Jonathan Pie explains it
 

Fucking Donald Trump. The left is responsible for this result.

Because the left have now decided that any other opinion, any other way of looking at the world is unacceptable. We don't debate any more, because the left won the cultural war. So if you're on the right, you're a freak. You're evil, you're racist, you're stupid, you are a basket of deplorables. How do you THINK people are going to vote if you talk to them like that? When has anyone ever been PERSUADED by being insulted or labelled?

It's amazing how many chose to be deplorable.

In addition to that, the left severely underestimated how many HATE/D Hillary and also how many didn't want another Bush nor Clinton presidency. History be damned.

On the other hand, how many were ever PERSUADED by debate, either? Very few people on either side have any ability to be persuaded at all. This most definitely is the left's fault, but only in that the party leaders ignored the obvious trends in the electorate and chose Hillary over Bernie. I live in red country and I'm here to tell you, no one has a monopoly on calling the other side names.

Even people who are fairly thick skinned with regard to name calling can get fed up when it becomes automatic demonizing. People previously called sexist automatically became rapists, people previously called anti-immigration automatically became racists, people previously called pro-gun automatically became killers. That propaganda technique works domestically when it's applied internationally and a rival country automatically becomes the evil empire; but, it backfires when applied domestically to disenfranchise segments of the population.

Examples.

Another Brit has a similar take, Clive Crook: Revenge of the Deplorables

Examples are in the quote UT provided in post #7.

I'm referring to the wealth of Independents who typically voted Democrat; but, didn't toe the party line in all regards. In those areas where they differed, Independents became collateral damage in the demonizing of Republicans via the Independents' few overlapping views; whereas, they would have been OK with constructive criticism.

Clinton and her hardcore followers took the position of My way; or, the highway. Independents who became collateral damage turned the tables on them. They showed Clinton the highway.

Whether you call everyone who disagrees with you racist, fascist, idiots or children, you put up a wall of disrespect that cuts off your influence with them. When they turn the tables on you, you've gotten what you bargained for. Using that propaganda technique domestically was a losing strategy in the first place.

But Clinton has always been that way. She's just too full of herself to change her approach. Gosh, I sure hope no one here in The Cellar ends up like her.

Just think, if Michelle Obama does run in 2020, the Obamas will have taken what she wanted twice. Then all that needs to happen is for Sasha to outbid her on a summer house in Florida, and Malia to take a job that Chelsea was supposed to get, and finally Chelsea's kid and Malia's kid will be ready to be star-crossed lovers.

You imagination is running wild. When Obama leaves office he Will be rich, no need to drag his family into the quagmire of politics.

This... Oh my ....

This.

I don't think Clinton is anywhere near the nightmare she has been portrayed as - the idea that she is the epitome of corruption and deception just doesn't hold water, there are and have been far worse politicians in the US system than Hilary. But what she absolutely is, is establishment. And within the democratic party, the Clinton wing does not offer enough of a different analysis from mainstream republicanism to win over those disillusioned with global capitalism and neo-conservatism.

For years, the right of the democratic party has stomped all over the left on the basis that they are more electable. Socialism maybe a dirty word in America, but in truth it has been applied wholesale to a branch of the party that is far from socialist. The dominant wing of the democrats simple don't offer an alternative and have conspired with the rest of the mainstream political class to demonise anything less than neo-con attitudes as a way of distancing themselves from their 'unelectable' left wing.

Bernie Sanders offered a genuine political alternative, with a genuinely alternative analysis.

I am not saying he would have won - there's truly no way to know - but it would have been a true contest between differing ideologies and political solutions, and there's a whole bunch of people disillusioned enough with the status quo that they might have been willing to listen to that alternative.

This election was not a battle between left and right. It was a battle between a representative of an entrenched political elite and an outsider.

She said "is, is" (*snicker*).

Clinton did just that. Large numbers of mainstream Republicans denounced Trump. Some (including Mr Republican George Wills) resigned from the party.

But let's stop ignoring what all these 'after action' pundits still do not understand. Go out into the hinderlands. About half a radio dial is right wing extremists talk show hosts claiming America is dying. No facts say that. Growth that was so destroyed by an administration in 2000-2008 was restored. Companies are hiring. Products are being exported. A massive debt created by the Cheney extremists is being reduced. Hate against minorities was being eliminated. American military is more powerful than the next 5 largest militaries combined. And America is finally telling other allied nations that they first must address issues in their own region. America is not your 911 Policeman. Many are finally getting it.

