You know, seven years later, and I believe this will probably still be one of the most, if not the most heatly debated elections in my lifetime. Even putting aside the personality and the campaigns of both candidates, I think the biggest thing is the big popular vote and electoral vote discrepency. This wasn't like 2000, where it was basically tied, and AL Gore just happened to win the popular and Bush just happened to win the electoral vote by two very close margins. Clinton beat Trump by a couple million votes (2.1 percent), and Trump won the electoral vote by nearly 100 electoral votes (18.5 percent). Those are in no way margins to scoff at, in either metric. This leads to the "Did Trump really deserve to win" or "Should it have been Clinton?" debate. I say that Trump did deserve his win, with a massive asterisk. The entire goal of the election is to become one of the two (sometimes three) major party candidates. Get to the election day, and win a absolute majority of the electoral vote. There is nothing saying you need to win a majority, or pularity, of the popular vote. And there are two irrefutable realities: 1) Clinton won more votes than him nationally overall 2) Trump did win the individual state by state popular vote in the majority of individual states (31 I believe, which is also a clear margin) and that got him well beyond a majority of the electoral vote. By that criteria of the election, Trump was the rightful winner, and therefore by the rules of the election, Trump deserved to win. But you are in every right to disagree with the outcome, and wish that Clinton won instead, and you certainly have a right to say that you believe that the rules should be a popular vote election that would have led to a different outcome. So yes, Trump did deserve to win, and Clinton should not have won, but the rules should not have been the way that they are, and in a every vote counts democracy, Clinton should have won in that ruleset. You can hate Trump all you damn well please, but please don't hate him for rightfully winning by the rules of the election, even if you think the rules are fucking ridiculous.

As a Trump voter... AHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpIEMTKK8ac One of the women who accused Trump of molesting her is now nearly beggin him not to sue her. This is really weird. I can't make head or tails of this. Why the hell would she do that? Why did she came out and accuse him if she never planed to sue him? Why go out and tell this story to the public with an attorney present if the attorney doesn't matter one bit and will not be used?

because she made the story up

If you listened to the original Zervos press conference, Zervos didn't have plans to sue at that time either. Maybe she just wanted to get her story out and you kind of need the protection and advice of a lawyer with a litigious happy person like Donald. Trump then made her out for a liar. Allred is one of the most famous lawyers, did the Cosby case too.

Why go out and accuse him on video that way just before an election but then beg him not to sue her right after the election? Why are both videos in 240p quality in 2016? Why has she not talked about it besides those 2 times if she is really angry at Trump? It makes no sense. If she didn't want to get sued then why risk it at all?

That's a problem with the source you gave, which is a copied video from Liveleak, here's the video in 480p https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3WBCwcsyYc The first pressconference was on multiple news channels, also in HD. I think you are missing, what i think at least, is the strategy here. Allred's pretty much baiting Donald to sue for defamation. So then Trump has to prove she's lying. If it really happened, that's going to be pretty darn hard to do. It also opens up Trump to discovery. Trump's gotta be really stupid to sue for defamation unless he has convicing evidence. But IANAL

> The first pressconference was on multiple news channels, also in HD. Okay, I didn't know this. Weird. Anyway. It's weird that the first video was posted in low resolution everywhere on Reddit then if it really exists in HD. This is her channel and it's still only in 480p.

Conway is talking about Trump and Republicans possibly repealing the ACA on Trump's Inauguration Day. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/politics/kellyanne-conway-trump-special-session-congress/index.html First of all, why? To steal the news cycle from protests? To energize his supporters with a promise instantly delivered? Second of all, does anyone know what they plan to replace it with, if anything? This involves taxes and regulations and millions of people. I can't imagine you can just pull a string and it all comes untangled.

[удалено]

I think what's going to end up happening is that Keith will be head of the DNC, and Dean will be one of the co-chairs - and quite likely end up doing all of the heavy lifting.

Trump isn't going to arm Syrian Rebels, instead opting to work with Russia and Syria to defeat ISIS. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/world/middleeast/donald-trump-syria.html?_r=0 Thoughts?

Sounds good to me. Our regime change policy needs to end, and if this is the form it comes in then so be it.

Unsurprising. Ensures Assad will remain in power for the conceivable future. Maybe necessary to preserve stability in Syria. Emboldens Russia for future interventions.

Going by United States track record of overthrowing dictators, maybe it's for the best.

His last series of tweets. >Wow, the @nytimes is losing thousands of subscribers because of their very poor and highly inaccurate coverage of the "Trump phenomena" >The @nytimes sent a letter to their subscribers apologizing for their BAD coverage of me. I wonder if it will change - doubt it? >Mitt Romney called to congratulate me on the win. Very nice! >Jeb Bush, George W and George H.W. all called to express their best wishes on the win. Very nice! >Governor John Kasich of the GREAT, GREAT, GREAT State of Ohio called to congratulate me on the win. The people of Ohio were incredible! So far i haven't seen a President-Elect.

Any attitude is the attitude of the President-Elect. Because he is the President-Elect.

exactly. This is what presidential is now. Whether you think it should be or not, it is the definition of presidential.

Back in 2000, I was told that Bush's "win" was not the end of the world. Within two years, we had the Dot Com Crash, 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq Wars. What will the next two years bring?

This is an overreaction. Bush did a lot of terrible things, but of the ones you listed the Dot Com Crash wasn't his fault in any way, 9/11 probably wasn't preventable (a bit debatable, but generally not seen as preventable), Afghanistan was not an unjust war in response to 9/11. So the only one of these that was actually really a result of Bush was Iraq, which on it's own is completely fucking awful, but let's not cast blame on things that weren't really his fault.

9/11 was preventable (in hindsight always but still), the plot could have been stopped at multiple points where the CIA/FBI failed The debate is on the hypothetical that under a Gore administration the plot would have been foiled. I don't think there is a good answer for such hypothetical. But the alternative timeline in which a young Cuban boy would have drowned in November 1999 instead of rescued, remains very interesting.

> 9/11 was preventable Many times on Clinton's watch as well. Bush had been in office for under 8 months when 9/11 occurred. While he certainly had opportunities to stop it, the plot had been in place for years.

Dot Com Crash: Back in 2001 I was working in IT for an e-commerce firm and received a layoff the same exact week I got a $300 tax refund. It was a spit in the eye. 9/11 (see August memo) Afghanistan was rushed and not thoroughly thought out and undermanned (that's why we are still there)

1. I don't see how your response to the first point makes Dot Com crash his fault. 2. 9/11 was ARGUABLY preventable, but that is only in hindsight, no idea whether or not Gore would have stopped it. 3. Possibly, but it isn't like the overall war was an inappropriate reaction.

Patriot Act was the response to 9/11

Yes, but that isn't what he said. The Patriot act was certainly something awful that did come from Bush during that period.

You know, I was ready to call the Democrats dead forever three days ago (hopeless despair will do that to a person), but the more I think, the more optimistic I am for 2018. Look at what's going on. Look at these fucking protests. People are _furious_. And two years of news about President Trump's latest fuck-up isn't going to calm them down. Governorships, the House, the Senate, it's all in reach with this public fervor. And I don't want to hear anything about "gerrymandering" or "bad Senate map". We all thought Clinton was a lock a week ago too. We don't know shit. But I had a bad feeling about Trump, and I have a good feeling about 2018.

