"You are still crying wolf"

[mjr]

Its your right to vote like a fucking moron

Translation: "You're an idiot because you didn't vote for the guy I think you should vote for. Because Reasons."

Tell me I'm wrong.

And a lot of this could be seen from the perspective of a movie...

[Valinor]

As Trump continues to demonstrate that he was never the incompetent monster his critics believed him to be, the critics will face an identity crisis. They either have to accept that they understand almost nothing about how the world works – because they got everything wrong about Trump – or they need to double-down on their current hallucination.

Wait, did I miss something here?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Donald Trump not promise, during the campaign, that he was going to prosecute Hillary Clinton? As I recall, the chant "Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!" was a pretty big part of his campaign rallies.

Did Trump not say that global warming was a hoax invented by the Chinese to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive?

"I would bring back waterboarding, and I would bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding." Did Trump not make this claim?

Donald Trump said that he would open up libel laws to make it easier to sue the media. He promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, "period." Trump called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States.

He made promise after promise after promise that he is now backtracking on, and Scott Adams is claiming that this vindicates Donald Trump, and shows that his critics "understand almost nothing about how the world works, because they got everything wrong about Trump."

So, basically, Scott Adams is saying that Trump's critics are now looking clueless because we didn't assume that everything Trump was saying on the campaign trail was a lie.

Well, I guess Trump's supporters are looking pretty clueless, then, too, since "Trump tells it like it is" was one of the major selling points of his candidacy. By Scott Adams's logic, Trump's supporters either foolishly believed Trump's promises, too, or they supported a candidate who they knew was lying through his teeth about most of his campaign's major promises.

"Ha, ha! You idiots! You actually believed all that stuff Trump said? WE knew all along that our candidate was full of crap! So who looks stupid now?"

... Um, okay. Whatever you say.

As Trump continues to defy all predictions from his critics

What Trump is defying is all of his predictions of himself. If you think that makes him look better, fine. Believe what you will.

But once you realize that Trump has repeatedly and publicly disavowed those groups, you have to hallucinate extra-hard to make the racist narrative work.

No, we really don't.

I will tell you what does require mental gymnastics :

Believing that just because a person condemns the Ku Klux Klan, the person cannot be racist.

Because believing this requires you to completely ignore the fact that anybody who doesn't want to be publicly scorned or ostracized would likely condemn groups like the Ku Klux Klan, even if that isn't what he actually believes. Or, as in Donald Trump's case, that a person who is (1) running for or occupying elected office, and (2) running a business, has a huge material incentive to disavow and distance himself from groups like the KKK, whether he personally agrees with them or not.

Does Scott Adams seriously think that it would make sense for a person to not reject the support of the Ku Klux Klan while he is trying to get people to vote for him for President, or trying to attract clients and customers to do business with him?

The fact that a person (Donald Trump or anybody else) disavows the KKK tells us nothing about whether that person is racist or not. It is everything that the person says and does, as a whole, that might provide the answer to that question.

[Gravekeeper]

Translation: "You're an idiot because you didn't vote for the guy I think you should vote for. Because Reasons."

Tell me I'm wrong.

Tell me why voting for Trump isn't a foolish and irresponsible thing to do.

[Valinor]

Tell me why voting for Trump isn't a foolish and irresponsible thing to do.

And, if I may offer an additional thought ... If you are going to say that voting for Donald Trump wasn't foolish or irresponsible, please do so based on what Trump said and did during the campaign, not what he's been doing (including backtracking on almost all of his more extreme promises) after he won.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Tell me why voting for Trump isn't a foolish and irresponsible thing to do.

As a Democrat and a human being that's read more than a thing or two, I can't.

As a student of political behavior though (and to wrap it back around to the topic), I CAN tell you that the "racist" coding emanating from the left has become a bit of a dog-whistle which one one side seems to be read as "unelectable" and on the other side is read as "things said about all our candidates." The crying wolf thing is apt, because honestly the people saying it are being tuned out because they're not controlling when they use it.

So ultimately it didn't matter. At a certain point the Republican party realized they were still playing for the House, Senate, and Supreme Court. They sacrificed the executive branch on that alter. The Democrats, per usual failed to show up for a candidate that wasn't wildly charismatic (Bill and Barack absolutely were).

That's what I think is twisting the left in logic knots. They still think it was about Trump or people voting for a racist. It wasn't. The Republican turnout was down but it was a conventional turnout. The left just didn't show and didn't do the work. And it also isn't keeping its house in order because the hard left and centrist factions apparently can't stand each other. What's probably worse is they're lashing out because of it - because they are largely ignorant of what beat them.

Considering I watched them burn their house down in slow mo, I'm not suprised.

