Margins

82 comments on “Margins ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bearded Git 1

   11 November 2016 at 9:13 am

   Real Clear Politics had it 272-266 Clinton. It only takes a tiny shift in the vote in 2/3 states to get the result we ended up with so they had it about right.

   538 got it wrong and also got it wrong on Brexit.

   The late FBI email scandal probably cost Clinton the White House.
   • Manuka AOR 1.1

     11 November 2016 at 9:25 am

     The late FBI email scandal probably cost Clinton the White House.

     Yes it is point #12 of “14 shocking things from the exit polls”
     http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/here-are-14-shocking-things-from-exit-polls-that-the-mainstream-media-isnt-talking-about/

     Comey’s announcement could actually have had a substantial impact.

     A full 50 percent of Americans decided to vote for Trump after James Comey’s announcement that he was looking into Clinton’s emails again. That final portion of the campaign showed that Comey’s message could have had an impact. Of the 13 percent of voters who decided in the final weeks after the announcement 47 percent went Trump and only 42 percent went for Clinton. In those very close states like Michigan and Wisconsin, it could have been a factor.
     • Lanthanide 1.1.1

       11 November 2016 at 11:25 am

       Even with Michigan and Wisconsin, she still would have lost.
       • Bearded Git 1.1.1.1

         11 November 2016 at 11:34 am

         She lost:
         Florida 1.3 (29)
         Michigan 0.3 (16)
         Pensylvania 1.2 (20)
         Wisconsin 1.0 (10)

         These add up to 75…….she only needed 38 more and a 0.7% shift would have got her the lot. Comey should be sacked.
         • Lanthanide 1.1.1.1.1

           11 November 2016 at 1:40 pm

           She needed to win all 3 of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

           Hence my statement saying that if she only won 2 of those 3, she still would have lost.
           • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1.1.1

             11 November 2016 at 6:36 pm

             They were part of the Democratic blue fire wall. All these states have consistently voted for a Democratic President for more than 20 or 30 years. That changed this week.
       • mikesh 1.1.1.2

         11 November 2016 at 4:01 pm

         On the other hand there was apparently an article in the WSJ a few days before his announcement, which seemed to hint at McCabe, the FBI officer in charge of the investigation, having been bribed. His wife, who was running for Congress received a large donation towards her campaign expenses from a Terry McAuliffe, a close associate of the Clinton’s. I don’t suppose anything could be proved but it looked rather suspicious.
     • Bearded Git 1.1.2

       11 November 2016 at 11:28 am

       Thanks Manuka-says it all. The Republicans cheated again.
   • Lanthanide 1.2

     11 November 2016 at 11:23 am

     538 got it wrong and also got it wrong on Brexit.

     Sigh, this shit again.

     First, 538 did not publish any official prediction about Brexit.

     Secondly, amongst poll aggregators, 538 was the most bullish on Trump. They had Clinton at a 70% chance to win, and over the few weeks before hand, were repeatedly pointing out that a possible outcome was for her to win the popular vote, but to lose the electoral college. They said in their final simulations, there was a fair proportion of results where 4-5 of the states went opposite the way of their main model, which is what happened. Nate also posted a breakdown, showing that if Clinton won the popular vote by 1%, she’d only have a 25% chance to win the presidency.

     So actually, 538 modelling was very good – they were let down by the polls in the rust belt states being so far off.

     Garbage in, garbage out, no matter how good your model is.
     • Bearded Git 1.2.1

       11 November 2016 at 11:40 am

       @Lanth Clinton on a 70% chance to win….still sounds wrong to me
       • Lanthanide 1.2.1.1

         11 November 2016 at 1:17 pm

         Based on the available evidence, it was an accurate prediction.

