Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach. [See Update at end]
First, I heard three of the best, most moving, heartfelt, and real speeches of the election yesterday and today, from Trump, Clinton, and Obama. My congratulations to all three of them for a statesman-like response to the outcome.
Next, when I was a kid, the Democrats were the party of the poor and the Republicans were the party of the rich. However, somehow that changed when I wasn’t looking, and that is not now the case. See the results below. The wealthier the state, the more people voted for Hillary.
Finally, the chart below also reveals the reason that the talking heads were so shocked by the outcome … see the one state with 93% Hillary votes way up at the top there?
That’s the District of Columbia, which is more than 10 to 1 liberal … and they wonder why they don’t know any Trump supporters, why they have no idea of the pulse of the country, and why they thought he could never win? They’re stuck inside the Beltway Bubble, with the usual reality field distortion that occurs there.
My best to everyone on both sides. My hope is that we can all reach across the aisle and recognize that this is a huge chance for us to change a government which is frankly not working. We may not agree on any given proposed fix, but I do think we can agree that the present gridlock is intolerable.
UPDATE: At the request of a friend, I’ve expanded the analysis to include the 2008 election which brought Obama to power. Here’s the comparison:
This shows a couple of things. First, Obama got about the same support in the wealthy states, and more support in the poor states, compared with Clinton.
More interesting is the change in the District of Columbia. It would be hard for DC to vote more liberal than it was under Obama at 92% … but Hillary got it up to 93%.
Most interesting is that during this time, the overall average income in the states hardly changed at all … but the pluted bloatocrats in DC saw their incomes rise by about 25% … is it any wonder that folks inside the Beltway Bubble think the economy is fixed and everything is proceeding just fine in this best of all possible worlds? Hey, they’re getting rich, what could be wrong?
Best to all,
w.
As Always: I, like most folks, can defend my own words and claims. However, nobody can defend themselves against a misunderstanding of their own words. So to prevent misunderstanding, please quote the exact words that you disagree with. That way we can all be clear regarding the exact nature of your objection.
This conundrum can be observed everywhere – the poorer country folks vote conservative, while the wealthier townspeople vote for progressive parties. Considering that liberal parties tend to tax the rich and give to the poor, each side seems to vote against their own financial interests.
But taxing the rich hurts GDP growth, and GDP growth does much more to provide jobs and put money in the pockets of ordinary folks than wealth redistribution ever can. See “Macroeconomic effects of tax changes, by no less a right winger than Christina Romer–Obama’s original chair for the Council of Economic Advisors.
Christina Romer; you mean “giggles” ?? She was part of the Kenysian Stimulus Academic Folks advising President Obama in the beginning…..
She had done previous academic studies showing that Kenysian stimulus does not work… But she got called by the White House for her expertise and forgot all that. She was interviewed and could not stop gushing (almost giggling) about how flattered she was by being asked by a US President for her advice….
I guess she just lost her head after being invited to the White House and forgot all that stuff she knew before. Wanted to impress the new POTUS I guess…
A trillion dollars in “stimulus” down the drain, and nothing to show for it. At least we got a stinking Dam out of Herbert Hoover (Who “Caused” the Great Depression after all).
Cheers, KevinK.
Let’s see whether Pres. Trump manages to build an administration NOT consisting exclusively of members of the Council of Foreign Relations.
sit down grab a beer and watch:
At least the gridlock might be over
President R
Senate 51% R
House 55% R
Not a Super Majority but a majority in both houses
KevinK–So Romer abandoned her principles when she discovered that “advising” Obama consisted of telling him only what he wanted to hear. This doesn’t mean her academic work was wrong–her academic work was right on the stimulus issue, too. I cite her because nobody can claim she’s a right winger; there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that taxing the rich diverts investment capital into government boondoggles, which, unless you believe burying money in bottles for people to dig up is the equivalent of sound investment, is bound to do more harm than good.
Never forget the “rich” – meaning the multi-millionaires and the billionaires – hire the absolutely best tax lawyers and accountants in the world. If their businesses are taxed, the consumer foots the bill since it’s becomes just another cost element in their pricing structure. For example, how much has Bill Gates net worth declined? If you said it has increased, you’d be right. There’s a reason the rich favor the Democrat Party. Even rednecks can figure out why even they don’t call it corporatism. That’s why so many CEOs have been signing letters either against Trump or threatening Trump. They like the rules; the rules favor them and they just get richer.
Good point – what kind of companies can afford to deal with complex, expensive regulation? Of course, large companies with armies of lawyers and documentation/paperwork pushers, not small businesses. As regulation increases, opportunity goes to the big firms, little guys squeezed out. Think small business is voting for big government? No way, like signing your own death warrant.
Dude!!!….Stop bashing the “Rich”.
When a Plumber comes and fixes your toilet… you also pay his overheads that are costed into the job he did for you.
You are paying for his accountant, his fuel usage, his vehicle maintenance, his labor, the materials purchased and his equipment…. No different than any other company or business in the world. It’s all costed into the product or service.
Surely you know this?
Which is exactly why we in Britain voted for Brexit. People finally realised that ‘The Rules’ churned out by the European Commission were designed to favour big corporate businesses. All the heavy regulations stifled small enterprises and innovation. But of course the libtards can’t understand that.
It’s not just tax – probably not even that important since most of the “rich” running companies are not the owners,
I’s regulation. That favours the big and established over upstarts and innovators, just in terms of scale (lawyers and compliance people are expensive)but also because regulation favours the status quo rather than change.
Big companies hate and fear competition more than tax, as competition makes them work harder and threatens the cosy jobs of CEOs.
Another problem with the regulatory state is that many of the regulations are written by the lobbyists from the corporations the laws regulate. These lobbyists put in plenty of loopholes for their clients, rules designed to hinder the up and coming competition and rules eliminating their competition. Why do we have those mercury filled twisty CFL’s – because their was too much competition from the hundreds of small factories in the world making the old technology incandescent bulb.
Also don’t forget that the 1% movement in the U.S. is happening in a country where the median annual income of $35,000 places you in the global top 10%
Bryan A: take another look at where $35k places you wrt global income. You would be in the top 1% according to the sites I found.
Anyone still want to highly tax the world’s top 1% earners and redistribute their earnings?
http://www.globalrichlist.com/
Worth remembering that a lot of poor people don’t want to stay poor – or at least that used to be the way it worked. Therefore you would expect them to vote for someone who could positively affect their job and wealth prospects, not just give them some cash from somebody that’s already rich. Look at the stats – biggest issue over the last 10 years or so is the loss of upward mobility. To the extent Trump promised to fix that, he got the attention of a lot of (currently) poor people. Those coal miners used to make good money, and most haven’t forgotten how that felt. Small wonder he did well in the rust belt.
Anyone who believes that taxing the rich is in the financial interest of the poor has probably never been poor themselves and not a “beneficiary” of this wealth redistribution scheme. Wealth certainly gets redistributed but very little ever gets to the poor and the so called “welfare programs” do not help the poor but insist they remain stultified if they are to access this “welfare”. Help as betrayal is not help.
How dumb do voters have to be not to realize that there is no such thing as a “corporation tax”? Any corporate expense gets passed on to consumers, unless there are wage and price controls which have the effect of turning a productive economy into the Soviet economy.
Chimp, you are correct of course. The tax is added to the eventual cost of the gods produced and paid by the consumer. However, in a global competitive economy, high US corporate taxes added to the eventual cost can make goods produced in the US non competitive price wise with foreign competitors. If a US manufacturer cannot compete in the global market they can either go out of business or move to another country to produce their product. If the US institutes lower corporate taxes goods produced can be more competitive in the global market.
Also, lower energy prices in the US as a result of using “clean” coal and fracking technology can also lower manufacturing cost in the US. These two elements could help revitalize manufacturing in the USA.
Robert,
Also, lower US corporate tax rates or a tax holiday to repatriate cash stashed offshore cash would mean more investment in the US.
Apple and some other tech companies are getting hammered today over fears of a trade war with China and Trump’s antipathy to manufacturers with overseas factories, but being able to bring hundreds of billions back to the US should be good for investors. The threat of a Fed rate hike next month isn’t helping either.
“the poorer country folks vote conservative, while the wealthier townspeople vote for progressive parties”
Before Trump there was no one in either party that wasn’t in the corporate/lobby/wall street/banking pocket. While some may have claimed to be “for the people” they were always lying. Trump is the only one that appears to actually mean it.
My observation is not limited to the US only. It applies in Canada and across Europe as well. (That’s why I put in the word “everywhere.” There IS life outside the US, strange as that may sound.)
Is there life outside the US? I thought that was just a model.
@MarkW
Just so you know, I am in Canada and I am no model!
Well speaking of many liberals upset by Hillary’s loss, here’s a nice compilation. One can only hope that this group will be the drop-outs and not in charge of the country’s future.
heh- i’ve been viewing a bunch of the compilation vids. it’s a meme now
BFL, I don’t think it’s necessary to kick people when they are down, no matter how much you disagree with them. Show some class.
It is good to remind the liberal/progressive farm animals who called me and people like me “racist” and “sexist” etc, that they tried to elect the most corrupt monster in the history of US politics ONLY because she claimed to have a vagina. White working men, the deplorables, and white women did not find her message appealing. …Message to the man-hating, white-hating, nationalist hating progressives…. The republicans are going to run a women in 2024. She will win because she will have a positive message for everyone.
So this video isn’t for the people deluded people who were so shallow to only want Hillary because she claimed to be a women and are now emotionally broken. No. This video is for the recalcitrant progressives who are still standing, scheming, and entrenching their hatred towards white people, Christians, patriots, conservatives, and working people. For them… have a nice 4 years watching your progressive world get dismantled.
I have had a real busy week, and that cheered me up no end. I had a good laugh, I was thankful to be wearing my Playtex 24hr girdle because I think my sides just split! Thanks BFL for posting!
I disagree with one sentence of Willis’s article, concerning reaching across the aisle and cooperating with Democrats. If Obama had actually reached out to Republicans and ruled cooperatively, that might have a little resonance; however, he did not (see Obamacare), and the voters are sick and tired of sending people to Washington with high ideals, only to see those people cave in and rule as the Left wants them to rule because they think the media will like them for it (won’t happen). Trump needs to do what we–the nation–elected him to do, which is to enact the program on which he ran. He has spoken of reining in the EPA, and that needs desperately to be done. He spoke of using our vast energy resources, including coal, and that also is necessary; it will also conserve jobs in the coal parts of the country. I could go on . . .
This is what happens when you are emotionally invested in something (like a presidential candidate) instead of intellectually. This is the biggest problem with the left: they use their heart (emotions) instead of their heads when making all their decisions. There are some things, like relationships, where the heart should lead, but financial, scientific, and political decisions (just to name a few) must be made in a calm, rational manner. Otherwise what you get is people in a fetal position on the floor or out raging in mobs on the street because their side lost.
