US Presidential election 2016

[G-Dragon]

People are actually upset one of the most corrupt US politician didn't become the POTUS. All the leaks have shown that Hillary cannot be trusted. No need to even go about shady Clinton Foundation.

The election has been fair and square. Respect the results.

 

[Veggie Legs]

People are actually upset one of the most corrupt US politician didn't become the POTUS. All the leaks have shown that Hillary cannot be trusted. No need to even go about shady Clinton Foundation.

The election has been fair and square. Respect the results.

Not really. They're upset that a sexist, racist, homophobic man with no political experience became POTUS.

 

[.V.]

People are actually upset one of the most corrupt US politician didn't become the POTUS. All the leaks have shown that Hillary cannot be trusted. No need to even go about shady Clinton Foundation.

The election has been fair and square. Respect the results.

Except it has an A rating.

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

That same organisation doesn't rate his trust.

https://www.charitywatch.org/charit...-t-charitywatch-rate-the-trump-foundation-/65

Also https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.us...he-trump-foundation?context=amp?client=safari

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Now I've calmed down/ sobered up/ slept I'm sort of looking forward to it in a terribly perverse way. Last stage capitalism in it's glorious death throes.

Saw Wolfgang Streeck speaking this week about the end of capitalism. While it may be finished whatever comes to replace it will be fucking brutal.

 

[epic73]

The election has been fair and square. Respect the results.

I thought it was rigged?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

More of a death knell for globalism, surely.

 

[Veggie Legs]

But at the same time, without doing any research into this, I would expect the stereotypical Republican voter to be like the stereotypical Conservative voter, e.g. middle class and better off, so I'm not entirely sure that graphic portrays the whole picture. How does this compare to previous elections?

You are correct: 16 percentage point swing to Republicans for people in the lowest income bracket.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html

 

[Aber gas]

Saw Wolfgang Streeck speaking this week about the end of capitalism. While it may be finished whatever comes to replace it will be fucking brutal.

We get a say though in what comes next.( I'm an eternal optimist) with every fucking disaster I become more active and more determined to enact positive change. Even if it's just for my own sanity I refuse to believe that hope is lost.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

How widespread is this "idea"? Coz I have to say I've very seldom encountered it and it hardly feels like The Greatest Threat To Western Civilisation. In fact, given some of the shit minorities have to put up with it seems like pretty small beer in the grand scheme of things.

It's an absolutely bizarre take to blame left-wing identity politics for Trump (particularly when you're invoking "normal people" - itself, an identitarian position).

The centre-left can't adapt to post-growth politics because their political project is contingent on constant growth, and, in a stagnating economy "vote for us to keep the rate of decline steady" isn't a compelling political message against those who promote easy answers, scape-goating, and a renewal of white supremacy.

That is why they keep losing, not because someone at Goldsmiths organised a meeting they ask white men not to attend.

It's slightly more than a century since Rosa Luxembourg wrote "Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism." It was true in 1916 and it's doubly so in 2016. I'm with her.

 

[Art Morte]

It's not just an American thing though. Brexit, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orban, Norbert Hofer, Geert Wilders, there's a certain discourse gaining traction...

The first decades of the 21th century will go down in history as the time when the white folks in Europe and North America began to have a severe adverse reaction to multiculturalism and immigration. First the rise of right-wing parties across Europe; jump to 2016 and we've had two massive examples of this development in Brexit and now in Trump. The biggest, although not only, reason these two things happened is the fear among the native white population that their society's identity is being lost.

The sad thing is that almost no one seems to either recognise this or want to talk about it as it is.

It's too big a phenomenon to be all put down to racism. There must be room - ample room - between "being racist" and "being concerned about national identity". One can be anti-immigration and anti-multiculturalism without being racist at all.

But the political-correctness-produced unwillingness to talk about this in real terms is doing our generation(s) no favours. It's clear as a day, but having an open, public discussion about it in our press, media, parliaments seems almost forbidden. These referendum, election results scream about the issue, but so far we remain incredibly reluctant to even attempt to deal with it. I'm afraid history will not paint our time nicely, for the longer we turn a blind eye on this issue, the worse we will make it, and the worse it gets the harder it will be to successfully solve it. In a 50 years time there could be a lot of blame laid at our feet - and we choose to be all but oblivious to it.