         Like I said, when the same model was run, but with Clinton only winning 1% of the popular vote, she only had a 25% chance of winning the electoral college, in other words, more likely-than-not she’d lose it.
2. Manuka AOR 2

   11 November 2016 at 9:21 am

   This is a breakdown of who voted for each candidate by age, race, gender, incomes, education, rural/urban etc: http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37922587

   For HC:
   54% of women, 41% of men
   88% of black voters, 65% of Hispanics, 37% of whites, 65% of Asian, 56% other
   55% of 18 – 29 yr olds, 50% of 30 to 44 yr olds, 44 and 45% of the rest
   52% of those w/ incomes under $50,000 p/a, 53% of below $30,000
   59% of urban vote

   Hillary Clinton won the popular vote: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-electoral-college-donald-trump
   • Bearded Git 2.1

     11 November 2016 at 11:36 am

     @Manuka 37% of whites….OMG there it is in a nutshell
     • Manuka AOR 2.1.1

       11 November 2016 at 12:06 pm

       Also, those most invested in the future, – those aged up to 45, – voted for her. If voting age ended at 49, eg, she’d be in. (From that link above)
   • aerobubble 2.2

     11 November 2016 at 1:55 pm

     Little, like Clinton, is unlikely to get out in front of the growing rage against housing costs, low wages, long hours, renting second class future. Student loans are just the first insufferable.

     Unlike the US, we don’t have a rigged election system that favours states over majority will. We do however have Labourlite unwilling to sacrifice for the cause, i.e Labour become a constituent party, let Green be the list party.
3. Well Fed Weta 3

   11 November 2016 at 9:44 am

   “How could people prefer a racist sex-pest to someone so qualified?”
   It pains me, but once again I have to provide some balance to this. Clinton is corrupt. She lied about Benghazi. She showed incredibly poor judgement with her email. She has bullied her husbands sexual assault victims. She was certainly not ‘so qualified’.

   “Either way, USA is a very divided country.”
   Indeed, and it has been for some time. Reagan and Clinton unified voters, at least to some degree, behind their President. Bush 2 and Obama have polarised the electorate (although not entirely by their own fault).
4. Colonial Viper 4

   11 November 2016 at 9:52 am

   Without California, Hillary Clinton would have lost the popular vote by over 2 million voters.

   That should make liberal lefties think about what that says about the Republican reality of much of the rest of the nation.
   • stunned mullet 4.1

     11 November 2016 at 11:17 am

     NZ Liberal lefties and righties for that matter look at the US of the television and the places they holiday in the USA and have the impression that the USA is just like us, when it is a very varied country with some very very deep differences to our way of life in little old NZ.

     I remember when I was a young fellow travelling round the US and getting on a bus in Chicago to go intercity and sitting down the back and receiving some very strange looks from the other people on the bus until opened my mouth and said hello at which stage they told me why it was so strange for a white boy to be sitting down the back.
   • Lanthanide 4.2

     11 November 2016 at 11:29 am

     It’s a strange thing to say, CV. A lot of people move to California, for the jobs, or because it is liberal.

     If California weren’t there, then a lot of the people would be spread out across the rest of the US anyway.
     • Colonial Viper 4.2.1

       11 November 2016 at 12:25 pm

       Just observing that in the 49 states excluding Ca., there is a massive Republican voting majority.
       • McFlock 4.2.1.1

         11 November 2016 at 1:02 pm

         and yet hillary’s 49-state popular majority improves markedly if you similarly remove texas.
         • Colonial Viper 4.2.1.1.1

           11 November 2016 at 1:19 pm

           If you remove both California and Texas, Trump still wins the popular vote in the remaining states by well over 1M voters.
           • McFlock 4.2.1.1.1.1

             11 November 2016 at 1:37 pm

             But if you then remove some of the smaller rural states, Clinton wins again.

             Ain’t it funny how if you decide some votes don’t count, your favoured candidate wins the popular vote?
             • Colonial Viper …

               11 November 2016 at 5:25 pm

               And the public granted Republicans wins state by state as well. Both houses of Congress.
               • McFlock …

                 11 November 2016 at 6:23 pm

                 And how does that relate to popular vote for president?

                 Oh, it doesn’t…
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   11 November 2016 at 6:33 pm

                   voters in individual states have empowered the Trump White House with the backing of both houses of Congress.

                   Trump is only the 2nd or 3rd Republican President since 1945 with this privilege.
                   • McFlock …

                     11 November 2016 at 6:36 pm

                     That’s nice dear.
                     Meanwhile, more people voted for clinton than trump.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     11 November 2016 at 7:23 pm

                     Yeah, but they lost the election and every branch of government.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     11 November 2016 at 7:43 pm

                     Oh dear I just noticed that the Democrats also lost 3 Governors houses to the Republicans.