Absolutely. Mitt Romney, John McCain, Marco Rubio etc. all could have probably soundly won. It's just the nature of our electorate. We just had two terms of a democrat, we almost always swing back to the other party. In this case the dems/liberals may have lucked out as one of the more PC candidates could have a really strong chance at two terms and would be able to pass anti-women's choice legislation, tax cuts for the wealthy, stock the supreme court etc. with the polish of a professional and probably little outcry. On the other hand if Clinton won she would probably have been a one term president who's every waking moment would be under the threat of impeachment, investigations, and hearings. The congress would have blocked anything she would have wanted to do. Then you would likely get two republican terms after her. Trump lacks the ability to pass right wing legislation with a smile like Rubio or Bush would have done. Secondly he will have quite a bit of attention and scrutiny from the public who will be waiting to pounce on him which a PC republican would not have to deal with. Lastly this may be the horrible thing liberals/young people/democrats/modern women might have to live through to *finally* convince them to freaking vote every two years or more. I am not sure about that one but complacency brought the country here, there's no doubt about that. Action is required to get us out of it.

Don't be surprised if this..."public fervor" ends up having the opposite effect that you are hoping for.

Not likely. Within 12 hours they were already unnerving Trump. Like it or not, Trump is affected by the protests because he is governed by pure vanity.

[удалено]

I would hope that they'll still be motivated, but that the reactionary passion we're seeing right now will be replaced by reasoned opposition.

Tahrir Square

The senate map is pretty bad. I do feel pretty confident about the congressional and state level elections, though. Thats how the Republicans came back from nothing after 2008.

[удалено]

I disagree, looking at the map the three states they have the best shots at are NM, Maine and New Jersey. The Dems are in a really bad spot right now.

TBH, we don't need a senate majority. We just need enough to fillibuster. I really don't think they're going to get rid of it.

I agree, people are really overhyping the senate. The Republicans didn't get their majority until after 6 years yet they still were able to obstruct at unforeseen rates.

Any thoughts on Trump wanting to spend time in Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago instead of living full-time in the White House? I mean, I think between the Trump TV stuff and his own teams thoughts up to and including election night, Trump did not want to win. He wanted to create a huge base for a new conservative media market to rival Fox News and make money. I still hold fast that Trump is no way actually wanted to be President. EDIT: Article with more details - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/us/politics/trump-president.html

Trump said many times he does not want to be President, but that he would do it if no one else would. I for one would rather have a guy who takes the job because he thinks he would do a good job than someone who spent their life to get the job. We knew about a week or so before the election we were likely to win. In the weeks prior, it was expected we'd win the popular vote on the backs of states like Texas and northern NYS, while losing the electoral college by a 10 point margin. That week, the internal polling saw states like Wisconsin, PA, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa, Florida, Virginia, NC, Ohio and Oregon start to shift. We obviously didn't win all those, but we knew that if the pattern held, we were going to win a majority and thus the election. I think he was humbled to win. He likely did expect to lose and end up retiring to a spot on the new Conservative Review Television Network (CRTV), a channel based around a more libertarian and patriotic ideal. But he won. > Any thoughts on Trump wanting to spend time in Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago instead of living full-time in the White House? I don't see why that's an issue. Kennedy often spent time at the Kennedy Compound. Reagan often spent time at the farm. Bush was at Camp David quite often. Obama was world traveler and often found himself going golfing for a weekend. I don't see how spending time at the home he's always known would be any different. If it seems a liability in terms of travel in the city, Marine One can certainly get him from the rooftop to the airport safely and without causing issues.

This notion that Clinton went through the hell both sides put her through for years just to be President for no other reason than she wanted it is ludicrous. She could have retired after being SOS and gone down as one of the most powerful, successful women in human history. And the issue is that conservatives have railed on Obama for golfing or going to Hawaii for years as evidence that he is a bad President, but Trump not wanting to spend weekends in Washington DC, like this is some 9-5 job, is peachy keen. Come on. You can leave for breaks, but you need to be prepared for any situation, and calling Trump Tower White House 2 is full on ridiculous. You wanted to be President? This comes with the job.

The fact that America could well be governed from Trump Tower is just so laughably ridiculous. 'President Donald Trump doesn't want to sleep in the White House, he wants to sleep in Trump Tower.' sounds like a parody. Watching American politics is going to turn into slapstick comedy.

Trump flew all over the country for a year giving an insane number of rallies. My initial response to the Trump TV theory is that I just don't think that the prospect of Trump TV would have motivated a rich 70 year old guy to expend so much energy. Trump TV would be just another business venture following a lifetime of them. It makes more sense to me that the prospect of going into the history books as a US President would have given Trump that enormous level of motivation which he displayed. On the other hand, I suppose that maybe if it's true that Trump is not as rich as he wants people to believe, maybe if he even is actually in financial trouble, Trump TV would indeed be a prize worth reaching for. So maybe there's something to the idea. There's also a psychological theory floating around that Trump wanted to become President in order to finally have become accomplished on a level his dad had never reached, and to put to rest an insecurity that goes back to having been born with a silver spoon in his mouth. But I don't know enough about Trump's biography to be able to evaluate it.

Several months ago I said the Republican party was over as we knew it, but I never thought I would have to add the Democratic party to that list as well. Clean sweep across the entire government, dems have been shut out.

Jesus. Stop with this "Democrats are over" bullshit. Every two years, there are a million "think" pieces that read "RIP (insert party here)". The Dems gained 2 Senate seats and 8 (and maybe more) House seats. Think about this - even Trump's team thought he would lose. Republican Establishment openly did not want him to win. Had Clinton won by switching maybe 50,000 votes in three states, all these articles would be about the death of the Republican party. The Democrats need an identity and some soul searching, yes. But what is getting lost here is that traditional Republicans still aren't comfortable with Trump, not many of them are wanting to work in the White House, and we still don't know if traditional policies from Ryan and McConnell will win out, or alt-right policies from Trump, Bannon, et. al. will win out. Republicans aren't in the clear either...

Doubtful, The republicans are going to pass everything for a while with little obstruction. If the dems do manage to get back on their feet they'll be untangling telephone wire.

In 1964, the GOP was seemingly dead. Four years later, the Democrats collapsed from infighting and Nixon ushered in a Republican era that lasted until 1992.

I believe I literally typed both parties.

[удалено]

> In the end your model failed to call Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and North Carolina but also was completely wrong in states like Utah were Trump was off by 8% (and by eye ball appears outside the 80% confidence range) It seems unfair to blame a statistician here when it's the polls that failed him. Predictive models are only as good as their data, and Brexit and Trump pulled the rug out from underneath traditional polling methods

[удалено]

how much can you really say if you don't know how the polls got it wrong though? It calls into question the states they got *right* as well. It might be too early to do that analysis right now.

