This Was My First Election – E. Marshall Hoyt

This Was My First Election – E. Marshall Hoyt

This was my first election.

I’m not particularly happy about that, of course, I missed the chance to vote in 2012 by a mere couple of weeks. But I did my civic duty, and I voted. Voting did not instill me with the feeling I had hoped for, of course.

In 2012, I couldn’t escape the talk of politics if I tried. Everyone was involved, invested, and more importantly- passionate. Everyone. You can argue the faults of a two party system encouraging such rabid support of any candidate, which itself breeds the rabid hared of the candidate opposite your choice, but four years ago it seemed justified. The current administration- finally coming to its end soon- had made large powerful moves towards political reform that they wanted, and in some respects they pushed the envelope, as to appeal to every shade of liberal voter they could in as many ways as possible.

Climate change? Let’s put in some deep cutting taxes and regulations to encourage “safer” technology.
Healthcare? We passed the reform blindly a couple of years ago, but now it’s time to sink the bill’s vampire teeth in.

The Middle East? Pft, we solved that problem easy peasy- turns out we just had to leave! That will probably turn out well.

Everything sounded like a bad sales pitch, and the effects of those policies and the administration’s lack-luster approach to everything from foreign policy to economic reform left much to be desired. Because of this, conservatives were mighty angry, and rightfully so. In 2008, McCain was not an excellent candidate, and he didn’t resonate with republicans well, all while the DNC had pitted against McCain a far more competent campaigner. His plans and promises were terrible, but, he knew how to sell his cyanide like it was lemonade. In some ways, we had gotten stuck with Obama for 4 years, and we wanted out.

That’s when Romney finally came along. I’ll be the first to admit, that he had a humble start. His speeches were elegant, but he had a long way to prove himself before he had many conservatives’ votes. Luckily, he proved himself well. The race was heated, the debates were intense to watch, even when the moderators clearly favored Obama and targeted Romney. This of course brought out the crazies of the left, and the media to echo them, trying to find fault in the most minor things that Romney uttered.

The guy doesn’t like PBS programming? He hates big bird! He’s awful! His dislike of a children’s show character is clearly an indication of his political skills!
Did he just mention women and binders in the same sentence? Binders of women! Sexist!
Wait, is he running against our beloved black president- his race clearly being the most important attribute as leader of this country? Racist! Bigot.

They were really trying to find ways to break down his campaign, but he stood strong. He was a strong candidate, a good one, and no matter if you were against or for him, there was good reason to be passionate.

Then the election day came.

Hype was turned to despair, as conservatives and political analysts were baffled at the predictions being disproven. Quite a few even normally democratic siding predictors crunched the numbers and estimated a Romney victory, by a healthy margin, for that matter. This obviously, was not the case.

I wasn’t as emotionally tied to this election, for better or worse. Not in the sense I was back in 2012. I cared far more about the 2012 election, and I couldn’t even vote. Yet, still, there I was, this year, filling out my ballot and I wasn’t happy. Choose the criminal who will sweep her crimes under a rug, or a liberal character in conservative clothing, speaking loud and ugly. I filled it out of course- I’m polite in saying I won’t reveal who I voted for, not for any particular reason other than admitting who I voted for makes me sick, and frankly that applies to both candidates, so it doesn’t matter much anyway.

But, why bring up the passion of the last election and talk so little of the excitement of this election? Well, that’s sort of the point. No one liked this election. The DNC and GOP put up the not-incredibly-preferred and in some way completely wrong candidates for the parties. I would have preferred Cruz, and I know for many a liberal in my age range they would have preferred Bernie. As much as I hate Bernie more than either candidate in this finally finished election, he is indeed a proper representation of the current democratic party (Which itself is a problem).

So of course, as I watch the liberal despair and surprise as handy predictions of a Clinton landslide fell apart and Trump emerged the victor, many of them asked how they could have been so wrong, how Trump could’ve won. Like I said, nobody was excited about this race, and more importantly, the Trump support seemed pretty low in comparison. So, how did he do it?

There is one big reason, and it’s the reason Romney lost and Trump won.

Most of people who voted Trump, didn’t want him to be president.

This probably would serve as a baffling statement to any of the alt-right or left of middle who don’t understand that position at all, but the younger democrats can sympathize, they just don’t know it.

When Bernie lost the nomination, oh how the dedicated Sander supporters wailed and despaired. We don’t want Hillary! She’s not our candidate! They hated it, they hated Hillary, and didn’t want to vote for her.

But they did.

That’s the thing, this election, ultimately, was about voting against, not for. In the last week before the election, I think that’s when very suddenly, almost all the conservatives begrudgingly filled in the bubble next to Trump’s name. This is due to some worrisome information about Clinton that came out, and of course, the decision was made. The more important decision, however, the one that won the election, was that no one talked about it. No one who voted Trump- who only did it as a vote against Clinton- was public about their vote.

For one this made polls, clearly, inaccurate. Secondly, this meant that the Liberals weren’t prepared.

I hate to sound like the same typical and broken record you’d expect on the matter, and certainly conservatives get laughed at for this sort of thing every time, but the left not knowing the amount of votes that would be cast for Trump ahead of time, meant they couldn’t rig it in time.

It seems silly to call voter fraud, especially when it is so hard to provide proof in 2012 without some journalist laughing at it with paper-thin evidence against the call of cheating and declaring the statement unarguably disproven, but in some ways, this election is that proof of foul play.

The Left saw no reason to rig this election, or cheat in votes. They very obviously put in the effort in 2012. There’s a lot of suspicious activity that went on, and being in Colorado, where a record-breaking rally was held for the republican candidate and we somehow ended up being blue, the fraud was clearly massive. But the Left knew the support behind Romney, and they worked overtime. Their efforts paid off too.

That’s exactly the thing, of course. Even a blind man could see that Romney had far more wide spread support in 2012 than Trump has ever had, yet Trump won his election.  Trump won because just over half of the population is conservative, and it took the liberals thinking the election this year was theirs for the taking and not even trying to cheat it, to make that clear. They finally gave us a fair election, for a candidate we don’t even want being president.

Had Romney had such an advantage, had he fought on a fair battle field, he would have indeed gotten his massive victory. But alas, they gave us a fair battleground on an unfair election.

As much as the media, TV, and every other loud mouths of entertainment would like you to believe, the country is not a liberal nation with invisible conservatives lurking in the shadows. It’s a nation of conservatives, many of whom voted trump and drank a bottle of alcohol for being forced to do so, the ones that could even bring themselves to vote.

That’s how much cheating went on 2012.
In 2016, Trump won on the votes of those that didn’t want him, scoring only a part of the conservative base.
In 2012, with almost all the conservatives passionately behind him, Romney just barely lost.

There’s still a happy note, in there, somewhere.  The GOP snagged both parts of Congress, and while much of the GOP in congress doesn’t like Trump (and rightfully so), they can keep Trump in check (hopefully). It’s not going to be sunshine and roses, of course, shit is still going to happen, but the left is as divided as we are right now.

They’re blaming each other, especially the Sanders’ supporters who quietly voted Clinton. Even though they certainly put down Clinton on their ballots, they are actively blaming the DNC for putting in Clinton, believing they cheated Sanders from running (Which they did). The idea that Sanders would have won against Trump is silly, but if Sanders had been the nominee, the support for Trump and opposition to Bernie would probably have been more vocal, thus the left might have actually put in effort into cheating, and then Sanders probably would have been cheated in. That would have been far worse.

Instead, Trump barely pulled through because republicans quietly voted against Hillary at the last minute.

Hopefully, this decision doesn’t ultimately rip off our bums, simply bite us in the ass like we expect.
Hopefully it’s a light, playful bite.

377 responses to “This Was My First Election – E. Marshall Hoyt

  1. The solution? We need to reduce the power and grasp of the feral government so that it (and by extension whoever gets elected president) has much less ability to harm, or even to affect us. There’s only one way that will happen–an Article V convention called by the states to propose constitutional amendments. If you really want to drain the swamp, that’s the way to go about it.

    • …raise your hand if you knew he would say that…

      • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard


      • *raises hand* Though I was hoping he wouldn’t.

        Drloss: You have never successfully addressed why new constitutional amendments would work when the government is busy ignoring the ones we already have.

      • [Raises hand.] When it’s right, it’s right.

        • And you have yet to make even a remotely convincing case on it being right .

          • Nothing I can say will convince you, so why bother?

            • With that logic, why do you bring it up at all? If for the spectators, doesn’t that negate your whole why bother?

              And since text isn’t as clear as I’d like, I’m genuinely puzzled by this not trying to pick a fight.

              • Actually, I posted a reply (a link to a rebuttal argument), but it never appeared.

                • WordPress delanda est. I have read your rebuttal (the one posted here), and have several points on which we could likely debate, but today and here are likely not the best places for it.

              • Here’s the text of the argument I tried to post a link to:

                If the Federal Government Ignores the Current Constitution, Why Would They Adhere to an Amended Constitution?

                When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they did not anticipate modern-day politicians who take advantage of loopholes and vague phraseology. Even though it is obvious to all reasonable Americans that the federal government is violating the original meaning of the Constitution, Washington pretends otherwise, claiming the Constitution contains broad and flexible language. Amendments at a Convention of States today will be written with the current state of the federal government in mind. The language they use for these amendments will be unequivocal. There will be no doubt as to their meaning, no possibility of alternate interpretations, and no way for them to be legitimately broken. For example, the General Welfare Clause could be amended to add this phrase: “If the States have the jurisdiction to spend money on a subject matter, Congress may not tax or spend for this same subject matter.”

                In addition to this, it should be noted that the federal government has not violated the amendments passed in recent years. Women’s suffrage, for example, has been 100% upheld.

                • The language they use for these amendments will be unequivocal. There will be no doubt as to their meaning, no possibility of alternate interpretations, and no way for them to be legitimately broken.

                  Also, they will have a pony.