                     33 Republican Governors now, to 15 Democratic Governors.
                   • McFlock …

                     11 November 2016 at 7:54 pm

                     Yep.

                     That’s what you get with FPP systems in the country that invented the term “gerrymandering”.

                     See, if trump had won the popular vote as well as the electoral college, you’d have a point. But all you’re doing is illustrating how defunct the system is – nobody “empowered” the republicans intentionally to have the trifecta as some sort of plan by the borglike hivemind of the electorate. But that’s what happens when you have a hodgepodge of systems to determine the checks and balances of the different branches.

                     Most voters didn’t want trump as president, let alone as president with republican house and senate.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     11 November 2016 at 8:52 pm

                     How do you gerrymander a race for Governor?
                   • McFlock …

                     11 November 2016 at 10:18 pm

                     well, that depends on the specifics of each state’s electoral system, doesn’t it.
5. Keith 5

   11 November 2016 at 9:54 am

   The point that is continually missed is that Clinton was bloody awful. She was no Joan of Arc, she was a horribly compromised politician with a violent track record and firmly ensconced with the lobbyists and corporates who have alienated so many Americans. The Clinton Foundation is reprehensible.

   Sadly the Democrats couldn’t have selected a worse candidate but their little comfortable establishment could not help themselves.

   That so many Americans could even bring themselves to vote for either of these two is remarkable and I can completely understand the non voters given the basement standards of the two candidates they were presented with.
   • Kevin 5.1

     11 November 2016 at 11:48 am

     I couldn’t agree more.

     Enough of the whining of how wrong the polls were, she was unpalatable to a large number of the population and her track record and personal issues back that up.

     Putin’s speech the very next day (probably one of two he had prepared) certainly made me feel safer about the future of my children.
     • jeremy anderson 5.1.1

       11 November 2016 at 12:23 pm

       so why did she win the popular vote?
       • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1

         11 November 2016 at 12:34 pm

         The proper question is: why did she win the popular vote but lose a number of key states that she should not have lost.
       • D'Esterre 5.1.1.2

         12 November 2016 at 12:55 am

         Jeremy Anderson: “so why did she win the popular vote?”

         She and Trump pretty much shared the popular vote between them. Last i looked, she got 47.7%, Trump got 47.5℅.It’s a bit disingenuous of people to claim that she won the popular vote, when they don’t go on to say how small the margin is. But this is the US electoral system: she lost states that she wasn’t expected to lose. Hence her failing to get enough electoral college votes for her to win. On the bright side, her losing may have saved us all from war with Russia
6. mauī 6

   11 November 2016 at 10:03 am

   Still it’s an incredible, practically impossible victory from Trump. He had more or less the whole media (and biased polling) against him apart from Fox. Clinton had the superior funding, organisation and the ground game getting out early voters and Trump still won.
   • Roflcopter 6.1

     11 November 2016 at 10:12 am

     The problem was that the ground game was too targeted, and yet again, ignored what the workers were saying… case-in-point Wisconsin… Clinton didn’t even go there.

     As for the media, this piece from MSNBC talks about the media, Michael Moore, and why the media failed and Michael Moore called it…
     • Lanthanide 6.1.1

       11 November 2016 at 11:31 am

       Clinton was ahead by 6.6% in the Wisconsin polling.
       • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1

         11 November 2016 at 12:31 pm

         Because of the abusive climate against Trump and Trump supporters, a lot of people did not want pollsters, or others to know who they were voting for.

         The shy/embarrassed Trump voter was a major and real phenomenon.
         • Lanthanide 6.1.1.1.1

           11 November 2016 at 1:19 pm

           “The shy/embarrassed Trump voter was a major and real phenomenon.”

           Not yet proven.

           It is not clear why the polls were off.

           Personally I think their turnout models were wrong, alongside non-response.

           The term “shy Trump voter” literally means people who answer a poll, but say they are voting for Clinton because they’re shy to admit they really want to vote for Trump.
           • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1.1.1

             11 November 2016 at 5:03 pm

             The term “shy Trump voter” literally means people who answer a poll, but say they are voting for Clinton because they’re shy to admit they really want to vote for Trump.

