15 ms·

I began believing trump had a legitimate shot to win the election over a year ago, when his candidacy was mainly taken as a joke. I noted to people who didn't b

I began believing trump had a legitimate shot to win the election over a year ago, when his candidacy was mainly taken as a joke. I noted to people who didn't believe me that the essential dishonesty of the media was a key element in what they assured me could not happen. Most assurances were driven by media-fed opinions I tried to warn them not to trust. I also learned pretty early on that saying I believed he had a shot would anger people, and often lead to accusations of many, many PC sins such as racism on my part. This did not convince me I was wrong. I have some measure of hope that people are going to learn the right lessons this time. People are still too deep in the grief process for me to judge it clearly, but hope is enough for now.

throwaway93466 10y ago
I had exactly the same experience. And I would have strongly preferred that he didn't win. No one was willing to look at the situation clearly. It's going to take the left a long time to grapple with this. I look forward to moving past the shock and outrage.
- lkrubner 10y ago
  I look forward to moving past the shock, but never the outrage. I am pleased to think that the outrage is just getting started. What I mean by that is something like the feeling expressed by Jean Paul Sartre, in his novel Troubled Sleep, about World War II. In the novel, Germany invades France, but the French soldiers don't truly understand that they are at war. The Germans destroy village after village, but the French soldiers don't truly understand that they are at war. With superior tanks and airplanes, the Germans quickly defeat the French, but the French soldiers don't truly understand that they are at war. The French are forced to surrender, but the French soldiers don't truly understand that they are at war. The French soldiers are taken to a temporary prison camp, but they don't truly understand they are at war. A rumor spreads among them that Hitler has decided to send them home to their families. The soldiers are cheered. Some even praise Hitler for his graciousness in victory. They don't realize they are actually at war. At the end of the novel, the Germans order the French soldiers onto trains. The trains start moving. It is understood by the soldiers that if the trains go north, to Germany, then they are being sent to slave labor camps, but if the train turns south, then they are being sent home to their families. In the final scene, the train comes to a fork, where it must go north or south. The soldiers watch anxiously. And then train turns north, toward Germany. And then, finally, the French soldiers realize they are at war. I feel like this election was a bit like that, for many weak liberals who thought that it was okay to be "centrist." I feel like they are finally waking up to the fact that this is a war. This is the only upside that I find in this election.
  - disposable099 10y ago
    That's really the problem. Republicans were trained over the years to pick someone "electable". They figured it would go better with the population, electoral votes. So in 2008, they went with McCain, a Republican who supported campaign finance reform. In 2012, they went with Romney, a Republican who was governor of Massachusetts, a traditionally moderate/liberal state, who implemented Romneycare. Both of them were normal, Romney made a faux-pas regarding the %47 line, but all in all he would have been an OK president, and kept the Republicans moderate. The media slaughtered him in the general election. Called Republicans racists (which I didn't notice him being), classists (umm, do you think Clinton would live in a project?), and he couldn't answer back. That's why in 2016, the base got fed up with having to hold their nose and vote a moderate, they decided that if they're losing anyways, they might as well pick someone "who says it the way it is". Now when the media says that he's a racit, they say "Oh, like they called Bush (who had an African American Secretary of State) racist? They just hate Republicans". Liberals cried wolf. They refused to have a conversation, and we ended up with Trump.
    - generic_user 10y ago
      The evolutionary process in the republican party has been going on since Ross Perot ran as an Independent candidate in 92 and split the republican vote and gave the election to Clinton. There has been a slowly growing populist faction on right that reject the Neo-con aggressive military policy. And has an America first trade policy that rejects NAFTA style free trade. That movement had been building and finally broke through with Ron Paul in 2008. The populist movement and Liberty movement after Ron Paul has grown exponentially. It was only a matter of time before the Washington wing was challenged by the populists for control of the party. That is what has allowed Trump to win the nomination. The populists in the party establishment supported Trump and the Washington wing was out numbered and had to concede and surrender. This is a process that has been in motion for over 20 years to bring the Republican party to the quite amazing transformation.
    - in_cahoots 10y ago
      That's one way to look at it. Another way (and I'm trying hard not to endorse one viewpoint or the other, I've heard both) is: Liberals are tired of the Clintons. They're tired of nominating people just left of center who fail to inspire them, while candidates who speak their mind and call for change (Bernie) are ignored by both the DNC and the mass media. They perceive, rightly or wrongly, that Republicans have been fighting a battle while Democrats make concessions to people who are unwilling to compromise. And now that the most outspoken, uncompromising candidate has won the election, they're being told to compromise again, to swallow their emotions and have a conversation with people who aren't interested in talking with them. The media told them this was Hillary's turn. They were told to vote against Trump, but nothing about what they were voting for. They were told that feelings don't matter and to vote for the greater good, even while candidates within the party and without inspired based on emotion. Is it any wonder that turnout was down?
- pyoung 10y ago
