Trump ran as an outsider and that actually worked for him, because people will vote for an outsider or someone promising change. That's what worked for Obama, because even though he was in office, he wasn't seen as an insider. In the exit polls, Trump had a 59% disapproval rating in Iowa even though he won the state by 10%. There are plenty who voted for him who can't stand him, but voted for him to get rid of trade. The states that put him over the top only did so narrowly and could easily be a fluke that won't repeat in four years.

 

On the flip side, you had Hillary Clinton swinging college educated white voters Democratic in a big way. She flipped Orange County blue for the first time since 1936, a county that has been synonymous with Republican forever. She flipped two suburban Atlanta counties that voted Republican for years. That is promising, since these are the areas that are growing and becoming more of a factor in elections.

45 minutes ago, Juliajms said:

 

The conventional wisdom is that demographics are going to save us at some point, but I've become skeptical of that after what just happened.. I think it would be very foolish to rely solely on that hope. I have no idea where the Democrats go from here, but I hope the leadership comes up with a decent plan over the next year.  Maybe we'll be lucky and Trump will come crashing down, but I don't know how that happens given that nothing seems to touch him.

 

Conservatives have a lot more children than liberals, helping offset the supposed demographic shift. That's because conservatives live in more affordable, less populated areas where having a large family is cheap. Liberals tend to live in more expensive cities where education and childcare is more expensive. Also, conservatives generally do not believe in abortion or even contraception and will breed like rabbits. In addition, most LGBT do not have children.

 

 

http://nymag.com/thecut/2012/11/states-conservative-as-their-women-are-fertile.html

Edited November 20, 20169 yr by GregNYC

19 minutes ago, JaneAusten said:

Where are you seeing people facing the racism etc. I don't see anyone on the MSM saying much nor in the NYT.

 

As for the Nationalism aspect, I think you have to see IMO how the GOP responds to this because no way do I believe Trump's White House plays nice with the Ryan's and McConnell's of the world. And if Medicare gets slashed, you are going to see a whole lot of people who were promised by the president elect going after someone. He did promise he would not touch Social Security and Medicare. The second part is seeing the grass roots efforts that arise from this because I firmly believe there are going to be many. But time will tell. Am I scared hell yes, but I am also optimistic by seeing millions come together in defense.

CNN gives Van Jones and Ana Navarro quite a bit of airtime. They have a few other commentators who talk about it a lot. One is named Angela, but I can't think of her last name. Then you have Jeffery Lord and that Mcanany (sp) woman saying it's not true, but I don't think even they believe it. I also feel like I've read a ton of articles on Politico, The Atlantic, Salon and the other usual suspects talking about the issue of racism in this election. Anyone who doesn't know we are about to be ruled by racists has their head in the sand or they just don't want to admit it, imo.

Birth rates aren't helping small red states much when it comes to population growth, because there are no electoral vote gains in any of those states, save for Texas and that state shifted a few points away from Republicans. No one stays in small states, they leave for the bigger states where the educational opportunities, jobs and desirable living environments are. High birth rates only can keep a population stable when in migration is close to zero. You don't hear about anyone hurrying to move to Oklahoma.

A handful of pundits getting their airtime to speak their peace in a roundtable of 'viewpoints' is not the same thing as sustained, critical coverage by major outlets, anchors and producers, or journalists and their editors, all of whom have a responsibility to call this out loudly, strongly and consistently from day one.

24 minutes ago, ReddFoxx said:

You don't hear about anyone hurrying to move to Oklahoma.

 

Even people who live here would rather live anywhere else.

1 hour ago, Juliajms said:

Maybe we'll be lucky and Trump will come crashing down, but I don't know how that happens given that nothing seems to touch him.

 

I ask myself the same question, Julia.  What IS it going to take to bring Trump down?  He could, right now, kill someone in cold blood and brag about it later on Twitter, and his supporters would still say that that isn't as criminal as Hillary's deleting those e-mails or allowing those four men to die at Benghazi.

 

Trump will never resign, because his ego will never allow it.  He might do something impeachable, but I guarantee that any and all attempts to bring him to justice will be half-hearted and laughable.

 

So, I have resigned myself to the fact that, like it or not, we're stuck with Trumpocracy and the horrors contained therein for the next four years.  Eight, if he runs for and (God forbid) wins a second term.  And even more than that, should his minions decide to repeal the Constitutional amendment limiting his term of office (which I am officially putting on the table and leaving there as a possibility until the day he is actually gone from the White House).

 

Maybe his most ardent supporters will realize how hollow all his promises were and not give him those second eight years.  Then again, there was a good argument to get rid of Dubya in '04, and everyone just mumbled "9/11" and "flip-flopper" and looked away.

 

Regardless of how long Trump is in office, though, it is my belief that he will leave this country bankrupt in every sense of the word.  

 

A post-Trump America will be a lot like a post-WWII Germany...and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it.

 

Well, anyways.  'Night, everyone!  Pleasant dreams!

Edited November 20, 20169 yr by Khan

He would absolutely resign. He's already won and he doesn't want the job but he's stuck. Am I expecting it? Not yet.

I can't see the Republicans in the Senate, especially McConnell, allowing that two-term amendment to be repealed. 

Trump is still out here wheeling and dealing: 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/us/politics/donald-trump-pauses-transition-work-to-meet-with-indian-business-partners.html?_r=1

What's the deal with Giuliani? What are they doing with him these days? Since the days of that picture of him with a big fat cigar in his mouth while riding in a towncar, then those reports of his numerous foreign business dealings, I've heard next to nothing about him.

Supposedly, according to the NYT piece I posted earlier, Trump may be freezing him out over that scandal.

It would be the height of irony if voters doomed a HRC administration because of e-mails and then we end up having a scandal-riven Trump White House. Bridgegate, Breitbart, foreign money/influence connections (don't forget about Russia!) and shilling for Trump Inc and not even sworn in yet? 

I can't help but feel like this is a harbinger for the future.

35 minutes ago, Vee said:

Supposedly, according to the NYT piece I posted earlier, Trump may be freezing him out over that scandal.

 

And supposedly they also weren't happy with him running his mouth to the press. These are so many big egos that they don't remember Trump's ego has to be the biggest of all. That's likely one of the reasons his son in law and that Rence Priebus stuck around, because they probably know how to cowtow. 

We all have our SNL issues, but this is funny:

 

 

Also, this sketch nails CNN/TV media.