That said, it's a pity the Republicans did not have a better candidate to offer a channel for the white population in America to express their fear of losing their society's identity. Trump offered that option, but he is not a skilled man and will probably be a terrible president. Nevertheless, it will be hugely interesting to see where his election leads to.

 

[Gashead]

I think it would have been interesting to see how Sanders would have fared. Polled above Trump nationally, undoubtedly more positive campaign than Clinton's, yet socialism is pretty poisonous in the US. So if they had gone for Sanders over Trump, we'd be talking about a fairly incredible victory. Might not have worked, but interesting to consider.

I agree with a lot of the points re: the left in the context of Brexit, but quite honestly I just think Clinton was a dogturd candidate with no inspiring features, which gave Trump opportunities. His lack of political history also made the 'Red state, blue state' game the media/Clinton's campaign team were playing very dangerous. Trump was unique in that regard.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

We get a say though in what comes next.( I'm an eternal optimist) with every fucking disaster I become more active and more determined to enact positive change. Even if it's just for my own sanity I refuse to believe that hope is lost.

Yeah, you're right - we also need to be prepared to fight hi-tech neo-feudalism just as hard as we fought capitalism

 

[G-Dragon]

Oh and don't forget DNC conspiring against Sanders!

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

You are correct: 16 percentage point swing to Republicans for people in the lowest income bracket.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html

So essentially the biggest gains are poor and uneducated people. Which fits in with my narrative. Which I will post up tomorrow, it's gonner be a big post though. I can't be arsed writing it now.

Art Morte Excellent post, history will for sure have harsh words about 2016, Cameron in particular.

We get a say though in what comes next.( I'm an eternal optimist) with every fucking disaster I become more active and more determined to enact positive change. Even if it's just for my own sanity I refuse to believe that hope is lost.

If you have time to kill, which you don't, but that isn't the point, check out the works of David Harvey, probably the leading urban geographer. I think you'll appreciate his work. http://davidharvey.org/

 

[smat]

Starting to think nominating someone everyone in your country hates might have been a bad call by the Democrats.

 

[G-Dragon]

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Ebeneezer Goode today

 

[johnnytodd]

Best thing is he only run for office for a laugh......shows how shit today's politicians are they are all in it for themselves and you lot fall for it every time.........#brainwashed

Top bloke our Donald his opinions on immigration are liked throughout this country too, people just wont admit it because PC Bells and the corrupt police and politicians jump on anyone who steps out of line.

great times.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

Right, so as I've said, the 2016 US Presidential election can not be viewed as an isolated incident, rather as part of a trend in Western democracy. To use British examples we have Brexit and the rise of UKIP, in France we have Marine Le Pen, the positionality of Sarkozy and the burkini furore over the summer. There are plenty more examples across Europe.

An interesting demographic for US elections http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html (good find Veggie Legs ) is that a higher percentage of US citizens on lower income voted for the Republicans compared to what would be expected considering that historically poorer people vote for Democrats. Additionally this is the highest vote percentage wise from the white - non college educated demographic that the Republicans have had. One can therefore assume that the main reason for the election of Trump was due to low earning, non-college educated white people, essentially the working class, does this seem familiar? http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...fferent-demographic-groups-vote-eu-referendum

Now I basically can't be arsed finding sources for the rest, so bite me, however I've purposefully used the term working class, yet in my opinion this is a redundant term. It is increasingly impossible to classify people as upper, middle or lower classes. Since the erosion of traditional working class jobs and the introduction of automation the class system has crudely split into two, for arguments sake I will classify them as the underclass and the overclass. Additionally governance has transformed from social redistribution to risk management. Since neo-liberalsim under Thatcher and Reagan became popular discourse the wealth gap between the two groups has risen year upon year. In years of relative boom and growing economies capital is put into the system but a large section of society is excluded from this system - e.g. London compared to former industrial places in a state of perpetual decline. I'd wager this transfers to the US, for example the swing state of Michigan with Detroit at its centre that eventually backed Trump compared to New York and California. There is this underclass that neo-liberal economics has ignored and the uneven distribution of capital is the precursor.

