Probably that isn't the reason why. Probably it's mostly because Obama was a second term Democrat that the Republican won, as depressing as that may be.
I totally agree, it is quite incredible how people cannot accept that many people who are from different class/job type/social circles utterly hate the current system. They are very frustrated with the inequality, the financialisation of the economy and the way the upper middle and beyond are frankly asset stripping their homelands.
And I fully accept my downvotes which will rain down from the well educated.
I'm not a fan of Brexit but the status quo has profound problems and this is what you get when you keep looking the other way.
I totally disagree with the comment you're replying to, but totally agree with yours. The difference is that afaic attributing the election results to a matter of the opposition's attitude is a form of looking the other way.
Only because Trump's supporters were spread out in the right places. Hillary won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes so I would not brag about anything if I were you. That large opposition force that surpasses all Trump supporters will not go away. Comments like yours will only piss them off much more and if Trump fucks it up even people that voted for him will turn on him on a dime. This is not over my Trump supporter.
If the Republicans overreach there will be a backlash.
>Hillary won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes
And if the Presidential election was based on the popular vote, that would mean something. It doesn't work that way, and everyone knew beforehand it didn't work that way, and everyone involved, most definitely including the Clinton campaign, was happy to praise the Electoral College to the skies when they thought it would tilt the results in their favor. So, as the kids say, let it go. This line does not help you.
>That large opposition force that surpasses all Trump supporters will not go away.
That's nice, but as long as it's concentrated in a tiny strip along the coasts it will continue to be ineffective. I recommend that instead of attacking the other side you start working on converting them to your side. That's one of the reasons Trump won: he flipped a lot of counties that voted for Obama twice. You can do that right back to him, if you're willing to swallow your pride and talk to people instead of sneering at them.
>This is not over my Trump supporter.
I voted for Evan McMullin, dude.
>If the Republicans overreach there will be a backlash.
If only certain people had realized that Democratic overreach could cause backlashes, too, then your party might not be a smoking hole in the ground right now.
That sort of rhetoric may make you feel better, but anyone who voted the other way is not going to be "ashamed" because someone insulted them for it; they're just going to dismiss you even more and harden their positions. If you want to win these political debates, as opposed to just having a momentary emotional release, you need to reach out, not attack.
The problem as I see it is less how the people voted(/debated) either way, and more of the establishment's arrogant disdain for the people that disagree with them.
"Those pesky proles wouldn't actually vote Leave, and even if a few do there's no way it will be a majority, so we can stay the course with the EU because that's all we are offering and they are gonna have to take it either way." - my mental image of center-left politicians.
Exact same attitude annointed Clinton with the nomination.
Honestly, who needs to reach out? Did the Republicans get in the nice situation they find themselves in now by reaching out? If the Democrats learn from the Republicans they should wait for the pendulum to swing and meanwhile be as loud, vehement, and derisive as they can. Lay the groundwork for people think voting against the Republicans is a matter of life and death. Shit, trump might do that himself. I just hope it's only perception.
> Lay the groundwork for people think voting against the Republicans is a matter of life and death.
Liberals already tried that this election, it's still impossible to go a day without a MSM outlet saying Trump is literally Hitler and that America is now a fascist state. It's probably not wise to eschew diplomacy when the GOP is as powerful at all levels of government from local to national as they have been in 80 years.
>Liberals already tried that this election, it's still impossible to go a day without a MSM outlet saying Trump is literally Hitler and that America is now a fascist state.
I think your definition of mainstream media is overly broad.
>Honestly, who needs to reach out? Did the Republicans get in the nice situation they find themselves in now by reaching out?
Yes, as a matter of fact, they did. Trump flipped a lot of counties that went for Obama twice. I recommend you follow his example. Find some people on the other side who should be persuadable, and get to persuadin'.
It was indeed hilarious to watch the media collectively spin two narratives at the same time: 1) The "emergence" of "fake news" and 2) The "hacking" of the election.
For anyone who wasn't watching: Unnamed sources in the CIA claimed that the DNC, a noted private organization, had their email hacked by Russian sources of some variant. The emails detailed among other things the collusion between the media and the DNC to work against Bernie Sanders and Trump. The media, once again collectively, made this seem like the election itself was somehow hacked, with the obvious purpose of delegitimatizing the guy who beat their favored candidate.
Julian Assange says he got the emails from an internal leak.
