Looking forward to the next wiki dump. 

won and done williams, 

Bernie Sanders made the contrast between "liberal" and "progressive" clearer in this election than ever before. And when the Democratic party establishment and Clinton loyalists worked to smear him as a racist, as a sexist, as a liar, as a communist, as impractical, it made it even more clear that there is a wing of the Democratic party that progressives find detestable. Now that we have Twitter and Wikileaks, those of us who pay close attention to details can actually learn the names of campaign operatives and track how they coordinate with bloggers and shill media personalities to manipulate the media narrative and public perception. 

Also, the subject of Neoliberalism became more of an issue in this election than in previous ones. People looked up the definition and learned how the history of neoliberal economic and foreign policy relates to the problems that working class people are facing, and how the Clintons embraced it. 

Notice how the Clinton campaign along with media shills like Joy Reid and Joan Walsh tried to create the perception that Comey was acting politically against Clinton and trying to swing the election?

Then the White House had to come out and say: 

"The president doesn't believe that Director Comey is intentionally trying to influence the outcome of an election," ... "The president doesn't believe that he's secretly strategizing to benefit one candidate or one political party."

The only reason that the white House had to say this is because there are media shills out there who work to smear anyone who stands in Clinton's way. They did it to Bernie. 

+++AI

Bernie was never supposed to do as well as he did. The Democrats ran him to try and energize their base (who have continued to be super-unenthusiastic about Hillary). They underestimated public dissatisfaction with the status quo and Bernie's candidacy took off in a way that they did not expect. They wound up having to rig the sham primaries in order to squash the uprising in their own party, as all their pigeons started coming home to roost.

Bernie, of course, took his pay-off from HRC and the DNC and went back to his cushy Senate sinecure and new vacation house.

As much as Trump has killed off the old GOP establishment and set the stage for creating a new, populist Republican party, Bernie's failure and Clinton's corruption (and impending loss to Trump) is going to split the Democrats after the election.

The American political realignment is on its way.

^ if you believe Trump can lead this "political realignment" in a way that is beneficial to our Republic, then you are delusional, or blinded by a narrow and self-serving ideology. Trump is an empty suit (and hat) and will be a disaster for this country if elected.

gwharton, I think the realignment is bigger than the Democratic Party. I think it's both parties. Clearly establishment Republicans are not happy with Donald Trump. They think he is a cult of personality and doesn't reflect conservative ideals. Progressives are not happy with Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. They think that she does not reflect progressive ideals. What's interesting is that some of Trump's views on trade and foreign policy are actually closer to progressivism than Clinton's are. Layer on top of all that the demographic schisms between education, race, and income, none of which fall into traditionally Republican/Democratic alignment and what you have is a recipe for a massive reworking of the political landscape (and quite honestly none-to-soon, in my opinion).  

From today's Humans of New York Facebook page:

"Social media is not the place to change people’s minds. It’s probably too late for that anyway. But I think there are enough of us. There are enough of us who understand that this is not a normal election. This is not a normal man. We cannot validate his lies with the authority of the presidency. We cannot put the NSA or FBI in service of his paranoia. We cannot allow his vengefulness to be amplified by the full power of the US military. This election is not about emails. This election is about preventing a dangerous demagogue from becoming the most powerful man in the world. And there are enough of us who realize this. But we must vote. We must nudge each other. We must drive each other to the polls. We must make calls, and send texts, and knock on doors, and we must not allow anyone to accuse us of ‘being political.’ Because this isn’t 'politics as usual.' This isn’t Democrat vs. Republican. This is Democracy vs. demagogue. Enough of us understand this. But we must show up."

My guess is that the bourgeois, urban, middle-upper class coalesce around the Democrats and a globalist, neo-liberal policy agenda while the Republicans shift to a more populist, isolationist, libertarian agenda made up of the less-educated, rural working class. As has always been the case, racial and ethnic minorities do not have a comfortable place in either party, but with changing demographics have the potential of shifting either party to reflect their interests (social, religious, economic, etc.). What I find appealing about this is that a real difference between the parties may actually be emerging instead of the differences in name only that gave us a candidate like Hillary Clinton that is really very little different than your typical Republican. 

^ what you describe is a country deeply divided along ideological lines, ruled alternately by those at the extreme fringe of either party. Personally, I don't think that's what a large majority of Americans really want or will tolerate for very long.

