A Provocative Question

Wed Nov 23 19:14:12 CST 2016

Probably the most cogent analysis of the Election was Nate Silver's:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump

Regardless of which side of the Democratic party you happen to fall under,
Hillary or Anti-Hillary, it was still a very close election. Without MI,
WI, and PA Trump still won 260 electoral votes (Not to mention Maine).
Trump won by a 1% Margin in PA. Say MI and PA went to Hillary, all Trump
had to do was win WI. It is hard to say if Sanders would have fared better
in MI, WI, or PA. I would argue that even against Sanders the electorate,
especially in the electorally rich Rust Belt, were predisposed towards
Trump, simply because Bernie would be hampered by defending his
predecessor's legacy. This was a change election, much to our dismay. We
can argue that the Hillary campaign made mistakes, they did, polls after
all are not definitive. They do have a margin of error. Especially state
polls. But, we all made those errors election night, even the Trump camp
was pretty glum initially.

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 6:49 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> You pretty much ignored my points of the last post.
>
> 1. You blame the Dem establishment for rejecting Bernie, but the voters
> rejected Bernie, not the establishment.  This is a simple refutation of
> your posit that the establishment is to blame for Hillary's nomination,
> which you choose not to hear.
>
> 2. Arguments that embracing your Bernie agenda woulda won is retro
> fantasy. See point #1 above.
>
> 3. If the Bernie Bros minority faction had unified with the majority of
> the Democratic Party, Hillary, not Trump, would now be President elect.
>
> David Morris
>
> On Wednesday, November 23, 2016, <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> There's no retroactive reduction here. This was the view that I and other
>> Bernie supporters (I don't consider myself a Bro) held throughout the
>> primary period, because polls showed consistently that he could beat Trump
>> by a wider margin than Hillary could. And we were consistently jeered at
>> and shouted down by people who knew better. Examining the voting patterns
>>  of the two primaries in various working class enclaves, such as Gerritsen
>> Beach in Brooklyn, showed that Bernie mostly edged out Trump in the number
>> of votes, with Hillary a distant third, and Cruz barely on the map. And my
>> family will back me up on this: I kept warning them not to be so complacent
>> about Hillary winning. But even I was surprised that she lost Pennsylvania.
>>
>> The majority of Sanders supporters voted for Hillary (as I would have, if
>> I lived in a swing state), and I believe the majority of Hillary supporters
>> would have voted for Sanders. The people who fled from him were the
>> Podestas, Clintons, Wasserman Schultz's, and all those who were hard-wired
>> into the system and didn't want to be dislodged. People who said
>> single-payer healthcare and student loan amnesty and foreclosure amnesty
>> were "unrealistic." Welcome to the new reality.
>>
>> LK
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Morris
>> Sent: Nov 23, 2016 4:53 PM
>> To: "kelber at mindspring.com"
>> Cc: Thomas Eckhardt , P-list
>> Subject: Re: A Provocative Question
>>
>> The thing that tempts my screaming is the retroactive reduction of all
>> factors to fit political fantasy in which "if only they'd done things my
>> way we wouldn't be here."  Bernie Bros not voting or voting 3rd party was
>> the primary (there were others less primary) factor in Hilary's loss.  Once
>> again righteous idealism ushers in the worst possible reality.  Nose
>> begone! Fuck you, face!
>>
>> Up to the very last moment NO ONE thought Trump would win, so don't go
>> all high & mighty blaming the vast majority of Democratic primary voters
>> for nominating Hillary.  They were not the "Democratic establishment" that
>> "ran in horror" from Bernie. Your brand is a minority in Democratic Party.
>> It's that simple.  Outreach and inclusion Hillary did vigorously, but too
>> many Bernie Bros were to pure.  They are almost all now privileged enough
>> to float above the coming carnage, aghast but safe from real harm.
>> Cassandras, shaking their heads at us all.
>>
>> David Morris
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2016, <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I voted for Sanders and Stein. If I lived in a swing state or if the
>>> electoral college hadn't rendered my vote irrelevant, I would have held my
>>> nose and voted for Clinton. And it would have been the most traumatic vote
>>> I'd ever cast, for all the reasons Thomas has stated.
>>>
>>> OK, stop screaming at me!
>>>
>>> I was a Hillary supporter back in the 2008 Democratic primary, because
>>> the sexism (specifically from progressive men) was so loathsome, I felt I
>>> had no choice. As a Hillary supporter back then, I was accused, mostly by