             Or said they were undecided. Or said they were for Gary Johnson. Or said f*** off, I’m busy.

             Not yet proven.

             You go ahead and take your time on that Lanth. Meanwhile the world is moving on.
             • Lanthanide …

               12 November 2016 at 12:32 am

               “Or said f*** off, I’m busy.”

               That’s not a “shy Trump” voter, that is a non-response.

               Technical terms have specific meanings. “Shy Trump voter” is a technical term with a specific meaning. It doesn’t mean whatever you want it to mean.

               “You go ahead and take your time on that Lanth. Meanwhile the world is moving on.”

               Hey, I’m just telling you what 538 found out when they asked pollsters what went wrong. The reply is that it would take weeks or months to determine what went wrong with the polls, and anyone saying they know what was wrong is just guessing.

               Like you’re just guessing.
7. Siobhan 7

   11 November 2016 at 10:08 am

   What you are calling ‘The incredibly shitty status quo’ is actually a dystopic nightmare for many Americans.

   What do you call going to prison for a lost library book. (And pretty much anything to do with the Prison System.)

   Getting your own child/husband/wife executed by a cop on the front lawn because they were having a mental break down and you called for help.(And pretty much any action that leads to a cop shooting…like being Black or especially Fist Nation)

   Losing your house, credit rating and job because you got cancer, or didn’t pay a speeding ticket, (and pretty much any petty little thing that dumps you in the debt Economy from which you can never escape).

   I guess the American First Nation people dealing with the North Dakota Pipeline could stand as an example.

   They were getting trampled over last week.

   They are getting trampled over this week. (and some stuff has been going down under cover of the Election)

   And…they will be getting done over next week.

   The DNC should have gone with Bernie. Or at the very least not tried to get the soft Republican vote (though to be fair some in the DNC did try to advise Hillary on this, but she wasn’t listening.). Thinking they could win votes with endorsements from the War Hawks was a massive mistake.
   • Colonial Viper 7.1

     11 November 2016 at 10:21 am

     What you are calling ‘The incredibly shitty status quo’ is actually a dystopic nightmare for many Americans.

     And it stayed that way, and even worsened for the bottom 50% of Americans, after 8 years of President Obama.
     • Siobhan 7.1.1

       11 November 2016 at 11:00 am

       The problem is people think the Dystopic Future will look like ‘Logans Run’ or something…they don’t get it..we ARE living in the Future.

       And its Blade Runner, not Star Trek (sorry Yanis Varoufakis).

       And your right CV, the Press and commentators have access to the same stats as you and I…so what did they think was going to happen? That people would vote enmass for the status quo?? The crime here is the public didn’t get the chance to vote for REAL POSITIVE CHANGE>
       • Manuka AOR 7.1.1.1

         11 November 2016 at 12:11 pm

         and even worsened for the bottom 50% of Americans

         CV, where is your reference for that statement? What do you base it on?
         • Siobhan 7.1.1.1.1

           11 November 2016 at 12:30 pm

           For African Americans

           http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433222/black-americans-barack-obama-going-backwards-under-president-obama

           I’m not sure about the overall population..Generally its hard to put together all the stats easily. A classic example is ‘Job creation’, which supposedly goes up, but then you find out more people are simply not looking for work and aren’t even included in any stats.
         • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1.2

           11 November 2016 at 1:16 pm

           CV, where is your reference for that statement? What do you base it on?

           My reference is all the people in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin who have voted Democrat for 3 decades, but just told the Obama/Clinton legacy where to go.