                  Their example language is exactly the problem– it would take about ten seconds for someone to get around it by simple equivocation and reducto absurdum.
                  Example: roads. The person writing the “no possible alternate interpretation” would define it as something like getting rid of the federal road tax. Someone playing merry hell would point out that it can’t possibly mean the feds aren’t allowed to build roads– military bases and national forest, for example– so it must be broken down much finer than that.
                  Result: it only stops the feds from working with local governments, one that they can then use as a good excuse to screw over uncooperative sub-groups.

                  And that’s with something simple, like roads– now how about something a bit more complex, like “safety”? Obviously it has to be broken down more finely, because of food inspection standards…so you can break it down to “Oh, we didn’t spend money on beautifying down-town areas with grants, that was safety spending, because more money means more prosperity means less crime!”

                  • Also, they will have a pony.

                    You have neglected to specify who “they” would be, the definition of “pony” and what, precisely constitutes “having”: does that mean title to and possession of, or merely right to use of (and is this use unconditional or limited in duration, availability and convenience) without ownership … and does this entail some or all of operating and maintenance costs for said “pony”?

                    It all depends on what the meaning of “is” is, doesn’t it? If you like your pony can you keep your pony?

                  • Of course those who chafe at any restrictions on their power and control would try to misinterpret things just as you say; they do it now. But how is any of that an argument for not trying to oppose them? The alternative is to let them continue as they are today, with minimal opposition. Not trying is automatically failing.

                    • The choices are not “article five or don’t even try to oppose them.”

                      For someone whose example of wiggle-proof wording was anything but, you’re awful quick to claim there others are not even trying.

                    • Then what other measures are you supporting to oppose them?

                    • …..have you recently hit your head and totally lost all memory of months–years!– worth of specific actions on specific problems?

                      There isn’t a magic wand. It would be NICE if an article five would fix everything, but it won’t, and by the standards you’ve set for results would not even count as trying.

                    • So that’s your answer? People have tried other things, so don’t bother with an Article V convention? Sorry, but that makes no sense. Maybe an Article V convention wouldn’t have a good effect, but what else has? And maybe it would; it’s never been tried before. And claiming that it’s never been tried, so let’s not try now (yes, I know you didn’t say that, but others have), also isn’t a logical argument.

                    • Especially since, I have demonstrated more than once in this discussion of article V conventions, that there are enough states to bring any of his specifically proposed amendments to a halt, and there is a chance that they may be able to slip something truly horrible in.

                    • Dropping this here: Marsh has told me that a) “Your blog is a magical wonderland” and b) he’s reserving time to answer comments this weekend. But he loves you guys almost as much as I do. 😉

                    • but what else has?

                      TOR/TAILS, Bitcoin, grey market ebays, black market ebays, future new communication methods to avoid exposing attack surface for parasites to prey upon. Want the old formula Liquid Wrench rusty bolt penetrating solvent with the benzene? Can’t buy it in the store, but you can on ebay, where it’s a collectible. Want the old formula Cascade dishwasher detergent with the phosphates and the bleach? Can’t buy it in the store, but you can on amazon as Cascade fryer boil-out. Toilets with enough flush volume to work at local building materials reuser stores. Home Depot is a national network of retail stores designed to evade building permits and blue collar professional licensing. No $250,000 taxi licenses with Uber. No hotel taxes or inspections with AirBNB. Take your liberty back one piece of logistics at a time. Can you imagine what will happen once 3D printing with metal becomes cheap? This historical age is the end of government.

                    • You do know the NYC government is well on their way to shutting down both AirBNB and Uber within their city, right?

                    • I expect AirBNB and Uber will be outcompeted by variations which are more pseudo-anonymous; enough long-term history to have users with reputations trusted to give reviews, but harder to associate histories with persons. “I’m not using AirBNB or Uber, this is my friend Mike.” Make it costly enough to prove otherwise that the crime of regulating hotels and taxis won’t pay.

                    • “Proof? What is this proof?”

                      And by the time you’ve spent the money on lawyers, it won’t matter.

                  • “shall not be infringed.”

                    I guess an amendment could add arrows and frowny faces to it…

                • I don’t believe it’s even possible to write mathematics without ambiguity, that’s why proofs are later found to be incorrect. I believe Godel’s incompleteness theorems suggests ambiguity in language-like things is a law of physics.

                • “When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they did not anticipate modern-day politicians who take advantage of loopholes and vague phraseology.”

                  Actually, one Anti-Federalist named Brutus expected exactly this. He even described how things like the “commerce clause” would end up being abused.

                  I, for one, would be willing to toy with an Article V convention, particularly if amendments are proposed beforehand for discussion. I just don’t have much faith in the outcomes.

                  Sometimes I think all we need is for Iran to successfully nuke Washington, DC…but sometimes I realize that that can really mess things up, too. The problem is that we have the government we have in large part because voters don’t mind what our government currently is. To the extent that the government is either not sufficiently bad enough, or worse, even preferred by the majority of citizens, is the extent that an Article V convention, or even a hard reset that Iran is likely itching to try, is going to be futile at best.

                  (I wish I could do more to educate the body politic about the importance of freedom, and the evils of government; then, if we need a revolution, we’d be able to successfully re-establish freedom…but if the people were more understanding about the value of freedom in the first place, an actual revolution wouldn’t be needed, because we’d just vote the aristos out of office!)

            • Well, it depends.

              If nothing you could say to support it would persuade her because your arguments are lacking, then yes, why bother.

              If nothing you could say to support it would persuade her because her, then– as is frequently pointed out here and elsewhere– you should make them to persuade those watching.


              From the last five or six times it came up, unless your arguments have improved, I have to wonder why you even bring it up. Just saying it over and over doesn’t do any good, unless you can silence all opposition. (And here, maybe not even then.)

              • Agreed. Does this appear to express the argument.

                Proposed: X will solve the puppy problem by doing this Y thing

                Answer: Thing Y will probably fail because it doesn’t solve for the vested interests who profit from the puppy problem

                Counter: Yes it, will. Because it will TELL them not to.

                Answer: Telling them not to has never worked before

                Counter: No, this time it’s different

                Answer: Why?

                Counter: Because we have to do something. Y is something.

                Answer: I remain unconvinced.

                This assumes, BTW that Y has no unintended consequences and that there are absolutely no other options on the table by which individuals can address the puppy problem.

                And it still leaves the possibility of making an argument for the utility of Y open. Though, once you get that far, you’ll have to address the cost benefit questions of the preceding ‘graph.

                Back to you

    • Christopher M. Chupik

      Nah. They’ll just expand executive powers whenever a Dem is in office so they can freak out whenever a Rep is elected.

    • I saw what you did there.

    • We already have the 9th and 10th Amendments.
      Tacking “we really mean it” on the end of them will do jack-diddly.

      • scott2harrison

        How about tacking on an “OR ELSE!!!!!”? Either go “A Planet for Texans”, or add some really nasty criminal penalties with any citizen allowed to prosecute (perhaps with a system like Britain’s where the actual prosecutor is hired from a pool of private barristers).

    • It is the law of unintended consequences/Murphy’s Law; the administration of the Government is so large and complex that no mere human can fathom the interrelationships between laws, regulations, rice bowls, sugar lobbies and cronies looking for patrons.
      I suppose some things could be pushed back to the State level, but imagine Amazon or China Inc having to deal with, say different shipping policies in 50 states. And as always, there is the problem of getting from where we are to where we want to be. Already Hillary supporters are rioting and issuing death threats… think they will be interested in a Constitutional Convention?

      • Rioting and death threats are already crimes at the state level, in all states. If they’re not interested in an Article V amending convention, fine with me. That just means that such a convention would be even less likely to come up with statist proposals.

        And the administration being so large and complex shouldn’t really have anything to do with the convention, as the federal government won’t have any legal say in it’s activities.

      • The Federal government has already established a number of “safe harbor” models, in such as the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) which jurisdictions can adopt and fit to their own circumstances. Such regulatory models ensure consistent meanings for terms used to establish shipping policies without binding the polities too tightly.

      • Actually, I suspect that certain things, like shipping policies, aren’t needed even at a State level: this is something that should easily be handled by private entities. We just need to remove any remaining barriers to such things. (For example, Congress making it illegal for FedEx or UPS to deliver letters.)

        Unless by “shipping policies” you mean “designating addresses”…but even then, (1) if that’s all the Post Office did, I wouldn’t mind it, and (2) why would it be difficult to deal with multiple State standards? It would be no different than having to deal with international customers.

  2. A question for you, since you are younger and in a different part of the country: I’m hearing of young Hillary supporters who didn’t vote and are horrified at the outcome. Have you observed the same thing there? Any feeling that the precious little snowflakes protesting last night could have voted, but didn’t?

    On fraud: I’m not convinced that Virginia didn’t see massive fraud. The same for California. Not because they went for Hillary, but because of things that surfaced prior to the election.

    • See also FL, where there’s a lawsuit going on where a) busses full of people in late stage dementia were wheeled into the polls by “caregivers” who filled out the ballots while their charges slumped in wheelchairs and b) where the Republican poll watchers / election officials who objected were kicked out of the polling place.

    • Kevin, given the number of provisional ballots i saw going to people who could barely speak English during my brief time in line here in CA- two in front of me and one person behind me, of only ten in line- I’m pretty sure there was massive fraud going on here, but judging by the margins here, i don’t think it was enough to change the outcome of this state’s vote anyway.

      • In California there is little is little need to cheat.

        • Which is one of the blessings of the electoral college system. In a popular vote election one-party states *could* cheat on the presidential election.

        • That’s not true.

          What’s true is that there’s no need to cheat at the presidential level. California is still solidly blue where presidential elections are concerned.

          However, if you were interested in things like…

          – Guaranteeing that the Bay Area would retain its lock on the state’s politics, and not let that upstart Congresswoman from Orange County steal the statewide seat from Kamala Harris
          – Ensuring that the politicians in Sacramento aren’t forced to consult with the public every time they want to dump more money into the bottomless blackhole known as high-speed rail
          – Making sure that the anti-2nd Amendment movement gets to continue its progress by making ammunition purchases require background checks

          Well… if you’re interested in those things, then you just might see a need for “influencing” the vote.