  At least for me, it went something like this: 1. Trump says something really bad 2. Check a poll aggregator (538) 3. Breath sigh of relief For a good chunk of the election, Hillary had a really big lead in the polls. But after the Comey incident, things got tighter[1]. Nate Silver had some really good analysis on how tight the race was (a Trump win was within the polling error, and when state level polls are off, a lot of times they are all off in the same direction). But he was getting shouted down by the other aggregators. I was pretty on edge for this part of the race, but at the end, it looked like Hillary was picking up some momentum. I think part of it was the bubble effect, but I also think Democrats put too much faith in these forecasts. [1] At least on 538, a bunch of the other forecasters didn't budge. HuffingtonPost had a 98% chance of Hillary winning at the end. I really hope someone holds them accountable for that, as I wouldn't be surprised if such confident forecasts contributed to voter apathy.
  - gabemart 10y ago
    > HuffingtonPost had a 98% chance of Hillary winning at the end. I really hope someone holds them accountable for that What's the evidence for them being wrong? To be clear, I'm not arguing that they were correct. But I see a trend of attacking any prediction (including those of 538) that rated a Trump victory at less than 50% likelihood as wrong, based on the evidence that he won. If I predict there's a less than 1% chance of you winning the lottery, you winning the lottery doesn't prove that I was wrong. I have no idea what the likelihood of a Trump victory was before the election. Maybe it was 1%, maybe it was 99%. But I think discussion of predictions shouldn't be results-orientated for single results.
    - NhanH 10y ago
      Personally I think 538's prediction was fine. In fact they explicitly called the situation where Trump would win despite the popular vote deficit. As for the rest of the forecaster that gave Clinton 99% to win, given a US presidential election, the priori of a candidate winning is 50% (historical data, roughly speaking). So you would need some quite extraordinary evidences to get the posterior to 90+% for a candidate. In this case, the evidences were mostly the polls. To have 99% prediction for a candidate based on a poll, the poll would need have at least 98% accuracy (assuming that when they're wrong, the probability of they being wrong in either directions is the same). Personally, I don't think the polls to be anywhere near that level of accuracy in general. Unfortunately I don't got any number of poll accuracy on hand - I'd love to see it if anyone have a citation. There are more factors that will affect an election, but with similar reasoning to above, to get a 98-99% prediction, those factors will have to be 90%+ reliable as well. That is some quite tall order. This is a case where the onus is on the forecaster to show that their number (98% for example) is sound, since they're the one making the extraordinary claim.
- madaxe_again 10y ago
  Likewise. Not a trump or a brexit fan, but I've been called an idiot who knows nothing about the world, as nobody but an idiot would believe either of those possible. After the event, same people tell me that I didn't actually see it coming, you just always assume the worst. No. I read history. It seemed obvious that trump would win from when he announced his candidacy - because he was dismissed out of hand. Same with brexit. It all boils down to people believing perfectly possible things to be impossible. Challenging that challenges their sense of self. Nobody likes Cassandra.
ilolu 10y ago
After seeing this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHkPadFK34o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHkPadFK34o (posted on reddit), I really believe no one took Trump Presidency possibility seriously. Everyone believed their bubble. Now when their bubble burst, they are just blaming everyone else.
- mberning 10y ago
  That is amazing
  - nopriorarrests 10y ago
    this one is mind-blowing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQitEXGyLus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQitEXGyLus. Seriously, watch it, it's amazing.
    - alva 10y ago
      even more condescending. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfqVih7IFlI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfqVih7IFlI
      - Melchizedek 10y ago
        The word condescending is not enough to describe that. That is hatred and disgust in the form of laughter.
    - genieyclo 10y ago
      Even more amazing stuff you have to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqEddipbpkw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqEddipbpkw
- pjc50 10y ago
  Could you give us a few sentences summary for the lazy or headphoneless, please?
  - 10y ago
jayess 10y ago
The ultimate delicious irony is that the DNC and Hillary campaign colluded to elevate Trump as the GOP's candidate because they thought he'd be easier to beat. http://www.inquisitr.com/3696795/you-all-know-that-the-clinton-campaign-deliberately-plotted-to-get-trump-nominated-right/ http://www.inquisitr.com/3696795/you-all-know-that-the-clint... And we also learned from the Podesta leaks that the DNC and Hillary campaign colluded to sabotage Bernie's campaign. All the while the Correct The Record Super PAC created a media and information bubble across social media. So now we are left with people having the biggest case of cognitive dissonance of their lives.
- ep103 10y ago
  I keep seeing this claims about DNC / Hillary and Bernie, but its always seeped in so much anger, I've been avoiding the posts. Is there any chance you could link me somewhere where I could read up on it impartially?
  - jayess 10y ago
    This is actually tough to do, I'll see if I can find a comprehensive list of the emails. I was following the leaks as they came out and so many of them referenced Bernie that the narrative in the Clinton campaign became clear. I'll reply with what I find for you.
  - jayess 10y ago
    I can't vouch for this site, but it has a good list of the emails with quotes from them and direct links: https://angrypoliticsshade.wordpress.com/2016/11/06/podesta-emails/ https://angrypoliticsshade.wordpress.com/2016/11/06/podesta-... Scroll down to the Bernie Sanders section for examples.