[HYHYBT]

Democratic turnout was good in numbers, it just wasn't distributed evenly enough.

[mjr]

The Democrats, per usual failed to show up for a candidate that wasn't wildly charismatic (Bill and Barack absolutely were).

Bill and Barack definitely had the "it" factor when it came to charisma. I don't really think any of the Democratic candidates this year had "it" when it came to charisma. Most of the Republican candidates didn't, either.

The left just didn't show and didn't do the work.

Well, I agree that they didn't show, but I disagree that they didn't do the work. I think they did the work, I just don't think they did the right kind of work to attract and excite voters.

What's probably worse is they're lashing out because of it - because they are largely ignorant of what beat them.

I've seen some "post election" articles that are wondering what lesson the Democrats learned from this, and if they are the "right" lessons. If they learn things, but they don't learn what beat them, what they learned may not help in future elections.

I didn't vote for Hillary or Trump.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I've seen some "post election" articles that are wondering what lesson the Democrats learned from this, and if they are the "right" lessons. If they learn things, but they don't learn what beat them, what they learned may not help in future elections.

Well - TBH they're in the same situation the Republicans were in 2012 when they were naval-gazing about building a more diverse coalition and instead went the opposite direction just paid attention (to what I also believe is critical) taking and securing State power. The Dems have a different problem.

Their coalition is extremely diverse BUT as a group they have become extremely tribal. They're hard to coral. So a lot of their solutions alternately seem to include blaming one tribe or getting another tribe to knock it off. To win elections, I actually don't know what the solution is. Do you energize one and suppress the other? Do marginalized groups need to start checking their language the way it is expected white progressives do to avoid alienating their own voter base and possibly suppressing their own voting block? Do they go the opposite way and brand as the minority majority party rather than the diverse big-tent they are?

My early returns are there are definitely two camps on this. Many feminist blogs I've seen really double down on the "white men's fault" narrative. That's only making the hurt fee fees problem worse and also paints an inaccurate representation. But I've also seen a lot of stuff from the up-until-now quiet part of the Dem party starting to tsk, tsk a little bit when they see that. And the reasons for that are two-fold - one, I think some allies are extremely tired of taking friendly fire and two, there really isn't evidence that that sort of politics was helpful in this election in terms of maximizing votes among minorities. It's the kind of language that works well in cloistered areas of the internet, on college campuses, or in homogeous communities. It's absolute shit for coalition building unless you have a symbol just overriding everything.

[mjr]

Tell me why voting for Trump isn't a foolish and irresponsible thing to do.

That's irrelevant. It's irrelevant because you'd disagree with whatever was said. No reason, to you, would be valid enough. Tell me I'm wrong.

Around 60 million people voted for him. Do you think every one of them who did are foolish and/or irresponsible?

I didn't vote for him, but I'm sure many of the people who did had their reasons for doing so.

[mjr]

Their coalition is extremely diverse BUT as a group they have become extremely tribal. They're hard to coral. So a lot of their solutions alternately seem to include blaming one tribe or getting another tribe to knock it off. To win elections, I actually don't know what the solution is. Do you energize one and suppress the other? Do marginalized groups need to start checking their language the way it is expected white progressives do to avoid alienating their own voter base and possibly suppressing their own voting block? Do they go the opposite way and brand as the minority majority party rather than the diverse big-tent they are?

My early returns are there are definitely two camps on this. Many feminist blogs I've seen really double down on the "white men's fault" narrative. That's only making the hurt fee fees problem worse and also paints an inaccurate representation. But I've also seen a lot of stuff from the up-until-now quiet part of the Dem party starting to tsk, tsk a little bit when they see that. And the reasons for that are two-fold - one, I think some allies are extremely tired of taking friendly fire and two, there really isn't evidence that that sort of politics was helpful in this election in terms of maximizing votes among minorities. It's the kind of language that works well in cloistered areas of the internet, on college campuses, or in homogeous communities. It's absolute shit for coalition building unless you have a symbol just overriding everything.

I think another thing that you're missing is how the parties (in general) treat each other. There are people within the Republican party (and people who vote Republican) who think Democrats are Evil Incarnate. Same the other way around.

And then there's the whole "we know better/we're smarter than you" thing. I also think that more Democrats than Republicans hold this view, and I get the impression the loudest (not necessarily the majority) of people who say they are Democrat think most of the people in the "Red" states (because they're primarily Republican states) are a bunch of dumb, clueless, backwards, uncultured, unenlightened people who are all racist/sexist and don't know any better.

[HYHYBT]

Irrelevant and insufficient are not, in any rational sense whatsoever, synonymous. Therefore, the question was perfectly fair and the response blowing it off was just the opposite.

