I would agree -- or, at least, I'm sure there's significant overlap. It sounded like you were saying that as a kind of rebuttal to the point I'm making.
Anger at the 'establishment'
- Thread starter Thyrsis
- Start date
I would agree -- or, at least, I'm sure there's significant overlap. It sounded like you were saying that as a kind of rebuttal to the point I'm making.
Anybody who followed this board during the early parts of the Democratic primary will recall that I repeatedly expressed surprise that Martin O'Malley didn't get more traction than he did. It was clear that there was significant interest in finding an alternative to Hillary. When Elizabeth Warren made it clear she wouldn't be it, interest turned to Bernie Sanders. But that never made a lot of sense to me -- not, anyway, in a pragmatic sense. I could certainly understand why liberals would've been attracted to Sanders' unicorn agenda, I couldn't understand why they'd think he'd make a good presidential candidate....or, at least, a better one than O'Malley.
It was a counter to the notion that Trump brought out a huge number of people to vote for him, when in fact his numbers we're that high compared to past Republican numbers, but that Clinton's were low compared to past Democratic numbers.
Ah -- that's not the subject of debate, though. The subject of debate is whether or not last night's election was the result of voter anger at the political establishment. And I'd say that voting for Trump or not voting for Hillary (who was the establishment's candidate) are both possible ways to register this anger.
It's quite simple. People have been voting down party lines for established candidates that spew the same bullshit political speak as they move from one office on up. It is clear that people want someone new, with fresh ideas. Hence the popularity of Bernie and Trump. The GOP tried to stop Trump and eventually probably made the right move by letting him run as the nominee (given the results). The DNC did the opposite with Bernie.
Hindsight is always 20-20, but the pollsters and media are connected with the established party members (those with longer tenure and/or strong party support). Everyone got this wrong.
From a blue collar, middle class, white man: we were/are TIRED of the Clintons. Our feelings are quite simple, she needs to ride into the sunset with her husband in tow. I don't know why this is soooo hard for the libs on this board to grasp.
The Clintons trot across America making 250k for a GD speech, I work my ass off and it takes three years to make 250k. Hopefully, it's becoming crystal clear why guys like me didn't vote for her. Those 30 minute, 250k speeches that her and Bill both give, are the very definition of an Elitist.
Before you crucify me, my voting record is Perot, Gore, Kerry, McCain, Romney and Trump. I actually voted for Hillary in the primary one year. Trot out a good candidate, and us good Ole boys would've voted Democrat in a heartbeat....
The Clintons trot across America making 250k for a GD speech, I work my ass off and it takes three years to make 250k. Hopefully, it's becoming crystal clear why guys like me didn't vote for her. Those 30 minute, 250k speeches that her and Bill both give, are the very definition of an Elitist.
Before you crucify me, my voting record is Perot, Gore, Kerry, McCain, Romney and Trump. I actually voted for Hillary in the primary one year. Trot out a good candidate, and us good Ole boys would've voted Democrat in a heartbeat....
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Real rage against the machine would be to leave the top box blank and send the presidential election in chaos. That's not what happened. Instead what happened was that the uneducated white vote voted as monolithic as it ever has and for a con artist. And the educated white vote was as split as it has been.
(Slow clap)
And Trump isn't elitist? He was born into wealth beyond the vast majority of us. He brags constantly on his wealth. He has hobnobbed with every muckity muck known.
I understood Bernie as a populist. I don't get that from the guy as rich as Trump who regularly uses foreign workers up to and including using a data analytics firm from the UK.
Heck, if it takes you 3 years to make 250,000 I might consider you an elitist. That isn't the income level of most whites without a college degree.
If you're angry against the establishment and you're given a choice between an establishment candidate and an anti-establishment candidate, you can express that anger by voting for the latter or not voting for the former.
Comparing the vote totals to earlier races, I'd say lots of people did one or the other.
I'm not saying that Donald Trump isn't an elitist. But it does appear that you're confusing "elitist" with "elite". These words have entirely distinct meanings.
I don't know how wealthy Jonathan Gruber is. But, irrespective of that, he's a quintessential example of an elitist.
Everything about Trump is the idea Trump stands for superiority. He is the best general, best negotiator, builds the biggest wall, dates the most beautiful women. He is elitist not in the sense he believes there is a superior class, he believes he is the superior class.
Edited for autocorrect
Last edited:
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
And a whole lot of people bought it hook, line, and sinker. Yuck.
Maybe. I'm just saying that elitism has no relationship to wealth.
One can be an elite and not be an elitist. And one can not be an elite and be an elitist.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Wahhhh...cry me a river. You don't like that they make $250k a speech so you elected instead a misogynistic con man that depreciates his real estate assets at twice that rate to lower his taxable income while stiffing guys like you. Wahhhhh.
When I was in the Army I made far less than you make in a year and I was working nearly 24/7 when deployed. Did I whine about how much the Clintons or the Bushes made? No, because that's ridiculous.
Your evaluation framework sucks. Grow up. Your evaluation framework's output resulted in voting for the most unqualified president in history. It doesn't matter who you or anyone else was voting against. YOU voted for an unqualified buffoon and that's on YOU.