Okay, so no matter how you look at it, pretty much every major source of news was spewing forth genuinely fake news in torrents of excess. Meanwhile, they were also going on and on about what they called "fake news" coming from two-bit bloggers of the "alt right", as well as some scammers who gamed Facebook's algos or some bullshit. Pure Chutzpah.
> For anyone who wasn't watching: Unnamed sources in the CIA claimed that the DNC, a noted private organization, had their email hacked by Russian sources of some variant.
It wasn't just the CIA, it was the consensus of the entire US intelligence community. And it was reached after private cybersecurity experts (CrowdStrike) reached and publicly announced similar (but somewhat more specific as to the exact Russian government actors involved that the public statements from the intelligence community) conclusions.
> The media, once again collectively, made this seem like the election itself was somehow hacked
No, it didn't. In fact the media often explicitly stated that that was not, in fact, the case (often also citing specific government sources who articulated high confidence that that was not the case.)
> Julian Assange says he got the emails from an internal leak.
Which claim the media also prominently reported.
> Okay, so no matter how you look at it, pretty much every major source of news was spewing forth genuinely fake news in torrents of excess.
Even in your distorted description, there is no account of anything that would be "genuinely fake news"; at most there is a suggestion that entirely factual news was reported in a way that created a false impression of a different event, and that itself rests on your omission of some and distortion of other relevant facts.
I live in a city (Seattle) and walk to the grocery store. I usually only buy one bag of groceries at a time. The grocery store is less than a 5 minute walk, so I don't need to make big trips and can make small trips often.
Similar to another poster, I live in Boston. We get a bit more than a meter (~41 inches I think) every year on average. Last year we got slammed with nearly 3 meters (about 9 feet) of snow.
Groceries? I walk. Have one option a 15-minute walk away, and two 25-minute walks away. I do 3 to 4 bags at a time, not a problem. I also have subway/bus literally across the street, and right next to highway for when driving to clients makes sense -- but usually can get to them via mass transit (subway and bus) so long as they're in certain areas within about 20 miles (32km) from where I live.
Still own a car, but it's only for fun, not necessity and I never use it for errands. If it wasn't for fun, I'd not bother with owning one.
not saying the parent poster's solution would 100% work, but as an anecdote:
I live in Boston. It snows here and I do often buy more than one bag of groceries at a time. Fortunately, I just walk two blocks down the street and go into one of the two grocery stores that are right there.
Compare where I grew up in southern NH: it snows there, too, but the nearest grocery store was a 20 minute drive, so of course I would drive there. Rural NH is not a city, though.
Snow is even more of a reason to get rid of cars. A car-less city with underground subways/metros and integrated residential/light commercial districts sounds like a dream. No more shovelling, no more plows, no more going outside during the cold wind! I would love to be able to go from my house to the grocery store and work and the movie theatre (or whatever else) without ever having to set foot outside. This is possible for some people in Toronto and a few other big cities (that I know of) but not the common case.
Remember downtown Minneapolis being like that for obvious reasons. I think a lot of people in the Minneapolis area have heated garages so essentially you can park in a garage downtown, walk around the skywalks between the downtown skyscrapers, and never have to set outside.
I was only there for the Superbowl and never actually walked one, so maybe it's not so convenient.
I think it's easy to lose perspective of these luxuries that we now see as commodities. We've been marketed to that cars are status symbols of wealth, and that not owning a car means you're somehow a deviant, or too poor to own one - both of which are seen in a negative light.
The problem is that personal car ownership with our current technology does not scale up, when taking into account of environmental impact. Nor when you reflect on just how much public right of way we've given up to infrastructure for cars. Nor when you think of how many people die of automobile accidents. Nor or the impact cars have on living in social communities.
Before you panic (well, before you continue panicking) you should probably read the article. There is nothing in there that even remotely suggests anything untoward happened in this past election.
> Does this call for a special situation where the elections are held again but with such concerns addressed?
How many people complaining about this policy enthusiastically voted to elect the political party that has put into place this policy in 2008, 2012, and 2016, and insisted that even considering any alternative was a straight slide into fascism?
Yes. For the most part, I oppose the idea of nation-states and most of what people call "government" altogether. I support free movement of people, ideas, consumer goods, etc.
As far as I'm concerned, as long as no use of coercive force / aggression is involved, it's all good.