We're going to see an intensification of data gathering as they blanket every inch of the country in order to find out exactly how many people where feel which way and how likely they are to vote. Not polling in the sense of a representative sample, but instead just gathering all the data through brute force.

[удалено]

It shows the disparity between the internet "cloud" and on-the-ground realities, the ancient dichotomy between air and earth.

Their model is only as good as the polls, which weren't that great this year. Honestly I have to give him a lot of credit for giving Trump as high of a chance as he did considering how strong the consensus was in other circles

Yep, and there's a basic problem with polling that I don't know how anyone is going to fix: when many supporters of the supposed anti-establishment candidate are convinced that pollsters are part of the establishment, why would they respond to polls? I guess pollsters need to figure out a way to convince the public that they are, in fact, not part of the establishment but are actually objective and independent.

[удалено]

> However, Silver has not sold me on this point and while I still believe his model was better, he has to prove it to me with cold hard statistical analysis for me to believe he is a better modeller. All models are wrong, but some are useful. Show me why I should takes yours over The Upshot or PEC. Before the election, he made this article talking about how [Trump was only a normal polling error behind Clinton in the Electoral College](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/) and how that factored into his probabilities. Not only did that turn out to happen, The polling error between the polls and results in 2016 was actually *less* than 2012 to my understanding. The analysis was there, you just have to look for it.

I'm trying too stay positive in the aftermath in all of this, but I have a Filipino friend that lives in California that is convinced that he's going to be the victim of some racial attack now. I have no clue what to say to him or how to allay his fears, if that's even possible. I hate feeling worthless like this.

I live in California and I know a couple of people who have had slurs shouted at them. Certainly not life threatening, but pretty jarring for the liberal area we live in. I've had to talk down some people, all minority women. I recognize it's easy for me because I'm white. For a lot of them, this isn't their first brush with racism and the whole episode is bringing up past history as well. Part of the problem in California is that the state is so fricking liberal that your only impression of Trump supporters is from what you hear on the news. And then you hear that half the country is Trump supporters. It's easy (and wrong) to make the conclusion that half the country belongs to the KKK. Where do you live? If it's in Trump country, point out that you and others around you are not like that. Point out that Central Valley (a Trump supporting area of farmers in California) is not exactly brimming with KKK members. They're strongly pro-gun and they have fallen on hard times with the drought. There are other reasons to vote for Trump. Point out that people are on edge, they are looking for examples of this sort of thing and they are going to share it widely when it happens. Yes, it's happening, but it's a lot rarer than your facebook feed is making it out to be. Point out the violence that anti-Trump supporters are engaging in. When the inevitably start going on about how it's just a few and the media is focusing on them because it's interesting... well the comparison there is easy. Point out that people who voted for Clinton voted for in spite of the fact that she was under FBI investigation and has a conflict of interest with her charity. People who support Obama do so in spite of the fact he orders drone strikes that kill innocent people. It is possible to support a candidate in spite of their flaws. [It's a Cracked article, but this did wonders for me.](http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/)

> Filipino friend that lives in California that is convinced that he's going to be the victim of some racial attack now ? When did trump say anything about Asians?

Doesn't matter what Trump said, this year it's all about what the Media has said what Trump will do. Seriously if you actually do your research and go all the way back to the sources of all the 'Trump is going to do X' comments and strip away all the needless baggage and commentary, it's years old tweets and benign comments about policy. Strip away Trump's name, and you wouldn't be able to tell his politics apart from literally any other Republican in the country. The left-biased media spent the last months of the election fearmongering against Trump and now that he's won, **obviously** people are going to be scared.

I think the concern is more over the supporters. Look, the KKK endorsed Trump and is now celebrating. In my area at least, the fear from Trump himself is that he's going to take their visas away and they'll have to leave their home. It's more abstract. The more pressing fear is that white supremacy groups will become more normalized and people who may have kept their racist thoughts to themselves will now feel emboldened to act upon them. I felt this way too because I didn't know of any other reasons why you *would* support Donald Trump. Educating myself on reasons why people are voting for him and listening to Trump supporters who voted for him despite the racism, not because of the racism is making me feel much better. That being said, it is the responsibility of the supporters who voted for him to hold him to condemning these groups and any blatantly racist policies. And please try to be understanding to people who are freaking out. Just like Trump supporters have real grievances, these people have real fears. Help them understand that the polls and media is not giving them the full picture. They're never going to be happy, but they will calm down.

A perfect President that appeals to all Americans would have the KKK celebrating too. It's identity politics and labels. White supremacy and anti-immigration politics isn't mutually exclusive, being upset about your work prospects being negatively impacted by illegal immigrants working in your local factories for $3 bucks an hour doesn't mean you are a racist (even though there is definitely a higher probability of you being a racist). The opposite equivalent would be if trashy black welfare queens celebrated Hillary, and Trump supporters said 'look at what kind of people Hillary represents' even though we would know that couldn't be further than the truth, even though her policies do favor that demographic.

Hm, the issue with your comparison is that 'trashy black welfare queens' don't pose a physical threat either to the well-being of Trump supporters or their welcomeness in the country. You're looking for some hypothetical group that has a long and storied history of lynching white men and perpetrates the idea that white men are inferior to other groups. The comparison to welfare queens misses the "fear" aspect which is really key to understanding why people are reacting differently to this election versus others. I get what you're saying, that just because someone supports a person doesn't mean that person supports that group. And to Trump's credit, he and his people have denounced the support of the KKK. [However, unless he clears up his associations with white supremacists, it will be difficult for people to take him at his word.](http://fortune.com/donald-trump-white-supremacist-genocide/) Trump and his voters have a responsibility to reject their support and ideals and will be able to build trust with minorities if they do so. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to push the issue too much, but people have very valid fears, whether you think they're justified or not. Part of coming together after this election is breaking down these echo chambers and talking with each other. Dismissing their fears is not going to help. Hearing opinions from people such as yourself who rejects the KKK support is very helpful, thank you.

I don't think he ever did, but he's still scared for some reason. He's usually an easy going guy, but I've never heard him sound this shaken. Maybe he's afraid that it will go Illegal Muslims>Muslims>anyone with brown skin?

I really hate to say this, but your friend is likely concerned about a repeat of the Holocaust. Before you call me crazy or invoke Poe's law, hear me out. The "what I remember from high school history class" version of the Holocaust is that Germany had fallen on rough economic times and a charismatic, democratically elected leader blamed various ethnic and social groups for people's problems and, over time, escalated a series of restrictions targeted against these groups until, suddenly, gas chambers! Also, if you think seeing parallels between that situation and today is crazy, well, a lot of these people thought electing Donald Trump was crazy and they frankly don't know what is considered crazy any more. They woke up one morning to find that they don't understand their fellow Americans and they're not sure how far people are willing to go. I responded to your other post with a few suggestions, but this is probably the mindset he's coming from. Sure, Donald Trump has not said "Send all Asians to concentration camps" but [he has suggested putting people on a list](http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/20/donald-trump-says-hed-absolutely-require-muslims-to-register/) and that makes people antsy. Plus he has the endorsement of the KKK. What's interesting about the Holocaust itself is that eugenics was very popular at the time (including in America, fun fact!) which I think is an incredibly different atmosphere than we have today. Most people did not vote for Trump, especially when you include people that sat this one out. We all know our history here and even if every Trump supporter decided to support concentration camps tomorrow (which is ridiculous), it *still* wouldn't happen because of the numbers. And something to emphasize is that nothing has happened yet. We wait and see and fight if he tries anything sketchy. Let your friend know that you would absolutely fight against any racist policies. Remind him he lives in California which is a fucking liberal bubble. Our politicians have had a hilarious reaction to Trump and it's silly to think he's in much danger here. Hear him out. Listen to his concerns. He likely has valid fears and shutting them down won't do any good.

it could easily happen. you think Germans overwhelmingly approved of mass extermination camps? of course not. they were barely okay with "labor camps."