           More specifically, as just one example:

           Labour force participation rate deteriorates over Obama’s 2 terms. Now record 95M people outside of the workforce.

           http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/record-94708000-americans-not-labor-force-participation-rate-drops

           Also, massive increase of food stamp use since Obama entered office/GFC stays high: feeds one in seven Americans despite “recovery.”

           http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-03/food-stamps-still-feed-one-in-seven-americans-despite-recovery

           Also my previous posts on how 7 out of 10 Americans cannot even find $1000 in their savings accounts.
           • RedBaronCV 7.1.1.1.2.1

             11 November 2016 at 10:13 pm

             Obama was also battling a Republican House & senate for much of that time. Remember the threats to collapse the budget? So maybe things would have been even worse for large numbers if he hadn’t been there. & the RW dominated supreme court.
8. rsbandit 8

   11 November 2016 at 11:11 am

   Clinton was not a good candidate. She was a God-awful candidate (political establishment when the mood was anti-establishment, untrustworthy past, current investigation issues).

   That shows what happens when you let the party machine appoint someone because it is “their turn”. Had the DMC chosen someone who was merely “okay”, they would have won. Democrat vote did not turn out for a candidate they did not like.

   There is a lesson here, but will it fall on deaf ears?
   • Siobhan 8.1

     11 November 2016 at 12:48 pm

     I’m afraid so. The DNC couldn’t go with Bernie as that would threaten the very existence of their Financial, corporate, neo liberal overlords.. Thing is the clock is ticking anyway.

     ‘They’ will be looking at this election result, at Brexit, at Corbyn and thinking ‘the peasants are revolting’.
     The question is, will they learn to compromise and get over their Growth Addiction with a 12 step program, and then try to win over the Bernie and rational Trump types next election, or will they double down and make Americans so fearful they actually vote for ‘our very own’ despotic pant suited overlords..
     • Wayne 8.1.1

       11 November 2016 at 2:42 pm

       Well I guess the Democrats can try out a socialist candidate in 2020, just like UK Labour is with Corbyn. Then they will know the actual appeal one way or another.
       In the US the party hierarchy do not choose, the registered voters do. That is why the Republicans got Trump. Sanders had his shot with the voters and lost. It wasn’t stolen from him.
       • Stuart Munro 8.1.1.1

         12 November 2016 at 1:03 am

         Rubbish Wayne – he was nobbled. In much the same way as UK Labour tried to nobble Corbyn.

         The non-troughing classes are sick of your lot Wayne, they need real change just to get a break-even result. Neo-liberalism hasn’t enriched them as you swine promised, it has taken the bread from their childrens’ mouths. People will fight over that.
9. stunned mullet 9

   11 November 2016 at 11:18 am

   Don’t blame me I voted for Kodos !
10. roy cartland 10

    11 November 2016 at 11:34 am

    Sorry to hijack – Standard, can we have a bit of a more focussed discussion on the following? I’m still unclear, esp with the likes of eg CV’s posts and comments.

    Do we not like Trump just because of who and what he is or what he will enact? Naturally he has emboldened bigots and haters everywhere and that sucks for sure – but will his actual actions as potus have any upsides?

    He took down the Paris repeal and the Muslim ban from his site for eg – maybe there’s a opening to reach out to the supporters there and get them onside. Maybe they know he’s a complete dickhead but think him more of a fool than a knave? We don’t need the arseholes, just the despairing will be enough.

    (I’ve been reading these:)

    https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/what-now/

    https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/trumps-victory-speaks-to-a-crumbling-liberal-order/

    http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/11/aaron-sorkin-donald-trump-president-letter-daughter
    • Colonial Viper 10.1

      11 November 2016 at 1:06 pm

      His Presidency will have massive upsides for NZ. One reason I supported him. Just check out the post which has just gone up by NATWATCH. The TPP is toast.

      Thanks Donald J Trump.
      • Lanthanide 10.1.1

        11 November 2016 at 1:28 pm

        There’s a reasonable chance that if he actually manages to enact the policies he’s promised, he’ll create a worldwide recession, which will harm NZ.

        Also, Hillary said she didn’t support TPPA either. So there’s that.
        • mauī 10.1.1.1

          11 November 2016 at 2:23 pm

          The only reason she backtracked on the Tppa was because of the Sanders movement. With all her corporate backing it was likely she would flipflop on her position once in power.
          • Lanthanide 10.1.1.1.1

            11 November 2016 at 3:48 pm

            Possible, we’ll never know. This was her statement though, which is pretty unequivocal:

            “I’ll oppose it now, I’ll opposite after the election, and I’ll oppose it as President,” Hillary Clinton said in a speech in early August, seemingly snuffing out almost ten years of negotiation.
            • Colonial Viper 10.1.1.1.1.1

              11 November 2016 at 5:01 pm

              Was that Clinton’s public position, or her private position?