When you write "a candidate like Hillary Clinton that is really very little different than your typical Republican" maybe what you're really suggesting (perhaps inadvertently) is that the vast majority of Americans want a centrist government that focuses on the general safety and well being of the country -- not settling old scores. What we've seen in this election (with the exception of Hillary's campaign and the campaigns of a couple of moderate Republicans) are lots of candidates whose only interest is stirring up those voters who embrace the far right or the far left.

I, for one, believe the vast majority of Americans who exist in the center have been ignored in this election cycle.

the vast majority of Americans want a centrist government that focuses on the general safety and well being of the country

I don't think that's true, babs; I think that is what you want, and I think that is where the Democratic party is headed. The problem is that leaves out a lot of people: progressives, conservatives, the working class, racial/ethnic minorities, etc. What I would hope is that a realignment will coalesce new parties that represent the interests of these groups in a way that the Democratic and Republican parties have not in a very long time.

Most Americans are comfortably numb.  Most far right and far left people are uncomfortable in one way or another.  Centrists tend to fall into the first camp and usually will slightly lean one way or the other to reflect their own personal views without straying too far into territory that that is unfamiliar...To win over an American majority the candidate needs to appeal to the center left or right while also polarizing either the far left or right to swing the vote in their favor.  only a candidate capable of keeping one foot in the center can win an election in the us.  A Bernie (who is spot on on many issues and an overall likable guy) would never win a general election.  Neither would a Johnson, Stein, etc...The centrist dilemma is that it's inherently based on maintaining an American lifestyle that requires a globally aggressive military strategy and a globalist trade strategy.  It's unsustainable.  We can't have a political revolution without first having a social and cultural revolution...because politics is a reflection of the people...and it's ugly because "we" are ugly. 

babs, 

91% of the people in this country didn't choose either candidate. I didn't vote for either one, but now I'm stuck with Hillary. 

I suspect that most people do not have a coherent political identity or set of a positions that fit neatly in the categories of Right, Center, or Left. And the idea that political ideology is somehow linear, or has any shape at all, is probably a myth. I also suspect that political ideology is often overshadowed by personality and other kinds of loyalty. Look at how many people simply do not like Trump or Clinton because of their style or personal traits. 

And if you feel that Hillary is a centrist, how can you then claim that the center of the political spectrum has been ignored? 

^ "how can you then claim that the center of the political spectrum has been ignored?"

That's very easy to answer -- while I do believe Hillary is fundamentally inclined towards the center, ALL of the politicians, ALL of the vocal electorate and ALL of the media constantly shout about special interests, special needs, special issues, special constituencies, special enemies, etc. without any meaningful discussion whatsoever about the fundamentals of running a national government that tries to operate for the reasonable benefit of all the people.

The issues that appeal to centrists simply are not the focus of anybody's approach to this election -- and those candidates who were even somewhat inclined to address those issues have been consistently drowned out of the discussion.

"The issues that appeal to centrists simply are not the focus of anybody's approach to this election..."

Specifically, which issues are you referring to?

"Centrist" is not a coherent concept. What you describe as "center" is simply a set of political positions that is deep inside the Overton Window, with the Democrat Party delineating the left boundary and the Republican Party delineating the right boundary. But the Democrat and Republican boundaries are simply the defining limits of the ruling elite consensus, not the actual spectrum of beliefs among the people of the nation.

More importantly, those boundaries can and do shift all the time. They've been shifting inexorably leftward on both edges for more than a century now, leaving a large portion of the electorate outside the elite consensus (many of whom are Trump voters). So "centrist" Hillary, by even the standards of her husband's administration twenty years ago, is way to the left because the Overton Window has been moving left for a long time. Compare her "centrist" positions to even radical leftist Democratic policies from fifty years ago and she sounds like a pseudo-communist nut.

If you stake your political ground on being a "centrist" all you're doing is announcing that you are placing yourself at the whim of what the ruling elite decides is allowable to talk about or not. Nothing more. When they shift the boundaries on you, which they have been and will do, you either have to chase the new center (no matter how bizarre it might be), or find yourself a sudden "extremist." It's a silly idea that originates in Walter Lippmann's thinking on how to implement an information control state, and the only thing it yields is cognitive dissonance.