“This is what happens when you are emotionally invested in something (like a presidential candidate) instead of intellectually. This is the biggest problem with the left: they use their heart (emotions) instead of their heads when making all their decisions. ” — Paul Penrose
Nailed it. I once ran into a Kennedy fan who was spewing spittle as he ranted. It was disgusting. You can’t convince these people they’re wrong. Their minds are totally disconnected.
Paul Penrose
I’d direct you to Scott Adams blog (aka Dilbert) His persuasion and filter arguments are pretty persuasive (ha ha) adds kind of a 3rd dimension to the analysis. I don’t agree on all his points but I think we all form an opinion first (for whatever reason) and then look for the “false because” rationalization to back it. It takes a lot of persuasion to change a held belief.
Adams notes that fear is one of the greater motivators. The Clinton camp pushed fear of Trump. The people crying in the video are sincerely afraid. CAGW delivers fear in spades. Pointing out different facts will change very few peoples minds. I believe countering CAGW is going to require better persuasion techniques and maybe some counter-fear. Otherwise it’s going to take a long time of failed disaster predictions to wear the fear factor down.
Paul Westhaver
November 10, 2016 at 1:32 am
A great many professional women who have made it on their own and legitimately despise the corrupt, phony, psychotic hell bitch Clinton.
The rich infantilise the poor by patronising them, but in fact the ones who suffer from wealth transfer are not the rich but the middle class. The rich will always be OK, and the poor will always be with us. It may be that the middle income folx are starting to notice.
that’s a possible interpretation too, Michael Palmer.
correlation is not causation, though
if we all get to guess, i’d say it was a matter of city (population density) and all the associated pollution, crime, etc vs life in the country where you know your neighbors.
The party of the poor needs more poor to win, the party of the rich needs more rich. Some of the poor have caught on to the fact the democrats have no reason to help them become successful lest they lose their vote.
Trump team flipped the rustbelt states to win the election. They filled their ranks with blue collar voters. The dems had virtually every 1% not just voting but stumping and heavily donating, Hollywood, celebrities, billionares all media and journalists. As Willis points out DC is overwhelming dem and therefore out of touch with the country and brazenly corrupt. Drain the swamp is apropos and was the theme that won the election. The blue collar voters flipped for Trump because he is singularly unfettered. Both parties are corrupt but the numbers about dc show the dems have institutionalized it.
Perhaps it’s a matter of the slaves voting against their masters? Have you ever tried to sign up for “welfare” benefits? It’s the inferior poor prostrating themselves to the kindly and benevolent elites.
Michael
“each side seems to vote against their own financial interests”
What you are missing is that the extra Taxes the rich pay are more then compensated for by privilege provide by the government in the form of pay to play, regulations that keep the competition down, policies that provide cheap labor (illegal immigration), sweet government deals that have no oversight, the ability to do illegal activities with no fear of prosecution and so on. Its about control and maintaining their position that guaranties their future wealth and squashing any chance of someone else taking their place and position.
just think Noble lords and the Crown and you will understand.
I think what you mean is that the liberals tax the rich “working class.” They have developed a number of ‘alternative tax strategies’ such as charitable foundations for the rich who do not make their money from building or actually doing something. The working class recognizes this. Under liberals the working class taxes increase. For example – Obama care. It is a tax on the working class to provide health insurance for the non working class. The supreme court actually ruled this was the basis for keeping Obama care. The government has the right to tax. Of course most on the left will still argue it is not a tax – not sure how they twist their logic that much.
Also, I would take exception that the liberals are for lower taxation. It seems to me that they have never met a tax they did not like – even if they have to make up the problem – global warming or carbon credits.
Obama has collected record taxes for the last couple of years. Amazing behavior for those who want to lower our taxes.
The giving to the poor is not giving to the working people who do not make a high salary. The giving to the poor is to keep the very poor and unemployed subverted and on the government teat and thus liable to vote Dem to keep the money flowing. And the rich liberals love the power of their money and the good feelings they get taxing everybody more, including the middle class.
Liberals rely on cheap labor for their wealth generation – simple answer
Perhaps it’s because those country folk realize that it is wrong to steal from others, even if they do have more than you do.
I think you mean the urban liberals, not townspeople.
Michael,
You like Willis are being overly simplistic.
The cost of living in rural areas is far less than urban areas. Rural areas are largely agricultural. When one owns land in the US, the rights that run with “real property” ownership are important. Simply because one seeks to support the Repubic and its related allodial rights – for which it Stands – doesn’t mean conservative.
The line in the sand that should never have been crossed by either party is our foundation as a Republic.
Everyone is sick of the the last 12+ years of Washington stupidity.
To Willis’s point, yes as one is either young or monied the tendency is to be more liberal. Yet, MSM is reporting the lack of voter turn out from those who have the least in Urban areas as the true cause of Hillary’s demise.
Why didn’t they vote is the issue!
Human Factors are a playground?
http://www.eng.auburn.edu/ie/courses/insy3020/HF_Dr.%20Payton/lnp%20HumanFactors4.pdf
Voters are not Lab Rats.
I’m aware that I’m only observing a very crude correlation. However, it is worth noting that this crude correlation applies not only in this election, and not only in the U.S., but also in Canada and in Europe.
JM,
While the cost of some things, like rent or homes, may be lower in rural areas, you aren’t going to pay much less for cars or gasoline and you probably drive more than real urbanites. Interest rates on cars and mortgages are going to be the same. When I went to visit my cousin in Custer (SD) I was surprised at the prices of things in the only grocery store in town, compared to what I was used to paying at my local Kroger in Dayton (OH). So, yes, the cost of living in most urban areas is higher than most rural areas, but “far less” may be an overstatement.
As to why the liberals didn’t vote, a partial answer may be that they felt they didn’t have to because the flawed MSM polls assured everyone that Hillary had it in the bag.
Can the moderators explain what happened to my previous comments?
Sloppy analysis. Lower income voters went for Clinton by 11 percentage points. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/exit-polls/
This was also seen state by state where Trump voters in the primaries had a higher income than the state medians and than Clinton voters. See http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/
So what you are seeing in this graph, assuming it’s accurate, is just that “blue” states are more prosperous than “red” ones.
Disagree that libs tend to tax the rich. Mostly they over tax the upper middle class. The truly rich don’t have much “earned” income, what they have is dividend and capital gains income plus lots and lots of tax shelters, like charities in their name. Neither Warren Buffett, nor Mit Romney have much earned income so they really don’t care how high the marginal tax rate is, but they get virtue points for supporting tax raises.
It’s like those people I’ve seen on TV (and amongst my compatriots) who say that they have no idea what Trump’s policies are. Isn’t is a bit late for that? Heck, all you have to do is look at his web site or listen to his speeches… the speeches that weren’t edited by the good folks of the MSM, of course. How could one possibly make an objective decision without examining the policies of the candidates? Unless you’re in your own bubble, I guess.
Touche.
The 93% District of Columbia outlier is easily explained in sociological terms. DC is where the money comes from. There are very few pigs-at-a-trough which will voluntarily vote to shut off the trough. Thus the result we see.
IMO, you have it backwards. The value is produced in fly-over country and is extorted off to DC-land, where it goes through the crony socialist shell-game several times, with a few pennies trickling back out to a few favored of identity politics’ “protected classes”.
It’s the poll taken of the (surviving) members in Hillary’s bunker. I don’t know how to post the image inline, sorry.
?w=594&h=239
Just back the URL up to the “.jpg” (eliminating “?w=594&h=239”)
“DC is where the money
comes fromdisappears to.”fixed
The narrative changes depending on the election outcome. When the poor vote for the liberal candidate, they are the downtrodden who need to be saved by the government from the capitalistic slave-drivers . But when the vote goes the other way, the poor are simply too ignorant to know any better. The fact of the matter is that the poor have noticed that the only ones to benefit from government largesse are the political operatives and unions, not the poor themselves. The big question of the day is: will Trump do any better, or will he just be another power-broker, no different from Hilary? He has a tremendous opportunity to make a real difference; we’ll see if he can deliver.
Would love to see this by county 😉
I hear you, rural counties downstate were nullified by the Chicago area vote, where the recipients outnumber the producers.
Before Obama, 47% of the people paid no income taxes, and the top 10% paid about 75% of income taxes.
With Obama’s tax increases, it’s gotten worse.
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president
Somewhat misleading. Conservative Southern states are about 1/3rd black.
Thanks for this Willis. The trend is there but perhaps not very strong with the scatter. It does seem however that, just as you suggest, the right side of the political spectrum may have morphed into what the more liberal side was thought to be in the past. With respect to climate and energy policy it really looks as if the liberals are trying to deprive the poorest of a better future while right-leaning skeptics are trying to turn the tide in a better direction. I am a Canadian, so only an observer in this story and I am not a partisan. I can find value and risk in politicians and policy from either side of the over-simplified political polarity but the thing I fear most is the ongoing economic/industrial suicide the west has been pursuing in the name of “saving the planet” from an imaginary bogey man. I am reminded now, as many times in the past, of the wisdom of the average citizen and how it so often exceeds that of the political elite and the pampered intelligentsia.
As a US native I endorse your view.
From a fellow Canadian- Well said!
Thanks Jo for noticing this Washington metric – It startled me too yesterday when I saw it. It has to be of real importance. I put this comment up on Chris Kenny’s article in the Australian earlier today :
But dont worry Chris, Its only day one. The voting yesterday in the District of Columbia (the Washington Beltway) was 93% Clinton to 4% Trump. This means that either all the swampers in Washington are Clinton Democrat voters or, more likely, the swamp dwelling Republicans in Washington voted overwhelming for Clinton in order to prevent any moves by their new boss to drain their swamp (yes, it is their swamp too). The ability of Trump to implement any of his programs is going to depend on just how hostile the House and the Senate are to his plans – and judging by the voting of the very people he needs to implement his programs, he has about as much chance as Abbott getting something through the Senate here. Anyone who thinks Trump is going to be successful in “draining the swamp” should realise that even the Republicans in the House and the Senate will resist him to the last man. As will the Media. As will the Bureaucracy. As will Academia. As will the Unions.
All in all I think your morally challenged Washington swamp dwellers are pretty safe, your Beltway will unite to protect its own, just as it has been protecting Clinton and making her a viable candidate to perpetuate the system.
Sorry – Thanks also to Willis.
Incidentally – In reply to Chris Kenny’s response explaining why he couldnt support Trump I added:
Thanks Chris. I see where you are coming from but naturally I saw it quite differently. I saw that Trump identified the politically correct media as both his biggest enemy and his best ally. Effectively, their hyperventilating and over egging the pudding put him in the White House. All he needed to do was keep providing them with the ammunion to shoot themselves in the foot, and the media never caught on. But down at the nitty gritty level though – in the US and even here – the major parties, in cahoots with the media to supress issues of concern, like immigration, debt, carbon tax vs a manufacturing industry, and attempting to control the agenda on their own terms meant that there was no choice but to go with the maverick, warts and all. Business as usual is the road over the cliff. It was supposed to be a media-contained election between Clinton and Rubio – leaving the Beltway in control.