>>> "progressive" men, family and friends and even p-listers, of being racist
>>> and reactionary. These very same people are now, of course, avid Hillary
>>> acolytes. They're the very same people who accused me of being racist for
>>> NOT supporting Hillary this time around. What changed for me between 2008
>>> and the present: Hillary's emergence as a champion of the Neoliberal,
>>> regime-changing war hawks. Her cosying up with bankers didn't help.Not did
>>> her unabashed support of the globalist agenda (her pretending that she was
>>> opposed to TPP during the campaign was laughable).
>>>
>>> I was bracing myself to wake up post-election to the harsh realty of a
>>> rapidly warming neo-Cold War, and business as usual. That we now have a
>>> climate-denying, right-wing President Caligula, with Pence as his
>>> protective cod-piece, is something I place firmly on the shoulders of the
>>> Democrat establishment. They were willing to risk a Trump presidency rather
>>> than face the true horror (for them and their real constituents) of a
>>> progressive anti-globalist Sanders presidency. They thought they could hold
>>> a Republican-style "rah-rah" America convention, and court Republican
>>> votes, rather than speak to their their own base. Hillary may have won the
>>> popular vote, but the turn-out was low across the board. They also made the
>>> same mistake they made during the Reagan elections: Union leadership
>>> endorsements do not mean union votes. The Unions are just as out of touch
>>> with their base.
>>>
>>> The Democrats now have to make a hard decision: become a truly
>>> anti-corporate party, or openly embrace their Republicanism. It's highly
>>> unlikely that they'll choose the former path. They're anxiously waiting to
>>> see if Trump will uphold the most important planks of the globalist agenda.
>>> If he doesn't, they'll work together with the Republicans to remove him, in
>>> favor of Pence who will push the globalist line where it matters. I suspect
>>> he'll fall into line, and the Dems can continue to play the Good Cop. Oh,
>>> the Clinton Foundation and their globalist cronies will spearhead the fight
>>> against the ensuing civil rights abuses. And they'll be sincere, too,
>>> because, WalMart aside, abortion rights, gay marriage and open immigration
>>> are all actually good for business. Multi-cultural models are great for
>>> huckstering jeans, iphones and pharms.
>>>
>>> On a different note, I saw the play *Sweat*, yesterday. Written between
>>> 2012 and 2015, but taking place in Reading, PA during the Dubya presidency,
>>> it's a foreshadowing of the Trump win. It's a laundry list of issues that
>>> Sanders addressed and Clinton didn't: plant closings, home foreclosures,
>>> the cynical use of immigrants to erode union jobs, unaffordable college
>>> tuition. The play ends in 2008, in a hopeful note: things will change. But
>>> they didn't change, for white or black people.
>>>
>>> Here's a great interview with playwright Lynn Nottage, before and after
>>> election day:
>>>
>>> http://fortune.com/2016/11/11/trump-voters-lynn-nottage/
>>>
>>> Laura
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> >From: Thomas Eckhardt
>>> >Sent: Nov 23, 2016 7:17 AM
>>> >To: David Morris , P-list
>>> >Subject: Re: A Provocative Question
>>> >
>>> >Polemics aside, here are a few thoughts on the election:
>>> >
>>> >Both candidates were unelectable (which in itself says a
>>> >lot about the ruinous state of the US body politic). We
>>> >don't have to talk about the shortcomings of Trump.
>>> >Clinton, however, in my opinion
>>> >was the even more despicable candidate. Not because she is
>>> >obviously corrupt -- unless you actually believe she
>>> >receives 485,000 Dollars for a speech in front of Deutsche
>>> >Bank managers merely because of her oratory skills -- but
>>> >because she is a certified warmonger and regime-change
>>> >advocate.
>>> >
>>> >Let us leave aside Iraq, Libya, Honduras and Ukraine:
>>> >Clinton wanted to establish a no-fly zone in
>>> >Syria. This would not only be against international law
>>> >but also amount to a declaration
>>> >of war against Russia. Trump, on the other hand, is
>>> >against the establishment of a NFZ.
>>> >
>>> >I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want war
>>> >with Russia.
>>> >
>>> >Interestingly, Trump has recently met Tulsi Gabbard who,
>>> >as far as I can tell, represents the sane side of US
>>> >politics. Her statement on the meeting is well worth
>>> >reading and expresses my POV better than I ever could:
>>> >
>>> >http://gabbard.house.gov/index.php/press-releases/655-gabba
>>> rd-statement-on-meeting-with-president-elect-donald-trump
>>> >
>>> >If Trump continues in this vein, he might run into
>>> >trouble with the National Security Establishment...
>>> >
>>> >Me, I would have voted for Sanders or Stein, never for
>>> >Clinton or Trump.
>>> >
>>> >I will leave it at that. Let us hope for the best.
>>> >
>>> >-
>>> >Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20161123/d8a4c97e/attachment.html>