[s_stabeler]

I actually think people are misidentifying the reason why Trump won. It's not actually a surge in support for the Republicans-if you look at the number of votes cast, Trump actually had the lowest number of votes for him of any Republican candidate. So it's not disaffected voters voting in an idiot deliberately as a "brick through the window". It's far more likely that what happened is that one of Obama's main bases- millennials- decided to stay home, since Trump is a 1%er and Clinton is an establishment figure. That meant that the Republicans won due to their base generally being pro-1%. The thing is, to be blunt, millennials are very much given the short end of the stick. Among young people, there is higher unemployment, average wages have dropped (take-home pay at any rate) and we- yes, I'm a millennial myself- have to deal with being constantly told it's our own fault we're in a shitty situation. Which is galling when the Boomers ran up the National Debt, then, when the bill comes due, the cost is falling on millennials- take-home pay for young people has actually dropped in real terms by 7%- while Boomers are still squeezing more for themselves out ( among 60+ year olds, take-home pay has risen 11%) while Milennials are castigated for being lazy (because we won't accept being treated like serfs when someone actually deigns to give us a job) and are expected, it seems sometimes, to run up massive debt in order to get qualifications to get a job where we might, if they are feeling generous, be given sufficient pay to actually pay the bills and buy food.

sorry for the rant, but it's something that pisses me off.

[mjr]

Irrelevant and insufficient are not, in any rational sense whatsoever, synonymous. Therefore, the question was perfectly fair and the response blowing it off was just the opposite.

Not really, no.

Because to what level of sufficiency the question must be answered has not been established. And I doubt it will. It's a question not deserving of an answer because it puts every Trump voter into one bloc, and one mindset. Each person who voted for him (as with Hillary) possibly had their own reason for doing so.

It's a question that also reminds me of a phrase I have heard: "Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still." It doesn't matter what ANY Trump supporter says vis-a-vis why they voted for him. No answer will ever be sufficient, and therefore the question is irrelevant until that sufficiency is established.

[HYHYBT]

Not really, no.

Because to what level of sufficiency the question must be answered has not been established. And I doubt it will. It's a question not deserving of an answer because it puts every Trump voter into one bloc, and one mindset.

This is complete nonsense. "Give a reason" is not, and it is unreasonable to treat it as if it were, the same as "give a reason, and it has to be one sufficient to convince me you're right." Any reason that really is one, sufficient or not, progresses the conversation. Nor was there any suggestion, either overt or implied, that it must cover everyone. You made both of those requirements up out of nothing. Which you can do if you like, of course, just don't pretend that's not what you're doing.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Ok so since this recent filibuster regarding the semantics of insufficient and irrelevant, let me answer GK with 3 reasons I don't personally believe in but I think actually played a part in the election.

Actual question:

Tell me why voting for Trump isn't a foolish and irresponsible thing to do.

1) I either am or have a strong affinity for coal mining or in some ways I respond to their emotional appeals. My family net worth is directly tied to it and while Hillary says she has a "plan", during the Obama administration my hours have been cut or eliminated and I am financially worse off in a Democratic administration than a Republican. Both candidates are "selling" the future, but my last 8 years have been Democrats not delivering for my family regardless of the overall macro energy trends. I am not a policy wonk.

2) I am a working-class white voter who has seen the conversation shift from enabling my children to go to college in the 90's, to working-class whites do not exist in any significant policy sense from open trade, to Union-busting. I have chosen to work in traditional low paying jobs and lax enforcement of immigration laws has led to an artificial ceiling on my wage growth compounded with the narrative my competitors "take the jobs I am unwilling to do." So I either work for wages averaged with Mexico OR I'm lazy despite the prices I pay steadily increasing. I fear my ability to pay for my families future and only one candidate (still in this race) was consistent on the issues that matter to me. I am not a policy wonk.

3) I am a single issue, anti-abortion voter. At least 2 seats on the supreme court will be open this year. I am not a policy wonk.

With all three, there are answers (well except for #3) but they are policy wonk answers. The Democrats messaging has been bad to the point the party that somehow the Democrats are considered responsible for NAFTA or TPP when in fact those have largely been agreements negotiated by Democrats executives but heavily desired by Republican legislatures. And any Political Science text will tell you most voters tend to be single issue and not particularly versed.

Why the Dems decided "he's a racist and rapey" was sufficient to mollify a public whose concerns were broader than that I don't know. This doesn't even getting into Trumps ability to sell lies, but it does answer your question.

However if your point was, "I still want to be able to call these people idiots for not knowing x,y, and z" that's valid. It's just no political science text will tell you a majority or even more than 5% of voters are actually that knowledgable.