It occurs to me that an inherent conflict of interest exists in the fact that members of congress draw their salary from the federal government. Are they in fact government employees? Or representatives from the districts from which they were elected? They are there to promote the interests of the citizens in their home district, but their loyalty to that district is immediately undermined.
Imagine the President sending an ambassador to a far away country to promote the interests of the US in that country. Would it not undermine the ambassador’s mission for him to draw his salary from the coffers of the country to which he is assigned?
Imagine a Secretary of State selling American foreign policy to the highest bidder. Imagine a SecState selling US uranium mining rights to Russia, then attacking her opponent as a Putin puppet.
Hey Chimp, that is crazy talk. They’re going to lock you up in the ha ha house if you keep talking delusional conspiracy theories like that …
Oh wait it was all true and Trump won so you are safe from Hillary’s wrath. Enjoy your free speech 🙂
Nah, mostly they’re lobbyists.
Steve, the problem with your analogy is that they are government employees with a responsibility both to their local area and to the nation. These are competing interests, but it is their base job description to manage this conflict to the benefit of all.
As for their salary being a conflict of interest, I think that is the case only when they are deciding their own benefits and pay. The alternative is worse. An unpaid legislature (such as British Parliament pre-1911) would ONLY be open to the independently wealthy.
Independantly wealthy, or the retired.
@benofhouston.
You say they are federal employees quite matter of factly, but this does not need to be true. Their sole purpose for going to Washington is to represent the people of their district, and as such, should be paid by the people of that district.
What if they drew their salary from the district which sent them to Washington?
You know, I’ve always hated that term “drain the swamp.”
It should be “restore the swamp.” If there is any piece of land in the country that we should rehabilitate to its original state of nature, it is the District of Columbia.
(Oh, make sure we build a good wall around it first. And maybe one minor change to the original state; we could import some Florida gators…)
“The ability of Trump to implement any of his programs is going to depend on just how hostile the House and the Senate are to his plans – and judging by the voting of the very people he needs to implement his programs, he has about as much chance as Abbott getting something through the Senate here.”
I think Trump will be able to summon his millions of followers to put pressure on members of Congress who might block Trump’s agenda.
Trump is like Reagan in that he talks over the heads of the News Media and the politicians, directly to the people. I’m not sure any member of Congress wants to feel the full force of the pressure Trump can put on them using their own constituents.
If the Republcians do not support Trump’s main themes, the ones that won him the election, then those Republicans are going to be hearing from those who elected Trump.
Great analysis. Very Willis-like. Thank you and welcome back.
Reaching across the aisle is a good gesture.
But the most important “gesture” will be stop lying, such as about things like “the urgency of climate change.”
There is no hope of reconciliation when one side blatantly and unashamedly lies about important policy decisions like our energy future, how an economy like the US can regain manufacturing competitiveness in the face of low wage economies like China and India, and fact that political correctness is used to suppress the other side rather than encourage open constructive debate.
I can’t help it. “Reaching across the aisle,” makes me think of the arm of a cadaver extending from a coffin to grasp the unwary. The political Living Dead. I guess I’m in favor of being receptive to any movement of them toward righteousness.
For this REPUBLIC, to work all the regulations that have been enacted by Congress, our POTUS and the Rogue USEPA over the last 7+ years needed to be reassessed, modified or scrap entirely. Then the EPA needs to be restructured and moved out of DC to the Midwest as Dr. Jay Lehr has suggested in the following:
https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/replacing-the-environmental-protection-agency
Willis, what I think you missed is that DC is a mix of at least two disparate groups, bureaucrats and black people, both of which are heavily Democrat voters. The motivations are different for each group, but black people especially have a history of voting Democrat by over 90%.
Tom, I agree.The fact that there was a 93% dem vote there does not mean a thing. Even if every republican Senator/Congressman ( about 350 of them) voted for Trump it would not show up for the reasons you stated. I am not even sure those elected can vote in DC but have to vote in their own State
Politicians are supposed to maintain a home in their districts and vote there.
During the presidential campaign, someone analyzed political donations from large NYC hedge funds and found they gave $24 million to Hillary and just $14,000 to Trump….
Leftist ideology has evolved into enormous governments colluding with big business to control every aspect of the economy and peoples’ lives.
Rightist ideology is supposed to be about tiny decentralized governments performing a few enumerated tasks to protect and defend the citizens, and allowing free-market capitalism to generate prosperity.
The Trump phenomenon was a revolt of 52 million Americans against this Leftist ideology that has destroyed the US economy and most of the principles the US was founded upon.
Leftists lost– “elections have consequences”, as Obama once said..
It’s now time for Trump to make good on his promises.
“Rightist ideology”??
Left and Right establishment types, Clintons and Bushs were rejected. The Right can be as bad as the Left when it comes to elitism.
Conservative principles have small, limited government at their core.
Joelobryan-san:
Trump isn’t a “conservative” (a term I really don’t like), he’s more of a populist.
I prefer to use the terms Left and Right based on a sliding scale of the size and scope of government control, although the original meanings of these terms have been intentionally corrupted.
The US was originally established as a far-right government, just a hair to the left of anarchy– Libertarianism is perhaps the best term to describe the minimalist decentralized Constitutional Republic that was originally established.
As I sidetone, I hate it when “conservatives” call the US a democracy. It was never meant to be one…
Our founding fathers hated democracies, which is just a form mob rule. Democracies always fail as soon as people realize they can vote themselves more of other peoples’ money.
Indeed, which is why I was more worried about the Colorado amendment to make it harder to change our state Constitution. Outside interests keep putting petri-dish amendments on our ballot, hoping to push our state further down the path of socialism. The latest was single-payer health careform (it lost badly). The amendment to curb amendments won, btw.
SAMURA November 10, 2016 at 12:02 am
“The US was originally established as a far-right government,”
Hi, ah, are you referring to the “Articles of Confederation” or the later U.S. Constitution?
For example the “Northwest Ordnance” was enacted under the Articles in 1787.
https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=8
It helps to remember that we had two formal governing legal systems. We adopted the second due to the limitations of the former.
michael
Michael-san:
The Article of Confederation was a first attempt at establishing a far-right government.
The AoC ended up being slightly too far right with the central government going bankrupt as the states failed to provide it with sufficient tax revenues, and under the AoC, the central government had no powers of taxation (how cool is that!)
SAMURAI November 10, 2016 at 4:28 am
Hi,
Not sure about using the terms right ,left or center for back then.
The whole concept of the “form” of government they were trying to create was new to them.
My biggest problem with talking about U.S. history is determining how much the other person(s) know of the subject matter.
Many, many years ago I had the opportunity and pleasure to study the “The America Revolution” in the U.K from a English prospective. It was an eye opener. The Professor had first worked in the Colonial administrate service in India. I think he was ex-military also. He had a bullet crease on the side of his head. What he told us in class was an eye opener.
An example, the founding fathers and revolutionaries based their grievances the”Rights of the old English” .
While I have seen the term a few times in the last 30+ it was never in a U.S. history text and rarely in any discussion on the subject.
We have had 240 + years since the revolution and many of the political concepts we have and are second nature to us today were not even imagined back then.
For example, a Federalist. How do you categorize him today? How many people today understand the political parties of that time? They were derived from the British political institutions but with the amputation of many of the other power centers of British governance, such as the Church and hereditary families (families with claims to the Crown)
As I said its hard to know the knowledge level of the other side in a discussion. On the one hand you can error in presuming to little and appear condescending. Or be also far past your audience that you may as well be on Pluto.
And I agree with you we are not an “Athenian” democracy.
As Ben Franklin said “A Republic if you can keep it”. And that is the hard part.
michael
Oh and the following is not meant for you SAMURAI but rather to curious passerby who wonders what we are speaking of
http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com/a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it
The other thing to remember is that Clinton got more votes than Trump. Any analysis about
the election needs to start with that fact and talk about why Trump got the votes in the states
that mattered. Any national analysis of voting trends would suggest that Clinton won since she
got more votes and so is pointless. Unless you can say why voters in particular states voted Trump
your analysis is pointless.
It’s obvious why voters chose Trump in the states he won, and why those who supported him in other states did so.
Clinton’s “victory” in the popular vote is meaningless. We don’t even know if she really did get 0.2% more than he did, since that’s well within the usual Democrat margin of fraud, which is enormous.
The US is a representative republic, ruled by law, not a democracy. The popular vote is meaningless. Pure democracy is mob rule and too easily hijacked by the ignorant and bigoted.
Also, no one can know what the “popular vote” is, since it includes so many dead Democrats and multiple voting bums.
Possibly. As of 7 hours ago, the NYT site says Clinton got 59,915,938 votes to Trump’s 59,689,467. I am not clear, however, if those totals include Arizona, Michigan, and New Hampshire, which have still not been called and their electoral votes are not included in the electoral tally. If they were, assuming Arizona and Michigan go to Trump and NH goes to Clinton, the tally would be Trump with 306 to Clinton’s 232, instead of the 279 to 228 they are currently showing.
If we assume it is the total with those states, then it is a mere 0.2% difference. I don’t know what the margin of error would be, say if you considered holding many such contests and graphed the distribution of results. But, I would guess that, e.g., people who intended to vote but didn’t could easily change that spread substantially.
But, the Electoral College fulfills its function, which is assuring that the nation is not ruled by the dense population centers, leaving the less populated areas essentially fiefdoms of their coastal overlords.
Not just the margin of error, but the margin of fraud. Democrat vote fraud in key states is typically one percent or more.
The electoral vote count at 279-228 is minus AZ, MI, and NH.
The popular vote count includes all taalied votes so far.
Clinton is likely to hold about 250,000 total vote plurality when all is said and done.
250,000/130,000,000 = 0.2% . That is insignificant. That is why Constitutional framers went with an electoral college system to prevent a single, very populous state state (NY and VA during colonial times) from dominating all the small mid size states.
59,915,938 – 59,689,467 = 226,471. This is less than what Clinton got from DC with that 93 – 4 win there. If you exclude DC, Trump wins the popular vote count for the rest of the country.
Yes, the popular vote is a draw in all practical means. But the DC elite loves Clinton, that is the point taken.
Disclaimer. Numbers may vary depending on how many times you count them.
Here in central Virginia, quite a few people didn’t get to vote because the polls were so crowded that they could not wait the two or more hours it would have taken. In Hanover County, where I am an Officer of Election, at my precinct, at opening time (6 a.m.) the line stretched all the way across the parking lot. We let the people into the school, of course (it was 32 degrees and breezy), where the line stretched the length of the building, around the corner, farther than one could see. Our wait time was never more than half an hour, but it remained at near that level from 6 a.m. to 12:45 p.m., when we got a lull. Our turnout was 78%, and no one to whom I spoke had ever seen lines like that. I hope those who saw the lines and went away hoping to come back later actually did, and I’m quite sure most of them would have voted for Trump, probably in the same 4:1 ratio as those who were able to vote (1,573 to 391 actual count in the precinct). I’d say that .2% popular vote margin for Clinton would change (may yet change) if everyone who wanted to vote was able to.