People are sick of being lied to, so they pick the biggest liar that every ran for president? Sounds about right.
I thought he was the worst candidate for President ever, until he lost to HRC. Now she's the worst candidate ever. This train wreck of an election is over and now we need to hope that the grownups in the Republican party surround Trump and get some good people in office to make this work. Maybe he'll be content give an occasional speech written by great speech writers and sign reasonable Executive Actions, Memorandums and Congressional legislation when it's put in front of him and advised to sign it. Hopefully.
Barack Obama was the worst presidential candidate ever, it's not even close. You libs voted for his sorry ass and he did NOTHING, NOTHING as POTUS. Don't tell me Trump was the worst ever candidate, that's laughable. Trump actually has a chance to be a decent president and actually ACCOMPLISH positive things for this country....something Obama utterly failed to do.
Hillary had no platform, never talked about her goals, never articulated her ideas well enough because she was busy trying to bash Trump.
Trump will be just fine, thank you.
Hillary had no platform, never talked about her goals, never articulated her ideas well enough because she was busy trying to bash Trump.
Trump will be just fine, thank you.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I believe we'll find - after some analysi
I believe we'll find - after some analysis - that the African American vote let her way down. We know that Trump got a lot more of that vote than recent past Republican candidates
He still got less than 10 percent and I think that we, as Republicans, should be looking for much more than that. The Democrats have promised much and delivered little for the AA community. Some of the most popular recent initiatives in AA communities are things like charter schools because they've made a positive difference in many AA families. See Boston's charter schools for some of those success stories. Those aren't Democratic initiatives. School choice is another one, and in Cleveland it was very popular. Democratic politicians don't like them and would rather that those benefit from these things don't benefit because teacher's unions oppose them. Students don't have unions, but teachers do, and that's why we get some of these kinds of situations where the Democrats that purport to care about the plight of the disadvantaged oppose things that demonstrably improve the lives of some of those disadvantaged people.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Aloha, I can assure you that anything that happens in Boston is most assuredly NOT a Republican initiative.
Maybe, but who supports charter school initiatives and who doesn't, and how were they started in Boston? My impression is that most liberals hate charter schools, but if they're on board, and they're supporting them I have no beef with that.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I think it does a disservice to arbitrarily categorize problems and solutions as either liberal or conservative. If a governing body implements a solution that works, let's just enjoy the success.
Many charter schools are still publically funded, and Boston's assuredly are.
He would be blasted as a big spending liberal,but he at least wouldnt have Hillarys baggage.
I don't disagree with that. We should do what works and not just spend more money on what isn't working.
I may have mentioned this way back when, but a friend of mine in Baltimore told me early on that O'Malley had a pretty bad reputation in Maryland Democratic circles, and his lack of national exposure meant that this reputation would spread as people tried to learn more about him.
Nothing dirty or scandalous. Just thinks like being an opportunist, not really having any deep values, a lack of complex political thought, stuff like that.
Anyway, point is, if some influential Democrat in New York called his friend in Maryland and asked him, "So what's the deal with this O'Malley guy?" chances are he wouldn't get a very positive report.
He was my choice but it seemed like it was me and about 20 other people was all the support he had.
So you are saying he's Bayh 2.0? I liked him to start, until Bernie won me over.
Aloha mentioned Clinton being the worst candidate of history. I guess I have to agree with that, she was a terrible candidate. The thing is, I think she would have made a good (not great) president. Sometimes there is a disconnect between candidate performance and elected performance.
That doesn't make any sense. Bad candidates don't get elected once and he was elected twice. Unless he's running against a worse candidate and I don't think he ran against bad candidates either time he won. You can think he was a bad President if you want but he was a great candidate for President. He's an awesome politician because he's a great speaker and connects with people and I don't think that's even debatable. This time we had two bad candidates and I thought the worst one was Trump but enough Americans disagreed to elect the friggin racist, sexist idiot* so I guess I could be wrong about which one was worst.
* Starting January I'll have to salute President Trump and not say disrespectful things about him in front of people that know I'm in the military because those are the rules. Until then I guess I'm still free to say I think he's a racist, sexist idiot.
MrBing,
First, thank you for your service to the country. I respectfully disagree with your assertion that Obama was the best candidate. The better candidate was John McCain and I don't think it's even debatable.
Obama was a small time senator from Illinois whose star rose considerably on a speech he delivered at the convention. I really believe he received a HUGE amount of attention for his speaking skills, problem is, that never made him a good candidate.
He was elected because of white union folks AND white 18-25 year olds...and it was a huge mistake to elect him over a very spectacular John McCain.
First, thank you for your service to the country. I respectfully disagree with your assertion that Obama was the best candidate. The better candidate was John McCain and I don't think it's even debatable.
Obama was a small time senator from Illinois whose star rose considerably on a speech he delivered at the convention. I really believe he received a HUGE amount of attention for his speaking skills, problem is, that never made him a good candidate.
He was elected because of white union folks AND white 18-25 year olds...and it was a huge mistake to elect him over a very spectacular John McCain.
