Mourning in America - Trump Year One: November '16 to

it looks to me like the fear comes first, and out of that, a mad rush to what looks like safety, where there's no time to look at all these statistics and facts and figures

― Never changed username before (cardamon), Friday, November 11, 2016 6:03 PM

I go through it over and over in my head, and nothing that the supporters said about Sanders I found unconvincing back then sounds more convincing now. But I return to this: I'm 100% convinced he would have campaigned in the midwest. Hillary did not. He would have done it for the wrong reasons - because he felt comfortable there, because he was doing rallies and west coast + midwest was good turf - but he would have done it none the less. And that would have made the difference. He would have lost Florida, Georgia, Texas, Arizona by much more, it's possible he would have lost in 2020 where Hillary has helped create fertile ground for the next candidate in those states, who knows, but he wouldn't have lost in the Midwest. And the only conclusion I'm able to come to is: Fuck this shit. It would have been SO GOOD if it had worked, but it backfired, and nobody got why. Except Michael Moore.

People who perceive that 'the streets are dangerous' normally knows exactly what story they want to soothe that fear, and no democrat should be willing to offer that bullshit story anymore. But I think the fact that so many BLM stories has happened in the Midwest, and this giant whitelash happened in the Midwest as well, is underacknowledged.

And this is not to attack you, hd, just to point out how difficult it is to appeal to both the people convinced that 'street crime' is out of control, and also the people who will hurt disproportionally by every measure proposed to deal with that - irrational - conviction. Coalition politics is so much harder than just appealing to the basest instincts of the majority.

And the reality is that STORIES are stronger than either truth or lies. The reason lies seem stronger is because they're easier to make good simple stories out of. But good stories made of truth are better than good stories made of lies, because they're true and will remain true when examined, will remain true after the need for the story is gone, whereas false stories eventually dissipate like smoke.

Agreed in the main, esp on the BLM front, Frederik B

People who perceive that 'the streets are dangerous' normally knows exactly what story they want to soothe that fear, and no democrat should be willing to offer that bullshit story anymore. But I think the fact that so many BLM stories has happened in the Midwest, and this giant whitelash happened in the Midwest as well, is underacknowledged.

― Frederik B, Friday, November 11, 2016 8:35 PM (five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

seriously everybody I miss the days of receiving backlash over my white belt :-((

Absolutely. And part of where Clinton's campaign failed is that there was almost no acknowledgement of that fear in Middle America, and no story to tell that said, "If you give us your vote, we'll fix it for you." Facts and statistics are useless If they don't tell a story that people want to believe. When you perceive that the streets are dangerous - when the news and the net are telling you about mass shootings and gang violence, pointing to a statistic that says violent crime is down does nothing to soothe that fear; instead it says "I don't care about your concerns." Trump stepped into that gap with "You're right! Things are fucked! But I can MAGA etc"

― hardcore dilettante, Saturday, November 12, 2016 1:30 AM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the whole framing of this was a big problem of the campaign. instead of the main concern being messaging, they could've offered something substantive to help people, or at least show them they're still a part of the process of american governance. voter turnout was lowest in 20 years, it's like people didn't see anything at stake in this election despite Trump being an absolutely insane choice. for years people have complained about feeling abandoned by the establishment, and Clinton was the absolute embodiment of this, and how the primaries and media acted about it only confirmed this view. it's hard to blame people for not giving a crap.

it's hard to blame people for not giving a crap.

it isn't, really

so what are you going to do, shame them to death?

larry, I know we're all playing armchair campaign manager here, but when you, and everyone else for that matter, talk about what could be done, it's not that helpful to say she should have offered 'something substantive' to people. What would that be? And I write this mostly because people like Old Lunch, and all the rest of us, are currently trying to figure out exactly what the path forward should be, in the US, where all of you are, but also in Denmark, where we have many of the same problems. What does anyone think could have been offered to those white rural midwest communities, to make them vote for her?