CA, IL, NY represented a 5 million vote advantage for Clinton. In these states, Republicans know it is futile and there is little “get out the vote” efforts. If the election were structured to include the popular vote, mileage would vary.
As a Floridian, my vote counts more than most, but the framer’s rightfully designed the system to ensure small State’s rights were not usurped by large population centers.
Modern efforts to mischaracterize the popular vote as meaningful are an affront to the brilliance of those that gathered in Philadelphia to define a REPUBLIC!!
Chimp, moving to a popular vote method of electing the president just makes fraud even more rewarding.
As it is now, no matter how many illegal votes a party gins up, the most they can win is that state’s electors. Whether they win by 1% or 20%, the results are the same. Under a popular vote system, every extra vote makes a difference.
MarkW
November 10, 2016 at 7:41 am
Which is a big argument in favor of the EC. No matter how many times dead people vote in Chicago, the damage is limited since IL will go Democrat anyway, thanks to its population center.
I would however favor adopting the NE.ME system nationwide, in which Electoral Votes are based upon congressional district, with the statewide winner getting an extra two votes. If nothing else, candidates would have to campaign in states other than OH and FL. Even the Central Valley of CA might suffer some presidential visits. Consider the pink and light blue counties:
joelobryan November 9, 2016 at 10:29 pm
The electoral vote count at 279-228 is minus AZ, MI, and NH.
The popular vote count includes all taalied votes so far.
Clinton is likely to hold about 250,000 total vote plurality when all is said and done.
250,000/130,000,000 = 0.2% . That is insignificant. That is why Constitutional framers went with an electoral college system to prevent a single, very populous state state (NY and VA during colonial times) from dominating all the small mid size states.
Clinton’s plurality is currently about 1.5 million votes with still some votes left to be counted, ~1.2% advantage which is what the election night analysis was showing.
The Electoral College system was designed to give the slave states equal status, hence the rule to count a slave a 3/5th of a person.
Look up the 12th Amendment. It gave Virginia the largest EV which is why for the first 36 years afterwards the president was a virginian.
@Phil – the 12th had nothing to do with EC votes. It just said that the Pres and VP would be elected on the same ticket (instead of being the top 2 vote getters). And it was passed in 1804, half way through the Jefferson presidency. Which means there was only 20 more years of VA presidents (Monroe and Madison) before Quincy won and then Andrew Jackson and Van Buren. After Van Buren’s term (which takes us to 1840 – the 36th year), came Tippecanoe and Tyler too. Which was the next Virginia Connection.
Phil,
The slave state protection thesis of Akhil Reed Amar, con law prof at Yale, is an epic fail. If the Framers had really want to protect large slavehokders, they would have counted slaves and free blacks as full citizens rather than 3/5. Almost every state in 1787 was legally a slave state, but of course slaves were more numerous in the South, however defined.
The debates and Federalist papers make it clear that the reason for the EC was fear of democracy. Amar points out that governors were elected by popular vote, but fails to note that each state had its own qualifications for voters, often quite restrictive. Voters in small states feared domination by large states, rightly so, and Northern merchants and small farmers by the self-styled Southern planter aristocracy.
The way the EV system was supposed to work was for the eligible voters of a district and state to pick a respected, reliable man or men (two per state) whom they trusted to chose among the leading candidates for president, on their behalf. The Framers did not want direct election, with good reason. After Washington, who?
The rise of faction, ie parties, threw a wrench in the works, so that non-entities and party hacks became a slate of electors, rather than the people (white males, mainly property owners) picking someone from outside government whom they trusted to make a wise decision about who should be president.
This system may have had the effect of helping keep Southerners in power, but Virginia was after all the most populous state. It also had almost as many whites as Pennsylvania. the North had more whites than the South, but NJ and PA were as liable to vote with the South as with NY and New England. So even under a popular vote system, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were likely to have won. Madison went to college in NJ, for instance.
http://userpages.umbc.edu/~bouton/History407/SlaveStats.htm
Chimp November 18, 2016 at 12:01 pm
Phil,
The slave state protection thesis of Akhil Reed Amar, con law prof at Yale, is an epic fail. If the Framers had really want to protect large slavehokders, they would have counted slaves and free blacks as full citizens rather than 3/5. Almost every state in 1787 was legally a slave state, but of course slaves were more numerous in the South, however defined.
At the Constitutional Convention it was decided that representation in the House of Representatives and direct taxes should be proportional to the state’s population. The northern states argued that it should be based on the free population whereas the southern states obviously favored counting the slaves (except they didn’t want to pay the extra taxes that entailed). Consequently the Three Fifths Compromise was reached which gave Virginia the largest number of representatives even though its free population was less than Pennsylvania’s. This compromise also changed the electoral college representation for the presidential election but because of the way the elections were carried out this wasn’t important. Once the 12th Amendment was introduced the compromise handed the southern states a disproportionate influence on the presidency.
The big issue between the large and small states at the Convention was representation on the legislature, which was finally settled by the Connecticut compromise which gave us the present system.
The popular vote is irrelevent, and not just because of the constitution. A vote from an uncontested state such as OK or CA is no where near as important as one from a battleground state. It is probably more than a million times more likely that “your vote can make a difference” if you are a resident of FL than if you are a resident of OK.
IF the election WERE determined based on popular vote, then campain resources from both sides would be deployed entirely differently and there is no way anyone could conclude that the result of such a different campaign would have meant a victory for Clinton.
Its like one of of those roads not travelled things. The fact that she won the popular vote in an election where the popular vote is irrelevant is itself irrelevant.
Any discussion of popular vote going to Clinton is just spin. We like data on this site. She got 0.2% more votes. That’s approx 200,000 more out of 120 million. I call that a statistical dead heat. But the MSM won’t tell you that…they’ll avoid the actual numbers as far as possible.
All of which is missing my point. Since Clinton won the popular vote any analysis trying to
explain why she lost that relies on national trends will give the wrong answer. Only a state by
state analysis can begin to provide a correct answer.
The “popular vote” doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Whether or not someone is going to vote may be influenced by where they live. If I lived in Kentucky, I might feel confident that Republicans are going to win the state anyway, so I might not bother voting, regardless of whether I like that outcome or not. Analogously in California. So, the “popular vote” would be a useful metric only if you had nation-wide proportional representation.
(And, to be clear, I am not arguing for or against proportional representation. I’m just making an observation.)
As Al Gore’s campaign manager once said, if the election had been a popular vote election, both campaigns would have been dramatically different.
As it is, both campaigns put their money and time into maximizing the electoral college vote. Had it been a popular vote election, both campaigns would have done everything they could to maximize their popular vote totals.
Given that the popular total was only a few hundred thousand different, (out of about 120 million), the popular vote is a meaningless number.
Another point is that most states don’t bother counting absentee ballots, unless there are enough of them to potentially change the outcome of the election.
both very good points.
Basically a relatively small number of votes in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania would flip the result of the election. (16,10 & 20 electoral college votes)
Geronimo:
Another way to look at this election is the “protest” votes that went to so-called third-party candidates.
Now, I would NEVER presume to speak for someone else, and the way they voted, but on a state-by-state analysis (which I’ve done), if I take just HALF of the Johnson and McMullin votes and give them to Trump, and ALL of the Stein votes, and give them to Hitllery, then Trump takes the popular vote and increases his margin in the electoral vote (about five states switch from blue to red making this change).
I understand and sympathize with the ‘protest’ voters — — essentially saying, ‘none of the above’, but I think taking the wild-cards out of the deck tilts the election more towards Trump; much more than half of the people voted AGAINST Hitllery, so the election is entirely legitimate.
In essence, some people decided that they were against pathological lying, rampant corruption in government, and a totalitarian system being imposed upon them by an all-powerful government. Un-elected regulators are regulating our society to death, and some, the victims of these regulations, said, ‘no more’. Drain the swamp? You bet! It’s needed it for a long time; maybe this time it will stay drained!
Regards,
Vlad
P.S., and I’m not even going to the rigging done on the Demoncrats side; figure 1 – 2% per State, and Hitllery is probably down to 40 – 45% of the popular vote.
The third, fourth and fifth parties did make a difference. Clinton got seven million votes fewer than Obama in 2008. Trump got more votes than did Romney in 2012, despite his presumably suffering more from Johnson than did Clinton, who presumably suffered more from Stein.
A majority of the over seven million protest votes probably would have gone to Trump, ie ~2/3 of Johnson’s 4.1 million, most of McMullin’s 495K and Constitution Party’s 170K, plus at least some hard core Sanders voters among the Stein’s 1.2 million. Some of these protest voters would have course not voted at all.
If the US had a runoff system for the top two vote-getters, odds are that Trump would have beaten Clinton, ~51-49.
Results, in millions, rounded to nearest hundred thousand:
2008: 69.5 Dem; 60.0 Rep; 2.0 Other; 131.5 Total; 58.2% Turnout
2012: 65.9 Dem; 60.9 Rep; 2.4 Other; 129.2 Total; 54.9% Turnout
2016: 62.5 Dem; 61.3 Rep; 7.2 Other; 131.0 Total; 53.6% Turnout
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html
Turnout was 56.7% in 2004, 51.2% in 2000 and 49.0% in 1996.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996
In retrospect, probably wasn’t a smart move for arrogant, treasonous, racketeering, pathological liar, screaming psycho hell bitch and drunken Parkinson’s sufferer Clinton to insult and ignore the working stiffs of America who used to form the core of the Democrat Party.
Yes, but she did not win the popular vote!
Registered voters 200,000,000
Popular Votes Cast 125,266,904 = 62.6% of registered voters
Clinton votes 59,888,870 = 47.8% of votes cast = 29.9% of registered voters
Trump votes 59,670,174 = 47.6% of votes cast = 29.7% of registered voters
Johnson votes 4,067,584 = 3.2% of votes cast = 2% of registered voters
Stein votes 1,216,373 = .97% of votes cast = 0.62% of registered voters
McMullin votes 423,903 = .34 % of votes cast = 0.21% of registered voters
Clinton Votes Cast 59,888,870 = 47.8% of votes cast = 29.9% of registered voters
Non-Clinton Votes 65,378,035 = 52.1% of votes cast = 32.7% of registered voters
All votes cast are “popular votes” and Clinton did not “win the popular vote” as there were more popular votes for all other candidates than for her. She had more popular votes than Trump. She won the popular vote against Trump. The majority of votes cast were for Trump and other candidates.
Sure it’s picky, but it’s an accurate quibble, if not a taste of Democrat medicine.