^ davvid: The answer to your question is more about HOW the issues are addressed than anything else. For example, those on the right and left tend to address the national debt by either a) wanting to take a meat cleaver to government spending, or b) raising taxes to soak the rich. Those on the right and left tend to address immigration by either a) don’t let anybody else in and throw out those already here; or b) open the borders to everybody who wants to come in. Those on the right and left tend to address health care costs / medical insurance by a) leave it entirely up to the free market, or b) we’ve got to have a single payer system run by the government. I could go on for a while, but you get where I’m headed. 

An effective government -- one that represents all of the people -- is going to find solutions to these sorts of problems somewhere between the extreme points of view described above. The fact is that these issues are highly complex and require thoughtful analysis and debate if effective solutions are to be found. We no longer have anything remotely resembling thoughtful analysis and debate in Presidential politics. And, we certainly don’t have thoughtful analysis and debate in the Congress. Everything is about what can I do for “my” special interest supporters – and, the ideas of those across the aisle always arrive ‘dead-on-arrival’.

I believe those in the center respect many of the views of both the right and the left. But primarily they want effective and efficient government, where the views of all are considered in a respectful manner and the solutions adopted reasonably balance the needs and wants of a diverse electorate. And, that’s where the electorate comes in – we don’t demand effective and efficient government from our politicians. We tend to throw our support only to those politicians who pander to our own individual ‘hot button’ issue(s). That behavior is what has led us to the mess we have today.

so since Obamacare kicked in, my family health insurance plan has increased by 40% (140% of initial costs) starting next year I will be paying well into a serious mortgage range monthly or a college tuition.....and i have to pay taxes too?......on treadmill at gym today, couldnt hear anything, just something about Trump getting rid of Obamacare.......does anyone care to tell me who to vote for to resolve this? or lower my rates or should i just stop working and become poor so the goverment can fully subsidize my health insurance?

I plan to drop my coverage this month.

Remember their is no mechanism to collect the penalty. Just shift your deductions/witholdings to avoid have it extracted from your refund.

Put your family premiums in an envelope every month- you can buy any healthcare you want in no time.

"those on the right and left tend to address the national debt by either a) wanting to take a meat cleaver to government spending, or b) raising taxes to soak the rich. Those on the right and left tend to address immigration by either a) don’t let anybody else in and throw out those already here; or b) open the borders to everybody who wants to come in. Those on the right and left tend to address health care costs / medical insurance by a) leave it entirely up to the free market, or b) we’ve got to have a single payer system run by the government"

I wonder if you are too focused on media narratives instead of the actual facts about these issues. If you only split the difference between MSNBC and FOX News, you'll wind up with a position that leans much more pro-corporate and pro-investor-class than the majority of Americans.

On national debt/social services, a tax increase on the top tax bracket isn't necessarily "soaking the rich". Using this kind of hyperbole doesn't help. 

On immigration, net migration to the US from Mexico is below zero. Few Americans seem to be aware of this. 

On single payer, a majority of Americans support a single payer program. Its not at all a fringe or far-left position. Notice how even 41% of "Republicans/Leaners" favor a federally funded healthcare program? 

davvid - those charts are what the shadowy leftist elite WANT you to believe.  The mexicans are CLEARLY coming in by the boat loads.  If you can't see it then you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.

Situationist, where and how do you see it? Are you out there counting people? Do you have a source? Or do you just have a feeling in your gut? 

And is the Wall Street Journal now considered leftist?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/mexican-immigration-to-u-s-reverses-1447954334

You're both right. There are still hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants crossing the boarder, but the Obama administration has deported millions of illegals accounting for the net loss.

situationist, you are a lunatic. Go back to your hole.

/\ Sorry pal, awakenings have never been pleasant.  Some need a rude socking to start breaking down the conditioning. 

As fas as immigration goes, it is only good when it doesn't change the host country DEMOGRAPHICS, here we are experiencing first hand the destruction of western civilization. It can be stopped if we present a bi-partisan effort but the far left are making it very difficult, specially when all the subversive movements (BLM, super left feminism) are funded by George Soros.

It really makes you think.  

cadomestique are you a US Citizen?

Oh I see, situationist, you are pretending to be a racist to try to ferret out racists. Got it. You are part of the problem.

This is getting painful to read.

Josh Mings, then contribute something meaningful. It was a good discussion before situationist showed up.

Is there a far left around? I forgot to laugh!