That is not what the god on AM radio says. Plus, some industries have not innovated in over 40 years. So many workers in rust belt regions are getting screwed by business school graduates (which includes George Jr and The Donald). AM radio gods tell them to blame Washington.

Washington does not create jobs. Never will. Washington can destroy jobs - as George Jr did. But jobs can only be created by innovation.

All that is too complex for many only educated by spin doctor radio. Easier is to blame the establishment. Ironically, nobody seems to notice that. Do they not drive out to the hinderlands to scan the air waves? Apparently not. We know many only believe the first thing they are told. Then get angry or adversarial when a reality is stated later. Out there where jobs are less numerous (especially in the anti-innovation American coal and steel industries), large numbers are so hyped angry as to vote in numbers never before seen.

Out there, logical discussion is rare. Anger and emotions hyped by talk show extremists is about half the radio stations. And so the turnout, driven by emotion, was massive.

Did Donald understand that? Of course not. He simply did what is usually does - demean, attack, and insult others. It played well in the hinderlands where talk show radio says everything is bad - despite facts and numbers that say otherwise.

Easy is to blame Washington using emotion and sound byte logic. Especially when the local media is mostly promoting it. Amazingly, pundits looking for reasons to explain their confusion do not

I agree with tw on this one. :eek: It's easier to generate hate with a sound bite than explain reality.

Here's a sound bite for you:

Clinton blames FBI director James Comey for her defeat. :right:

Not the reason but almost certainly one of them.
The timing of his announcement clearly had the potential to impact early voting. It was a hugely damaging blow. The hardline hilary haters already considered her criminally corrupt - with that announcement those prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt were offered apparent evidence that there really is no smoke without fire - right before they were expected to cast their vote.
By the time the fire was revealed to be merely a smoke machine the damage was done.

That would make sense if what was on the ground (literally) was ignored. Visit the hinderlands of FL or PA. Those Trump signs were everywhere. Trump signs outnumbered all other candidates combined. Those signs were there long before Comey made his comments.

Clinton's comments would be based in data that was clearly flawed. She can only blame what her data would explain.

For example, many did not see 'the wall' as necessary to keep out immigants - legal or illegal. Many families in the hinderland are suffering from major heroine problems mostly traceable to opiate addiction. A problem created by big Pharma that is now more interested in profits than the product. 'The wall' is viewed as a solution to their major problem.

Did Clinton's grass root operation and data structure identify these problems?

A major change in America is productive jobs moving to big cities - mostly coastal cities. Farming and other rural communities no longer create new jobs. People who graduate with higher educations leave for the big cities.

Auto jobs are gone from a mid west industrial belt - directly traceable to a motor industry that stopped innovating ten and thirty years ago. Jobs created today could only exist if innovations were being created ten and more years ago. Neither coal nor steel does necessary innovation in the past 40 years. So jobs losses become major today.

Even a white appliance business is not being downsized since MBAs have now taken over and merged those companies in the name of cost controls. Samsung and LG are now preferred products.

Where did Democrat data reflect a severe cultural depression in these hinderland? It doesn't. Hilary can only blame what her data sees. It apparently does not see what exists, why it exists, a stagnant living standard, and propaganda routinely repeated daily in the hinderland to enhance anger.

Her data should have seen a tidal wave combined with cheapshot anger that was growing in the hinderland. Her data apparently did not explain all those Trump signs months ago combined with an anger behind them. Comey did not create that discontent.

I need all your help here. I am a little bit under-informed.

I can remember several Trump policy proposals, because they were popularly repeated and heavily debated.

What would you say was Hillary's most memorable, popularly repeated and heavily debated policy proposal?

The Democrats are big on diversity. But Tyler Cowen claims their view is too narrow. I agree with him, I hear a lot more bitching about those bastards on the other side of town, the next town/county, or in the state capitol, than racial/ethnic groups, although sometimes they coincide.

More here

That's not quite the way it works here. Only the Clinton supporters want to draw the line at whether or not a crime was committed.

Americans do not have a right to a security clearance. As an American, if your country is in conflict with another country (or subset group) and you marry a member of that group, it's not a crime; but, you can lose your security clearance. If you have substantial gambling debts, it's not a crime; but, you can lose your security clearance. Just about anything you do that makes you susceptible to detrimental influence (e.g. extortion), that's not a crime, can cause you to lose your security clearance. If your job requires a security clearance, you lose your job. If your job doesn't require a security clearance, like the Presidency, you still lose your ability to function.