Right, she barely gained a plurality, but most voters rejected her, knowing her well.
DC of course is populated by clients of the state, so naturally votes for the party of government. But any other big city would show a similar pattern. The Maryland and Virginia suburbs of DC are practically as bad.
Today’s Democrat Party is a tool of public employee unions and trial lawyers. It’s no longer for the private sector working stiff. The national Democrats have abandoned private sector workers in favor of globalization, open borders and tax consumers rather than tax payers. Now they’ve reaped the whirlwind of that abandonment of the old FDR coalition in favor of the Clinton and Obama coalitions of the unproductive.
For example, Manhattan at 87.2% Clinton.
Manhattan and SanFran vote their financial interests. Just likerural Oklahoma and post-industrial Rust Belt states.
Manhattan and San Fran depend on big govt solutions. Okies and Ohio-PA-WV want the govt the get the hell out.
Can we have that chart recalibrated using “corruption index”?
Curious about those other outliers–the two low Clinton vote groups between 55 and 60k–any clues? Thanks.
Clinton lost the middle class because of Obamacare rate hikes, among other reasons.
The result of a Paul Ryan plan, to oppose the subsidies to insure that the premiums would go up just before the election.
Montana and Utah …
w.
“Next, when I was a kid, the Democrats were the party of the poor…”
Exploiting the poor? Creating poverty?
Democrats have and always will be the Party of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, and racial identity politics. Nothing has changed in that regard for Democrats since it was founded by Andrew Jackson 180 years ago.
I would take exception to only your statement that the current gridlock is intolerable. It’s not, when compared to the alternative, which is ramming ideas and policies made by people living in that hall of mirrors/intellectual vacuum of DC and such “progressive” environs, in opposition to what the people want and which actively harm the people of the country. Witness, if it weren’t for “gridlock” how many more “green” energy boondoggles and AGW inspired nonsense would have been forced upon us?
Many years ago I read a remarkably prescient book by Robert Silverberg called “The World Inside.” Published in 1971, it describes a world where most people live in huge, mile high buildings called urban monads, or urbmons. Surrounding clusters of these ultra high population density clusters are huge swaths of farmland that feed the cities. He quite interestingly describes the radical differences in how the two populations think, their very divergent morals and ethics and beliefs. To me at the time it was an interesting science fiction novel, today I realize how prescient he was, watching the divergence between what people in the “elite” enclaves of the large coastal cities and DC think as opposed to what people in what the elites insultingly label “flyover” counry think.
The elites are fortunate that this has so far only driven an election that picked a to them shocking man as president, as opposed to more violent and direct expression of dissatisfaction by the majority of the country.
Indeed there are aspects of this urban-rural/small town divide that are starting to resemble the Hunger Games.
This site really should not be the place for partisan political discussion. To lesson the effect of climate alarmism requires patience and respect for other concerns. Name calling and accusing others of bad will is not the way to move the discussion forward. Ms. Clinton and Mr. Trump got about the same number of votes, of course, that is assuming the election was not fixed. As long as we are a democracy your opinion or mine will not always carry the day. Pres. Obama, in my opinion, a very good man, who I disagreed with on this issue had a chance to lead. Now it will be Mr. Trump’s job. Those who voted for him will own his Presidency. I hope we and he do well.
Obama was an unmitigated disaster.
War in Syria, Libya and Iraq because he bugged out without a Status of Forces Agreement.
Obamacare creating a monstrosity of ever higher costs for ever crummier “care”.
A trillion dollars a year more in debt with nothing to show for it, indeed the slowest recovery from a recession ever.
Unconstitutional, lawless misgovernment by executive fiat.
Irresponsible rule by continuing resolution and making imaginary money rather than a real budgeting process and congress taxing people to pay for its excesses, but instead relying on the Fed to invent “money” out of thin air.
Just for starters.
With all due respect I disagree with everything you wrote.
I’m stating facts. How do you disagree with facts?
Sir or Madam you have won the day. You own the result. Your “facts” are open to discussion but not here not now. This is a site about climate science.
If you suppose that my facts aren’t facts, please show where they’re not.
This site is about science and public policy. Clinton is an anti-scientific high priestess of lies, deceit and corruption, who would hijack science in the service of personal enrichment and the destruction of America.
What could possibly be more relevant?
Please read the “about” statement for this website. You are incorrect, blowhard.
hornblower November 9, 2016 at 8:34 pm
First this is Anthony’s Site. It is what ever he wishes.
If we are out of line we will hear from him or the Mods.
Also the site is more a science site then climate change. And since political science is in a fashion a science…
Oh and we all “own the results” , you too and you need to take a long hard look look at the subjects Chimp put forth. Much of the turmoil in the world is the result of the mistakes and short sighted policies the present administration has made.
Last beware of standing on your dignity it is you will find a very precarious footing.
michael
Chimp November 9, 2016 at 8:21 pm
Obama was an unmitigated disaster.
War in Syria, Libya and Iraq because he bugged out without a Status of Forces Agreement.
The SOFA with iraq was signed by Pres G W Bush and stated that US Combat forces would be withdrawn by 31 Dec 2011, withdrawal was completed on 16 Dec 2011.
In other words, Obama is the “worst president evah!”
Chimp November 9, 2016 at 8:21 pm wrote: “Obama was an unmitigated disaster.
War in Syria, Libya and Iraq because he bugged out without a Status of Forces Agreement.”
Phil. November 10, 2016 at 6:31 am: replied: “The SOFA with iraq was signed by Pres G W Bush and stated that US Combat forces would be withdrawn by 31 Dec 2011, withdrawal was completed on 16 Dec 2011.”
Phil, the way it was supposed to work was Obama was supposed to renew the Status of Forces Agreement, when the old one expired. As it is, U.S. troops have been in Iraq since Dec. 2011 *without* a Status of Forces Agreement. I would call that dereliction of duty on Obama’s part by failing to protect U.S. troops from Iraqi legal issues.
Obama’s abrupt withdrawal of U.S. combat troops and his indifference to events in that part of the world, allowed the Islamic Terror Army to take over half of Iraq and part of Syria, killing untold numbers of innocent people and forcing millions of refugees into Europe where they are currently destablizing the civilization and putting European nations in great jeopardy.
Obama is the greatest enabler of radical Islamic terrorism in world history, with the possible exception of the founder of Islam.
TA November 10, 2016 at 6:57 am
Chimp November 9, 2016 at 8:21 pm wrote: “Obama was an unmitigated disaster.
War in Syria, Libya and Iraq because he bugged out without a Status of Forces Agreement.”
Phil. November 10, 2016 at 6:31 am: replied: “The SOFA with iraq was signed by Pres G W Bush and stated that US Combat forces would be withdrawn by 31 Dec 2011, withdrawal was completed on 16 Dec 2011.”
Phil, the way it was supposed to work was Obama was supposed to renew the Status of Forces Agreement, when the old one expired. As it is, U.S. troops have been in Iraq since Dec. 2011 *without* a Status of Forces Agreement. I would call that dereliction of duty on Obama’s part by failing to protect U.S. troops from Iraqi legal issues.
‘Supposed’ by whom? By the time the agreement expired:
“All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.”
The Iraqi government refused to grant legal immunity to US forces when the Obama administration attempted to negotiate a new SOFA.
That is called negotiation. Iraq’s starting position was the extreme, not the end. Obama never negotiated, and instead held a press conference, and took his toys home.
That is one area Trump will excel in, if nothing else.
If Anthony or any of the mods are upset with how discussions are going, they have the ability to close comments on any article.
Phil, under normal circumstances, the SOFA would have been extended, as it had been many times in the past.
Obama chose not to extend it.
Everything you wrote is correct, Chimp.
Don’t waste time “debating” with hornblower.
He is a liberal, and they live in an alternate universe of beliefs and feelings — not data, facts and logic.
You should already know that from their 40 year-old fantasy of a coming climate catastrophe !
Obama was the worst president in a century, in my opinion.
He is the first President ever** to have not one year of 3% Real GDP growth (and some Presidents only had four years to reach that 3% target — he had eight years).
Our nation used to grow at a 4% rate between recessions — Obama might reach 2%.
The economic growth rate is closely related to overall prosperity.
Eight years of Obama was enough to get any Republican elected !
Even a Republican that quite a few Republicans didn’t like.
Thanks to Obama, I believe the Republican Party now has a higher percentage of elected officials (federal and state) than at any time since Lincoln. I don’t have final data for 2016, but if that statement is not true for 2016, then it was true for 2014.
The liberals don’t get it, and never will.
Obama did a bad job running the country, even with the HUGE advantage of taking office in the middle of a recession — a very low starting point.
Obama could have done nothing but play golf for eight years, and the economy would have been better than it had been in January 2009.
Meanwhile, we had only 1.5% growth in the 12 months ending 3Q 2016 ( the just before the election ‘advance” GDP estimate for 3Q 2016 was hard to believe good news — it will be adjusted twice in the next two months, likely lower, in my opinion).
Even before adjustments, the recent +1.5% growth rate, for the past 12 months,. is worse than Obama’s pitiful 2% long-term average — so growth is slowing, not accelerating !
** since GDP data were first compiled in 1929.
In my experience over the decades since I’ve become interested in political as well as “scientific” discussions (scare quotes because much of what passes for climate science isn’t science as I was taught it), whenever someone gets offended and upset by the “tone of the conversation” and goes to say “This isn’t the pace for X discussion!” it’s because they are using it as a shield to keep you from pointing out their errors. It’s designed to terminate discussion of something they know, perhaps only subconsciously, that they cannot defend with logic and reasoned argument. It’s a crutch to keep from having to engage your arguments, and a weak and cowardly one in my opinion.
Your mileage, of course, may vary.
phil wrote: “The Iraqi government refused to grant legal immunity to US forces when the Obama administration attempted to negotiate a new SOFA.”
That’s Obama administration spin. I heard the Iraqis were perfectly willing to negotiate another agreement, but Obama wasn’t interested. And he wasn’t interested, because he didn’t want to be there, but he’s still there without a Status of Forces Agreement, which leaves U.S. troops vulnerable to the whims of Iraqi justice.
I have no idea what Trump is going to do in Iraq, but I would bet a paycheck that one of the first things he does is negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqis.
You think General Flynn would allow that situation to stand after Trump takes over (General Flynn is one of Trump’s key military advisors, and a good one)? I don’t think so, and I think Gen. Flynn will advise same to President Trump. Time will tell.
Admit it, Obama failed miserably at every turn on foreign policy. His pacifist mentality blinds him to reality and puts everyone in jeopardy.
But the “climate change” issue is now PURELY a partisan political issue. If you doubt that, just read all the tears in this piece today by our old friend Joe Romm, at ThinkProgress.
Trump is going to cause the world to end in fire, or something.
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-victory-climate-a0c595572299#.l5had8x08
for those who don’t remember, Joe Romm is an old Clinton administration official who has been on John Podesta’s payroll for a long time. And Podesta, of course, is Hillary’s campaign manager and in line to be her chief of staff, if she had won.