throwaway93466 10y ago

I had exactly the same experience. And I would have strongly preferred that he didn't win. No one was willing to look at the situation clearly. It's going to take the left a long time to grapple with this. I look forward to moving past the shock and outrage.

lkrubner 10y ago
I look forward to moving past the shock, but never the outrage. I am pleased to think that the outrage is just getting started. What I mean by that is something like the feeling expressed by Jean Paul Sartre, in his novel Troubled Sleep, about World War II. In the novel, Germany invades France, but the French soldiers don't truly understand that they are at war. The Germans destroy village after village, but the French soldiers don't truly understand that they are at war. With superior tanks and airplanes, the Germans quickly defeat the French, but the French soldiers don't truly understand that they are at war. The French are forced to surrender, but the French soldiers don't truly understand that they are at war. The French soldiers are taken to a temporary prison camp, but they don't truly understand they are at war. A rumor spreads among them that Hitler has decided to send them home to their families. The soldiers are cheered. Some even praise Hitler for his graciousness in victory. They don't realize they are actually at war. At the end of the novel, the Germans order the French soldiers onto trains. The trains start moving. It is understood by the soldiers that if the trains go north, to Germany, then they are being sent to slave labor camps, but if the train turns south, then they are being sent home to their families. In the final scene, the train comes to a fork, where it must go north or south. The soldiers watch anxiously. And then train turns north, toward Germany. And then, finally, the French soldiers realize they are at war. I feel like this election was a bit like that, for many weak liberals who thought that it was okay to be "centrist." I feel like they are finally waking up to the fact that this is a war. This is the only upside that I find in this election.
- disposable099 10y ago
  That's really the problem. Republicans were trained over the years to pick someone "electable". They figured it would go better with the population, electoral votes. So in 2008, they went with McCain, a Republican who supported campaign finance reform. In 2012, they went with Romney, a Republican who was governor of Massachusetts, a traditionally moderate/liberal state, who implemented Romneycare. Both of them were normal, Romney made a faux-pas regarding the %47 line, but all in all he would have been an OK president, and kept the Republicans moderate. The media slaughtered him in the general election. Called Republicans racists (which I didn't notice him being), classists (umm, do you think Clinton would live in a project?), and he couldn't answer back. That's why in 2016, the base got fed up with having to hold their nose and vote a moderate, they decided that if they're losing anyways, they might as well pick someone "who says it the way it is". Now when the media says that he's a racit, they say "Oh, like they called Bush (who had an African American Secretary of State) racist? They just hate Republicans". Liberals cried wolf. They refused to have a conversation, and we ended up with Trump.
  - generic_user 10y ago
    The evolutionary process in the republican party has been going on since Ross Perot ran as an Independent candidate in 92 and split the republican vote and gave the election to Clinton. There has been a slowly growing populist faction on right that reject the Neo-con aggressive military policy. And has an America first trade policy that rejects NAFTA style free trade. That movement had been building and finally broke through with Ron Paul in 2008. The populist movement and Liberty movement after Ron Paul has grown exponentially. It was only a matter of time before the Washington wing was challenged by the populists for control of the party. That is what has allowed Trump to win the nomination. The populists in the party establishment supported Trump and the Washington wing was out numbered and had to concede and surrender. This is a process that has been in motion for over 20 years to bring the Republican party to the quite amazing transformation.
  - in_cahoots 10y ago
