So WAS this a repudiation of "politics as usual"?

[Bengalzona]

(11-09-2016, 09:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: Someone on ABC, early in the evening said this was a "punch to the face of the elites".

I disagreed then and still do now.

The VAST majority of incumbents were re-elected.  The only change is the Presidency.  

So if one of the themes is "not liking career politicians"  why did so many get re-elected?

The election of Trump is viewed by many of his supporters as a "punch to the face of the elites". Which is somewhat fascinating seeing how he is a billionaire from New York City... sort of the very definition of elite and everything his supporters are not. 

Democrats need to realize at this point that the GOP played the politics in this election masterfully. Democrats need to shut their mouths at this point, observe and analyze, and re-assess pretty much everything (especially how their message is being delivered and received). 

[GMDino]

(11-10-2016, 10:00 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: The election of Trump is viewed by many of his supporters as a "punch to the face of the elites". Which is somewhat fascinating seeing how he is a billionaire from New York City... sort of the very definition of elite and everything his supporters are not. 

Democrats need to realize at this point that the GOP played the politics in this election masterfully. Democrats need to shut their mouths at this point, observe and analyze, and re-assess pretty much everything (especially how their message is being delivered and received). 

In conversations on Facebook with my conservative friends I have found that the message doesn't matter.  They don't want "liberals" doing anything that makes the US different than it was "before".

When pressed for what those things are I am told I am narrow minded.

I'll keep you updated on how this goes.

[Bengalzona]

I really don't want to hear any Johnson-voter blame:

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2016, 10:00 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: The election of Trump is viewed by many of his supporters as a "punch to the face of the elites". Which is somewhat fascinating seeing how he is a billionaire from New York City... sort of the very definition of elite and everything his supporters are not. 

Democrats need to realize at this point that the GOP played the politics in this election masterfully. Democrats need to shut their mouths at this point, observe and analyze, and re-assess pretty much everything (especially how their message is being delivered and received). 

I think this is the biggest issue. I know I often point to the hate displayed by the accepting in this forum.

I think the biggest mistake Hillary made in the election was where she called half of Trump supporters a basket of deployables ( a sentiment echoed here). That very moment she kissed goodbye any undecided Conservative.

If you want to be accepting of others, be accepting of others.

[GMDino]

(11-10-2016, 01:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think this is the biggest issue. I know I often point to the hate displayed by the accepting in this forum.

I think the biggest mistake Hillary made in the election was where she called half of Trump supporters a basket of deployables ( a sentiment echoed here). That very moment she kissed goodbye any undecided Conservative.

If you want to be accepting of others, be accepting of others.

I agree that she should not have said it.

Just because you know someone who is a racist who supports Trump that does not make them a majority of Trump supporters.

Just because the KKK supports his message does not mean his message is racist.

I know a wide range of people who supported Trump.  They fit in all segments of society and all had different reasons for supporting him.

However I do take a little umbrage with that bolded statement.  I will not be accepting of the racists or sexists.  Doesn't matter who they support.

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2016, 01:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: However I do take a little umbrage with that bolded statement.  I will not be accepting of the racists or sexists.  Doesn't matter who they support.

What exactly does "not being accepting" mean? I think we should strive to educate and allow our State and National laws set the perimeters. For instance I think marriage is between a man and a woman; however, I treat homosexuals no differen and "accept" them. The laws of the nation state they can marry and I support that.

You call someone bigot, racist, homophobe, ect...is no different than refering to anyone else by any other slur. They are going to be unreceptive of the message that follows.

[GMDino]

(11-10-2016, 01:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What exactly does "not being accepting" mean? I think we should strive to educate and allow our State and National laws set the perimeters. For instance I think marriage is between a man and a woman; however, I treat homosexuals no differen and "accept" them. The laws of the nation state they can marry and I support that.  

You call someone bigot, racist, homophobe, ect...is no different than refering to anyone else by any other slur. They are going to be unreceptive of the message that follows.

I'm speaking about people we know personally.  Not a generalization of an entire group.

I can tell my boss he says racist things because he does.  He won't deny it.  He doesn't like the word "racist" but he doesn't deny his words.

So I don't accept that from him.  And he's not going to listen to my message about race anyway because he has his set world view.

I can accept him...just barely.  He's a dbag in many other ways.  

If she had said "...in general anyone who is supporting Trump who already have racist or sexist views are bad people and I don't think they will care about my message" would that have been a better way to get the thought across?

[*wildcats forever*]

(11-10-2016, 10:00 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: The election of Trump is viewed by many of his supporters as a "punch to the face of the elites". Which is somewhat fascinating seeing how he is a billionaire from New York City... sort of the very definition of elite and everything his supporters are not. 