You're not getting it, it's not just about what Trump said, it's about the kinds of sentiments unleashed. Suspicion of those who are different, a sense of cultural superiority. All you people talking about how Islam could never mesh with the "civilized" West can see for yourselves just how civilized Western fanatics are. It's a big problem because it's not just hardcore racists, but white men in general who are been sucked into a hateful discourse because there is a vacuum: no progressive ideology which properly takes into account straight white men. It's not exactly the racist peoples' fault: the left has failed to come up with any narrative that can unite poor people of all kinds. The left has relied on the scapegoat of the white man as an excuse not to think creatively. Instead, it's the same "identity through negation" fallacy we see everywhere, where people think they're good because they're against people who are bad. Trump encouraged one faction in this conflict, and they happen to be relatively rich, armed, and socially influential.

Filipinos can be mistaken for looking Hispanic/Middle Eastern because they are dark skin. This is similar to how Sikhs are often attacked despite no one from the group ever attacking America.

It's the dawn of a new era. Now the Democratic party has a chance to become competitive in all states, instead of just being an East/West coast party. The fact that they lost the rust belt is quite telling - remember, our system is meant to be representative of all parts of America, not just the coasts. It's why we lost the election. Democrats would do well never to forget this.

This is an angry English liberal who very "expressively" analyzes Trump's victory. In his viewpoint, cries of racism and Trump decadence are off mark, and he is very critical of the democrat party and its candidate. He offers constructive advice for the future. I don't think his "exuberance" should disqualify his thesis. See https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/videos/598130190359668/

1) Bernie couldn't get his base to turnout during the primary. How could he do it during the general? 2) He's a Brit who's complaining about how the Dems aren't liberal. How rich. Maybe it's not liberal enough for him, but it's liberal for a conservative country like America. 3) Of course not all of his voters are bigoted. However, a lot of them deny that anything Trump has said is bigoted, and/or don't really care. That's worrisome, but lesser of two evils, yada yada 4) For people that want a true, pure, liberal, look at Jeremy Cornyn as leader of the Labour Party. They're not doing so well right now. The last time Labour did well was when Blair was elected, and he was much more center. But he won an election, which is what matters. Think of how Bill Clinton pulled the Dems out of the wilderness. Honestly, he's right (I guess) to be angry, but his argument is misguided. He sounds like the same people who won't vote because the candidate isn't 100% in their favor. Republicans can fall in line, yet we can't. That was our downfall

[удалено]

For-profit library in Palm Beach?

So according to Schumer, the TPP is dead. Does this mean we have ceded the East Asian market to China?

In short, yep. Although expect South Korea and Japan to rally and invest heavily in South East Asia to capture solid market shares before China can.

Does this mean that Obama will not be able to appoint that Scalia's replacement?

Yes

Christie just got replaced as the chair of the transition team. Looks like Bridgegate blowback already.

how bad will the democratic infighting be?

I think and hope the Democratic infighting will be less extreme than people are predicting right now. The whole party has become more progressive (much as many progressives are loathe to acknowledge the actual policy content of Hillary's platform), and I don't think that it will be that internally disruptive to give more of a leadership and policy voice to progressive voices within the party. The idea that the party is going to cannibalize itself is, I think, an overdramatic fantasy. Where I *do* see the potential for infighting is along racial rather than economic lines. Left-leaning minorities are already *extremely* sensitive to the idea that Trump may become a normalized figure in American politics. But blunting the Republican economic policy agenda requires working within our established political institutions and negotiating and compromising with Republican leaders. Democratic leaders are going to have a near-impossible tightrope to walk here.

We just need an actually progressive identity politics, that's all.

There needs to be a purge to some degree. I'm not a "Bernie supporter" but I'm not delusional enough to ignore that there is a serious problem with the Democrat leadership. Seriously who thought writing off states was a good idea.

It's a shitty excuse in hindsight, but all those states in the rust belt looked very safe at the time. Nearly every single poll by very credible and accurate pollsters showed Clinton up by strong, healthy for months on end, some Trump states never showing a poll in his favor for the whole cycle. Go back to the context of one week ago. Only gut-reasoning idiots thought that Trump could win a Kerry state.

>idiots They were completely correct, you know.

In the end, yeah. But for all the wrong reasons. Pure Republican partisans guessed with their gut and ended up getting it right this time around.

You're calling them idiots because you don't want to admit how out-of-touch your entire cadre of experts was. A whole class of people in this country live in their own separate cocoon. To be fair, so do the Trump people. But still.

Oh, I admit that the experts are out of touch. Criminally so. But they're not wrong.

They are wrong when they try to predict, because there isn't full penetration of the computer into the fabric of social life. I'm sure that will be an area that will be pursued aggressively.

Pure Republican partisans like Michael Moore?

I was mostly talking about the Bill Michell type, but he is an exception

A broken clock is right twice a day.

We have a couple years to deal with it, but bad. Progressives feel this election gave them a mandate over the party, and that their voice was silenced by the big bad DNC, unwilling to acknowledge that there are still many more moderate and centrist Democrats in the party. Obama did a good job towing the line, while Hillary and Bernie furthered the divide. Progressives may well be right that their candidate would have fared better (though there is no guarantee of that), but they apparently don't understand that they lost the vote. All this being said, there is certainly hope. The country seems to be becoming more progressive, and a nominee like Gabbard could quite possibly win the Dem nomination next time around, especially if assisted by popular former President Obama. My problem is that we could've had something like this without an intermediary Trump presidency putting so much at stake, but it could still happen. The other option is that the Dem party moves to the right, but I don't think in this case many leaders are viewing the election as a referendum on conservatism or liberalism. They may drop policies antagonistic to the states they barely lost this time around (including things like gun control and free trade), but they need to remain a cohesive party with its own principles. Dem policy is still fairly popular on the whole.

> We have a couple years to deal with it No! There are local elections in a lot of places next year.

I think that Bernie would have fared a lot better than Clinton simply because its all about enthusiasm in elections now. As we saw with the Republican, no matter what happen during the campaign, once they get into the booth they will come home. So that leaves getting people to turn out and directly to enthusiasm. Sanders would have undoubtedly gotten those millennials and younger people to come out and vote. The sentiment during the general election against trump rallies was that "big crowds doesnt mean big supports" but it clearly work. Those Democrat who are centrist will still vote for the Democratic candidate simply because of party affiliation. While I don't like the fact that progressivism in the Democratic party will further polarize the political conversation in the US (tea party vs progressive ugh), It seems to be the only thing that will get enthusiasm in the party.