Hopefully that is the case with Trump. He at least has executive experience so hopefully he'all be less interested in perpetually campaigning and more interested in governing. Gingrich is suggesting his agenda will essentially be to modernize government and he will start off with an infrastructure stimulus. He needs to avoid the mistake Obama made, which is to throw it over to Congress and stand back while partisan bickering erupts and the bill gets loaded with pork and payback to political constituents. It needs to be narrow and focused and get about 50% of Dems on board. That would be a good place to start. Fixing Obamacare will take time, but there is potential for common ground there as well.
Trump is a lot of things, but I really haven't heard him be called a liar. What did he lie about? Just curious. Just as a point of reference, I have no allegiance to him.
I think infrastructure will be a major first move. And I support him on that. BUT I will kindly ask anyone who has opposed infrastructure the last 6 years what LOGICAL reason there is that it is suddenly the right thing to do?
On ACA, he's stuck. He promised to gut it immediately. I am skeptical a plan, any plan, will get through that quickly. If they just totally repeal it, we are stuck back to kicking kids up to 26 off of plans and the pre-existing condition problem. IF that were to happen, he loses support with some quite quickly (some that voted for him I am sure).
Here is a prediction for you, Trump is going to (off the record) as Obama to pardon Clinton. Trump does not want that fight, but his promise was MOST vociferous. And his people really want that. So there is only one solution. If he sends Giuliani out after Clinton we've crossed the Rubicon on politics.
That was roughly my thoughts about Mitt Romney. I believed in 2012, and still believe today, that Romney would've made for a very effective president. But, as a candidate, he left a whole lot to be desired. That probably shouldn't come as too much of a surprise, though. He ran for office a number of times - and only won once.
I also agreed wholeheartedly with George F. Will on his June 2016 column "Purdue has the president America needs". I think Mitch Daniels would be a phenomenal president. Will is right: Daniels' skills are precisely what the country needs as we face the difficult task of getting our fiscal train on rails that don't end at a cliff.
But I've long been skeptical about how effective Daniels might be as a candidate in this day and age. For whatever reason, we don't seem to put much of a premium on competence in presidential campaigns. We're much more drawn to sizzle than steak.
I agree about the sizzle and steak. I think Romney would have done well. My issue with Romney came about what he needed to do to win the primary. His career had been built around a moderate Republican, and suddenly he needed to outflank the conservatives on the right. And I do think this is a weakness of the current system.
I tend toward wanting a policy wonk, someone who loves getting into the minutia. Even though I disagreed with him on much, I would have strongly considered voting for Jeb! for that reason.
That's the first (and probably last) time I've ever heard John McCain described as "spectacular" -- let alone "very spectacular."
McCain was a lousy candidate for the GOP. But it didn't really matter: no Republican was going to win the 2008 election. The Republican brand was in tatters at that time -- and the outgoing Republican incumbent had approval numbers in the 30s.
That's why, to the astonishment of just about everybody who knows me, I kicked Hillary Clinton a check in the spring of 2008. The Democratic primary was the de facto general election -- and I thought (and still think) she was preferable to Obama.
BTW, it's going to be really, really interesting to see what kind of lasting effect Donald Trump's nomination and election will have on the Republican Party going forward. I know most Republicans are breathing a sigh of relief right now -- if not at Trump's victory, then at least at the fact that his candidacy didn't kill the party downballot.
But that may prove to be short-lived.
Thanks for that, but I didn't say Obama had the best resume, I said he was the best political candidate. I wouldn't argue that Obama had accomplished as much as McCain in politics but I'll argue all day that Obama was a better political candidate. I voted for him even though I also would have preferred a stronger resume and more experience as a leader. I admit that I've been a Democrat from a Democratic family my entire life and I'm black so I have all the political bias that goes with that but I don't think many Republicans would say that McCain was a better politician than Obama.
I don't see it as a weakness in our system. Few candidates appeal to their party's base of voters by sounding moderate. And so what? Is there something inherently virtuous about moderation? Didn't you say earlier that you ended up supporting Sanders in the primary? Why, because he ran as a moderate?
And, for that matter, I don't think Mitt Romney really did much to outflank anybody on the right (I wish he would have!). He won the nomination pretty much entirely by attrition. At least 4 or 5 different candidates spent some time leading the polls that cycle -- Gingrich, Cain, Bachmann, Santorum -- before things just defaulted to Romney.
I don't think presidents have to be particularly wonkish to be effective. Reagan was notoriously aloof to messy details -- even by his own admission. He was more of a chart-the-course-and-delegate kind of leader. And he was pretty successful at implementing his agenda -- most of it, anyway -- despite working with a House majority that was heavily Democratic for all 8 of his years.
Personally, I don't necessarily favor either kind of leadership style. Sticking with the people discussed, Daniels is much more of a technocratic wonk than Reagan was. And I think Daniels has been a phenomenally effective leader -- both as governor and what he's doing at Purdue. Bill Clinton, another president who succeeded in advancing his agenda working with (mostly) hostile Congresses, was much more in the Daniels vein. Harry Truman was more similar to Reagan.
Similar threads