The mere fact that additional copies of Clinton emails turned up somewhere not yet accounted for did her in with many. Who knows if and where they'll turn up in the future. Who knows if they'll be redundancies; or, if there'll be something new. Who knows if more turn up, that someone won't want something from a president Clinton in return for not making waves; or, worse.

Even when government employees are authorized to use personal assets for government work, there are conditions. The personal assets have to meet or exceed government requirements and come at no cost to the government. Any problems associated with the choice to use personal assets become the sole responsibility of the person who chose to do so. How much has the government, funded by the taxpayers, had to pay for the aftermath of Clinton's decision?

These conditions apply to all levels of government service. As an SF O&I NCO I was issued a photographic equipment set AND I was authorized to use my personal equipment. If my performance suffered because my personal equipment wasn't serviceable to military standards, I could be disciplined. If my personal equipment was lost or damaged in the line of duty, the government had no liability. Even though I was taking photographs with my personal equipment, they had to be handled in accordance with government regulations. Everything was FOUO (For Official Use Only) with tentative higher classifications (e.g. confidential, secret, top secret) required as appropriate until they could be reviewed by a classifying authority.

Clinton felt she was above all that just because she was in the top strata of government. She was right in that she could get away with it with her peers and superiors. She was wrong in that she could not get away with it with the public. Clinton's actions put the onus on FBI Director Comey to deal with the adverse ramifications of her poor judgement as they developed. She bears full responsibility for the consequences and their timing. He just did his job. Clinton blaming Comey just makes her a scoundrel.

There's a very old saying in the military that once they pin on that second star, they stop being a soldier and become a politician. Some align themselves with other politicians who think they're above it all. That's how we get the Powells and Patraeuses.

I seem to remember it was Colin Powell who did the presentations to convince the world Saddam Hussein had WMD. He was Dubya's toady. Didn't expect much more from him at that stage of his career.

It's going to be a two-term Presidency because of this.

Trump Racism: You Are Still Crying Wolf

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16...l-crying-wolf/

I dunno about that.

He's comparing the percentage of voters in this election to the percentage of voters in 2012, but I feel like that's comparing apples to oranges.

I read in numerous places that Trump won because many Obama voters stayed home when confronted with Hillary on the ticket. Those Obama voters are not being counted in his analysis, but they are out there and will show up again if a future candidate motivates them.

I can't find the statistics, but let's crunch numbers based on figures that are available.

We know there were 124,326.830 total voters this year and according to NYT, 12 percent of them were black. That works out to 14,919,220. And of those, 8 percent voted for Trump. That works out to 1,193,538 black Trump voters in 2016.

In 2012, there were 126,849,299 total voters and 13 percent of them were black. That's 16,490,409 black voters. Of those, 6% voted for Romney, or 989,425 black voters for Romney.

Huh. More actual blacks voted Republican this year, not just percentages of voters.

OK.

Let's go back to Obama's first election.
In 2008, there were 129,446,839 total voters. Of those, 13% were black, or 16,828,089 black voters. Of those, 4% voted for McCain, or 673,123 black votes for McCain.

673,123 to 989,425 to 1,193,538.

The number of black Republicans steadily increases each election. So let's look at the trend for Democrats to see if population growth is skewing things.

In 2008, there were 15,986,684 blacks voting for Obama
In 2012, there were 15,336,080 blacks voting for Obama
In 2016, there were 13,128,914 blacks voting for Clinton

And now I'm not even sure what this post means. I'm contradicting myself. I think my calculations are somewhat flawed where percentages of voters are used to calculate number of voters. The percentages are given by NYT as nice whole numbers, but they have to have been rounded off, and the margins are so small, I think the rounding could be leading to misleading numbers. One thing is clear though, black Democrats who came out for Obama's first election have been staying home more and more with each election, and at the same time, the number of black Republican voters has been steadily increasing.

WTF

I'm always suspicious of exit polls. How many lie? What kind of people would stand there and answer 33 question giving personal information? How many go to the poll thinking about Trade or immigrants?

I wonder what the 40% of eligible voters were thinking that didn't bother?

And if this year proves anything, it's that polls are bullshit.

The thing about the "boy who cried wolf" story is that the wolf did come in the end.