              Do you know what changed exactly to change her mind that the TPPA was the “gold standard” in free trade agreements?
              • Lanthanide …

                12 November 2016 at 12:40 am

                Obviously it’s her public position, because she said it in public on record. Whether her private position is the same, I don’t know, you’d have to ask her. Good luck on that. As others have pointed out to you in the past, having a public position that’s required of you in your job as sectary of state, is different than what your own private position in the same subject might be.

                Nope, I don’t know what changed her mind, but you can read more about the topic here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/13/hillary-clinton/what-hillary-clinton-really-said-about-tpp-and-gol/

                I would suggest that, once again, in 2012 when she supported it, she was doing her job as secretary of state. We both know that TPPA was never really a trade deal, but a way of buttressing against China’s influence in the Asia-Pacific region – exactly the sort of thing the secretary of state would be running the white house’s lines on.

                But really you’re digging up history here, presumably as a distraction. The point I am making is that Clinton said in quite clear terms, very recently, that she would not support the TPPA if she were President.

                Meanwhile Trump’s said lots of things, like he’ll build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. Lets see how many miles he gets completed before 2020 (Obama promised he’d close Guantanamo bay too, and it’s still open).
      • Stuart Munro 10.1.2

        12 November 2016 at 1:05 am

        Perhaps we should see what he actually does first.
    • Lanthanide 10.2

      11 November 2016 at 1:31 pm

      For me, it’s both.

      He’s a bigot, a racist and a sexist, and having someone like him in charge will embolden every day people to behave in those ways, even if he doesn’t change any laws in any way, his precense will normalise those behaviours.

      Then, I don’t like him because his policies are for the most part destructive, and he’s lied to his supporters about what he can achieve and what Hillary would do. I think those supporters will ultimately be very upset with him.

      Thirdly, he’s likely going to appoint 2-3 judges to the supreme court, and he’s said he wants to overturn Roe v Wade as well as marriage equality. Those will be massive steps back for liberalism in the US, and his appointments will likely continue to impede social progress for the next couple of decades.
      • Colonial Viper 10.2.1

        11 November 2016 at 5:32 pm

        He’s a bigot, a racist and a sexist, and having someone like him in charge will embolden every day people to behave in those ways, even if he doesn’t change any laws in any way, his precense will normalise those behaviours.

        The most vociferous, nasty, venomous, self righteous abuse has come from the Left. Then there’s the underhanded bullshit like the DNC sending paid provocateurs into Trump rallies to try and start fights for the media.

        The Democrats picked a weak candidate to run and tried to shame and bully people out of supporting Trump. They failed.

        And to reward the Democrats for their behaviour, voters have now given Republicans control of the White House and both houses of Congress.
11. Henry Filth 11

    11 November 2016 at 3:35 pm

    Mister Trump has no policies.

    Whose voices will fill that empty vessel?
    • McFlock 11.1

      11 November 2016 at 3:45 pm

      I’m sure one or two people will drop in their ten pence’ worth…
    • Colonial Viper 11.2

      11 November 2016 at 6:30 pm

      1) 35% import tarriffs
      2) Repeal and replace Obamacare
      3) Remove regulations aimed at the coal industry
      4) Implement term limits and lobbying restrictions in DC
      5) Massive infrastructure investments
      6) Work with Russia to destroy ISIS
      7) Slash waiting times for the VA
      8) Remove Common Core school requirements
      9) Build up the US military including a 350 vessel navy
      10) Boost trades and technical training.
12. esoteric pineapples 12

    11 November 2016 at 4:47 pm

    I’ve been mulling over this Trump thing today, particularly as there are quite a few people I know who actually support Trump for one reason or another and it their perspective that interests me as much as Trump himself. For a minority it is their conspiracy theories that make them think that Clinton was worse to have as President than Trump. But for most I think there is more often than not a religious element to their support. This is usually not stated when they say why they support Trump. In particular, abortion is a button issue for a lot of people. There are a lot of otherwise progressive people who will still support/vote for Trump/ Republicans on this issue alone. There is also the issue of what “secularism” means in a liberal society. Secularism actually means the acceptance of all religious beliefs within a society, not the absence of them. But for a lot of religious people secularism may feel more like the suppression of their religious beliefs. Probably you can’t understand this American election and the response to Trump there and in New Zealand without seeing it as a battle over religious beliefs.
    • Colonial Viper 12.1