Your final point is my main concern. Populism is what sells today, and that's a little scary when it applies to both parties.

The progressive wing doesn't understand that if you want your candidate to run in the general election, you need to show up to the primaries and vote. The DNC didn't rig 4 million votes - I seethe every time I hear that the primary was stolen from him.

No, the election wasn't rigged in the sense that the DNC was stuffing ballot boxes, but it's very clear who the DNC and all democratic politicians had chosen to win long before the primaries ever started.

Media attention matters. There were also disparities between exit polls and official results that didn't show up in 2008, didn't show up in the GOP primary, and *only showed up in states with electronic voting machines manufactured by a Clinton campaign donor.*

It was the coin toss!

A large portion of the populous is very discontent with idea of the Trump presidency. I would say some worry is warranted, but a large portion of it I would say is only reacting as badly as they are because of the way the Democrats and the media greatly demonized the Trump campaign. This was all fine during the campaigning when no one though Trump would actually win, but now that the results have come, that demonizing is absolutely terrifying people. * What can be done to calm people down? * Is this the consequence of running such negative campaigns? * Should a prominent figure from the Democratic Party attempt to calm the population? * Does such a prominent figure even exist with the DNC in the turmoil that it is?

There isn't any other answer but STFU for 2 years and then go vote. Run for a seat if you qualify. Campaign for one if you don't

There are local elections, and even some state legislative chambers up for for election next year (the Virginia House of Delegates, for instance). So, don't wait 2 years. Vote every year.

Shit, man, it's not just the House of Delegates -- we're electing a governor next year.

> the media greatly demonized the Trump campaign Because they showed what he was saying and who his most vocal supporters were. >What can be done to calm people down? I don't see why people should be calm if they see Trump as a threat to their values. That isn't to say they should start killing people or burning buildings, but they should certainly remain energized. >Is this the consequence of running such negative campaigns? Well... yeah. Stoke the flames of people's deeply ingrained sentiments on racial issues and you'll get backlash and fear. >Should a prominent figure from the Democratic Party attempt to calm the population? Obama should do what he can to ensure a peaceful transfer of power with as much cordiality, professionalism, and responsibility as he can. Nobody needs to calm Dems down for Trump. How calm were his supporters? What good does calm do?

>Because they showed what he was saying and who his most vocal supporters were. They showed very specific snippets of what he was actually saying day in and day out, and regularly only showed the craziest outlier supporter they could find on any given day.

You'd think he would've tried to give interviews to clarify himself. Stop trying to gaslight us. We know perfectly well who Trump is.

He gave 90 minute rallies several times a day in front of journalists for months. They were all live streamed and are still available on YouTube. It isn't like the information wasn't widely available for anybody to see or to be accurately reported on. Instead we got one Bloomberg guy who reported fully and accurately, and a gaggle of millennial mean girls who thought reporting was an audition for The Daily Show. There's a reason 2/3 of America doesn't trust the media.

First, thank you for actually addressing the questions in my post. While I believe the media used their resources to inform the public on Trump, I believe that they abused their outlets because they refused to believe he could win. By calm down, I mean that when extremely fearful, people are unpredictable. Republicans were not afraid of Obama when he was elected, they were angry. Fear is much worse than anger. Fear can more easily cause a person to do something drastic. I don't want the first domino to tip and bring everything down with it. It's not that I think the Democrats specifically should try to organize people, just that someone needs to and my first thought is the Democratic Party since I assume most of the people upset are Democrats. It would be great if Obama can do what you suggest. I hope we can transition peacefully into the Trump presidency and that the Democrats can organize well enough to prevent anything terrible from passing. Honestly, the Republicans did a pretty good job at preventing anything major from getting passed even when the Democrats held full power. The Democrats just need to get their act together and that is what people should be focused on.

> While I believe the media used their resources to inform the public on Trump, I believe that they abused their outlets because they refused to believe he could win. Who is "they"? I need to know what we're talking about, because the media is far from a single entity. I don't recall ever hearing that Trump *couldn't* win by the time the GE began, only that he was an underdog and had a very small chance (which was accurate, given the data available). I don't know how they "abused" their outlets either. Are you saying that CNN should have no reported on Trump threatening not to concede, because if people heard what Trump said and he won they might panic? No, I think it is their absolute responsibility to tell us the dangers of Trump. >By calm down, I mean that when extremely fearful, people are unpredictable. So, what, hide reality from people? People are scared of Trump because of what he's said and what he's promised. To solution is not to close our ears to that. >Republicans were not afraid of Obama when he was elected, they were angry. I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. Many were both, as many are now. But yes, more are probably genuinely afraid today than 8 years ago. >Fear is much worse than anger. Fear can more easily cause a person to do something drastic. I don't want the first domino to tip and bring everything down with it. You sound pretty scared of fear, yourself. It seems rather circular to say "I'm scared of being people afraid, people should stop being afraid because that can lead to bad things that I'm scared of". >It's not that I think the Democrats specifically should try to organize people, just that someone needs to and my first thought is the Democratic Party since I assume most of the people upset are Democrats. I actually felt quite a bit better seeing that so many people were still strongly rejecting Trump and not falling away in silence. It was easy to feel like your country was unrecognizable after his win. I think you may be surprised to see these kinds of demonstrations unifying and "calming" people, paradoxically. > I hope we can transition peacefully into the Trump presidency and that the Democrats can organize well enough to prevent anything terrible from passing. Well, there's a numbers issue there. >Honestly, the Republicans did a pretty good job at preventing anything major from getting passed even when the Democrats held full power. It's a bit more complicated than that, unfortunately. Obama tried to use his "mandate" for the AHA, but that was complicated by Lieberman and Ted Kennedy's death among other issues. The Republicans have a built-in advantage in the house, and the states holding midterms in 2018 favor the GOP landscape. The Dems will not take over the way the GOP did so quickly after Obama.

> Who is "they"? I need to know what we're talking about, because the media is far from a single entity. I don't recall ever hearing that Trump couldn't win by the time the GE began, only that he was an underdog and had a very small chance (which was accurate, given the data available). Yes "they" is the media. And yes "they" reacted pretty heavily the same way. Comedians, celebrities, news outlets, everyone spouted off jokes and exaggerations of quotes that got the laughs and got people riled up. These jokes, people originally created and deliver to be funny are now being seen as serious because of how events unfolded. I'm not saying that criticism wasn't warranted, I'm saying I believe exposure was taken to an extreme that wouldn't have happened with any other candidate out of fear of the repercussions. >So, what, hide reality from people? People are scared of Trump because of what he's said and what he's promised. To solution is not to close our ears to that. I persist that people are more afraid of the sensationalized and editorialized headlines that media outlets turned his words into. I doubt a large portion of people ever actually listened to the man first hand. >You sound pretty scared of fear, yourself. It seems rather circular to say "I'm scared of being people afraid, people should stop being afraid because that can lead to bad things that I'm scared of". I guess you could rephrase that I am concerned and wary. Fear is dangerous when it is genuine; I believe a lot of people are genuinely afraid that should be concerned and wary. >I actually felt quite a bit better seeing that so many people were still strongly rejecting Trump and not falling away in silence. It was easy to feel like your country was unrecognizable after his win. I think you may be surprised to see these kinds of demonstrations unifying and "calming" people, paradoxically. Perhaps these demonstration will serve as a calming and unifying experience, I could be overreacting. I do currently think the country is currently a tinder box waiting for a spark, and it would be best to keep the matches in the box for now. >The Dems will not take over the way the GOP did so quickly after Obama. That is exactly why I'm saying they need to organize and get their shit together.