It's a good cautionary tale for those who raise alarms, but not a good one to invoke to justify ignoring them.

Insomuch as there's no evidence he believes anything in particular, perhaps. But his personal beliefs don't matter, especially if he never reveals them. We do know he's willing to say pretty racist stuff to rile a crowd, though.This isn't true, though. Whatever his motives, the crowd was riled. At the time, he may have just thought of them as votes, but white supremacist groups are touting his election as their victory, and his appointment of Bannon isn't going to disabuse them of that notion.

He really was not saying what he thinks. He just kept throwing shit on the wall. Every so often, something would stick. So he kept saying that thing and stopped saying anything that did not get a good response.

Honesty was rarely in his tool kit. He simply said what an emotional group of people wanted to hear. Therefore anything that displeased them was not repeated. And they forgot he said it.

Well said tw.

The "emotional group" was the left, who wanted to hear so they could hate;

And they predictably emotionally overreacted to each of these things in turn, hence actually promoting them to the people who kinda liked the ideas, and leaving no air in the room for anything else.

And this is one reason my question "What would you say was Hillary's most memorable, popularly repeated and heavily debated policy proposal?" ...got crickets.

Thus allowing the Trump campaign to have messages that were far stronger and more widely spread than the opposition, even as they were outspent two to one.

Who elected Trump, YOU did.

From the NY Times of 17 Nov 2016:
When your supporters are emotional, then fake news becomes fact. Same also 'proved' Saddam had WMDs. More examples of how Trump just kept throwing shit on the wall until something stuck. It works best on emotional adults - who still think like children. Who know what is 'true' without bothering to first learn underlying facts and 'reasons why'.

The emotional mostly focus on and are best manipulated by negative reports.

Jon Stewart explains why liberal thinking of the Trump support "monolithically" is hypocritical:

I knew it as soon as the term "Bernie Bros" became a thing--implying that "sexism" was the root cause of differing political viewpoints (and ignoring the real issue(s)--corporate money in politics, wealth inequality, and economic stagnation for the working class over a DECADES-long period).

I knew it as soon as "Bernie Bros" were called "violent" at the Nevada convention--the Democratic Establishment and their propaganda arm (mainstream media) colluded to disparage the PEOPLE (the actual VOTERS) instead of the candidate (much less the candidate's ideas).

I saw the same HRC campaign stunts in the General Election--catching Trump flat-footed with the Machada "surprise" attack--and the media already having days worth of stories and interviews ready to dominate the airwaves!--the same "liberal media" shenanigans that Conservatives had bemoaned for years--and HRC's campaign had already PROVED were true (to the Dem's own, most-enthusiastic voters!) by railroading Bernie with the same dirty attack style.

The one burning topic that the Democratic Elite failed to recognize--regular American's POCKETBOOKS--is what won the election for Trump (ironically, a billionaire con artist), and the very area where Bernie (a scandal-free, voter enthusiasm goldmine) excelled. Now the Democrats are left with no recognizable ideas that anybody cares about (like the environment, income inequality--you know, things they DIDN'T talk about), and left with the same garbage approach that lost them an election to--literally--an orangutan.

Democrats made their platform political correctness. Turned out doing that was politically incorrect.

So much THIS!!!

UK needs migration 'because native Britons are bloody stupid', says pro-EU lord

~ well that will convince them to vote for it ~

This is exactly what Mr Pie was talking about.

Sounds like the kind of thing Infi might also think bears repeating; but, wouldn't to throw someone else a bone.

Sooo well put.

Oh good. The Democrats chose Nancy Pelosi as their leader for the 8th time in the House of Representatives. That's just what they needed to do to find a new path forward into the future. I'm sure she will have lots of fresh new ideas that resonate with the voters and invigorate the party.

Yup, I'm sure everyone is THRILLED with this choice.

Awesome, because what we needed was more people on both sides of the aisle being absolutely disgusted with the tone-deafness of their own party, mentally checking out of the whole political process, and reluctantly voting for garbage candidates.

The state of journalism.

http://cellar.org/2016/bloomcty-modernjourn.jpg

It's personal anecdote time

Back in 1999 my then friend Thom (cellar username: darling) developed a large amount of the Eagles' web site, and I helped; and on Draft Day 1999, we were in the media room, building the Draft Day page as facts developed. It was supposed to be the first time fans could follow the draft on the site. No live video, this was 1999, but we would update the page throughout the day and have stories and details and whatnot.