          • dump more money into the bottomless blackhole known as high-speed rail

            Hey! That’s inaccurate! That black hole has a bottom: it is in the campaign coffers of Democrat office-holders and the pockets of those who contribute.

            • The CA proposition mentioned above was to require approval by vote whenever they wanted to spend OVER $2 BILLION. Everyone in government and the unions came out against that one, and it failed.

              Luckily, we also dodged the bullet of state requirements that condoms be used in porn productions. No really. Proposition 60 – you can look it up.

              • we also dodged the bullet of state requirements that condoms be used in porn productions

                Did that include use in Sacramento when screwing taxpayers?

              • There was a similar one for Los Angeles (city only, iirc) a few years back. It passed.

              • scott2harrison

                I read an article by a porn actress a while ago pointing out why condoms are a bad idea and a safety hazard in porn. Basically the problem is that a scene may take 2 hours or more to shoot and condoms are not made to be used for that long.

      • This. Ballots printed with Spanish? WTH?

    • I think he’s in class now, but I told him he has questions.

    • I’m reminded of the snobbish young British university lecturer who didn’t vote in the Brexit election and then wrote a NYT article screaming about how much he hated it when Brexit won.

      • “We set the policies. Voting is just a waste of our valuable time; we only allow it as a sop to the little people anyway. Wait, they voted the wrong way? How DARE they!?”

    • It’ll be interesting to see how the vote fraud investigations shake out, especially now that the main beneficiary of said fraud controls almost legislative houses.

      • Please revise your submitted draft and resubmit it for consideration. As presently written it does not meet our minimum standards of coherent expression.

        • Bunchton of fraud investigations going on, and the Dems lost big, which will hamper their ability to sweep it all under the rug.

          • Ah! Thank-you. I can see now who “beneficiaries” indicated and that the word “no” probably dropped out from between “almost” and “legislative.”

            There are still plenty of their operatives embedded in the bureaucracies and media and I would not be surprised if there weren’t some beneficiaries with “R”s behind their names (or simply as useful Grahamnesties.

            An independent commission authorized and organized to dig out and recommend corrective measures. Find the team who brought that case against the African-American politicos in Alabama(?) for corruption a decade ago and get them (or their references) for the commission. I suspect J. Christian Adams, Hans von Spakovsky and John Fund would know who to give hunting licenses.

          • Every election brings out promises and proposals to eliminate vote fraud.

            The two problems are, A) despite Federal court meddling, voting is still a state matter, not a Federal one, and B) neither party wants fraud eliminated because both of them think they can use it to their own advantage.

            And I’d like to remind everyone: “No matter who you voted for, the Government got back in.”

            • Actually, it’s rather funny that the States that seem so concerned about voting fraud (and thus pass things like requiring ID to vote) aren’t the ones that have the problem, while the States that have the biggest problems (NY, Chicago, I’m looking at you!) also have such a tight grip on their local machines that there’s no way in heck that they’ll pass measures to prevent voter fraud!

              “””And I’d like to remind everyone: “No matter who you voted for, the Government got back in.””””

              Heh, this reminds me of a point at the end of the essay explaining why we should privatize education in Washington DC. “‘But what if sameone organizes a school that has no interest nor ability to teach the children?’ I admit that this is the one flaw in my proposal. There is nothing to prevent the Washington DC School District from re-organizing itself as a private entity.”

        • English as a fifth language?

  3. Larry Patterson

    My first election was Nixon vs. Mcgovern, and what a choice!

    My friend voted Socialist Worker’s Party out of disgust, and was amazed to see that 49 more in Midland County did likewise. Oh well. Watergate had happened already, the Committee to Re-elect had been running its shakedown racket, but the other guy was just too bland namby-pamby I guess.

    So Trump got fewer votes than Romney, but won. Maybe no cheating, maybe Hilliary support dwindled. I wonder if Trump will have a Nixonian response to to baying crowd as they wage guerilla warfare starting tomorrow.

    (BTW, RNCe have installed Krispy Kreme Christie to head the transition team.)

    • “Which brings us to an important question: Was Donald Trump just good enough to beat a bad Democratic opponent on Tuesday, or does he deserve far more credit? Could he, for instance, have competed with the vaunted Obama machine? The answer, somewhat shockingly, is yes. A review of vote totals in the past two elections reveals that Trump 2016 would have defeated Obama 2012 in the electoral college.”

      Which must have just about killed NRO to post because it proves what we said then: nominate someone who could and WOULD fight back against the Democrats, and they win.

      • As first proven by Ronald Reagan in 1980/1984, which NRO and many other conservative media/pundits conveniently forgot about. Bush 1 won by hammering the crap out of Michael Dukakis, then out of concerns that the press viewed them harshly for doing that in 1988, went gentlemanly on Clinton in 1992. Billy Bob was a much better target for hammering than Dukakis was, and they paid the price for letting his ethical problems slide.

        • I think that in ’92 the Bush campaign simply couldn’t believe his 90% approval ratings could dissipate so rapidly. Remember, all of the “major-league” Democrat contenders had declined to run.

          Gee, sounds a lot like the plot of Rocky except the over-confident champ loses in the first movie (probably because Lee Atwater, his feisty, combative manager, died before the flick instead of in the third one.)

          I also suspect that Bush 41 was unable to grasp the degree of MSM dishonesty going down.

      • “Billy Bob” won because his buddy Ross Perot ran and syphoned off the vote H.W. would have gotten

      • Even so, why oh why couldn’t Bill Whittle run as President? Did you hear how he thrashed Hillary at the Debates?

        We need more than just someone who could fight. We need someone who could fight AND defend conservative/libertarian ideas at the same time. As Bill Whittle demonstrated, Trump could only fight (and sometimes tepidly at best, and sometimes the wrong people).

        Come to think of it, though, we should be wary of comparing Trump 2016 to Obama 2012: Trump ran against Hillary 2016, not Obama 2012, and we don’t know how well Trump would have fared against Obama’s tactics. Indeed, Trump won in part because Hillary lost.

        But, yeah, it seems that the Republican Establishment took Reagan’s example of (1) fighting Democrats and (2) expounding conservative principles and bringing them into action, and figured “Hey, the only way we could win this is if we find moderates and liberals who don’t like to fight Democrats!”…

    • My first election was Reagan / Some Democrat guy. I know. Lucky bastiche, no?

      But it’s been all downhill since then.

  4. Christopher M. Chupik

    This was your first election? My condolences.

  5. Wow, Marshall is an engineer and can think and write too.

    • Engineers are supposed to be able to write; they don’t get as much practice at it as, say, English majors, but you gotta be able to write. (I’ve been to school for both engineering and liberal arts.) I just wish liberal arts majors had to pass linear algebra or something similar (differential equations was almost my undoing, not that calculus was much easier).

      • The trouble with requiring liberal arts majors to take a real math class is that some poor soul has to teach it. First thing you have to do is make them understand that words can be used to convey meaning rather than being just a lovely syntactic wreath around nothing. For many of them it’s already too late. The year I was drafted to teach some basic mathematical concepts to linguistics grad students, I spent a lot of time banging my head on the blackboard.

        • In Portugal they didn’t let us graduate high school without Physics, Chemistry, and pre-calc. It just is. People manage.

          • That would be a great idea for here.

            • Mind you, you could take it pass-fail. If you didn’t have my parents. I excelled at physics and sometimes at math (when I remembered to deal with my digit dyslexia) and limped with bs on chemistry, which I cordially hate (older son loves it and it’s one of his undergraduate degrees. I blame his father.)
              BUT the point is, I can read “slightly popularized science” and actually can study a subject before I translate in it, which was very useful. Multilingual translators make money, but multilingual SCIENTIFIC translators make A LOT of money. Unfortunately you have to work at establishing yourself, and I thought if I was going to do that I’d establish myself in writing.
              It hasn’t gone… precisely according to plan, but I do like writing better than translation work, so…

              • I’ve always said if I win the lottery I’ll endow my music school and force them to change from that stupid Spirit of Mathmatics to How to be self employed and not tick off the IRS.

            • But that goes back to the teacher problem. You either get the walking dead like my HS physics teacher (Thank you Dr. Asimov, for that B) or you get common core. Either way you don’t get scientific- or mathematically literate grads.

      • Sheesh!! I spend more time writing reports than doing actual engineering……

      • Engineers must learn to write. English majors must learn to BS.

      • How can an Engineer/Scientist share their theories, inventions and discoveries unless they can lucidly apply effective communication skills? Most Engineers understand this.
        Now, can a Liberal Arts Majors really understand the world and their place in it without basic math and calculus skills? Look at our Progressive intelligentsia, while they certainly seem to think so, I believe their outcomes speak volumes of their innumeracy.

      • Calculus was a thing of beauty and a lot of fun. I wrote poetry to calculus. It was those eigen values that did me in.

    • He’s not an engineer yet. Because he’s taking EE, ME and aerospace, he’s taking another two and a half years… :/

    • Unlike the mythical Sheldon Cooper I have never thought that engineers were second class scientists. Of course engineers can think. They have to be organized in their thinking. They must also consider the application of their thinking. This is more than is generally required of today’s English majors, there are those who would even argue that this is actively discouraged in them.

      • BobtheRegisterredFool

        The education is cheap enough that engineers have the schooling of both. Even if the important thing for both is OJT, and not everyone with the schooling gets that.

        Having a pure scientist do engineering is a hot mess, like if you found a pure engineer and had them do science.

        • Big difference between Physics and Engineering. In Physics, an order of magnitude is close enough. Want them building your bridges? Then there is the infamous ‘assume a spherical cow’. Engineering is in the details.

          • BobtheRegisterredFool

            Engineering is in the doing, which needs to track details. Science is in the finding out, and being able to juggle radically different assumptions is helpful. There are people very good at both. Engineering can get by with a lot of people who do not ask ‘but what if the building code didn’t require steel frame construction on all commercial buildings over three stories?’ Science can get by with a lot of people who do not ask for the supplier of the massless rigid beams, and for what cross sections they can get samples in.