Again, since Thatcher and Reagan, governance has tended to be done via consensus, run as a business, what is good for the flow of capital into the system is good for the population and does not represent the little man. This has led to the erosion of traditional left wing and right wing politics, instead we have Blair and Clinton adhering to Third Way politics. Additionally we have post-democracy coined by Colin Crouch, that states operate a fully fledged democratic system but essentially it is an illusion, there is a small ruling elite. *Cough* George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, almost Jeb Bush, Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton *cough*. Additionally we also have the rise of experts (who we have had enough of) in the political field, there have been arguments raised that it is better to view modern politics as a technocracy. Then we have systems like the European Union (Brexit) and trade agreements (protectionist Trump rhetoric) that are virtually impossible to govern in a democratic manner and there is the entwinement of public and private sectors and privatisation, running the country like a business, profit over the individual and again, how can this be controlled democratically. So essentially what we have now is the combined economic and political exclusion of the underclass.

So what does this lead to? (Here is where you check out the works by Zizek and the wider post-politics) Far right populism. Grievances towards consensual politics lends to populism, characterised by the idea that there is a big nasty enemy, the reactionary notion of "the people". The people of Britain don't want the EU, the judges are the enemy of the people, immigrants are the enemy of the people, Muslims are the enemy of America, you get the drift.

This is the situation we, the Western world (I hate that term btw), find ourselves. We're not nations of racists and small minded bigots that I so often see suggested every single time I open my Facebook page. We're nations of an economically and politically excluded underclass, the people that neo-liberalism has left behind lashing out against the system. This is represented through the misguided view of the people v the immigrants.

 

[smat]

Ebeneezer Goode today

Ebeneezer Goode last December:

It's not even a political goal. He has no intention of being president.

 

[ProfessorGreen]

Right, so as I've said, the 2016 US Presidential election can not be viewed as an isolated incident, rather as part of a trend in Western democracy. To use British examples we have Brexit and the rise of UKIP, in France we have Marine Le Pen, the positionality of Sarkozy and the burkini furore over the summer. There are plenty more examples across Europe.

An interesting demographic for US elections http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html (good find Veggie Legs ) is that a higher percentage of US citizens on lower income voted for the Republicans compared to what would be expected considering that historically poorer people vote for Democrats. Additionally this is the highest vote percentage wise from the white - non college educated demographic that the Republicans have had. One can therefore assume that the main reason for the election of Trump was due to low earning, non-college educated white people, essentially the working class, does this seem familiar? http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...fferent-demographic-groups-vote-eu-referendum

Now I basically can't be arsed finding sources for the rest, so bite me, however I've purposefully used the term working class, yet in my opinion this is a redundant term. It is increasingly impossible to classify people as upper, middle or lower classes. Since the erosion of traditional working class jobs and the introduction of automation the class system has crudely split into two, for arguments sake I will classify them as the underclass and the overclass. Additionally governance has transformed from social redistribution to risk management. Since neo-liberalsim under Thatcher and Reagan became popular discourse the wealth gap between the two groups has risen year upon year. In years of relative boom and growing economies capital is put into the system but a large section of society is excluded from this system - e.g. London compared to former industrial places in a state of perpetual decline. I'd wager this transfers to the US, for example the swing state of Michigan with Detroit at its centre that eventually backed Trump compared to New York and California. There is this underclass that neo-liberal economics has ignored and the uneven distribution of capital is the precursor.

Again, since Thatcher and Reagan, governance has tended to be done via consensus, run as a business, what is good for the flow of capital into the system is good for the population and does not represent the little man. This has led to the erosion of traditional left wing and right wing politics, instead we have Blair and Clinton adhering to Third Way politics. Additionally we have post-democracy coined by Colin Crouch, that states operate a fully fledged democratic system but essentially it is an illusion, there is a small ruling elite. *Cough* George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, almost Jeb Bush, Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton *cough*. Additionally we also have the rise of experts (who we have had enough of) in the political field, there have been arguments raised that it is better to view modern politics as a technocracy. Then we have systems like the European Union (Brexit) and trade agreements (protectionist Trump rhetoric) that are virtually impossible to govern in a democratic manner and there is the entwinement of public and private sectors and privatisation, running the country like a business, profit over the individual and again, how can this be controlled democratically. So essentially what we have now is the combined economic and political exclusion of the underclass.