If you're feeling sad about the discourse, work to elevate it. Inject some data and details into the discussion. Shift away from the generic hot button/cable new responses. Throwing your hands up out of frustration whenever some says something offensive isn't going to help. 

Don't forget folks -- bad people get elected when good people fail to vote. Either Hillary or the Donald will win this thing ... be sure it's not the jackass with the comb-over.

babs, 

He's not going to win. 

But what do centrists like you do starting the day after Hillary Clinton is elected President? 

^ davvid: Well, it ain't over 'til it's over. And, as I stated when I initiated this thread, this jackass deserves to be humiliated at the polls.

But, to answer your question, I will celebrate as I watch the Trumpster become the very tiniest of historical footnotes. Besides, Hillary is the most "centrist" of all candidates still standing.

I'm wearing a suit today, and fully intended to go early vote but my meeting ran longer than expected: I wanted to vote for Hilary in my pantsuit! I'm following a group that is telling literally thousands of stories about voting for a woman for POTUS for the first time and it's awesome, inspirational, validating....Hilary is a politician, and they ALL have issues, but:

AND

...so even though this election has allowed the white supremacist vermin to slither out of their holes, it has also brought productive anger of millions of women to the forefront of culture.

So what am I doing the day after Hillary is elected president?

But this is what irritates me so much about this election. Its being treated like the fucking Super Bowl. Most of the public doesn't actually dig into the details at all. They're being baited by politicians, campaigns, and shitty TV personalities. And anyone who isn't 100% for Hillary is treated like a Trump supporter. 

I really think that most Clinton supporters will tune out after the election. They'll pat themselves on the back for electing a woman, and they won't tune in again until a school shooting happens, or an earthquake or something. They'll change their Facebook icons as lazy act of faux solidarity. 

davvid I don't disagree with you at all. But that doesn't apply to me; I'm incredibly active and informed, and I know hundreds of other people who are too. Everyone I know here has taken up the mantra of saying, after someone comments about moving to Canada if trump is elected: "It's easy to be progressive in places that already are. What matters is staying here and doing the hard work of continuing to fight the good fight." ...which people will continue to do.

The lazy people exist on BOTH sides.

I'm really curious how the down-ballot votes are going to go, and all the transit referendums.

^ davvid: and anybody who isn't 100% for the Trumpster is treated like a libtard Hillary supporter.

The fact is that the "issues" became almost irrelevant once it began to look like Trump actually would become the GOP nominee.

davvid - you seem to wish that everybody were a political junkie and spend hours and hours wading through conflicting piles of data to get to the real "details" -- that's never happened in the past and it never will in the future. Most people have lives to live and politics, while somewhat important, isn't the primary focus of most people's lives.

Donna,

What about the many women who have already been elected and appointed head of state all around the world? Its a glass ceiling that has been smashed all around the world. Hillary exploited the misperception that she was breaking a glass ceiling so that she could cloak herself in symbolism and win. 

anybody who isn't 100% for the Trumpster is treated like a libtard Hillary supporter.

In the immortal words of Donald Trump, "Wrong."

This thread has been a useful discussion that for me has shed light on the vast gray area between being a "racist Trump supporter" and a "libtard Hillary supporter" (when it hasn't been interrupted by trolls and inane memes and gifs). Just because you want to make things black and white, babs, doesn't mean everyone does. 

Mmmmm, davvid, yeah, so the glass ceiling was shattered for POTUS already by whom, exactly? How is this a misperception? How many little girls in the US have looked at 43 images of POTUS faces and not seen anyone like themselves, ever?

This is huge. Obama was huge, and Hillary will be huge.  I know the world over has done it already.  *We* haven't.  The thousands of US women shedding happy tears of relief and connection when they cast their vote for a woman POTUS for the first time ever are empowered, and excited, and see a ceiling shattering that matters to them.

And JFC how often does this need to be said: Hillary Clinton is exceptionally well-qualified and experienced to be the President of the United States.  She didn't "cloak herself" in anything except her intelligence, savvy, experience, and ambition.

 

The future is female, but the past was also female, as is the present. 

At many turns during this campaign Hillary leveraged her gender to avoid her complicated past. 

She pointed to it as a reason why she should not be considered an "establishment" candidate. She is the establishment. She is perhaps the most establishment candidate that we could have nominated. 

I'm going to vote for her, but its not because she is a woman. Its because she is the only decent option running. There are many many other women and men who would be better, but they're not running.