Democrats need to realize at this point that the GOP played the politics in this election masterfully. Democrats need to shut their mouths at this point, observe and analyze, and re-assess pretty much everything (especially how their message is being delivered and received). 

Yep, and the first step is admitting the problems they have to overcome......if they can actually do that. The entire primary fiasco alone was enough to get their opponent elected. The point you made elsewhere about building from the local level on up is what needs to happen. That's where the Millennials can succeed. Get the Democratic Party re-established at the city, county, and state levels again. And become the party with good ideas and how to implement them. 

[Bengalzona]

At the risk of being stoned for saying it, I think Trump will end up being more of an ally to Dems than either House of Congress.

[Bengalzona]

(11-10-2016, 02:10 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: Yep, and the first step is admitting the problems they have to overcome......if they can actually do that. The entire primary fiasco alone was enough to get their opponent elected. The point you made elsewhere about building from the local level on up is what needs to happen. That's where the Millennials can succeed. Get the Democratic Party re-established at the city, county, and state levels again. And become the party with good ideas and how to implement them. 

Unfortunately for Democrats, that process takes decades to build and, as a result, takes a massive commitment and patience. The only way a political party develops those traits is from political disaster such as Watergate. I'm not sure that this election qualifies (though it should, IMO).

This is a fundamental lesson in life. When one group tries to beat another group down, the second group arises stronger. That which doesn't kill you, makes you stronger.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-10-2016, 02:13 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: At the risk of being stoned for saying it, I think Trump will end up being more of an ally to Dems than either House of Congress.

Only at risk? Really?

[*wildcats forever*]

(11-10-2016, 02:20 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Unfortunately for Democrats, that process takes decades to build and, as a result, takes a massive commitment and patience. The only way a political party develops those traits is from political disaster such as Watergate. I'm not sure that this election qualifies (though it should, IMO).

This is a fundamental lesson in life. When one group tries to beat another group down, the second group arises stronger. That which doesn't kill you, makes you stronger.

Unfortunate - yes, but no less real. The party has little choice at this point. A change to ideal leadership is sorely needed now, since what's been in place has failed miserably. This is a present day Watergate to me because values are at stake now, that is if any politician left has an interest in such things. The public just might respond well to a party that addresses the corruption that has already been exposed, and proves it has learned a hard lesson.

To me, anything less will be more of the same, and we just saw how people felt about that concept.

[Belsnickel]

(11-10-2016, 02:20 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Unfortunately for Democrats, that process takes decades to build and, as a result, takes a massive commitment and patience. The only way a political party develops those traits is from political disaster such as Watergate. I'm not sure that this election qualifies (though it should, IMO).

This is a fundamental lesson in life. When one group tries to beat another group down, the second group arises stronger. That which doesn't kill you, makes you stronger.

Well, not just from Watergate. The GOP started planning out the gerrymandering we see today back in the 1990s so that in the 2010 reapportionment they would have an advantage. It just came from Democrat domination for a long time. The DNC hasn't had to plan that long term yet, but they will need to learn to be successful.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Repudiation?  No. Business as usual?  Yes. Exit polls indicate 89% of Democrats voted Democrat and 90% of Republicans voted Republican. 

This election was about motivating angry voter turn out. There isn't anything new about that, either.

[6andcounting]

President-elect Trump was playing 4d Chess all along. Chris Christie and all the lobbyists he appointed have been purged.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-transition-team-lobbyists-2016-11

[GMDino]

(11-16-2016, 09:12 AM)6andcounting Wrote: President-elect Trump was playing 4d Chess all along. Chris Christie and all the lobbyists he appointed have been purged.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-transition-team-lobbyists-2016-11

I think part of this is Trump and his team never thought he'd win so they didn't have a plan at all, and the other part is they will still have his business buddies and insiders in there but it won't be names we all know and love.

[Benton]

(11-16-2016, 09:12 AM)6andcounting Wrote: President-elect Trump was playing 4d Chess all along. Chris Christie and all the lobbyists he appointed have been purged.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-transition-team-lobbyists-2016-11

one of my biggest concerns about trump was his lack of a plan. His ideas were "gonna be great" but he rarely had any.

if this is true, it's bad planning on display. Yeesh.

[6andcounting]

(11-16-2016, 09:48 AM)GMDino Wrote: I think part of this is Trump and his team never thought he'd win so they didn't have a plan at all, and the other part is they will still have his business buddies and insiders in there but it won't be names we all know and love.

His plan was MAGA 

[6andcounting]

(11-16-2016, 09:48 AM)GMDino Wrote: I think part of this is Trump and his team never thought he'd win so they didn't have a plan at all, and the other part is they will still have his business buddies and insiders in there but it won't be names we all know and love.

I never saw this meme before, but I figured I could find this exact thing on Google