So what does this lead to? (Here is where you check out the works by Zizek and the wider post-politics) Far right populism. Grievances towards consensual politics lends to populism, characterised by the idea that there is a big nasty enemy, the reactionary notion of "the people". The people of Britain don't want the EU, the judges are the enemy of the people, immigrants are the enemy of the people, Muslims are the enemy of America, you get the drift.

This is the situation we, the Western world (I hate that term btw), find ourselves. We're not nations of racists and small minded bigots that I so often see suggested every single time I open my Facebook page. We're nations of an economically and politically excluded underclass, the people that neo-liberalism has left behind lashing out against the system. This is represented through the misguided view of the people v the immigrants.

But does Trump like anusmunchies is the real question here.

 

[Mustard]

I think it would have been interesting to see how Sanders would have fared. Polled above Trump nationally, undoubtedly more positive campaign than Clinton's, yet socialism is pretty poisonous in the US. So if they had gone for Sanders over Trump, we'd be talking about a fairly incredible victory. Might not have worked, but interesting to consider.

I agree with a lot of the points re: the left in the context of Brexit, but quite honestly I just think Clinton was a dogturd candidate with no inspiring features, which gave Trump opportunities. His lack of political history also made the 'Red state, blue state' game the media/Clinton's campaign team were playing very dangerous. Trump was unique in that regard.

I think he would have done alright. Infact there are probably plenty of Democrats who could have beaten Trump. This vote seems as much against the establishment and status quo as it does for Trump, and Clinton is the living embodiment of elitism.

Sanders would have picked up those blue collar votes that swayed this election in the swing states because he was positive, anti establishment and wanted CHANGE which is exactly what the population wants. I don't for a second think 50% of Americans are racist, sexist bigots like those they have voted for, but they are disenfranchised with their politicians much like we are seeing in Europe. Trump represented something different, even if people are still not sure what exactly that is given how fluffy his policies are ('we are gonna make it great!'...but how Donald?). Sure Bernie is an atheist Socialist which isn't exactly a popular vote in American politics, but he is likable with working mans policies and I think it would have been easier to sell him to the voters that mattered than the self-serving, corrupt, elitist Clinton.

 

[johnnytodd]

Right, so as I've said, the 2016 US Presidential election can not be viewed as an isolated incident, rather as part of a trend in Western democracy. To use British examples we have Brexit and the rise of UKIP, in France we have Marine Le Pen, the positionality of Sarkozy and the burkini furore over the summer. There are plenty more examples across Europe.

An interesting demographic for US elections http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html (good find Veggie Legs ) is that a higher percentage of US citizens on lower income voted for the Republicans compared to what would be expected considering that historically poorer people vote for Democrats. Additionally this is the highest vote percentage wise from the white - non college educated demographic that the Republicans have had. One can therefore assume that the main reason for the election of Trump was due to low earning, non-college educated white people, essentially the working class, does this seem familiar? http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...fferent-demographic-groups-vote-eu-referendum

Now I basically can't be arsed finding sources for the rest, so bite me, however I've purposefully used the term working class, yet in my opinion this is a redundant term. It is increasingly impossible to classify people as upper, middle or lower classes. Since the erosion of traditional working class jobs and the introduction of automation the class system has crudely split into two, for arguments sake I will classify them as the underclass and the overclass. Additionally governance has transformed from social redistribution to risk management. Since neo-liberalsim under Thatcher and Reagan became popular discourse the wealth gap between the two groups has risen year upon year. In years of relative boom and growing economies capital is put into the system but a large section of society is excluded from this system - e.g. London compared to former industrial places in a state of perpetual decline. I'd wager this transfers to the US, for example the swing state of Michigan with Detroit at its centre that eventually backed Trump compared to New York and California. There is this underclass that neo-liberal economics has ignored and the uneven distribution of capital is the precursor.

Again, since Thatcher and Reagan, governance has tended to be done via consensus, run as a business, what is good for the flow of capital into the system is good for the population and does not represent the little man. This has led to the erosion of traditional left wing and right wing politics, instead we have Blair and Clinton adhering to Third Way politics. Additionally we have post-democracy coined by Colin Crouch, that states operate a fully fledged democratic system but essentially it is an illusion, there is a small ruling elite. *Cough* George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, almost Jeb Bush, Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton *cough*. Additionally we also have the rise of experts (who we have had enough of) in the political field, there have been arguments raised that it is better to view modern politics as a technocracy. Then we have systems like the European Union (Brexit) and trade agreements (protectionist Trump rhetoric) that are virtually impossible to govern in a democratic manner and there is the entwinement of public and private sectors and privatisation, running the country like a business, profit over the individual and again, how can this be controlled democratically. So essentially what we have now is the combined economic and political exclusion of the underclass.