"...the past was also female."  HAHAHAHAHA excuse me I can't breathe HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH aahhh tears in my eyes!

You mean the past when women were property? STFU.

Look, davvid, I really, really respect your opinions on architecture and think you're one of the smartest posters we have in this community but you're spouting a bunch of tired groupthink language about this. Yes, my little memes are groupthink too, but they're optimistic about the *excellent* aspects of HRC as POTUS - of which there are many, as there are with Obama.

Nothing is perfect. Hillary will be an excellent president in many ways, both legislatively and culturally.  And she'll do many things that will piss me off, but the cultural impact is still something to celebrate!

Thank you for the compliment. I also have a lot of respect for you and your opinions. I appreciate your reasonable and knowledgeable voice in the comment section and on the podcasts.

If Hillary's election provides an empowering and welcoming signal to other American women, I am all for that. I really wish it had happened centuries ago. It still isn't going to change my skepticism of Hillary Clinton and her core team that she'll bring into power. I want to see the DNC reformed, and pressure applied to the Clinton admin. from the left.

"You mean the past when women were property?"

I'm mean the contributions that women have made throughout history. 

"exceptionally well-qualified"

This continues to be a hilarious (Hillarious?) talking point from Clinton apologists, who are depending on nobody knowing anything about Hillary's actual record. So let's recap:

Hillary Clinton got her start in public life serving with the House Judiciary Committee investigating Richard Nixon. Her supervisor, Jerry Zeifman, fired her for unethical behavior. He later had this to say about her: “Hillary Clinton is ethically unfit to be either a senator or president — and if she were to become president, the last vestiges of the traditional moral authority of the party of Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson will be destroyed.”

In Arkansas, as the governor's wife, Hillary got herself embroiled in a number of serious scandals as she used her unelected position to enrich herself and her family.

After her husband won the Presidency in 1992, Hillary used her (also unelected) position as First Lady to insert herself into health care reform policy. This was disastrous. Her tendency to high-handed and secretive dealing blew up in her face and forced her to retire from any attempt a formal role in her husband's administration.

After her husband's presidential administration ended, she used his political connections in the Democratic Party and funds raised through patronage deals associated with his foundations to shop around for a safe Democratic Senate seat for her to occupy. She settled on Moynihan's vacated seat in New York, a state with which she had no previous relationship but which did have a very strong Democratic Party political machine, as the vehicle for her political ambitions. Her Senate campaign was frought with controversy and scandal. Despite that, she was elected by a 12% margin which, though larger than expected in a close race, was actually far below Democratic poll results typical for New York Senate races. She spent vast amounts of money in the process.

In the US Senate, Hillary's record was unimpressive. She authored very few pieces of legislation, and of those was unable to find cosponsors for most. Her support for other legislation also seems to have been undecisive and infrequent. During her tenure in the Senate, she appears to have accomplished very little beyond using it as a platform to build the Clinton Foundation's balance sheet and a springboard to her 2008 Presidential campaign.

By all objective measures, her campaign for President in 2008 had everything going for it. She had lots of money and lots of establishment support. The rest of the field against her was unimpressive. She managed to take this solid foundation and turn it into a humiliating defeat. The Presidency is not won in a safe district full of captive voters. Hillary's 2008 campaign was almost a textbook example of what not to do in a Presidential campaign. Her legendarily poor political instincts were on public display throughout. She did, however, use the failure of her campaign to make a deal with Barack Obama as a concession, giving her the position of Secretary of State in his administration.

As Secretary of State, Hillary had enough responsibility and authority to finally turn her poor leadership abilities and incompetence into a world-class disaster. Nearly every major action she undertook as SecState ended in a very poor outcome. This is particularly the case for her initiatives in the Middle East, which have left the region in chaos and flooded Europe millions of refugees. And, of course, there are all the associated scandals which are now coming to light due to her use of public office for personal enrichment.

And now she's running for President again, claiming to be "exceptionally well-qualified."

Well-qualified at what? Being a third-world-style corrupt politician's wife seeking high office on her own? Having a hugely over-inflated, narcissistic belief in her own omni-competence despite nearly everything she's ever been responsible for turning to shit on her watch? Having a vagina?

She certainly isn't qualified for anything requiring good sense, leadership ability, personal character, ethical prudence, or any other prerequisite for being a successful President. She's demonstrated that beyond any reasonable doubt.