            Science uses engineering for apparatus, and engineering uses science to drastically speed up the adoption of new techniques.

          • My father tells a tale of one of his collegues and their interaction with Engineers (which seems to be borne out by some of the issues of Geologists vs. Oil field engineers I have seen go down.) An engineer went to my father’s colleague because they wanted to put in a bridge. It was rather pro forma as the rock was limestone, and every engineer knows limestone is GREAT for building in. (Apparently the Engineer said similar things to said colleague.)

            They had pictures and the geologist then had to convince them that, no, they didn’t want to put a bridge there. Why? The limestone was karsted and cracked. It was bad enough that you could see the cracks on the photographs. it apparently took some persuading to convince them that, no, the bridge likely wouldn’t collapse but the cliff they were tying it to would. Apparently the engineer kept circling the point that limestone was a ‘strong’ and ‘hard’ rock that was good for building on how could it collapse?

            There are quite a few battles between the geologist and the Engineers in the field (thank goodness I’m just in processing, so I observe these arguments. I don’t have a say in them other than doing a good job with the imaging.) Where the Engineers want straight lines but the rocks don’t do that and if they want to actually hit waht they’re going for they need to follow the rocks, not straight lines.

            So there’s a fair amount of justification for the trepidation about engineers from a scientist’s side of things.

      • Engineering is applied science and mathematics. Design engineering throws in art/creativity as well…and eventually a large vocabulary of ways to say “how did it do that”

    • Is that so rare? My dad, with a chemistry B.Sc., both writes and paints, and I was a provincial math competition finalist despite going for an English degree in university (a decision that I was actually later told deeply disappointed one of my high school teachers).

      Mind you, my math-learned conviction that a question which didn’t have a single, calculable, objectively-correct answer wasn’t really much of a question was a stumbling block to more than one of my English professors.

      • My college experience (before wheels got their four corners rasped off) was that the physics and chemistry majors were far more likely to have side interests and often skills in art, literature and music than the english and soc studies majors were to have much of any in fields outside their own majors.

        • Physics and Chemistry majors still speak and read and enjoy arts, so they do not denigrate the skills employed in those activities.

          The reverse does not apply to Humanities majors.

          • That is a disquieting and depressing observation that I cannot believe has never occurred to me before.

          • I was the only history PhD grad student to hang out with the rock jocks and other science types. I went to all the geology department guest lectures, and not because they had really good lemon cookies. Being an environmental history type is an excuse, er, justification for lurking outside my field.

          • We do not denigrate the skills involved in good examples. The current skill of bull feces stuffing is not a typical one.

        • I played saxophone and bassoon in school. In my working life, I was very fond of walking around the building whistling the song of the moment. Our Secretary was all upset when for 6 months while taking a C++ graduate course, I didn’t whistle at all. I told her, no I wasn’t upset, I was enjoying it immensely. I finally decided that my brain’s music sequencers were also used as programming sequencers. So, if I’m thinking about code, I don’t whistle.

          • Makes sense. In the days before computer science was widely available as a major, IBM used to hire large numbers of music majors and turn them into programmers.

    • I found this “Chaos Manor Special Report” very thought-provoking: It describes how engineers are typically cowed by Social Scientist types, which is weird when one considers that engineers have a lot of math and science under their belts, *and* they often have a familiarity with social science, literature, history, etc as well…while the other types only have familiarity with their field, and don’t have any inclination on what goes into hard sciences at all!

  6. Said it here last night. iirc in 2008 Mark David said he felt conservatives in America would crawl over broken glass to vote against Hillary Clinton, but she was snookered by the empty suit from Chicago. Trump just proved Mark right.

    • Also, I noted in one of my likely last posts over at Don Surber’s blog that here in a very left leaning area, I saw many yards with dem signs that were lacking Hillary signs.

      • I saw a few yards with a flood of Dem signs, but not Hillary signs. I also saw a few with Trump signs and a mix of county office signs (Trump for president, and the incumbent Dem sheriff and Rep engineer, for example). A smaller number of yards with other Rep signs but no Trump signs.

      • Why will you stop commenting at Surber’s? (I enjoy commenting there.)

        • Like me, Don was a “Well my first pick is basically DOA so I’ll take Cruz for a second choice and be fine with it” kinda person. I left there because Don went from “Trump is not a good candidate and certainly not a conservative” and pointing out his lies about the others, especially the slander of Ted’s father, pointing out his iffy stances on issues, etc. to instead of acknowledging he was likely to be the nominee and saying he would support him (A stance I would understand) to going full annoying attack mode Pro-Trump and spouting the lies he formerly attacked, even those against Cruz, and then making the Trump=Reagan stuff.
          I had been a long time commenter there and when he was with the Mail.
          I am, in fact, the first commenter at the current site, and even collected my “No Expenses Paid Trip to the new Sheetz in Rock Branch!” when I was riding through Charleston on my bike.
          I still glance at his feed, but I doubt I will be back much.

          • While I appreciate everyone who went full-pro-Trump for tactical reasons post-primaries, doing it with anything other than the truth is counter-productive. And that still-leaves all the logical reasoning-irrelevant memes, hashtags &etc wide open for the rhetorically gifted.

            There was way too much friendly fire, and quisling action in this election.

            Wish I saw my way clear to positive action on this one.

  7. Random thoughts in response:

    This was my ninth Presidential election and I’m also one of the folks that votes in the mid-terms, state and local elections. (We had more people waiting in line for a Saturday morning early voting at one small polling place than voted in the previous bond election for the entire city. The bond election passed by 13 votes out of 400 in a city of 100,000. )

    I think a few people voted “for” Trump. Most voted for the lesser of two evils or to delay the upcoming civil war. (Good thing since I now have more time to stock up on more ammo and other necessities.)

    This election ripped off most of the masks of the establishment and the media. The results were a big FU to the so-called “elites”. (I wonder if we will be allowed another opportunity?)

    • I hate that I’m always a low information voter when it gets down to district court judges. I forget to do my homework on them.

      • Well, I stopped doing that several years ago; saves me a lot of time. When my only option is to “unelect” an appointed judge – that’s the default option for me.

        Now, I do scan the flyer every year just in case there is one that is “not recommended for retention.” Rarely happens – last time was several years ago. That horrible tyrant was a real meanie – he made the lawyers stick to the facts of the case, and only the relevant facts. Even worse… He wouldn’t let them wear shorts and T-shirts in his court! Suits! Ties! No miniskirts!

        Only judge I’ve ever voted to keep on the bench…

        • No Shorts? Prof. Althouse would approve!

        • I agree. I vote NO on all the judge retentions, no lifetime sinecures!

        • An acquaintance was recently called for jury duty in Georgia. He told me that was informed that he should dress properly, a shirt, not T-shirt, pants, not jeans, and a jacket. He complained that he did not even own a jacket, and that at this time could not afford one. (Good reasons, not otherwise relevant to the story.) He didn’t quite get the sympathy that he expected. I suggested he check out his local Goodwill.

    • They’re very geographically limited. On their own turf, they can call up large numbers of rioters on short notice.
      But calling out the shock troops and then *moving* them into suburban or rural communities in sufficient numbers to cow the populace?
      Not only is it an overt declaration war, it’s beyond their capabilities.
      Also, less “civilized” folk believe Napoleon was right about rioters, and have the capability to test the maxim. And should the maxim prove true even once (in terrain where the defenders have nearly all the psychological advantages!) then the ability to try again is rather dramatically curtailed.

      A more indirect attack is somewhat more likely.
      But governmental beureaucrats will have to step carefully because of their new boss, the financial industries already have their nuts in a vice, and the media has made itself into a punchline.
      I expect we’ll get hit during the lame duck period, but the staying power of such an effort will be very limited. (And likely ineffective. A rational actor who wants to keep job or get a promotion can insist on following bureaucratic policy and slowwalking implementation. Making the window for such efforts to bite much smaller.)

      • “On their own turf, they can call up large numbers of rioters on short notice.”

        Notice that ANSWER has already recrudesced. I saw a picture from one of the anti-Trump riots and immediately recognized their tell-tale signage.

        I’m sure having their favorite Stalinist party hosts back in action will do wonders for the social life of the Nielsen Haydens.

        • The problem with ANSWER is that they rely on minimum wage rioters and thus get a very poor quality of craftsmanship in their riots. They need to “look for the union label” if they wish to continue their riotous lifestyle. Particularly with the increases in the minimum wage passed last Tuesday.

          For real, professional work you want to call out the Brute Squad, but they’ve gotten fairly pricey.

      • “Also, less ‘civilized’ folk believe Napoleon was right about rioters, and have the capability to test the maxim.”

        I see what you did there.

    • Where do you go or what do you do for homework in local elections, I think my mom would vote locally more if she had a good/easy way to learn about the choices.

    • I think a lot of Conservatives consider voting their ‘civic duty’. So, they go out and vote, even when they don’t particularly like who they are voting for. Progressives, on the other hand, do not understand the concept of civics, just the end justifies the means. If they think everyone else is going out to vote for their candidate, they don’t have to bother.

  8. In a way you are lucky Marshall. I really don’t remember my first time voting. It may have been Nov. 1971 voting for Nixon. I was in USAF Tech school then so I might have not voted. My next chance which i’m fairly sure I voted was for Ford against Carter.

    • I don’t remember it, either. We’d gone to the precinct for my parents to vote, and while they were behind curtains, I was given a ballot. I couldn’t read or write then, but I went behind a curtain and scribbled on it and handed it in. Never thought to tell my parents until decades later, and they hit the roof.

      Now, the thing is I don’t know what was done with the ballot. Maybe it was just “Aww, how cute. Let him pretend he’s voting.” Maybe it wasn’t even a real ballot. I do know that when we got voting machines, it was common for poll workers to allow small children to go with their parents to learn how to work the machines. All that changed in just a few years.