      11 November 2016 at 5:00 pm

      Evangelicals ended up hugely breaking for Trump. As USA Today described Trump – a thrice married blasphemer.
      • D'Esterre 12.1.1

        11 November 2016 at 6:39 pm

        CV: ” a thrice married blasphemer.”

        Is there something wrong with being thrice-married? There’s an awful lot of serial marriage about. Guess it’d be worse, were he a trigamist.

        Dunno about the blaspheming charge: I guess one’d have to be a theist in the first place, to recognise anything as being blasphemous.
        • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.1

          11 November 2016 at 7:18 pm

          The mainstream media is still in meltdown over a Trump blindsider that caught them by total surprise, in part because they had been cheerleading for Clinton for months.
          • D'Esterre 12.1.1.1.1

            11 November 2016 at 11:55 pm

            CV: “mainstream media is still in meltdown over a Trump blindsider that caught them by total surprise,”

            Didn’t it just! I’ve commented on that elsewhere. RNZ here has been particularly bad: I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve contacted them, asking them to desist from the anti-Trump propaganda. So of course they failed to see it coming, despite people like me warning them. I wasn’t surprised: the signs were all there. Though I did wonder for a while whether the weight of propaganda might get Clinton over the line. But no: trust the voter. Wisdom of crowds, eh?

            I note the violent demos in Portland and other places at present. The Democrats show themselves in a very poor light: democracy rules, but only if it goes my way! Sore losers: very bad form.
13. Paul 13

    11 November 2016 at 5:12 pm

    The left should listen to this.
    • Colonial Viper 13.1

      11 November 2016 at 5:26 pm

      Yep. Pretty obvious. If the Left can’t respond to the new political reality, the Right will.
      • Rob 13.1.1

        12 November 2016 at 12:35 am

        If this response is correct then why does it need a label to connect it to past ideas? I realise that a lot of old warriors have pasted Blue and Red to their banners in recent years and are looking to some resolution to their fight.

        They should get over their egos and their prejudicies and their judgments and their intellectual status and rethink about the world and NZ today.

        Look at the kids coming through in NZ , they really don’t see colour.
14. D'Esterre 14

    11 November 2016 at 6:34 pm

    Sigh of relief here, that Clinton wasn’t elected. Popular vote pretty much shared between them, last I looked: 47.7% to Clinton, 47.5% to Trump.
    • Colonial Viper 14.1

      11 November 2016 at 7:13 pm

      Yep. Trump brought it home with the much smarter electoral vote strategy, and despite spending only a small fraction of Clinton’s ad campaign, he had the authenticity and chutzpah to pull it off.

      Just heard Larry King say that having known Trump for many years, no doubt that Trump is at least a little surprised that he finally won.
      • Bill 14.1.1

        12 November 2016 at 12:55 am

        Strategy? Fuck off CV. He’s just a charlatan who played to a pretty obvious suite of sentiments.

        You wanna throw money against those sentiments? Money thrown away.

        You wanna be an insincere fuckwit who plays to those sentiments? BINGO! (Trump as ‘authentic’ – ffs give’s a break son!)

        I’ve told you before (Yup. Who the fuck am I to tell you anything) that the fact such an obviously devoid creature as Trump can successfully play to those sentiments shows, not that Trump is an anything, but simply that those sentiments run deep.
        • adam 14.1.1.1

          12 November 2016 at 3:01 am

          And on a sociological level, this election proves once again they are very easy to tap into.

          It’s not like we have not seen authoritarians of any strip, tap into them when the need arises, or in the pursuit of power.

          Putin, Berlusconi, and La Pen just to name a few in more recent times. Now add trump.

Links to post

1. Lessons? « The Standard: posted on 12 November 2016 at 8:12 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS