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

It's also so classically Vox to be like "Her loss clearly didn't relate to economic issues, she said the word economy a lot!"

Thiel for press secretary, maybe? I dunno. It would be a perverse nomination, no doubt, but does it hit the sweet spot of maximum possible perversity wrt that particular position? With metrics like this, it's no wonder it's taken him so much time to iron out his cabinet!

Like, if there was a Department of Vegetarians, would you nominate a man wolfing down a bloody T-bone or the steak itself?

doubtful thiel would move to dc and give up his fawned over his sf tech billionaire life

Eh, he can just Skype in.

Trump has joked about nominating his sister to the SC, so maybe he'll do that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryanne_Trump_Barry

Been a while since we had a Marion/Maryanne Barry in DC.

Clinton's ads and the stuff her surrogates said was more noticeable than her speeches.

I dont't dislike Secretary Clinton but I also don't get this urge to protect her, or to say she somehow ran an acceptable campaign. She lost to a cartoon villain.

Michael Cohen for SC justice, surely?

Argh, my head just exploded.

Ghost of Roy Cohn

GHOST OF BORK

Holy shit, Cohen went to Cooley Law School?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Cohen_(lawyer)

I mean I normally avoid *elitist* credentialism, but that law school is literally a running joke.

uh, scratch that "literally", I don't think the joke is on foot

Ranking way down in I believe the fourth tier of US News law school rankings, Thomas Cooley famously created its own ranking system that places Cooley in the top ten in the country, largely by giving outsized weight to library square footage, iirc.

I dont't dislike Secretary Clinton but I also don't get this urge to protect her, or to say she somehow ran an acceptable campaign.

Basic human defensive reaction, innit, just to lessen the pain of being wrong. "When Prophecy Fails" and all that.

The campaign was so emotionally wrought that a lot of people wound up deeply tied-in to it, and those emotional connections ain't detached too easily, esp. due to the shock & trauma of the loss.

All of this only makes a nomination feel more likely. xp

I'm less inclined to blame Clinton herself than the Democratic Party as a whole. The had 4/6 Presidencies and a lot of Congressional control and real wages/inequality/etc. have not been strongly combatted. "But Republicans obstruct" is a lousy slogan and difficult for people to comprehend, particularly when your own party has played a part in killing things that would help.

Democrats have not shown themselves inclined to support even vaguely radical solutions, the kind of things on which they might get beaten but can point to real ideas - die on the hill of a public option/single-payer, living wage fights, minimum basic incomes, fighting for unionization. Bernie's low level social democracy struck a chord and seemed wild because our 'left' party hasn't been on board with things even right-wing European parties generally accept.

otm

No one here talking about the shit that's going down in North Carolina (is it on another thread)? It looks like a pattern that we're going to be seeing more of, both at the national level and in Republican-controlled state legislatures.

I know it's obvious by now, but this is what it looks like when fascists consolidate power using legal fig leaves, in the period before they can afford to ignore the law completely.

Except on whether to blame Clinton. I mean so far we've seen her win a virtually unlosable senate seat, lose a presidential primary where she was originally the heavy favorite, and then lose a presidential election she absolutely should not have lost. It's hardly a slam dunk, but it makes you wonder if there's an issue with her management style or what kinds of people she chooses to run her campaigns. Some of her associates have started to seem like absolute dingbats.

I'm less inclined to blame Clinton herself than the Democratic Party as a whole. The had 4/6 Presidencies and a lot of Congressional control and real wages/inequality/etc. have not been strongly combatted. "But Republicans obstruct" is a lousy slogan and difficult for people to comprehend, particularly when your own party has played a part in killing things that would help.

Democrats have not shown themselves inclined to support even vaguely radical solutions, the kind of things on which they might get beaten but can point to real ideas - die on the hill of a public option/single-payer, living wage fights, minimum basic incomes, fighting for unionization. Bernie's low level social democracy struck a chord and seemed wild because our 'left' party hasn't been on board with things even right-wing European parties generally accept.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, December 16, 2016 1:50 PM (two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

agreed

Dan -- I think there was some talk of that in the U.S. Politics thread.

man alive xp that is also very true

I mean David Brock who thinks ShareBlue is going to become a "Breitbart of the Left", Donna Brazile with her "we need to increase the popular vote in Chicago" strategy, I'm not sure unlimited money in these people's hands would win an election.

And I do want to be really circumspect here. I was absolutely a Bernie supporter, but I don't want to fall into a trap of just thinking "Oh since they lost it means doing things my way is right." I'm not convinced throwing everything away and starting over gets us closer to winning elections. Just because their mealy-mouthed centrist candidate didn't win doesn't mean any left candidate would win. Bernie might have under these unique circumstances, but I don't know if he'd beat a reasonably likeable, moderate Republican tbqh.

i was bummed that people like david plouffe and axelrod didn't join her campaign in an official capacity but then i guess plouffe was wrong like everybody else

Were they asked to? I sometimes get the feeling there's still beef there, at least with Axelrod.

I occasionally listen to Axelrod's podcast, and I thought he sounded a little smug about Clinton's loss, although he always sounds so smug it's hard to tell.

Axelrod brought up Hillary being a cold public figure in every episode of his podcast

https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/15/the-government-body-that-oversees-the-security-of-voting-systems-was-itself-hacked/

cool

wapo now saying that the fbi and the cia agree that the hacks were intended to benefit trump

It's also so classically Vox to be like "Her loss clearly didn't relate to economic issues, she said the word economy a lot!"

― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Friday, December 16, 2016 12:55 PM (forty-nine minutes ago)

data journalism, baby!

lol

also is anyone watching the press conference, I am sitting in a doctor's office

With every day this Russia stuff just gets worse and worse. It is hard to comprehend the FBI and CIA agreeing that Russia intervened to assist Donald Trump, and nothing coming of that. This seems major. It seems paramount that team Trump be investigated to see if they had any connections to the leak or leaker. Cooperate in any way with the Russians to hack the DNC is akin to Watergate.

"well actually, according to this ngram..."

It would be much worse than Watergate imo

still i feel like not much is going to come of this..... if it benefits the GOP and they are the dominant party then what the fuck is gonna happen?

yeah nothing will come of this

I'm less inclined to blame Clinton herself than the Democratic Party as a whole. The had 4/6 Presidencies and a lot of Congressional control and real wages/inequality/etc. have not been strongly combatted. "But Republicans obstruct" is a lousy slogan and difficult for people to comprehend, particularly when your own party has played a part in killing things that would help.

Democrats have not shown themselves inclined to support even vaguely radical solutions, the kind of things on which they might get beaten but can point to real ideas - die on the hill of a public option/single-payer, living wage fights, minimum basic incomes, fighting for unionization. Bernie's low level social democracy struck a chord and seemed wild because our 'left' party hasn't been on board with things even right-wing European parties generally accept.

'dying on the hill' of public option/single-payer not actually so useful for people who couldn't get health care. what people seem to forget is that passing obamacare was a die on the hill moment - and most of his presidency was us dealing with the fallout after 2 fairly progressive and productive years of american government.

also is anyone watching the press conference, I am sitting in a doctor's office

― jason waterfalls (gbx), Friday, December 16, 2016 2:44 PM (six minutes ago

aren't you always sitting in a doctor's office

today I am a patient!!

Did someone just faint? Why are they calling for a doctor?

Nevermind. Sorted.

(Even with stuff like that I can't help but think Trump would turn this into a disaster).

still i feel like not much is going to come of this..... if it benefits the GOP and they are the dominant party then what the fuck is gonna happen?

― marcos

you mean beyond the collapse of democracy as a viable political system?

like he said: if it benefits the gop,

didn't watch obama's address but the reaction from liberal twitter is not good