A huge amount of the climate alarmist pieces we have seen for the last 6 months have all come straight from the depths of the Clinton Campaign mission, and Romm was behind a lot of them.
This graph is a laugh-
That is a problem. My brother was on the ledge today about this issue as a result of the election. You still have to convince others. Mocking or talking down to them will not help. I am a Democrat and will always be but it think AGW is exaggerated. I strongly disagree with many of the comments on this article concerning other topics. Since the nation voted even their is no alternative but to work together without too much acrimony if possible.
@ wws here is another “joe romn” http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/07/emails-architect-of-failed-solyndra-loan-offered-to-help-clinton-campaign/
Remember Solyndra? The biggest solar scam ever?
It always was a purely political issue… the skeptic position is entirely political and entirely the political position of US Republicans and allied/sympathetic political parties and individuals in the English speaking world.
with the triumph of this Republican, so too the skeptic position is to the fore -in America.
The Germans and most Europeans see this as equivalent to someone who believes in chemtrails regulating air travel.
“Griff November 10, 2016 at 1:33 am”
Scepticism is as far away from politics as you can get. You seem to not know that.
Climate change has never been a purely partisan issue. It is true that there is a correlation of climate skepticism and conservative leanings, but that correlation is not absolute. I am a certified skeptic, but I have only ever voted (in Germany) for the more progressive of the two major parties (the Social Democrats. Of course, that was while they still had leaders with a brain; nowadays I wouldn’t know who to vote for, since all major parties have joined the green blob.)
There is no logical contradiction at all between favouring free education, affordable healthcare, and proper maintenance of infrastructure on the one hand, and realistic thinking on scientific issues on the other.
“the skeptic position is entirely political”
That’s ridiculous, Griff.
The skeptic position is focused on requiring people to prove what they say.
Perhaps it is just that the political Left is particularly susceptible to conspiracy theories, while the Right is just the opposite and is skeptical of everything presented.
It’s not politics, it is a way of looking at the world. The Left sees one world, the Right sees another. We are living in alternative realities. One group sees more clearly, the other not so much (speaking from a partisan point of view).
Whatever it is, it’s not politics per se.
In other words, there is no contradiction between thinking you have a right to steal from others in order to provide yourself with the things you want, and believing that AGW has been over hyped for political purposes.
MarkW, you are free to believe that all taxation, or all taxation beyond an arbitrary limit, is stealing. It is an absurd position to take, but it is certainly a logically possible one.
When someone with a gun tells me, hand over your money or else. That’s stealing.
Now you may feel that in certain cases, the need justifies the stealing. But even when justified, it’s still stealing.
Sugar coating an ugly truth is merely an attempt to avoid dealing with reality.
Pointing out the “bad will” of others is not partisan – it is merely noting a truth.
The Left definitely has “bad will” – as evidenced in their genocidal, racist, and aristocratic ideologies.
Horn,
Climate change ceased being about science after IPCC FAR went nowhere.
Politics took over after Al Gore became VP (1993)and made it a high priority Dem political policy issue and began using federal research grants to build Green Blob pseudoscience machine to deliver the pseudoscience the politicized climate policy needed.
@ Hornblower,
Warmists got their basic fact (CO2 caused climate to change) wrong.
You have made a similar mistake by saying “As long as we are a democracy”;
The US is not a democracy, it is a representative republic.
I do agree that WUWT is the go to site for climate discussion & there are plenty of other sites for partisan political discussion.
BUT
WUWT contributors have taken a decision to discus politics…an example of democracy at work.
I hope we can get back to climate soon.
Who is the 22% 55K outlier?
Montana
w.
As an American who has lived abroad since the late fifties I am of the Burnie Sanders generation and thus hopelessly ideology left. I think Americans are are going through another mini Revoloution , which being hopelessly naive, they are confused about what they are feeling.BUT, look at the riots/ gatherings in big cities by mainly the young. Gives me hope. And Clinton is one of the few presidential candidates to enjoy winning the popular but losing the electoral college vote. You would think that that the antiquated electoral college would have long since have been overhauled. In the interim ? can you note in your column what’s happened to the Obama climate Programme ?.Kaye Green Wellington New Zealand
You are very welcome to move to North Korea…you should be very happy there…
“Americans are are going through another mini Revoloution , which being hopelessly naive, they are confused about what they are feeling.BUT, look at the riots/ gatherings in big cities by mainly the young. Gives me hope.”
Anarchy and mob rule gives you hope?
Americans will be just fine. The Loony Left doesn’t like losing power so they do what they usually do: foment divisiveness, strife and violence. We can deal with these sore losers.
One constant with leftists, they are so convinced in the righteousness of their desire to steal from others, that they will support the destruction of property when they don’t get their way.
I find it fascinating that you state that young people throwing temper tantrums and destroying stuff gives you hope.
There is a reason why all leftists like the popular vote. It makes it easier for them to steal elections.
k5374 November 9, 2016 at 8:18 pm
Riots in the cities protesting a democratic election give you hope???
In any case, you completely misunderstand the purpose of the Electoral College. It is to prevent the rural states from being dictated to by the more populous states, and in this case it has worked exactly as intended.
w.
Willis Eschenbach November 10, 2016 at 8:35 am
In any case, you completely misunderstand the purpose of the Electoral College. It is to prevent the rural states from being dictated to by the more populous states, and in this case it has worked exactly as intended.
Given that the popular vote was basically a tie I don’t think you can say that.
140,000 voters in Wyoming have the same influence as 500,000 in NY.
k5374,
The electoral college is one of the big reasons this republic has survived. If not for that, the mobs in the big coastal cities would have torn it apart long ago. Human nature has not changed in thousands of years, despite our technological advances; even intelligent people can be swept along by large groups of peers with whom they identify with and wish to belong to. It’s called mob rule, and is a subject much talked about in the Federalist Papers – take a look some time. In fact, this one thing was probably the biggest fear of the founders when considering representative type governments.
Well, those 3 speeches were rather good and designed to promote a healing between diverse groups of voters. But I could hardly believe that Clinton would be so insensitive as to refuse to address her supporters / workers at her HQ on the night when it was obvious that she had lost. And then that clown Podesta dismissed those folks saying that it was not all finished for their candidate. Why could she not appear at that time and graciously admit defeat? I suspect some sort of “health” problem prevented her appearing in public until later.
Clinton was probably asleep at three in the morning. Remember Benghazi?
Yes, Benghazi happened during the afternoon, what is the relevance of ‘three in the morning’?
Hillary had an ad in 2008 where she asked people who would you prefer taking that 3am crisis call. A seasoned professional (herself) or a rank amatuer (Obama)
MarkW November 10, 2016 at 8:02 am
Hillary had an ad in 2008 where she asked people who would you prefer taking that 3am crisis call. A seasoned professional (herself) or a rank amatuer (Obama)
And the connection with Benghazi is?
Phil, were you born dense, or did your time in college bring out this skill.
The connection to Benghazi is that when a crisis happened, Hillary was not prepared.
The time of day isn’t relevant. It’s all about the ability to deal with the unexpected.
Mike,
My initial thought and given the last ‘pneumonia’ problem not the last.
I had a pretty bad, real bad double bronchitis a few years back and the notion that you can have 3 days off and get over pneumonia just does not fit to me.
I do not wish any person in bad health anything but a quick recovery but I fear more spin from the Masters of Spin here.
Unless you are incapacitated you must speak to your supporters on the night. Win Lose or Draw
Podesta dismissed the workers at 2am saying that nothing would be decided that night.
Hillary called Trump at 2:30am.
Hmmm…
First, the graph cuts off at $75k. What does it look like above that? Also, I see no mention of an adjustment for cost of living. Those voting for Clinton tend to live in heavily concentrated urban areas, which have a significantly higher cost of living as well as income. This correlation could just as easily be explained as city vs. rural.
I understand why the chart cuts off now: each dother is a state, and no state has higher income. That does not change the possibility that the data are biased by cost of living differences.
Not sure why my autocorrect thinks dot should be dother.
I have a thon; he’s 43 and lives in Ohio. Perhaps you have a dother; she lives in Mithithippi.
We both have a lithp.
Willis, thanks. A great work.
One possible explanation that schools tend to make you a Democrat. As over 90% of faculty in universities are Democrats, it may have some merit.
I find it rather insulting that Hillary supporters actually seem to believe that if you don’t have a degree in women’s studies, you are uneducated.
She wanted to give her concession remarks to her “loyal” supporters, not the amalgamated peasantry assembled at the Javits center. The democrat contempt for the proletariat remains strong and unbowed
Jeez, I don’t like Hillary at all, but the woman had just suffered the crushing of her lifelong dream … sorry she wasn’t up to coming out right away, but if it were me I’d be too busy cussing and punching the walls to make any coherent pronouncement.
Now in her case it might be cussing and weeping instead of punching the walls, but cut her some slack—despite believing she’d already won, despite being told by every individual around her that the crown was already hers, she’d just found out that her last, final, never-to-be-repeated chance at the brass ring was a shocking totally unexpected failure, and her political life was over.
w.
If she isn’t adult enough to suck it up and do the right thing, then she isn’t adult enough to be president.
With the exception of Gore and Kerry, every other presidential loser has been able to deal with this same crushing defeat.
When a felon threatens your family, and then fails to follow through on it through circumstances beyond their control, I have no sympathy for how they “feel” about their loss.
Maybe the voters are stuck inside the Beltway, but the lawmakers are not. They vote in their home state.
When they calculate the total Population of 601,723 where 280,282 voted on Tuesday or 46.6% of population of DC, do they count the lawmakers who are living there but do not vote there?
Perhaps this better explains the vote: White 38% Non-white 62%
Black 51%
White 38%
Hispanic/Latino 9%
Other 7%
Asian 3%
mixed 2%
Most people simply don’t think thorough things enough. What is the perception of the ideal of the democratic party? Equality for races, sexual tolerance, helping the needier people of society, religious tolerance (or non-religious tolerance), environmental protection, aversion to military spending. All things any educated, enlightened person thinks are good things. What they don’t see by NOT thinking are the core values of the party leaders which are big, centralized government, social control, forced equality by income distribution, population reduction and de-industrialization.
Unless you can get people to see the dark side of the force, they are going to stay liberal.
Sorry but this moderate Democrat disagrees with your conclusions. Not all Democrats subscribe to all of this as I am sure Republicans and NPA’s are not all the same.
hornblower, you are right. The level of political comment and rhetoric here at WUWT has risen steadily during the run-up to this election, hopefully it will go back to more moderate levels after the current orgy of congratulatory strutting wears itself out. The right-wing cohort has invested so much of their hopes in Mr. Trump, you can’t really blame them for blowing off steam.