    That's one way to look at it. Another way (and I'm trying hard not to endorse one viewpoint or the other, I've heard both) is: Liberals are tired of the Clintons. They're tired of nominating people just left of center who fail to inspire them, while candidates who speak their mind and call for change (Bernie) are ignored by both the DNC and the mass media. They perceive, rightly or wrongly, that Republicans have been fighting a battle while Democrats make concessions to people who are unwilling to compromise. And now that the most outspoken, uncompromising candidate has won the election, they're being told to compromise again, to swallow their emotions and have a conversation with people who aren't interested in talking with them. The media told them this was Hillary's turn. They were told to vote against Trump, but nothing about what they were voting for. They were told that feelings don't matter and to vote for the greater good, even while candidates within the party and without inspired based on emotion. Is it any wonder that turnout was down?
pyoung 10y ago
At least for me, it went something like this: 1. Trump says something really bad 2. Check a poll aggregator (538) 3. Breath sigh of relief For a good chunk of the election, Hillary had a really big lead in the polls. But after the Comey incident, things got tighter[1]. Nate Silver had some really good analysis on how tight the race was (a Trump win was within the polling error, and when state level polls are off, a lot of times they are all off in the same direction). But he was getting shouted down by the other aggregators. I was pretty on edge for this part of the race, but at the end, it looked like Hillary was picking up some momentum. I think part of it was the bubble effect, but I also think Democrats put too much faith in these forecasts. [1] At least on 538, a bunch of the other forecasters didn't budge. HuffingtonPost had a 98% chance of Hillary winning at the end. I really hope someone holds them accountable for that, as I wouldn't be surprised if such confident forecasts contributed to voter apathy.
- gabemart 10y ago
  > HuffingtonPost had a 98% chance of Hillary winning at the end. I really hope someone holds them accountable for that What's the evidence for them being wrong? To be clear, I'm not arguing that they were correct. But I see a trend of attacking any prediction (including those of 538) that rated a Trump victory at less than 50% likelihood as wrong, based on the evidence that he won. If I predict there's a less than 1% chance of you winning the lottery, you winning the lottery doesn't prove that I was wrong. I have no idea what the likelihood of a Trump victory was before the election. Maybe it was 1%, maybe it was 99%. But I think discussion of predictions shouldn't be results-orientated for single results.
  - NhanH 10y ago
    Personally I think 538's prediction was fine. In fact they explicitly called the situation where Trump would win despite the popular vote deficit. As for the rest of the forecaster that gave Clinton 99% to win, given a US presidential election, the priori of a candidate winning is 50% (historical data, roughly speaking). So you would need some quite extraordinary evidences to get the posterior to 90+% for a candidate. In this case, the evidences were mostly the polls. To have 99% prediction for a candidate based on a poll, the poll would need have at least 98% accuracy (assuming that when they're wrong, the probability of they being wrong in either directions is the same). Personally, I don't think the polls to be anywhere near that level of accuracy in general. Unfortunately I don't got any number of poll accuracy on hand - I'd love to see it if anyone have a citation. There are more factors that will affect an election, but with similar reasoning to above, to get a 98-99% prediction, those factors will have to be 90%+ reliable as well. That is some quite tall order. This is a case where the onus is on the forecaster to show that their number (98% for example) is sound, since they're the one making the extraordinary claim.
madaxe_again 10y ago
Likewise. Not a trump or a brexit fan, but I've been called an idiot who knows nothing about the world, as nobody but an idiot would believe either of those possible. After the event, same people tell me that I didn't actually see it coming, you just always assume the worst. No. I read history. It seemed obvious that trump would win from when he announced his candidacy - because he was dismissed out of hand. Same with brexit. It all boils down to people believing perfectly possible things to be impossible. Challenging that challenges their sense of self. Nobody likes Cassandra.