When Donovan McNabb was drafted, one of the first things that went down was a live chat with Donovan and the fans.

After it happened we set up a web page with a bunch of questions, along with McNabb's responses to them. A bunch of reporters happened to be looking over my shoulder as I set it up, and they all kinda noticed that here were a bunch of QUOTES from the player, all ready and written down and stuff.

You see, that's what they were there for. The reporters would get quotes, put them around their story, and then they would have real journalism. That was like, the point, or something; someone specifically talked to the person, live, and asked them things, wrote it down and here it is in the newspaper.

Which is why you'd have a press conference where a bunch of reporters would ask questions.

But when the reporters noticed all the quotes, I could see the lights going on in their heads... hey there are the quotes I was looking for... real quotes of the player... and they actually jotted them down, in their notebooks, while reading the web page.

And I realized they were going to take these quotes and put them in the newspapers that would be printed and appear on people's doorsteps, 14 hours later. And I thought, wow, I am seeing the change in journalism right here.

Because everyone who gives a damn could have seen these quotes, and MANY more of them, directly from the source. There's no need to gather people in a room and ask questions. The room is now the chat room and the source is the website. Everyone see it who wants to. Everyone who wants to ask questions can ask questions. The quotes are the same they ever were. Why have sports reporters at all?

Now it's 15 years later and I don't pay so much attention to the media, now, but on Trump, it's kind of reduced to reading tweets and gathering angry reactions at them, isn't it? Well WTF does anyone need that for?

In theory, the reporters were still needed because they would make sure that you (the webmaster) didn't just make that shit up. The reporter was the guy who put his credibility on the line and said, "Yeah, I was in the room and I saw him say it and I'm willing to be fired if it turns out I'm wrong."

It's people's trust in their own egos that has allowed them to be snowed by the people who just completely, 100%, make shit up. The "I'm too smart, I read it with my own two eyes, no one could fool me," attitude. Not saying the news right now doesn't suck, it absolutely does--but that was a natural market reaction in tandem with the reporters getting lazy and the people saying they didn't need the old style of news anymore.

At those news conferences not everyone asks question but they all record(take notes) on the question and the answer. Finding you had written it down save them the trouble but doesn't mean they didn't listen. Finding you (the court reporter) had transcribed it, makes it easier.

Thing is, they weren't even in the room.

In fact, there was no room, unless you count the chat room. Mr. McNabb was being limo'd from Manhattan down to Vet Stadium Philly, and was talking on a cell phone to someone in the Eagles office. They read the chat questions to him, and he answered, and they typed it into the chat room.


"Are these McNabb quotes?" one of the reporters even asked as I copied and pasted the chat room text into the website. The game was afoot.

They wouldn't get to actually talk to McNabb for another hour or two, and may have been able to make an early story deadline by using those quotes.

OK, the news conference hadn't actually happened yet.

I really wish you had put in something funny, like how he wanted his uniform with his name in purple, or whatever, just to screw with their heads.

Bill the Cat becomes America's new fact checker.

http://cellar.org/2016/tweetfactcheck.jpg

Nice.

I'm still in the process of reworking my bacebook news feed.As of now its NPR and WashPost. Nobody reports shit anymore. A new guy at fencing has a son in journalism school at Syracuse. The kid was at the Pipline protest when the woman was hit by the concussion grenade. He gave his Dad a full story about what went down that day. I'm hoping his story lands somewhere, maybe the SU magazine... I haven't seen shit except from the"fake" news sites which we are not supposed to trust. There is a role for journalists, but I don't know if there is an outlet.

Colorado Public Radio tracked down the "King" of fake news sites.

He feels some remorse, but he's making $30,00 a month to ease his conscience.

"Coler, a registered Democrat, says he has no regrets about his fake news empire."

The pipeline story is amazing. ALL of my info comes from FB posts forwarded by friends

And basically as soon as I post that, the Washington Post comes out with a multi page article on the story.

Up until today, it felt as though the press was completely ignoring this ongoing story.

It may be that they've been forced to cover it now, after all this time.

We have a deadline now that the Gov't has spoken. It will be THE STORY for the next few days.

Bloom County has had the best commentary on this. Social media is driving the news cycle now I guess witness the pipline shutdown. The optics of shooting veterans in 2016 are worse than shooting veterans in 1932.

... ... or kids on a college campus in 1970.