    • During my Navy career I voted absentee every election. My mom made sure the absentee ballots got to me. Even for local school board elections. BTW, my mother was on the local school board… School budgets often came down to 1 or 2 votes in the area. She got a frantic call from the County Board of Elections one time that they had 2 absentee ballots for a budget election. She knew they were my wife and I, and didn’t panic.

      But for minor posts, I vote by party. Not even sure why we vote for County Coroner, but I just cast a vote for the Republican. Who was the only person running. Local newspapers, like MSM, laments voters lack of knowledge. Yet, I saw not one article on anything other then the presidential election. You’d think if they really wanted informed voters, they’d invite each candidate to submit 500 words on why they should be elected, and print all the essays one week before the election. Or give them all a questionnaire. With questions like “Why would you be a good choice for coroner?”

      • I guess my local rag isn’t as bad as I thought it was. They didn’t do much of anything about the uncontested races (or if they did, the children got to that part of the paper before I did) but they did do a brief rundown on all the contested races in this county and the next (their distribution area). The two state supreme court candidates were funny: the only thing anyone could get them to disagree on was, IIRC, favorite foods. One of them was a retired legislator, the other one wasn’t, which was the biggest difference. The only other noticeable difference was as irrelevant as their food preferences: one was male and the other female.

  9. The last time I voted *for* a candidate was in 1984… after that. it has been voting against the larger evil.

  10. One of the signs of political maturity–and I speak as someone who’s been eligible to vote since 1977, and has consistently done so in primary and general elections alike–is the realization that–to borrow the late Robert Heinlein’s formulation–there may not be anyone on the ballot you want to vote FOR, but there’s always plenty of people you want to vote AGAINST.

    Choosing between good and bad is easy. Choosing between bad and worse is considerably harder, especially since the categories of “bad” may not be commensurate. At some point, you have to decide (1) what your most important criterion is going to be, and (2) what are your “showstoppers.”

    To illustrate #1, in 1976 I supported Reagan: I volunteered for his campaign, and I wept when he lost–so narrowly!–to Ford at the Convention. But my second choice was not Ford: it was the late senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, a Democrat from Washington state (some called him “the Senator from Boeing”).

    Now, Scoop was liberal to the core, and no conservative. But he had one thing Jerry Ford apparently didn’t: a healthy appreciation of the need to amp up our game in the Long Twilight Struggle. He was, in fact, what I call a “muscular Cold-War liberal” in the mold of Truman and Jack Kennedy.

    Since that was, in fact, my primary criterion–does the candidate take our fight with the Soviets seriously–it made my decision easy. Alas, Scoop lost the nomination to Jimmy Carter and…well, you know the rest.

    As far as #2 goes…I’d have a very hard time pulling the lever for a pro-abort. That made my own decision in this race very hard, since Trump is not exactly–you’ll forgive the expression–a tower of strength on the issue. But it’s certainly clear that he’s less relentlessly pro-abort than Herself, and that was how I reasoned out my decision. Not a terrific example, but there you have it.

    • On the abortion issue, give Trump this: he was willing to raise the issue — graphically — in debate against Hillary.

      My suspicion (hope?) is that he is a recent convert, which might mean he carries a convert’s zeal. In his environs it is certain that abortion was never raised as a moral question, merely an accepted convenience, and being a man of not notably reflective character* he never gave it much thought. Through the campaign and by coming in contact with people thinking otherwise — and able to cogently convey their challenge of the practice — he may truly have given the matter real thought for the first time and been repulsed.

      Or maybe not.

      *Keep in mind that more men get laid by being pro-abort than anti, and for a man like Trump that would have been the only relevant calculation.

      • His kids are about old enough to be giving him grandkids, or for their friends to be sharing “baby’s first picture,” aren’t they?

        • The older ones are, but the falling-asleep-on-his-feet young man to Trump’s left during his acceptance speech was Donald Trump’s youngest child, Barron Trump, age 10.

          • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

            Poor Barron.

            When I saw his name, I thought “Baron” and wonder if his classmates teased him that way. 😀

          • As my dad pointed out at one point– he doesn’t much care for Trump*, but the guy must have pretty decent taste in women because his kids seem alright.

            * context: my dad is extremely soft-spoken. He doesn’t much care for stepping on rusty nails, either.

            • BobtheRegisterredFool

              You know me, I was Trump Derangement Syndrome before it was cool and mainstream. One of my arguments was 1) The mothers of his children grew up Soviet 2) Americans I know who grew up Soviet are anti-communist, and raise their kids that way 3) If the kids were strongly anti-communist, this would leave obvious signs that are not present 4) therefore bad people.

              Obvious flaw is that I know Americans who grew up Soviet via ways that may select for intelligence. Hence not a representative sample, and invalid for drawing conclusions from.

              • Age might be a factor.

                I had a twenty minute long discussion with my folks and a couple that’s only about a decade younger than them, where they kind of squinted at me and went “Well, yeah, he’s a Russian” about Putin four or five times.

                I ended up reminding them that I don’t have any memory of the Wall coming down, much less the time when it was up. I was a late teenager before I found out why the cats chasing the Mouskiwitz in American Tail had on fuzzy hats. “He’s Russian” means pretty much nothing to me besides vodka and they dance like the male dwarves on World of Warcraft– and that’ll hold for most of the folks in their mid thirties and under.

                For heaven’s sake, dude’s a KGB agent and those guys seem to have seen all the horrible old movies about the USSR and taken it as a wonderful guide in how to act– and that’s stuff you only know if you actually looked for information.

                There’s a big difference in being anti-communist when it means “The USSR was a serious thing,” and being anti-communist when they’re a crash-and-burn, the stuff is a lot less of an in-your-face threat.

                • BobtheRegisterredFool

                  I briefly knew a couple of former Army NCOs going to college who might’ve been in the cohort you describe. If they weren’t having me on, at least one of them hadn’t been familiar with the word ‘Kremlin’ before speaking with me. I forget that I’m a weirdo, and that throws off my models.

        • It looks like he has 8 grandkids to date.

    • On Bad vs Worse, I think folks here might be interested in this article:

      I know several folks here have spoken about the ‘flat moral universe’. (Which is a fancy phrase to describe the evil part of “we think they’re wrong, they think we’re evil”.)

    • There is a starting point on the abortion issue, and ‘partial-birth abortion’ is so far beyond the pale, I can’t imagine anyone with any sense of morality supporting it. Hillary Clinton does, of course, support it, but then I’ve never questioned her total lack of moral fiber.

      • There aren’t many on the pro-choice side who support it. They just see banning it as the thin end of the wedge for a total ban on abortion, so they handwave things like “incredibly rare” and “leave medical decisions to medical professionals.”

        • They have a point– if you admit that it’s horrific, you’re admitting there is something wrong with killing a human that has not fully exited the mother’s body.

          If you admit that, then you’re in the position where you have to explain why collapsing a seconds-and-inches from newborn’s skull is horrific, but cutting apart a human at an equal or later age that has not entered the birth canal isn’t.

          And so on, with various details down to the death by corrosive bath and such.

          So, yeah, allowing any sort of restriction on any flavor of abortion for any reason, including “we want to investigate this guy for infanticide, spreading STDs to poor, abused girls and keeping trophies like a bad movie serial killer” is a threat to the whole shbang.
          (Kermit Gosnell, for those who don’t recognize the description. Was finally shut down because he got too loose with the addictive type prescriptions, and the guys doing the drug raid thought he was a serial killer.)

        • So in order to maintain their favorite political position, they refuse to ban something that they themselves recognize as literally murdering babies? And I bet they continue to think of themselves as good people for doing so. The human capacity for self-delusion is a never-ending source of amazement, sometimes.

          • I– ahem, understatement warning– do not share their reasoning, but I’d guess it’s something like how pointing out that innocent people die from guns won’t change the mind of someone who believes in those not blessed with a pocket mob or a football player’s physique being able to defend themselves with a firearm.

            They believe that some unborn humans must be able to be legally killed (reasons vary, and that’s just the ones that people actually tell) and so it has to be protected, even at a horrible cost.

            Large differences in terms of the question of direct results of an action, and indirect risks of an action, and where responsibility lies, plus honestly it’s a lot easier to get outraged about folks who were dead and are mourned by a large number of folks who knew them, vs someone that only the person who wanted them dead even knew was alive.

          • There’s a reason I consider all Democrats to be functionally evil.

            On the other hand, as Foxfier demonstrates, the slippery slope argument is endemic in this debate. In no small part because we not only cannot agree on where to draw the line, we can’t agree on what criteria to use to determine where the line should be.

            • I consider Democrats functionally evil more because they believe the ends justify the means, than because of any single question they are morally bankrupt on.

              • If your ends don’t justify your means you haven’t fully enumerated your ends. And it’s those hidden ends that make Democrats evil. Most Democrats don’t see those hidden ends, which makes them idiots. But idiots in the service of evil are still evil.

                • It is one of those phrases that you really have to know the original context to get the point, isn’t it?

                  The idea is that the means require justification in and of themselves– they’ve got to be good or neutral. If they’re evil, then that’s not washed away by a good or neutral result. (Well, goal. Nobody can actually guarantee results.)

                  • With regards to goals vs guaranteeing results: I would take it a step further: if your goal is to do good, but what you *think* will be good actually produces evil, then it doesn’t matter what means you use, you *still* have to walk back what you did.

                    But for Democrats (and probably some Republicans), it isn’t just “the ends justify the means”. It’s “the good intentions justify the means”. You could all sorts of horrible things, *and* have horrible ends…but still justify it by “But I meant well!”.

                    Sometimes this is even a result of “But we have to do something!” I seem to recall an Entertainer talking about a disaster or something “It doesn’t matter if what we do doesn’t help, or make even make things worse. We have to do *something*!”

                    Me: I don’t care about your intentions. If what you do causes harm or doesn’t actually help, then you need to stop! If you’re going to do something, do something that works; otherwise, DOING NOTHING is *literally* better than ACTUALLY HURTING SOMEONE.