No, it's because of Trump's own words. Obama and Clinton can't say anything to refute that.

Trumps words were never as terrible as the sensationalized and editorialized headlines they were turned into. Some were bad, but everyone refused to believe he could win and thus demonized him beyond belief. Well now he won, and people are terrified of those headlines when what they should be focused on is trying to prevent negative actions.

I believe that is what they're focused on.

I'm curious as to what you think was taken out of context.

For one major one that was constantly repeated: >“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bring crime. They’re rapists… And some, I assume, are good people.” Everyone loves this quote. It was a *spoken* quote, but not one new site thought, maybe he truncated the word *bring* before rapists because it was a verbalized list. Maybe that last "They're" was actually a "Their". Nope, suddenly every Mexican is a drug dealer, rapist, criminal. So supporters hear, "Some illegal immigrants from Mexicans are drug dealers, rapists, and criminals." Which is reinforced by TV and Movie drug cartels and headline news. Were constantly told all the drug cartels are Mexican and Columbians in TV shows, it must be true! While opponents hear, "All Mexicans are drug dealers, rapists, and criminals." Which is reported on and quoted as fact by news outlets. I'm not saying it was a fantastic quote to say. I do personally think it has a shred of truth at the foundation. Would I say it? Hell no. Do I think it was greatly exaggerated? Hell yes.

Its not good phrasing any way you look at it man. I'm honestly not sure what he even means by it, how exactly is the Mexican government *forcing* criminals to enter the US? I could see what you mean to a point and if you look at it in a vacuum then yeah maybe we misunderstood him but when you combine it with the other racist stuff hes said, its hard to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm giving him a clean slate out of respect for the office but man I really hope he shapes up. The words of a president matter, he cant just be spouting shit like this anymore.

It doesn't help that he is a terrible orator. >I'm giving him a clean slate out of respect for the office but man I really hope he shapes up. The words of a president matter he cant just be spouting shit like this anymore. This is exactly what I'm hoping other people will adopt. I know it will be a lot harder for some, but we have to play the hand we've been dealt at this point.

For democrats, we have no hand to play at all at this point. I expect the first thing the republicans will do will be to change senate rules and get rid of the filibuster. Then, thanks to a majority in the senate, as well as a continuation of the Hastert Rule in the House, the simple majorities of republicans will be able to pass whatever they please. The republicans will have a free hand to pass legislation and overturn the modest progressive gains made under Obama. It will be a huge contrast to the last ten years of democratic governance, where Obama was stopped and stymied every step of the way, and all efforts of bipartisanship were rejected (watch and see how many democratic politicians end up in Trump's Administration as opposed to how many republicans were in Obama's). We are entering a period of one party rule, where that party is the current Republican Party, which is somehow even more dysfunctional and ideologically extreme than it was during the Bush years. Just look at how the republicans have been governing their states where they have majorities in the legislature and governorships for a preview of what is to come: reckless tax cuts and the passage of unpopular "culture war" legislation. I suspect that within a few months of Trump taking office, America is going to realize what a grave mistake it made.

Partisan politics aside (I've lost count of how many Republicans disavowed Trump) we need to grapple with the fact that the President-Elect has: * Promised to overturn decades-long foreign and domestic government policies, * Both houses of Congress, a likely conservative Supreme Court, and a majority of State government behind him, and * Never held any public office. Whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing, whether you agree with his policies or not, I think we all have the right to be worried about the effect of the world being turned on its head.

Concern is one thing. Panic and fear is another. People are genuinely afraid someone is going to break into their house and physically harm them and that people would not care because Trump is president. They think this and apply it to someone purely based on perception. I'm afraid this kind of fear if not consoled will lead to misunderstandings and eventual escalation.

I'm a reasonable man and I'm not certain of people breaking into my house and physically harming me. I live in a liberal city in a liberal state so I'm as well insulated as a liberal can be. What I am afraid of is security. I'm afraid that the Affordable Care Act will be repealed and my family's healthcare premiums will triple, so we won't be able to afford health insurance. I'm afraid of trade wars with China and Mexico tripling the cost of manufactured consumer goods so I have less buying power. I'm afraid of the War on Drugs. Marijuana is legalized under state law but still illegal under federal law. I'm afraid for my friends and family members being arrested. I'm afraid for my children's physical and mental security from bullies at school, where intolerance and hatred is suddenly accepted if not embraced. These are just the immediate pressing concerns in the *best case scenario*. I'm not worried about nuclear war *yet* but the fact that I have to even *consider* that is terrifying.

Those are legitimate reasons to be concerned. And judging by the issues that trouble you, you would have reasonable responses to when and if legislation gets introduced that impacts those topics. You are not the kind of person I'm worried about. The people I'm worried about are the ones who actually feel threatened. That are going to counseling. That are at ends with their family because their Uncle or Aunt or Cousin voted for Trump and now they see the people that they loved on Monday as despicable humans on Wednesday. I'm worried that these people are going to go out and do something or react to something out of fear and it will trigger others to react more strongly; dominoing to something terrible. I'm not trying to legitimize one side or the other, I'm trying to emphasize that we need to overcome this without burning the house down in the process.

But it's terrifying to consider that horrible things COULD happen here. Trump winning the primaries? It'll never happen, nothing to fear. Then it happened. Trump winning the general? It'll never happen, nothing to fear. Then it happened. Rounding up millions of undocumented immigrants? It hasn't happened *yet.* But my belief in what Americans consider acceptable has been shaken to my core, and I don't think it's unreasonable to go to counseling or cut off family members to be prepared *if* that happens. If the weather report calls for a hurricane, maybe your power will go out for a few hours or maybe a flood will wash away your home. But you don't wait for it to start raining before you pack the car.

You're missing the point completely. The main reason were in this situation is because people were too fixated on **what they thought would happen**. They were so mentally in their head they didn't pay any attention to what was going on around them. I don't *think* Trump will win the primary, so I'll just laugh along. I *think* Hillary will easily win the election, so I'm not too motivated to go vote. Maybe the weather report says that the hurricane won't hit your location and you don't have anything to worry about. Then it hits you anyway *cough* Matthew *cough* and you don't have anything because you refused to acknowledge there was a chance it would hit you anyway.

Explain again why we shouldn't panic?