I expect we’ll go back to postings about science, with a good sprinkling of entertainment from looking at the absurdities of warmist dogma. It’s the humour that arises from poking fun at climate insanity that makes WUWT so popular (IMHO); it gets a bit boring being serious all the time.
Those whose anti-cli-sci stance is politically based.are welcome here, as they should be, because it’s here they can learn stuff, or learn about stuff, that gives them talking points and facts to support their position. The struggle against the tyranny of climate believers and the anti-human policies they promote, is (IMHO again) the most important fight of our time. It is important that those who believe in science, truth and reason work together to spread the word and try and end the madness.
I wasn’t going to say this, but now I’m wound up, I fear for Trump. The mainstream media put huge efforts into demonizing him, and it obviously didn’t work very well. We can expect a redoubling of their efforts, now he’s in power. It will not be pretty, of that we can be sure. The agents of greenery are everywhere; they are extremely well funded, and they will stop at nothing to advance their agenda, which is a thinly disguised attempt to enrich their cronies in the wind/solar complex while systematically dismantling western industrial society
@ Hornblower,
Warmists got their basic fact (CO2 caused climate to change) wrong.
You have made a similar mistake by saying –
“As long as we are a democracy”
The US is not a democracy… it is a representative republic .
I do agree that WUWT is the go to site for climate discussion & there are plenty of other sites for partisan political discussion.
BUT
WUWT contributors have taken a decision to discus politics…an example of democracy at work.
I hope we can get back to climate soon.
“I wasn’t going to say this, but now I’m wound up, I fear for Trump. The mainstream media put huge efforts into demonizing him, and it obviously didn’t work very well. We can expect a redoubling of their efforts, now he’s in power. It will not be pretty, of that we can be sure.”
I’m not sure they could redouble their efforts, they were operating at a very high level trashing Trump during the last few weeks, but I wouldn’t doubt they will at least continue their current drumbeat of negativity.
Our “Ace in the Hole” is Trump himself. He withstood all the Left’s attacks and came out the winner, and I think he is going to continue to do that, and he will have more help since it looks like more Republicans are rallying around him now that he is the President-Elect.
The Leftwig Media is the most powerful weapon the Left has in the ideological wars. Trump is our most potent countermeasure, and now he will have the “Bully Pulpit” of the presidency.
The Leftwing Media has lost a lot of credibility over their efforts to take down Trump. They should start paying attention to their bottomlines, if they are smart. Their business model, Leftwing propaganda all the time, needs to change, if they want to stay in business.
Actually, the national Dumpocrap Party wants to increase the illegal immigrant population while decreasing the citizen and legal immigrant population. They hate America and Americans, so want to create a whole new population.
Many lack the mental capacity to see logic and reasoning as preferable to their emotionally charged thought processes.
Nonsense! I guess there is no way we can communicate. I will say good night.
+1
Thus providing evidence of my point. Rather than note that I said many, and not all, blowhard threw a tantrum, stomped his feet, and left.
And hornblower demonstrates the truth of Mark T’s comment.
MarkT,
I don’t agree with everything you say, nor do I always like your “tone”, but I can say that over the years I have observed that those on the left are more likely to say “I believe that…” rather than “I think that…” than those on the right. The other thing that I have noticed is that the lefties more often than not HATE their opponents, while the righties simply disagree with them. Of course, you can always find exceptions to such generalities, but that does not invalidate my observations.
A quote that I first heard way back in the 70’s.
Conservatives think that liberals are stupid.
Liberals think that conservatives are evil.
As Hillary told her Goldman Sachs audience, her dream is open borders and globalization along Soros’ lines, so that there are just stateless, powerless worker bee drones and the global elite exploiting them.
Thank God for Trump. My family, friends and I gave his campaign all we legally could. Clinton of course, isn’t subject to campaign finance laws anymore than she is national security rules or charitable foundation regulations.
I suggest that a large portion of the population has never been thought to think critically and seeks to be instructed by the media, regarding positions on current affairs. That segment is only slightly smaller than the critical free-thinkers by the latest census. Shall we teach the youth science, or politics?
Public schooling isn’t education but indoctrination.
Sorry, that should be “taught to think critically”
How meaningful, DC is the home of the public service, this is how infiltrated the US government is. Until that number is 50/50 the US doesn’t have a balanced public service. It’s a big job but the right needs to become activist which of course is against the nature of small-government individualist types. Individualists are hounded out of government jobs – they need to be protected and promoted.
We live in a mediocrity, by definition exceptional people are not near the social centroid that workplace tools (like say 360 degree assessment) encourage. Government and to some extent business need to eschew those socialist tools that force people to be clones of each other and reward individual endeavor, loyalty, and courageousness.
Right on Willis.
The Democrat party has abandoned the little guy in favour of a well graduated elite professional class. The contempt with which they treat working folks makes my blood boil. They have betrayed the American Dream. Hillary and her lying triangulating ilk truly deserve the smack upside the head that they just received. Here’s an essay by Thomas Frank that makes that point.
For anyone who wonders how we got into this miserable situation, I recommend Listen Liberal! by Thomas Frank.
The American Dream is dead and the Democrat party did the dirty deed.
Listen Liberal – Thomas Frank – He lost me in the intro, when he claimed that global warming was one of the three great threats facing America.
I don’t think global warming is mentioned anywhere in the book. It is mentioned in the book review that I linked and is the opinion of the reviewer rather than Frank himself.
I just reread the introduction and couldn’t find a reference to global warming. The index doesn’t have any reference to the words: global, warming, climate, change, soviet, threat, etc. My copy is paper so I can’t do a text search. Notwithstanding that, I really don’t think he mentioned global warming in the book.
In other writings, Frank does disagree with Trump about many things, including global warming. I forgive him for that. He clearly hasn’t thought deeply about the subject. Dismissing his careful research on the sins of the Democrat party, based on his opinion about global warming, is like dismissing Roy Spencer’s climate work based on his Christianity.
I think that when liberals like Hillary or Obama promise more jobs, they are Government jobs, not private sector jobs, or small business jobs.
Let’s hope that free market capitalism, not government capitalism (not crony capitalism) will re emerge, and real wealth making jobs – will emerge……
jpp
I saw an article yesterday that more people work for the government than work in manufacturing.
There is a word for “government capitalism”, for there isn’t such a thing. That word starts with “s”. There are two main varieties, yet they have the same results. They simply don’t work.
Actions speak louder than words. Results matter more than intentions.
Memetics trumps statistics …
I weep for my children and grandchildren.
Indeed. Perception and consciousness is paramount. Sadly the cup-cake/snow-flake generation is desperately lacking in critical thinking and have already been captured. All your iPhones are us.
But such is evolution. Big data and social media need to be “democratised” somehow; bots used to troll elections is somewhat unacceptable. At least for IQ90s on MSNBC reincarnated progressively going backwards on the impending pendulum swing. But hey, for now let’s just look out of the window and pontificate on crowds marching on Trump Tower. The sun will rise again tomorrow no doubt.
“The wealthier the state, the more people voted for Hillary.”
This election has been divided along the lines of education; and yes, more education means more wealth in general. Hillary is the pants suit graduate from Wellesly College. These educated women have been her base, her appeal, her supporters. The wannabes and the coastal elites groove on the progressive message, free money for a college education. The person whom you left out of the messaging was Bernie Sanders.
I’m afraid that the truck driver from East Liverpool Ohio is one of the last lower middle class occupations left for many who are high school graduates. Skill sets like programers, coders, and engineers are needed to both elevate people into the middle class as well as provide motivation and opportunity in a developing world. There are just too many global hands for the work available. Who will tell students that such is the case? That resistance to this message is futile? Otherwise, those uneducated, become part of the Borg Collective.
The 93% is clearly an outlier and needs to be homogenised out of the data set.
As I’ve already noted, the entire dataset is suspect, at least, the claimed correlation is.
I might have read that Cookie, Lew, Phil and Mikey checked the data and found it was actually 97%.
Well D’oh.
Sure it’s the only non-state in the list.
As an outside observer, and a firm believer that social issues as well as climate issues are not one dimensional, I will say once more that “correlation does not imply causation”..
As others have observed income is highly correlated with education. I will also observe that income and education are highly correlated with IQ. IQ is correlated with the ability to see patterns and their effects.
The average IQ is 100 . I do not know if by now people at that level can go to college . If so , that is half of any population below 100 stay at a low educational level.
As an outsider, I saw this election as choosing between the lesser of two “evils” . The perception of what is “good for me and therefore for the country” is dependent on the ability of pattern recognition and projecting the results of actions to the future.
In Greece we have had a similar experience: the party and the person who promised return of salaries and benefits to pre crisis levels won in 2015, and led the country into further debt and dependency. It needs a level of education to be able to project the promises and their effects to the future.
“Do you want a raise in pensions and salaries?”
So, in my opinion, it is mainly the educational level that drives the curves, admittedly in a wholly correlated and many parameter system.
Median IQ for the whole population is 100. Median IQ for Democrats is 90; for Independents 100 and for Republicans 110.
Chimp IQ … 143 !
Mean of HS grads 105, mean of college grads 115
Phil, break that out by degree. I suspect “Studies” graduates are on average below 100, while engineering graduates definitely drag up that curve.
Science and Engineering ~125, Education and Social Studies ~110,
I live in a state that went Trump +48. I have already heard from Democrats that this makes me a very horrible person. In fact, in our Republican primary we nominated Rubio not Trump, but Trump was the choice we had by the time of the election. Nearly everything in this state runs on mining and the energy industry especially fossil fuels. Moreover, wechave such a small and close-knit population that everyone knows what butters their bread here–there is little magical thinking. The Obama Administration has carried on a war, sometimes openly and sometimes subtlety against these industries and agriculture too. Effectively 80% of livelihoods directly or indirectly under assault in some way. I cannot say that all our current troubles stem from the Obama Administration, but plenty do. Hillary promised more of the same and worse. We voted heavily against her. This is called voting one’s self interest. Or at least it is when Democrats do it.
Being labeled in an ugly manner by media and far away partisans provides no basis for reaching out to anyone.
Wealth follows market size to a great degree. Urban areas are large markets and the shear volume of economic activity promotes greater wealth. Rural areas have less population, smaller markets, and less wealth. Incomes are lower as are costs of living in rural areas. However, Federal tax rates, mandates, regulation and minimum wages apply universally. What results is often unintended frustration. People in wealthier California think of themselves as subsidizing states like Mississippi and complain that the latter are freeloaders because they pay less in taxes than they receive in Federal money; but it is hard to imagine a different outcome given market sizes, wealth distribution, and progressive income taxes. There are hard feelings generated all the way around, but little effort to understand.
Interesting comment re apparent wealth and political leanings.
My wife & I live and work in rural Western Australia; she teaches at the local senior high school and I am a retired chemist who tries to manage our small farm. We thoughtfully consider ourselves to hold values and beliefs that align with conservative thinking. We were raised as Protestant Christians, but do not attend a church and really have little time for organised religion.