Here's a bit of what she offered: A 12$ federal minimum wage, up from 8,50 in Michigan and 7,25 in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. A 125 billion $ plan for investment under her 'Breaking Every Barrier' program (talk about bad framing and messaging...) that included 50 billion in investments in youth employment, and 50 billion in infrastructure investments. And that's the bits I could find with two google searches. But instead the midwest voted for loss of Obamacare - including medicaid expansions in both Michigan and Pennsylvania - probably medicare as well, if Ryan gets his way, and tax cuts for the rich.

i'm not trying to be like DAMN YR EYES, DOWNTRODDEN AMERICAN, YOU SHOULD HAVE VOTED!

but one of the candidates was a ridiculous and compulsively lying clown with no experience but a gold-plated bathroom and a reality television show who doesn't respect the rule of law and any number of racist and sexist statements to his credit. and yeah, people should fucking vote against that, whether the opposition is 'inspiring' or not

Good policy has to be a cornerstone, and those are good policies! But she wasn't hearing what people wanted, which was .. Well, they wanted "not crooked Hillary" for one, but way more than that, they wanted someone to tell them that things were going to change for them for the better. Those numbers are pretty abstract for a lot of folks but she could have told them in Garrison Keillor terms what that was going to do for them.

Fred otm.

These Trump voters didn't vote that way because they were serious about improving the lot of working people. They did so because they're assholes.

Just curious how much do you guys pay for insurance? Is ilx in agreement that Obamacare doesn't need to be fix? Last year when I filed my taxes I was penalized due to not having coverage on myself, a little more than $600. That doesn't sit well with me.

They're not children or morons. They chose to indulge their darkest instincts, embracing blind anger over pragmatism.

Fuck. Them.

Not working people, but Trump voters. Although there is overlap, they're not the same, and the Trump voters have now hurt working people more than Hilary ever could.

premiums would have come down if congress was able to address the issue in good faith. It's a big in the system they don't want to address because they want the system to fail. That's what the Republican party is about

*bug in the system

It's interesting that the error that caused many poll aggregators to overstate their confidence is the same mathematical error that caused the rating agencies to give AAA ratings to mortgage CDOs that turned out to be junk, which led directly to the 2008 financial crisis:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161111-election-models-polling-data/

Is ilx in agreement that Obamacare doesn't need to be fix?

i would imagine that ilx is in agreement that it should have been one-payer to begin with. but yeah changes would have ultimately been necessary (and worthwhile) before sad paul ryan destroys it

i had obamacare for one month after years of paying out of pocket; the plan was considerably cheaper and better than that which i'd previously been paying for, but i live in a state that offered significant choices.

That's not my issue. I would prefer to pay out of pocket. Hospitals prefer to work with you than wait on insurance companies to pay them. Now I have to have coverage or the government takes my tax return. To cover my family and myself, I pay $1383.57 a month. I use to pay $640 for my wife and child before Obamacare really kick in. I'm willing to admit I'm ill informed about what exactly has happened, but I know it was better before.

I get a tax credit with my plan. It's affordable and good.

I don't want a tax credit and I would prefer to not have insurance for myself. But now I have to or I pay the government a fee every year.

i mean yes, healthcare costs are constantly rising; obamacare has kept it below the otherwise prevailing rate. and anyone who thinks that government 'death panels' are going to screw them more than rapacious health insurers is mistaken.

nor does health care offer an opportunity for the magical fucking hand of the market to work -- patients have neither the knowledge nor the time to shop around

That's part of the way the system was designed. Without the mandate (ie. fines), you can't offer coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, because otherwise people just wait till their very sick to get coverage. xp

What does single payer involve?

government provides health care for everyone (and taxes go up)

Single-payer doesn't need a mandate because everyone's covered whether they like it or not. xp

Yeah I don't want that.

Paying taxes and carrying around a health card, at least in Canada.

3xp

government provides health care for everyone (and taxes go up)

I think the government actually ends up spending less on health care in Canada than the US, though?

Clinton was asked about ACA rate increases on Oct. 25, and the tone-deaf statement from her campaign was:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvofTv1XEAAxWdD.jpg

(via https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/790979111602847744/)

i suspect you underestimate the actual market cost of insuring the three of you for health care. insurance companies are, after all, trying to make a profit, not necessarily keep you healthy

we'll have you all here (actually the uk won't, but london will)

Good policy has to be a cornerstone, and those are good policies! But she wasn't hearing what people wanted, which was .. Well, they wanted "not crooked Hillary" for one, but way more than that, they wanted someone to tell them that things were going to change for them for the better. Those numbers are pretty abstract for a lot of folks but she could have told them in Garrison Keillor terms what that was going to do for them.

― hardcore dilettante, 12. november 2016 03:15 (seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I've only written the outlines, but there was a bunch of details on her website. I mean, I agree she should have told them those details, but the reason she never did is because she was never there to begin with. I do think a pay increase from 7,25$ to 12$ an hour should be a pretty substantive improvement - though of course it could backfire, they could be layed off, etc. However, the 'fact sheet' I took this from? That's geared towards an african american audience. This is the headline for the part about investments: I. INVEST $50 BILLION TO CREATE JOBS IN COMMUNITIES BEING LEFT OUT AND LEFT BEHIND—INCLUDING COMMUNITIES OF COLOR And quite honestly, I think that's a pretty big reason why her messaging didn't function in the Midwest. She does mention them, but she says: 'It’s outrageous that so many African American families live in pockets of extreme poverty and that so many families of color with good credit cannot get a mortgage. It’s outrageous that millions of undocumented workers live in the shadows. And we can’t allow rural communities from Coal Country to Indian Country to be further hollowed out by unemployment, abandonment, and addiction.' They come in last. With Trump, they weren't just first, they were the only ones in the race. Messaging to white rural voters would ALWAYS be easier for Trump than Clinton.

I think the government actually ends up spending less on health care in Canada than the US, though?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/OECD_health_expenditure_per_capita_by_country.svg/1200px-OECD_health_expenditure_per_capita_by_country.svg.png

(via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita )

sund4r otm in that every developed nation with national health care spends less per capita than the usa

My problem is when I need health care I can't get the cost up front. I can't compare their price to someones else. I get the bill afterwards. Nothing else works like that.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/02/08/pharma-contributions_desktop.png

we'll have you all here (actually the uk won't, but london will)

iirc we're all moving to the hebrides if only nicola will have us

The shocking thing about the graph though is that there are countries with government health insurance for all in which the government spends less per capita than the government spends in the US. Mainly because costs are higher in the US to begin with and the US has government health care for those with the highest health costs, ie. the elderly.

xxp

I'm all for insurance companies making money. When I was a union member, I received all of my earnings. I paid my dues and my health care came out of a centralized health care fund. Basically dues covered the cost and the insurance was very good. Now that I work non-union jobs, nearly a third of my earnings goes to health care.

There's no pressure to keep costs low and big pharma has no problems with contributing to both sides of the fence.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-pharmaceuticals-idUSKCN0Z22F1

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has taken more money from employees of America's 15 biggest pharmaceuticals companies than all of the Republicans who attempted a run for the White House this year combined, according to campaign finance disclosures.

The donations, which were nearly double those accepted by Democratic rival Bernie Sanders, came even as the former senator and secretary of state vowed to curb price gouging in the industry if elected.

Ugh. I'm fucking depressed. Have to limit time in this thread.

Mr. Trump, a homebody who often flew several hours late at night during the campaign so he could wake up in his own bed in Trump Tower, is talking with his advisers about how many nights a week he will spend in the White House. He has told them he would like to do what he is used to, which is spending time in New York when he can.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/us/politics/trump-president.html

i was joking to my mother on the phone this evening, well, maybe he won't even move here..

It's interesting that the error that caused many poll aggregators to overstate their confidence is the same mathematical error that caused the rating agencies to give AAA ratings to mortgage CDOs that turned out to be junk, which led directly to the 2008 financial crisis:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161111-election-models-polling-data/

― o. nate, Friday, November 11, 2016 9:20 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

quanta is usually a good mag but that article is bad and misses the point in both cases. "correlation error" had to do with one element of cdo pricing (but it isn't the sort described here, not exactly) -- correlation actually was measured in that case, but using a poor formula (historic-trend-based). the other "error" in cdo pricing was more directly a pure slight-of-hand with repackaging tranched debt. (and there were other things as well).

the poll case is vastly different and correlation of errors is a weird way to look at it -- rather there were systemic biases which aggregators attempted to but did not completely account for, and there were just _pure unknowns_.

Sure, there's lots of differences in the details, but both the election prediction models and the CDO rating models underestimated correlation in a way that led to overstating confidence.

Oh, one more thing, if 1) Clinton should have told the truth and 2) she should have offered them something, here's the truth about what she could offer: Nothing. Because it would have to pass a republican house, which has been gerrymandered into something absurdly undemocratic. That's the truth she could tell them: You'll get nothing. The GOP is fucking you over, so you'll get nothing, until the GOP is defeated. Clinton skipped the math and ran against Trump rather than on empty promises. And lost for lack of enthusiasm.

The idea was to flip the senate and chip away at the house

I know hindsight is 20/20 but it seems clear that Clinton erred by letting Trump get to her left on trade. Pointless to speculate now, but one can imagine an alternative reality in which after beating Sanders in the primary, she offered his followers an olive branch by pledging to renegotiate NAFTA or something along those lines. xp