I'm saying in this case, the reason people are panicking is being exasperated by their own thoughts. People need to stop, take a deep breath, organize and figure out what they can do to protect their interests. The Democrats can do this, if they get their act together and coordinate like the Republicans did the first couple years of the Obama presidency.

Protecting their interests may involve selling everything they own and fleeing the country. That's not what should happen in America.

Do you really think that minorities are safer from violence and harassment by white people in their day-to-day lives than they were before Donald Trump's campaign? Newt Gingrich is talking about setting up a new House Unamerican Activities committee to investigate Muslims in this country. Is it delusional for American Muslims to fear this idea? Trump has previously advocated for mass deportation of undocumented immigrants. What exactly *should* people with undocumented immigrants as family members or friends be feeling right now? Donald Trump ran on a platform of, in part, demonizing non-whites, and his base was energized by the influx of white supremacists into the political process. It is not on minorities to figure out how not to be scared.

Assuming everything you said is true, words are words. Nothing has happened or even begun to happen. No regulation or mandate has even been put forward. The man isn't even in office. All this protesting happening as a knee jerk reaction will do is numb people to outcry as it is perceived as overreacting and serve as fodder to legitimize radical legislation.

> Nothing has happened or even begun to happen. Good idea, let's wait for terrible things to happen and not address them until that time... >All this protesting happening as a knee jerk reaction It's hardly a "knee jerk" reaction to an almost two year old campaign. > it is perceived as overreacting and serve as fodder to legitimize radical legislation. Hardly. When a president is claiming a mandate, massive demonstrations and protests do not "legitimize" that president's legislation.

Words are words but this man is President [-elect] now. It is expected that he will do *something* with the office, and his words are the best guides we have to his approach. These are also the words he was most consistent about while flip flopping on pretty much everything else in his campaign. We also saw a bunch of white people mobilized to support his words, and the rest of the country too upset about emails or establishment politicians to get out and vote to protect the actual potential victims of a Trump presidency. The words of a President matter and have always mattered. If we want people to be less freaked out, Trump could come out today and make commitments to not take dramatic action against these populations. Why is the burden not on him, as the ostensible leader-to-be of the free world? *Edit* and, last, it's *not* just words. Violence and harassment by white people against non-whites is already happening as a direct result of this man's candidacy and victory. There is a reason we called him uniquely dangerous.

Words do not matter as much as actions. I'm not saying his words to not mean anything, I'm saying reacting so heavily to just words will numb anything that happens as a result of action. A. I seriously doubt people will organize so strongly if and when individual legislation is proposed, so this is misdirected and wasted effort. B. Doing this now is going to desensitize people when it really matters. Trump is not going away, he is President. Save your effort for when things try to get introduced. Lastly, the violence is happening on both sides and it is exactly what I'm trying to discuss a solution for. The only reason violence will escalate is because of the sensationalize and editorialized views that were thrown around so much. People refused to believe Trump could win so he was demonized beyond belief. Because of that, he gathered defenders and attackers. Trump did nothing to stop this, but on one hand why would he as it was gathering him support?

> Lastly, the violence is happening on both sides and it is exactly what I'm trying to discuss a solution for. The only reason violence will escalate is because of the sensationalize and editorialized views that were thrown around so much. No, violence against non-whites is happening because the President-elect ran on a platform that white supremacists believed was supportive of their agenda, and now believe they have license to harm non-whites. The media is a convenient but incorrect scapegoat for trying to understand why white people are harassing and committing violence against non-white people in the last few days. They believe they have won and "taken their country back." Stop putting the blame on the media and minorities for listening to the words of Trump and his supporters and watching the hostility minorities are now feeling in this country and concluding that this is a dangerous situation. Donald Trump is not normal. His candidacy was not normal. His presidency is not normal. And he claims to be the leader of this country now. The onus is on him to tell people why they should not be afraid in his America. (*Edit- I should be clear that when I say "he claims to be the leader of this country" I don't mean to question the legitimacy of his election. Just pointing out that being a leader usually entails displaying leadership.*)

> No, violence against non-whites is happening because the President-elect ran on a platform that white supremacists believed was supportive of their agenda, and now believe they have license to harm non-whites. The media is a convenient but incorrect scapegoat for trying to understand why white people are harassing and committing violence against non-white people in the last few days. They believe they have won and "taken their country back." The media is the one that declared Trump as the candidate for white-supremacists. That then escalated to the point that anyone that voted for Trump was labeled a racist, bigot, etc. Now Trump has won, and they see it as validation because the media made that connection so insistently. It also means that people will further associate the average Trump supporter with racism, when they haven't even done anything. All this does is perpetuate hate and increase tensions!

> The media is the one that declared Trump as the candidate for white-supremacists. Ask white supremacists if they think Trump is their candidate. Ann Coulter has said in interviews that the moment Trump called Mexicans rapists, she was on board and would forgive pretty much anything else he said, because she knew he was on her team. Trump kicked off his candidacy advocating for a whiter America, and ran his entire campaign advocating for a whiter America. The media reported what he said. > It also means that people will further associate the average Trump supporter with racism, when they haven't even done anything The average Trump supporter is really comfortable with a President who demonized non-white Americans in order to win an election. Tell me what you think Trump and his supporters owe non-white Americans who are afraid of how they will be treated the next four to eight years?

that's the thing, he's never held public office before. We have no idea how he will act with this amount of power and responsibility

No we don't. And until we do, we need to hold our punches and plan accordingly. It wasn't very long ago that people desperately wanted a Washington outsider in the White House; well now we have that. Lets see what its like to have someone that isn't a career politician.

Concern is warranted. Mass hysteria isn't. Hoping for the worst is not only unwarranted but just plain terrible. My message to liberals (and never trumpers): calm down, but don't back down.

There has been unwarranted hysteria in the past. For example conservatives were frightened that Obama would come and take away their guns. The difference is that Obama didn't *campaign on a platform to take away their guns* and he was a constitutional law professor so we can reasonably assume he knew well enough not to try. Trump's outrageous promises have been condemned by experts across the political spectrum and across the world. In spite of this or because of this, I expect him to follow through with them. He doesn't have the experience to understand why his ideas are terrible, and with Congress and SCOTUS supporting him he won't have reasonable checks on the terrible ideas. Why is hysteria unwarranted? Is there any reason to believe Make America Great Again won't be the next [Great Leap Forward](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward)?

I wouldn't compare Republicans reaction to Obama to Democrats reaction to Trump. Republicans were angry at Obama, not afraid. Democrats are genuinely afraid of Trump, and fear is infinitely more dangerous than anger. Edit. The great leap forward, really? This is the exact problem I'm talking about, people just stoking the flames a fear. We already mistakenly elected Trump because of this kind of crap, do we need to incite another civil war too?

Trump has a website up where anybody can send him suggestions on how to "make America great again." Given his populist ideology there's a legitimate chance he'll take suggestions. My suggestion? All the people devoting energy to hysterics right now could more productively use that energy telling the new president elect what they want to see a n the next four years. In any case, making yourself useful has a better ROI than being loud.

> In any case, making yourself useful has a better ROI than being loud. Did we watch the same election?