ilolu 10y ago

After seeing this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHkPadFK34o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHkPadFK34o (posted on reddit), I really believe no one took Trump Presidency possibility seriously. Everyone believed their bubble. Now when their bubble burst, they are just blaming everyone else.

mberning 10y ago
That is amazing
- nopriorarrests 10y ago
  this one is mind-blowing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQitEXGyLus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQitEXGyLus. Seriously, watch it, it's amazing.
  - alva 10y ago
    even more condescending. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfqVih7IFlI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfqVih7IFlI
    - Melchizedek 10y ago
      The word condescending is not enough to describe that. That is hatred and disgust in the form of laughter.
  - genieyclo 10y ago
    Even more amazing stuff you have to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqEddipbpkw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqEddipbpkw
pjc50 10y ago
Could you give us a few sentences summary for the lazy or headphoneless, please?
- 10y ago

jayess 10y ago

The ultimate delicious irony is that the DNC and Hillary campaign colluded to elevate Trump as the GOP's candidate because they thought he'd be easier to beat. http://www.inquisitr.com/3696795/you-all-know-that-the-clinton-campaign-deliberately-plotted-to-get-trump-nominated-right/ http://www.inquisitr.com/3696795/you-all-know-that-the-clint... And we also learned from the Podesta leaks that the DNC and Hillary campaign colluded to sabotage Bernie's campaign. All the while the Correct The Record Super PAC created a media and information bubble across social media. So now we are left with people having the biggest case of cognitive dissonance of their lives.

ep103 10y ago
I keep seeing this claims about DNC / Hillary and Bernie, but its always seeped in so much anger, I've been avoiding the posts. Is there any chance you could link me somewhere where I could read up on it impartially?
- jayess 10y ago
  This is actually tough to do, I'll see if I can find a comprehensive list of the emails. I was following the leaks as they came out and so many of them referenced Bernie that the narrative in the Clinton campaign became clear. I'll reply with what I find for you.
- jayess 10y ago
  I can't vouch for this site, but it has a good list of the emails with quotes from them and direct links: https://angrypoliticsshade.wordpress.com/2016/11/06/podesta-emails/ https://angrypoliticsshade.wordpress.com/2016/11/06/podesta-... Scroll down to the Bernie Sanders section for examples.