So what does this lead to? (Here is where you check out the works by Zizek and the wider post-politics) Far right populism. Grievances towards consensual politics lends to populism, characterised by the idea that there is a big nasty enemy, the reactionary notion of "the people". The people of Britain don't want the EU, the judges are the enemy of the people, immigrants are the enemy of the people, Muslims are the enemy of America, you get the drift.

This is the situation we, the Western world (I hate that term btw), find ourselves. We're not nations of racists and small minded bigots that I so often see suggested every single time I open my Facebook page. We're nations of an economically and politically excluded underclass, the people that neo-liberalism has left behind lashing out against the system. This is represented through the misguided view of the people v the immigrants.

It is a well known fact that those you call "un educated" tend to stay with what they know and vote as they always have no matter who is on offer. The eductaed would tend to look into what each candidate has to offer and make an educated decision.

Basic political knowledge that lad !

 

[Stringy]

It is a well known fact that those you call "un educated" tend to stay with what they know and vote as they always have no matter who is on offer. The eductaed would tend to look into what each candidate has to offer and make an educated decision.

Basic political knowledge that lad !

I agree with what Llamas is saying.

In Mansfield and other rubbish small towns in the north, there's nothing. At least for generations before, there were pits. I punched in the wage of someone I knew and he was earning the equivalent of £900 per week in the 1980s, with few qualifications. He tells memories of being able to easily find employment.

What do you have now if industries no longer exist? You can try to better your position but it's tough. There seem to be way fewer jobs than people so companies are free to pay what they like. The National Living Wage is a step in the right direction, but it's easy to feel disillusioned when the profits are companies are so high yet you're scraping to even find full-time, gainful employment.

What about your rights at work? These appear to have completely disappeared. Any industrial dispute seems to be weighted heavily in favour of your employer. The unions have no power. Do you have any negotiating power to increase your wage? Of course not, there will be always be someone cheaper.

Now this is where you and I differ. I feel so angry that this is the way we are forced to live. But I still don't think voting for Brexit or Trump is a viable alternative. You might be voting for change but you're also voting for a host of horrible side effects. I want something to change but I don't want that to be at the expense of others.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Hell will freeze over before I feel sorry for HC, but the Electoral College system really is an abomination. At present, she is winning by approx 200,000 votes despite conceding about 12 hours ago.

 

[Pagnell]

Hell will freeze over before I feel sorry for HC, but the Electoral College system really is an abomination. At present, she is winning by approx 200,000 votes despite conceding about 12 hours ago.

That would be funny if it wasn't so fking ridiculous.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

But the political-correctness-produced unwillingness to talk about this in real terms is doing our generation(s) no favours. It's clear as a day, but having an open, public discussion about it in our press, media, parliaments seems almost forbidden. These referendum, election results scream about the issue, but so far we remain incredibly reluctant to even attempt to deal with it. I'm afraid history will not paint our time nicely, for the longer we turn a blind eye on this issue, the worse we will make it, and the worse it gets the harder it will be to successfully solve it. In a 50 years time there could be a lot of blame laid at our feet - and we choose to be all but oblivious to it.

Don't understand this. I mean, given that 2016 has seen a referendum and Presidential election with overt racism at the very forefront of both campaigns I think we can probably dispense with this hoary old chestnut, can't we? Not sure it was ever true to begin with, it certainly isn't in 2016.

 

[ZianfrancoGoal]

Starting to think nominating someone everyone in your country hates might have been a bad call by the Democrats.

i dunno, it was a winning strategy for the republicans

maybe they just shouldn't have nominated a woman

 

[Luc@]

The democrats committed a suicide by choosing Hillary instead of Sanders as their candidate. Anyway, I've never expected anything good from a country whose national food is the Big Mac .

 

[Stevencc]

You'd get on with Saltire, Luca.