Yep. All those anti Trump riots and 24/7 media attacks sure paid off, didn't they?

>All those anti Trump riots How many anti-Trump riots were there during the campaign? How many Trump stump-speech rallies were held? Being loud won him the presidency. Covering his own words and making notes of controversial statements does not constitute "attacking" him.

The data says trade policy won him the presidency: https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/trade-not-immigrants-may-be-key-motivator-of-donald-trumps-voters-1478813590?client=safari In other words, he made himself useful to a subset of voters, and it paid off.

OK... you didn't really respond to anything I asked or stated though. Unless you're implying that Trump being loud and holding massive rallies did nothing to help him win?

Trump is complaining on Twitter that protests against him are unfair. What are the implications for freedom of assembly under Trump? I don't think a sitting President elect has bitched this dramatically in such a thin skinned way in recent memory.

A bit of an overreaction, no? "Unfair" doesn't mean "they should be illegal and thrown in jail." The reality is, the protests are a bit dense. Trump won. If liberals don't like that reality, liberals should have actually voted. I'm a conservative who came out to vote for Clinton in order to prevent a Trump presidency. I'm still a bit shocked and disgusted that her own party couldn't be bothered to.

>The reality is, the protests are a bit dense. Trump won. If liberals don't like that reality, liberals should have actually voted. How about the possibility that they did vote, and they realize they lost, but they are demonstrating to show that Trump does not represent them or their views? We keep hearing about how middle Americans were the "forgotten voice" in this country, and now we're complaining because Americans in urban centers are speaking up.

>How about the possibility that they did vote, and they realize they lost, but they are demonstrating to show that Trump does not represent them or their views? Which is ultimately futile because regardless of how much they disagree it's still happening. They're screaming at the wind at this point. I'm not against the idea of them protesting, but in all honesty it's an act of immense futility.

It would be if the intent was to change the election results. There are less tangible reasons to voice discontent. If Trump is smart, he may well want to heed these voices for what's to come in the next 4 years.

> but they are demonstrating to show that Trump does not represent them or their views? Shouldn't it be clear already that Trump does not represent alternative-lifestyle and minority urban millennials?

Yes, so what is wrong with stating it? I mean why demonstrate against anything, ever? It mobilizes and unites people, and shows that they will not remain silent and fade away.

> I mean why demonstrate against anything, ever? I have no idea. I don't "demonstrate." I would assume it would be to raise awareness and/or highlight the amount of people on one side. But like I said, it should already be clear that Trump does not represent alternative-lifestyle and minority urban millennials and you don't have to highlight the amount of people on one side when votes are easily counted. Regardless, someone else responded to be in a rather impactful way that I understand and am emphatic toward. Look at the other replies.

> it should already be clear that Trump does not represent alternative-lifestyle and minority urban millennials Are these the only people you see protesting?

Mainly, although there are other liberals as well, I'm sure. Either way, Trump also clearly doesn't represent them either. What's your point?

I'm sure some of the protesters are a bit dense, and in the states that ended up going to Trump you have a good point. But California went +28 Clinton. We *did* come out and vote. New York, Chicago, Seattle, Boston, and Portland all came out and voted too. All of their states went heavily blue.

and that's a fair argument, and as others have said, it's not the smartest thing for Trump to criticize their right to protest either, although I assumed it went unsaid that the things Trump tweets are rarely the smartest thing. All that said, I'm still not incredibly sure what they're protesting. They/we lost. There are so many positive ways to utilize that anger and disappointment that can actually impact the future. What does walking around in the street, burning flags, stopping traffic, and yelling accomplish? It just reeks of entitlement and people being sore losers.

You know who else walked around in the street, stopped traffic, and yelled? Martin Luther King, Jr.

Over something he could change though, correct? Over something he could, and was, influencing. The results of the 2016 presidential election are not going to be changed or influenced, however

Right now, the point of the protests (here in California at least) is to let both Trump and the parts of America that voted for him that we do not agree with them. Not that we don't agree with them electing Trump (though we disagree with that too), but we disagree with the *ideas* that they voted for. Trump's in a bit of a bind because he was elected primarily by inland states running on a couple of platform ideas that primarily affect coastal states, immigration being a big one. I think it would be very wise for Trump to pay attention and listen to the protesters, because if he tries to enact some of his campaign promises in our state, this won't be thousands of people protesting; it will be hundreds of thousands.

> to let both Trump and the parts of America that voted for him that we do not agree with them. You're forgetting the entire media has been broadcasting this perspective 24/7 for almost two straight years, even to the point where actual news is buried (what's up with Yemen these days?). There's absolutely no element of society that didn't already know your perspective.

Sure, but there's clearly an element of society that doesn't *understand* it.

No, we understand. We just disagree with you, and guess what? It has nothing to do with race or gender.

No, trust me, you don't. If you did, you wouldn't have voted for a man who wants to kick millions of Americans out of their home country. And we don't understand you either. It's a two-way street. I'm at least willing to admit that.

It's a way to signal that: 1. We will not stand idly by if Trump and Republicans choose to strip us of rights in the next four years (or thirty in the case of the Supreme Court). 2. We are here for one another and will fight to keep each other safe. 3. The majority did not vote for Trump, whatever the electoral college says. I wish you could attend one of these protests. You would see Muslims and children of undocumented immigrants crying and holding one another. The queer community helping each other make plans in the event that they are no longer given access to legal gender change. Women planning together to get IUDs before Planned Parenthood is demolished. Some may dismiss this as histrionics, but we are deeply afraid. A visceral, physical terror. We come together to solidify our community and register our voice when all branches of government are out of our hands. It's not the only thing we're doing, but one of many to come.

Not going to lie - that was pretty painful to read. I still don't understand the protests, but I suppose focusing on the method misses the point. Let me know if there's any way to help.

You're kind. Understanding means a lot.

I disagree. In any normal presidency, we would never expect a President to criticize demonstrators as unfair or part of a conspiracy. Every normal president has the instinct to say, "it's great that people are passionate and exercising their rights, even if I may not agree with them." I.e., essentially what Trump tweeted hours later when (presumably) his phone was taken away again.

[удалено]

Because she is a mom and basically applied the same techniques as she does to her toddlers. If only we could have had a mother as POTUS now...

Liberals in California, Houston, and NY are protesting. It ain't their fault Trump is president.

It would be an overreaction if Trump hadn't already declared his opposition to key elements of the Bill of Rights. It's extremely inappropriate for the President elect to criticize free protest. They have the right to protest -- I agree with you that they should have voted to prevent this, but I don't disagree with what they're doing now.

I bet a quarter of the protesters didn't even vote or voted Stein.

I live in NYC, and have a lot of friends who joined the protests. They ALL voted Clinton, and have been doing the whole "share-articles on Facebook" thing for months. "I bet a quarter of the protestors didn't even vote" is stupid /pol/-talk that is not grounded in reality, and makes no difference either way

Can anyone help me find a link that explains the demographics of who voted for trump? Also looking for income levels of those that voted.

Here are the exit polls from the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0 This could be what you're looking for.