                    (Heck, it’s my understanding that homeopathy actually worked a long time ago because doing nothing –which is what you are doing when you dilute your substances so much — was *literally* better than what the doctors would do to you. Nowadays, though, not so much, because doctors actually do things to help patients rather, rather than do bad things with good intentions…)

                    • Several folks here can tell you that no, doctors haven’t stopped doing things that hurt the patient and then blaming the patient for the thing not working.

                      Amusingly enough, “homeopathic” levels of allergens given to folks who have violent/deadly allergies, for an extended amount of time, has been shown to work for curing the allergy in at least some cases. I believe the New York Times had a bit on it being used for a group of kids with peanut allergies, with only one kid dropping out and all showing some improvement, a significant number showing big improvement.

                    • Which actually fits rather well with the findings that kids allowed exposure to the level of dirt and germs we were growing up have fewer allergies in general, presumably because it trains the immune system not to overreact.

                    • I seem to recall an Entertainer talking about a disaster or something ‘It doesn’t matter if what we do doesn’t help, or make even make things worse. We have to do *something*!’

                      Ah, and so we see the genius of Twitterstorming revealed! When Boko Harum rapes* 200 girls, it is sufficient to Tweet #BringBackOurGirls (especially if accompanied by a SadFaceSelfie) rather than deploy actual troops who, let’s face it, would probably help Boko Harum’s recruiting.

                      Geeze, if only W had Tweeted out something appropriate during Katrina. #Don’tDrown, perhaps? #LandrieuxLetMeHelp?

                      *transitive verb
                      1 a archaic : to seize and take away by force
                      b : despoil

            • There being only two “bright lines” in this debate, ceding either one loses the debate. There is certainly no independent entity prior to egg + sperm = baby, and there is no avoiding the conclusion once it is out of the mother. Everything between those two points is a matter of opinion, so they hold their line where it is strongest.

              That, for example, is why they are so adamant against mandatory ultrasounds (and why pro-lifers support those procedures): once you see the “growth” as a “baby” it is much, much harder to deny its life.

              • I really don’t see what’s so hard about setting an arbitrary limit as long as you know that it’s an arbitrary limit, you’re willing to adjust it as more evidence becomes available, and the limit is superior to either of the bright lines.

                Maybe we can set up an auction to decide. People put down money for a week of pregnancy and whichever week nets the most cash becomes law. Donate the proceeds to teen pregnancy prevention programs.

                • Can’t.

                  They’ve hijacked “pregnancy prevention” to include chemical abortion.

                • For those who believe that abortion is murder popular opinion is not the issue.

                  I believe that Alan Keyes addressed this well when he argued that a line was once drawn where he and his family were on the wrong side.

                  “…when I hear folks stand before Republican gatherings and tell us that, well, we should just take the abortion issue out of our politics and forget about it by being silent on it–it’s just a “private issue”–that’s to me like saying what they said in the 19th century.

                  “Do you realize there were people in the 19th century who thought slavery was a private issue? They did. An issue of private property, they said.

                  “….I often tell people that what this whole debate boils down to is whether some of us get to decide whether others of us are human, whether we get to draw the line and on one side of the line will be the human beings and on the other side of the line will be the non-humans, and we get to determine that.

                  “Don’t you realize that that opens the door to every form of tyranny? Because all I have to do if I want to snuff out your life or trample on your rights is decide that you’re not human. And, of course, you’ll look at me and say, “But you can’t do that.” And I’ll say, “Well, I remember a time in this history, the last time the American people decided they were going to draw the line, my folks ended up on the wrong side of it.””

                  • My only problem with that speech:
                    it uses the common word of ‘human’ when it means ‘person.’

                    Although that very common-use thing can result in rather clever comments, where someone says the unborn is not human, and the human-rights supporter can ask ‘what are they, a rutabaga?’

                  • One of the issues I have with people justifying abortion is that all the reasons they give for it being good — eliminating the unwanted, the malformed, the people who would grow up poor, etc — they sound awfully close to the arguments that Nazis used to justify their holocaust.

  11. Theoretically, my first election was 1996. In reality, I received my absentee ballot after the election had passed. (I don’t blame anything but our notoriously slow mail system. For some reason, the local post office was horrible.) Since then, I have rarely voted for a major party candidate.

  12. I was eligible to vote in 1976, (Carter vs. Ford, which didn’t inspire much enthusiasm) but as I recall, I was attending school out of state and didn’t know how to manage absentee voting. I was pleased to vote for Reagan in 1980.
    I had quite a different impression of conservative enthusiasm for Romney, but it hardly matters now.
    I am more concerned with Trump Derangement Syndrome, in which paranoid delusions are being whipped up to the level of clinical insanity.

    • I think it impressed itself into Marshall’s mind because there was a Romney Rally where the entire highway between Red Rocks and Pueblo was a traffic jam of people trying to get to it, even though the venue had closed an hour after opening, because it was full.
      The enthusiasm was high here. And yet he lost the state. Since I watched polls, though I don’t think I told Marsh, either the good people of CO had developed amnesia in massive numbers, or someone had early voted for a lot of the population. (1/3 in my precinct, which has recently been found to also contain vast numbers of dead and illegal people. YAY.)

      • I haven’t looked at the voting maps for Colorado, but could it be the the Denver vote outweighing everyone else? That’s how it works in California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio, etc. The big urban centers with their subsidized Democrats drag the rest of the state with them.

        • Maybe to an extent, but Denver is not as blue as painted. Depends on the neighborhood.

        • Good clear maps, and breakdown on both the statewide and the county votes:

          • Thanks. And it does look like Denver and Boulder accounted for most of the Democrat vote.

            • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

              I checked that site for Illinois and it was mainly the Chicago area that voted Democrat.

              Mind you, next door Champaign County went Democratic but it has the University of Illinois. 😉

              • You’ll see something similar if you look at the Ohio map. Counties with major cities blue, the rest of the state red, with the only real exception being Athens, home of Ohio University.

        • Being kind of new here, I was surprised at how many MN counties went red on Tuesday. And a third as many blue (8 now, compared to 28 in 2012) as before. Here spack bang in the middle of the state, Clinton lost 60:30, about the inverse of the Twin Cities area. And a lot of people were quite peeved at her and her campaign in the last few weeks.

          Very different to the last 35 years in Silicon Valley.

          • Not so surprising to me. 16 years ago I was doorknocking for a Libertarian candidate in rural central MN. Even then the DFL (Democratic Farmer Labor party, the MN ‘flavor’ of the Demonrats, a fusion of the Democratic and the old Farmer-Labor (socialist much?) parties) on rural MN was slipping, mostly due to know-nothing urban teachers and lawyers putting chains and blinders on agriculture. Also not surprising that the Twin Cities and the Iron Range were solid blue, but at least the Iron Range blue is not so bad. When lobbying for ‘shall issue’ carry I met some very fine folk from that area. An Iron Range blue is probably more ‘conservative’ than, say, an upstate NY red.

            • Dealing with Iron Range type mentalities here as well, but more and more they are going Red. These were “I vote Union all the way” types who are figuring out the Dems and their Union bedfellows really are not reciprocating any form of support, and it is becoming more and more “Vote like we tell you and shut your yaps” then they get ignored until their vote is needed come next election. Here, the mines are now all shutting down. Big part of that is those candidates their Union told them they had to vote for don’t like their industry, and that is not the only thing they disagree on now-a-days. You openly despise someone often enough, he will decide he probably should count on you to support him and his.

              • The Washington Post was as rabidly anti-Trump as a newspaper could be without becoming the NY Times, but now that they’re out of the noon-day sun they are publishnig some insightful thumb-suckers:

                Trump won because college-educated Americans are out of touch
                Higher education is isolated, insular and liberal. Average voters aren’t.
                By Charles Camosy, associate professor at Fordham University, and the author of “Beyond the Abortion Wars: A Way Forward for A New Generation.”

                As the reality of President-elect Donald Trump settled in very early Wednesday morning, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes summed up an explanation common to many on the left: The Republican nominee pulled ahead thanks to old-fashioned American racism.

                But the attempt to make Trump’s victory about racism appears to be at odds with what actually happened on Election Day. Consider the following facts.

                Twenty-nine percent of Latinos voted for Trump, per exit polls. Remarkably, despite the near-ubiquitous narrative that Trump would have deep problems with this demographic given his comments and position on immigration, this was a higher percentage of those who voted for GOP nominee Mitt Romney in 2012. Meanwhile, African Americans did not turn out to vote against Trump. In fact, Trump received a higher percentage of African American votes than Romney did.

                And while many white voters deeply disliked Trump, they disliked Democrat Hillary Clinton even more. Of those who had negative feelings about both Trump and Clinton, Trump got their votes by a margin of 2 to 1. Votes for Trump seemed to signal a rejection of the norms and values for which Clinton stood more than an outright embrace of Trump. He was viewed unfavorably, for instance, by 61 percent of Wisconsinites, but 1 in 5 in that group voted for him anyway.

                The most important divide in this election was not between whites and non-whites. It was between those who are often referred to as “educated” voters and those who are described as “working class” voters.

                The reality is that six in 10 Americans do not have a college degree, and they elected Donald Trump. College-educated people didn’t just fail to see this coming — they have struggled to display even a rudimentary understanding of the worldviews of those who voted for Trump. This is an indictment of the monolithic, insulated political culture in the vast majority our colleges and universities.


                Religion in most secular institutions, for instance, is at best thought of as an important sociological phenomenon to understand — but is very often criticized as an inherently violent, backward force in our culture, akin to belief in fairies and dragons. Professors are less religious than the population as a whole. Most campus cultures have strictly (if not formally) enforced dogmatic views about the nature of gender, sexual orientation, a woman’s right to choose abortion, guns and the role of the state as primary agent of social change. If anyone disagrees with these dogmatic positions they risk being marginalized as ignorant, bigoted, fanatical or some other dismissive label.

                Sometimes the college-educated find themselves so unable to understand a particular working-class point of view that they will respond to those perspectives with shocking condescension.
                — — —

                TL:DR version: safe spaces are not good places for seeking to understand the world.