We have friends who come and visit us occasionally. The husband is a Project manager with an international engineering consultancy and the wife works for a Labor (aka Democrat) State politician.
They each drive late model Lexus cars and reside in a near city development close to the Swan River.
By any measure they are well-off and enjoy the good life. Politically they are strongly on the Left.
What this means? Dunno!
It means anecdote.
Willis, there’s this too. In some ways the opposite and yet not.
The DC results are not really outlier in nature. I haven’t done a deep dive into the country-wide urban election results, but anybody familiar with American politics are well aware that when looking at the results, you typically see a sea of red on a county level, with urban areas the true bastions of Democratic power. In this past election, when looking at the truly urban counties like the heart of Philadelphia, for instance, you’ll see an 82% result for the Democratic candidate.
It is, what it is…
BREAKING NEWS : Trump’s transition inspectors visit EPA, DoJ, NOAA, etc. Live footage of events:
https://youtu.be/pRE23YfSvc8
I think a plot of the Trump data illustrating the DIFFERENCE between the two groups would be more enlightening.
Found an interesting comparison – less people voted for Trump than how many voted for Republican candidate in previous two presidential elections. He won because Democrats lost even more.
http://i.imgur.com/TOGIbcP.jpg
There is even more information to be gleaned from the way the counties/states voted.
Washington DC on my near-complete count figures was Clinton 92.8%, Trump 4.1%.
This result was from the bureaucrats who write the regulations and are seldom wrong.
But, next door in Virginia, Cl 49.9%, Tr 45%.
Put one way, Trump was 10 times more popular once you crossed the border going west.
There must be socio-economic reasons why this happened. Like, some industries exist in one place, not in the other. It would be fascinating to take places like this pair and drill down to smaller and smaller adjacent areas to see if a measurable set of differences can be quantified.
It reminds me of those early Landsat images on the TexMex border. Order into chaos at farming scale.
OTOH, is there a strong factor of how people’s intentions are influenced by those around them every day? It must be difficult for analysts to separate out multiple causes, but with such strong contrasts in % votes across borders, there must be hope of useful answers.
So far I have not met one single person in Britain who thinks that the election of Trump is a good thing. We find it completely unfathomable that in the modern world a country would elect a narcissistic, racist, tax evading businessman with who thinks it’s OK to grope women. He wouldn’t survive two minutes even being employed in most firms here making the sort of comments he makes – he would be fired. And before anyone says that it’s not our problem, actually it is. My daughter of 14 and all her friends are already worried sick about having a politically inexperienced and potentially unbalanced man with a finger on the nuclear button. But the point that has already been made by others here is that this site is about climate change. I’m fairly left wing yet I am interested in questioning whether the alarmists are really right and follow this site with interest. But I still want to feel that we can live in a world where we respect and look after our precious environment regardless of our views about AGW. In order to create a really vibrant and acceptable debate out there it’s so important not to appear politically biased, otherwise you just frighten off all those on the same end of the political spectrum as me and questioning man made climate change just becomes a laughable obsession of the right.
Jenny Life November 10, 2016 at 3:26 am
Jenny, you don’t get it, no surprise, you don’t live here.
Trump was elected by the people who are the only racial group that it is OK to hate—poor and middle-class whites. They feel, and quite rightly, that they have been abandoned by their own government—as they watched the tech bubble make millionaires, as they watch the recovery after the last crash, their own wages HAVEN’T GONE UP IN THIRTY YEARS. To the contrary, the liberal dream of borderless worlds and free trade has meant that their jobs are now being done by some guy in China who is willing to work for a dry place to sleep and three beans a day.
Meanwhile, they watch as the values and virtues that they hold dear are mocked by elites and late-night comedians.
So … do you truly expect them to vote for Hillary, a corrupt member of that very government elite that has ignored and insulted them for thirty years, a woman who was willing to cheat in the debates by secretly obtaining the questions in advance so that she could look prepared, a woman who described them as “deplorables”?
Really? That makes sense to you?
Maybe Brits would be foolish enough do that, but Americans have thankfully passed that opportunity by, NOT because people think Trump is some prince, but because we know that Hillary is as crooked as the day is long and those were our only choices
Why on earth would he want to work for a British firm? He BUYS British firms, he doesn’t work for them. You are applying the wrong standard.
I’m sorry, but your daughter’s inchoate and groundless fears are not our problem. Look, Donald Trump inherited a million dollars, and he turned it into a billion dollars. You don’t do that by shooting from the hip. Yes, he’s got a big mouth on him, he’ll say anything, but he has proven very successful. Which lets me know that his big mouth is just that, and that when it comes time to make a deal and make things work, he can set all that aside. “Potentially unbalanced”? Sorry, your amateur psychoanalyzing simply doesn’t fit the facts about the man and his history.
And as for “politically inexperienced”, we’ve nearly been done to death by experienced politicians, you know, the ones who sent all our jobs to China while they worried about important issues like political correctness. Sorry, I’ll pass on politicians, experienced or otherwise.
No, it’s not, and it never has been. It is about all kinds of interesting things in the world. Ask Anthony if you don’t believe me.
Like you, I’m fairly left wing. And like you, I want to live in a world where we take care of our environment. Not sure what this has to do with Trump.
There are folks here who are Clinton supporters, this is not some exclusive site.
Look, I agree that Trump is a brash loudmouthed insensitive jerk. But our professional political class, including the political elite families like the Bushes and the Clintons and the rest, have failed us. Not only have they failed us, but their candidate was hopelessly corrupt. Even her supporters can’t deny she used stolen information in the debates, it’s all there in black and white. And because fish rot from the head down, Donna Brazile had to RESIGN as the head of the DNC for her corruption, and John Podesta, her chief of staff, was in it up to his eyeballs, but like his candidate, stealing and secretly using the questions didn’t bother him (or his boss for that matter), he didn’t resign.
I lived for years in the Solomon Islands. When I got there, there was little corruption. Then one year a man named Solomon Mamaloni was elected Prime Minister. Almost overnight, government officials had their hands out for bribes. It has been a cesspit of corruption ever since.
I realized then and there that a country could withstand idiots in charge, and people with an agenda, and just plain fools … but it could not survive having a corrupt person at the top, because fish rot from the head down.
So Jenny, your best British advice is that I should have voted for a corrupt politician from the elite class that has demonstrably failed us, someone who sold access to the State Department for millions of dollars, rather than vote for an admittedly unpleasant jerk who has a habit of actually accomplishing what he sets out to do?
I fear your argument is totally unpersuasive. As for your daughter, let me quote to you what Scott Adams said:
You might consider reading Adams’ interesting explanation of why he was one of the few people who predicted Trump’s victory … me, I thought his odds were 50/50, but Scott predicted his win.
w.
++ in UK droves.
It never ceases to amaze me how offended your average liberal gets when someone with more money than they do manages to use a perfectly legal deduction in order not pay everything to the government.
For the most part, those who whine the loudest aren’t paying anything in income taxes in the first place.
Willis,
Thanks for replying to my comments though I’m not sure you understand my point. People here, rightly or wrongly, feel Trump is totally unacceptable as a leader because of his views. Period (as you say?). He would never, ever be elected here. I was also trying to say that the fact that he can make racist/sexist comments because he’s the boss and yet would be fired for them if he was a mere worker seems pretty unacceptable.
I did do a bit of research into Hillary on fact checking sites and found that a lot of the allegations against her haven’t been proved although she seems to have made some poor choices at times, but then as you say I don’t live in America so haven’t experienced it. For people I speak to (and the press here) allegations against against Trump appear to be morally more repugnant than those I’ve heard against Clinton. But what I hear a lot is this is all about money, not morality, which I find difficult.
Re politics and climate change – in the UK, at least, anti AGW sentiment is linked so much to right wing views, the oil business etc and I think the only way anyone will take alternative views seriously is if this association is diluted. I suspect the election of Trump will just make the rest of the world more determined on the global warming front.
It is very trendy (which doesn’t make it wise) at the moment to be fed up with experts or establishment figures, and I guess the result of having someone who really has no experience in such an important job could go either way. But re your last point I heard Trump’s ex chief architect on the radio this morning and she wasn’t at all confident that he would do a good job of being president and that he might find himself a bit surprised he actually had to turn up to meetings if he didn’t feel like it or accept advice he didn’t like…. I suspect being the boss of big business might be just slightly different to being President.
But who knows, only time will tell! Let’s hope for a fairer, kinder, more peaceful world.
Jenny Life November 10, 2016 at 1:26 pm Edit
Jenny, I’m sorry, but truly, I see upset liberals all across the US saying the same thing, expressing shock and outrage that they lost to a loudmouthed boor … why would I care about people doing the same in Britain?
It appears you’ve been fooled by the media. Trump said “Mexico isn’t sending us their best citizens, there are rapists and murderers among them”. The media screams “TRUMP HATES MEXICANS”. Trump said our vetting procedures are an international joke and we should stop bringing in people from countries with big terrorist populations until we FIX OUR VETTING SYSTEM … and the media says “TRUMP HATES MOSLEMS”.
As to sexist, you clearly haven’t heard the rap stars that are the favorites of Michelle Obama and the girls, singing about women being ‘ho’s and bitches and glorifying violence against women … or perhaps like some liberals you think it’s OK for the rap artists to denigrate women and glorify degrading women because “culture” …
I’d post some of the lyrics of the folks the Obamas repeatedly invited to to dinner over eight years, but it’s a family blog and I don’t want your daughters to get into hysterics, but look them up. They are disgusting.
So I call you out as a liberal hypocrite, “horrified” that a rich man spoke badly about women but ignoring the Obamas’ support of people spreading misogyny and glorifying, not crotch grabbing, but VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN worldwide.
Spare me your faux outrage regarding bad words about women. I’ll believe it when you say worse about the Obamas’ support of rap artists glorifying actual violence against women. She takes her daughters to those rap concerts … where is your outrage about what she is teaching them?
I’m sorry, but selling access to the US State Department (all verified by the emails and currently under FBI investigation) is more dangerous, more illegal, and more morally repugnant than anything Trump could say about women.
Plus, for all of your moral outrage, you are defending the wife of the Rapist-In-Chief. Trump talked about women. Clinton raped them, but then there’s one law for the poor and one for the rich. In this election Hillary tried to get away with saying that all rape victims should be believed, trying to buy votes from women by playing the sympathy card … but she shut her face quick when reminded of how she had savaged Bill’s victims … I’m sorry, Jenny, but you do NOT have the moral high ground you think you have. You are defending a corrupt sleazebag whose main claim to fame was first that she was the governor’s wife who put up with his mistresses and attacked his rape victims, and then the president’s wife who put up with him lying through his teeth about Monica, and shamed Monica for it. A wonderful role model for your daughter …
And you have the nerve to think Trump is “morally repugnant”? Either you didn’t know these facts about Hillary and about the Obamas, or you desperately need to have your moral compass recalibrated …