Like I said, it's very long and complicated....

 

[arkieb1]

Sort of....here the electoral college is set up with each state having a set amount of electors (based on census population). So California has a huge population and a sizable number of electors. But....but...even if every single person in California voted D or R it wouldn't give them any more electors. They have what they have. Same for small states. The rub here is that if enough smaller states vote a certain way, it can counteract the overall vote (as we saw in November). So 10 smaller states could essentially with their combined electors cancel out the larger state. Once you start adding in the problem of gerrymandering it gets even more complicated. Gerrymandering (like the state senate did to my state a couple of decades ago) is generally used to break up voting districts to give another side an advantage. In my state's case, democratic districts were split and attached to republican districts so that, in effect nothing from a democrat ever gets a majority, even in a presidential election....

Like I said, it's very long and complicated....

Yeah, sorry that was my very short basic version, the central gist is you still decide by adding up how many states win, not by who wins the most votes overall, we have Gerrymandering here too, it happens a lot here particularly in state elections, so we understand what it is

 

[bunnycat]

Sort of....here the electoral college is set up with each state having a set amount of electors (based on census population). So California has a huge population and a sizable number of electors. But....but...even if every single person in California voted D or R it wouldn't give them any more electors. They have what they have. Same for small states. The rub here is that if enough smaller states vote a certain way, it can counteract the overall vote (as we saw in November). So 10 smaller states could essentially with their combined electors cancel out the larger state. Once you start adding in the problem of gerrymandering it gets even more complicated. Gerrymandering (like the state senate did to my state a couple of decades ago) is generally used to break up voting districts to give another side an advantage. In my state's case, democratic districts were split and attached to republican districts so that, in effect nothing from a democrat ever gets a majority, even in a presidential election....

Like I said, it's very long and complicated....

Yeah, sorry that was my very short basic version, the central gist is you still decide by adding up how many states win, not by who wins the most votes overall, we have Gerrymandering here too, it happens a lot here particularly in state elections, so we understand what it is

Pretty much you got it.

And yeah gerrymandering...if anything starts profound and immediate cursing from me it is that topic. I mean how many times does the Supreme Court have to rule and then the representatives do nothing before it's hammer time?!

 

[AprilBaby]

There was no way I could vote for Hillary, too much junk in her closet. My conscience wouldn't let me vote for Trump. He did seem the better of two evils. However, I live in Illinois which always goes Democratic so even if I don't vote, 2 or 3 dead people vote for me.

Just curious about this statement. Are you saying that IL goes Democratic because of voter fraud? Please correct me if I misunderstood.

Not at all! It would go democratic anyways. Chicago just has a reputation for voter fraud.

 

[GliderPoss]

Wow so that explains why it is so important for Presidential candidates to "win states" as opposed to individual voters! Hmmm certainly a different system...
We have a "preferences" system here which I'm sure 99% of people don't know/understand so they vote without taking that into consideration. It's very frustrating to say the least...

 

[AnnaH]

This seems like more of a rehash of the election than an effort to understand those with different viewpoints (as Jenn wondered), but I don't expect people here to remember or to have even read my previous posts on why I voted for Trump, and you asked, so here you go.

Trump was not my first nor fifteenth choice for President, but he also wasn't Clinton. While most on the left chose the devil they knew, I chose the devil I didn't know. I knew I would disagree with most of Clinton's policies and hoped I would agree with most of Trump's policies.

On the electoral college, there's been talk here and elsewhere of doing away with it and going with a simple majority vote. That probably sounds good to the left because the coasts would choose every President. This would ignore most states.

It was interesting that Trump, the novice, ran his campaign the only way to win, with the electoral college. Clinton, the expert, thinking she had the electoral votes, ran up her popular vote in an effort to bolster her win.