                One faulty assumption made by this author is that those folk with college degrees (raises hand: B.A & B.S., magna & summa cum laude, phi beta kappa although I’ve lost track of the key) “simply know more about the world than those who do not have such degrees” or that we all share their “enlightened” views. Many of us grasped the idiocy around us and sought saner environs.

                • I think they got that writer from Daily Caller

                • I’ve noticed that, for myself, despite being educated, I still have a respect for blue collar workers, and appreciate both religion and working-class voters.

                  I’m not sure *precisely* why that is, though, although (1) growing up in Utah (where even the cities are sympathetic towards agriculture), (2) having an uncle truck driver and cousins in construction that I admire, and (3) growing up in a faith for which I’ve concluded on my own is true (my family isn’t nearly as strong in the Faith as I’d like them to be…) might have helped out a lot.

                  Full disclosure: I’m educated too (BS, MS, PhD), but it’s in Mathematics, which is (1) a “hard” science, in that it’s fanatically based on truth, and (2) if a religion is belief something you cannot prove to be true, then mathematics is the only religion to prove itself to be one. I couldn’t help but notice that in Albany, NY, there was a *professor* in my department who would post *conservative* things on a billboard outside his office door. (In my undergrad studies at Westminster College of Salt Lake City, I couldn’t help but notice a liberal bias, but it never affected the teaching.)

                  Aye, there’s the rub: the hard sciences are so determined to get to the truth that it’s a lot easier for religious and conservative types to “infiltrate”, because the truth doesn’t care what you believe….and that, in turn, leaves the door open for appreciating the engineers, the farmers, the construction workers, the secretaries, and pretty much everyone else who helps keep the world running….

                  • Part of it is a matter of appreciation that the world requires all sorts of people and that the attributes which make a person good at one kind of job might make them terrible at another … and what really matters is that you do your job well, not what job you do.

                    At one phase of life I was CFO of a small business and had a payroll data entry clerk who was, to put it bluntly, not particularly bright. But she was pleasant, diligent and could do data entry superbly; all our billing was for labor provided, so her ability to accurately and quickly encode time sheets enabled us to run a one-week payroll cycle, reducing the capital demands that would have been required to process payroll & billing over a two-week cycle.

                    I, on the other hand, cannot do data entry for more than twenty minutes without keeling over. The repetition simply shits down me brain.

                    I treasured that payroll clerk and had no illusions about her or myself. It is a matter of matching attributes to task, as simple as choosing a truck to haul manure or a sedan to run errands: you choose the tool best suited to the task, and no one task is of greater importance.

                  • The mindset of “hard” sciences makes it much more difficult to be antagonistic to faith, too. Not impossible, but harder– if your mind is in the mindset of being logical, you’re going to have to look at your starting assumptions and work through them.

                    Part of why there are so few honest agnostics that will tell you about it. If they’re interested in the subject, they’ll keep thinking about it, their honesty will make them learn how it really works, and that’s always a danger in religion. (As many of the angry atheists must know on some level, or why would they be so resistant to finding out what the faiths they attack actually believe?)

                    ((The above is meant to be partly humorous, since the subject is way too private and painful for public discussion to be an incredibly good idea, especially right now.))

              • Another WaPo piece which gets as close to right as these twits seem capable of reaching:

                How Trump won: The revenge of working-class whites
                By Jim Tankersley

                For the past 40 years, America’s economy has raked blue-collar white men over the coals. It whittled their paychecks. It devalued the type of work they did best. It shuttered factories and mines and shops in their communities. New industries sprouted in cities where they didn’t live, powered by workers with college degrees they didn’t hold.

                They were not the only ones who felt abandoned by a rapidly globalizing economy, but they developed a distinctly strong pessimism in its face.

                On Tuesday, their frustrations helped elect Donald Trump, the first major-party nominee of the modern era to speak directly and relentlessly to their economic and cultural fears. It was a “Brexit” moment in America, a revolt of working-class whites who felt stung by globalization and uneasy in a diversifying country where their political power had seemed to be diminishing.


                In polling, these voters have expressed deep racial and cultural anxieties. In exit polls they were more likely than the country as a whole to say that illegal immigrants should be deported. But those polls also suggested economic concerns and hostility toward leaders in Washington were much more important factors driving them to Trump.
                — — —

                Like other WaPo thumb-suckers, this author’s diagnosis is only half-right. For example, he seems largely blind to the fact that the Trump-voters’ objection to illegal immigration has far less to do with the race of the immigrants than with their ille-effing-gality. Obeying the law is deeply bred into our culture, and when we see people high and low flouting the law while other, less “cherished” people get royally screwed it upsets our sense of fair play.

                • “They were not the only ones who felt abandoned by a rapidly globalizing economy, but they developed a distinctly strong pessimism in its face.”

                  Gee, maybe it had something to do with the fact that they WERE the only ones being told repeatedly that they DESERVED to be abandoned because they were evil?

                • ignoring Trump getting a higher percentage of Hispanic and black votes than did Romney as well. many legal immigrants from south o’ the border are not fans of illegals

                  • And oddly enough, some of those legal people came here illegally, and then got amnesty under Reagan.

                    I have a simple rule of thumb for whether or not I want a person here, whether that person is a citizen or immigrant, whether here legally or illegally: have they put effort in trying to succeed, trying to stay off welfare? If they came here for welfare, or have been on welfare for their entire lives, I would very much like to say “get a job or get out!”

                    But for legal reasons that’s not practical…

                    America has largely succeeded because we accepted the refuse of the world, and gave them the freedom to succeed. The people who are here (legally or illegally) solely for the welfare are the very people putting our Republic in danger, whether or not they vote, because they don’t care about freedom, and don’t understand how depending on government is hurting them, and everyone else for that matter.

              • A final entry in the WaPo’s efforts to grasp the steam engine that just ran them down, demonstrating the blinders which will long have us yelling, “Can You Hear Me NOW?” at them:

                A new theory for why Trump voters are so angry — that actually makes sense

                By Jeff Guo

                Regardless of who wins on Election Day, we will spend the next few years trying to unpack what the heck just happened. We know that Donald Trump voters are angry, and we know that they are fed up. By now, there have been so many attempts to explain Trumpism that the genre has become a target of parody.

                But if you’re wondering about the widening fissure between red and blue America, why politics these days have become so fraught and so emotional, Kathy Cramer is one of the best people to ask. For the better part of the past decade, the political science professor has been crisscrossing Wisconsin trying to get inside the minds of rural voters.

                Well before President Obama or the tea party, well before the rise of Trump sent reporters scrambling into the heartland looking for answers, Cramer was hanging out in dairy barns and diners and gas stations, sitting with her tape recorder taking notes. Her research seeks to understand how the people of small towns make sense of politics — why they feel the way they feel, why they vote the way they vote.

                There’s been great thirst this election cycle for insight into the psychology of Trump voters. J.D. Vance’s memoir “Hillbilly Elegy” offers a narrative about broken families and social decay. “There is a lack of agency here — a feeling that you have little control over your life and a willingness to blame everyone but yourself,” he writes. Sociologist Arlie Hochschild tells a tale of perceived betrayal. According to her research, white voters feel the American Dream is drifting out of reach for them, and they are angry because they believe minorities and immigrants have butted in line.

                Cramer’s recent book, “The Politics of Resentment,” offers a third perspective. Through her repeated interviews with the people of rural Wisconsin, she shows how politics have increasingly become a matter of personal identity. Just about all of her subjects felt a deep sense of bitterness toward elites and city dwellers; just about all of them felt tread on, disrespected and cheated out of what they felt they deserved.

                Cramer argues that this “rural consciousness” is key to understanding which political arguments ring true to her subjects. For instance, she says, most rural Wisconsinites supported the tea party’s quest to shrink government not out of any belief in the virtues of small government but because they did not trust the government to help “people like them.”

                “Support for less government among lower-income people is often derided as the opinions of people who have been duped,” she writes. However, she continues: “Listening in on these conversations, it is hard to conclude that the people I studied believe what they do because they have been hoodwinked. Their views are rooted in identities and values, as well as in economic perceptions; and these things are all intertwined.”

                Rural voters, of course, are not precisely the same as Trump voters, but Cramer’s book offers an important way to think about politics in the era of Trump. Many have pointed out that American politics have become increasingly tribal; Cramer takes that idea a step further, showing how these tribal identities shape our perspectives on reality.


                That feeling is primarily composed of three things. First, people felt that they were not getting their fair share of decision-making power. For example, people would say: All the decisions are made in Madison and Milwaukee and nobody’s listening to us. Nobody’s paying attention, nobody’s coming out here and asking us what we think. Decisions are made in the cities, and we have to abide by them.

                Second, people would complain that they weren’t getting their fair share of stuff, that they weren’t getting their fair share of public resources. That often came up in perceptions of taxation. People had this sense that all the money is sucked in by Madison, but never spent on places like theirs.

                And third, people felt that they weren’t getting respect. They would say: The real kicker is that people in the city don’t understand us. They don’t understand what rural life is like, what’s important to us and what challenges that we’re facing. They think we’re a bunch of redneck racists.

                So it’s all three of these things — the power, the money, the respect. People are feeling like they’re not getting their fair share of any of that.
                — — —
                RTWT, time permitting

                The condescension of even those who are trying to be sympathetic is palpable.

              • Yeah. Ask a farmer for his support, then tell him he can’t farm his land for ‘environmental’; ask a miner for his support, then enact rules to shut down his mine; ask a lumberman for his support, then shut down the logging industry; ask a laborer for his support, then advocate for policies that ship his job overseas. Then come after his guns.

                Eventually, he will realize that you do *not* have his interests at heart.

                • Still work with some who have yet to learn the lesson. One is fuming the witch didn’t win, now he just wants to go hunting and shoot some deer, to forget all this.
                  No. Do it to celebrate you fool.

                • A little while ago, here in Utah, a mine collapsed and trapped some miners. Efforts were made to save them, but another collapse trapped some of the rescuers, and it was concluded that the rescue attempt had to end — it was too dangerous.

                  The news blamed the mine’s flawed mine plan, but as flawed as it was, it was also approved by government bureaucrats (with no indication that the mine was deliberately trying to defraud the bureaucrats), so in my mind, the bureaucrats are as much to blame.

                  The news also reported 130-or-so regulatory violations…but I had the sense that the reporting of these violations was to give the impression “see, the mine was reckless!”, without explaining how the violations would have contributed to this collapse, and without any indications how many regulations there were to keep, nor how many violations can be found at a typical mine (considering that there are so many regulations, it’s only natural that a mine will be in violation of some of them).

                  Overall, I was given the impression that the media was subtly trying to turn public opinion against the mine, rather than take the effort to merely give the mine even a little bit of a benefit of the doubt.

                  • If the regulations on the mine are anything like the ones on mental health facilities, a lot of them depend on the judgment of the inspector…which means that when you get someone with a mind to find violations, they will be found.

                    Friend and her husband were both mental health pros, husband is currently managing a section of one of the places they put the folks who are unresponsive.
                    They got some 125 violations in one inspection, because the people who ARE IN THEIR CARE BECAUSE THEY CANNOT COMMUNICATE were not given “sufficient choice” for their food. The folks feeding them would talk to them, they were wheeled around to see pleasant things if they are even registering what’s in front of them on some level, they weren’t being abused…but they wanted to attack this institution, so now they have to stop talking and hold up the apple sauce and the pudding until the person blinks or something else they can claim to interpret as expressing a desire one way or another. And another inspector hit them on that, too, although they’re able to fight it a bit better.
                    (My interpretation: they’re trying to find an excuse to shut down the institutions so that people will be more open to the idea of killing off the seriously disabled.)

        • If the map data is based on either the number of registered voters or ballots cast, rather than simply population it’s not the Denver voting-block beating the communities outside it. It’s the Democratic machine finding it easier to commit massive voter fraud from there.

          Outside of universities, the U.S. is far more politically diverse than Democratic election numbers paint, because of the huge number of non-Democrats it takes to overcome the institutionalized voter fraud.

          • I’m not discounting the possibility of fraud, but I don’t believe it’s a major factor. I see the same pattern all over the country. In addition to the states I mentioned, Florida voted Republican, except in the big cities. Utah voted Republican, except Salt City. Arizona mostly voted Republican, except Phoenix and Tucson. I noticed the rural-urban divide last election, too, and although I haven’t analyzed the data, I suspect it’s been a factor for some time.

            My theory is that the cities have a larger proportion of people directly dependent on government payments of some type or other, hence my reference to subsidized Democrats.

          • And according to Lin Wicklund, who’s worked there as precinct judge, Boulder just finds “votes” when they need it.

      • I wonder if this was a function of where you live. I’m almost never down in the Red Rocks area or south of that, but in Boulder, I saw the entire city practically shut down for an Obama rally. It was disappointing but not surprising to me that Colorado stayed blue.

      • I’m hoping Trump will feel offended about the vote fraud and try to clean it up. 😀

        • In most states when Republicans first achieve unified control (legislature and governor) among the first items on the agenda has typically been enactment of various “Vote Sanctity” measures. It should not be a major reach for the Feds to enact similar measures, with funding adequate to make Democrat objections look as self-serving as they are.

          Set standards for state-issued photo-ID, with requirement for issuance to all legally recognized citizens. Establish a clearing house and process for cleaning up voter rolls. Establish a DOJ task force or department to investigate abuses and failures. They could even establish guidelines that define safe havens for voting practices that ensure reasonable standards for vote protection.

          There are probably a dozen activist groups who could whip up the legislation in less than forty-eight hours while having time to walk their dogs, attend their kids’ soccer games and even grab an afternoon nap.

        • Christopher M. Chupik

          You’ll note he’s not complaining about rigged elections *now*.

          • That doesn’t mean he’s dumb enough to think it dodn’t happen, just that he gains nothing by pointing out they didn’t cheat big enough.

        • I would love for Trump to show up at the DOJ with a camera crew and introduce J Christian Adams as the head of the Voting Rights Section. He used to work there and knows where ALL the bodies are buried.

    • I also remember 2012 differently. There was some definitely “pro-Romney” people, but it seemed to me that the vast majority of conservatives were eventually “resigned to Romney” as the nominee and voted as much against Obama as for him. I remember thinking of Romney as a Republican version of John Kerry*, the guy chosen because it was his turn and he seemed to be electable. Every time I heard that word in relation to Romney–and it was a lot–I kept thinking, “But the lesson of 2004 is that being ‘electable’ is not enough to get elected.”

      I eventually came to respect Romney as a good man, and I think if he’d been elected President, he’d have been a much better one than I initially assumed. But still, I would have described very few people as “enthusiastic for Romney.”

      The major difference between Romney and Trump that Marshall may be picking up on is that while I don’t know too many people who were enthusiastic for Romney, I don’t think anyone was ashamed of voting for Romney. I don’t think any registered Republican would have lied about it to pollsters or felt a little piece of their soul die as filled in the “Romney/Ryan” box on the ballot**.

      * = Apologies to Romney for the comparison. I do not mean to imply that Romney shared any of John Kerry’s positions or his moral character.

      ** = The author of this post can neither confirm nor deny that that last clause was based on personal experience.

      • David, Internet Troll

        Yeah, I was a Romney guy 2012 and I didn’t see much enthusiasm for him as a candidate (I was an outlier). On the other hand, this year, a LOT of the people supporting Trump burned with a white-hot hate of the GOPe and saw Trump as the best weapon to get back at them. For that reason, there was a LOT of enthusiasm for Trump, not necessarily for the man himself, although I saw more and more of that as time went on, but for what he stood for. So, I am going to have to disagree with you on the Trump enthusiasm issue. I think that there was a lot more people voting FOR Trump than were voting FOR Romney.


      • BobtheRegisterredFool

        I hadn’t followed the primaries much, and was pro-Romney. I surely disliked Obama’s policies.

      • I know Democrats who voted for Romney/Ryan because they liked Ryan.

        I think that’s part of why the “destroy Ryan” thing started up.

  13. As much as I hate Bernie more than either candidate in this finally finished election, he is indeed a proper representation of the current democratic party (Which itself is a problem).

    You miss one aspect of the democratic party as it presently stands. One in which Clinton excelled. I think Bernie trusts his ideology and his people. He did not seem to feel that it is necessary to hide what he was planning from the public. The rest of the party seems to think of most of the populace as subjects who need to be lead by the nose and told what is good for them.

  14. No one who voted Trump- who only did it as a vote against Clinton- was public about their vote.

    To start with – I would have preferred to have the option to have voted for Cruz beyond my vote for him in the primaries.

    Is it a surprise that many of those who voted for Trump don’t want to talk about it? Consider the press he has received. Various brands of liberal and conservative commentators alike, had painted him as a monster. The present national zeitgeist makes it hard to admit a Trump vote. To do so would leave you open to accusations of homophobic, sexist, racist, provincial and other societal anathema.

    I listen to the broadcast of speeches of the candidates, as painful as it may be and believe me it can be very painful. I don’t rely on the selected sound bites and predigested interpretations of others. I recall hearing a speech of Trump’s I had watched described by a respected conservative columnist and realizing that the columnist was no more accurate a representation of what Trump had said than that provided by the liberal MSM. (Trump might be bombastic and crude, but his speeches did not utterly lack content.)

    Our esteemed hostess, your mother, probably gave the best arguments I heard against Trump. They were based on his past record and associations with people such as the Clintons. Not surprisingly the Clinton campaign did not employ these arguments against him.

    I tell myself that President Reagan had been a Democrat, a FDR supporter and a union boss, before experience tempered him. I will shout it from the rooftops that Trump is no Ronald Reagan. I do pray that experience has taught Trump some much needed lessons.

    And a side note: living in a battleground state The Spouse, The Daughter and I stopped answering any pollsters who called in interest of living without constant interruption.

    • BobtheRegisterredFool

      The Clinton ties were one element. I think one could fairly look at that one debate and conclude he was a 9/11 truther, and hence also of dubious zeal as a convert to Republicanism.

    • I think there’s another factor about the polls that are often ignored: When Jesse Ventura first ran for Governor, all the polls predicted that he was going to lose. This is because the polls were reasonably polling likely voters…but Ventura was attracting a large number of voters who otherwise wouldn’t vote, but were attracted to do so this time, by virtue of Ventura being a celebrity.

      I think a lot of Trump’s winning was due in part of attracting “celebrity voters” who would otherwise not vote.

      I think it would be very good for Republicans to remember this: while I think Cruz would have won against Hillary — contrary to what a lot of naysayers say — he wouldn’t have been able to do it the way Trump did. He would still have had to buy ads, organize a ground game, etc. Unless the next Presidential candidate is also a celebrity (and going to “celebrity mode” will be just as bad for the Presidency as “dynasty mode” has been!).

  15. Whenever a discussion brings up “Electoral Fraud” (more on that term shortly), I feel compelled to drop these two links dispelling the Leftist myth that Electoral Fraud is a myth:

    Cited in the WaPo:

    And of course, the Left usually likes to cite the Brennan study despite its weak basis on semantics (and its weak effort to pre-empt such a criticism). You only have to get through the first two short sections to see this:

    Of course, there’s a much more substantial criticism of that study, but the point is that study doesn’t take long to undermine itself.

    • In the matter of fraudulent voting the burden of proof lies upon those who claim it isn’t happening. There being no effective controls to prevent it, such proof is unattainable. They are blind men proclaiming they don’t see any, so it must not be there … or, more accurately, Captain Renault expressing shock, shock to discover there is gambling going on.

  16. The good news: they aren’t usually this bad.

    The bad news: they are likely to get worse before they get better.

    • David, Internet Troll

      2016 was like no election in my lifetime (even Johnson v. Goldwater was a walk in the park compared to this one). Either a) we will never see another one like this, or b) 2016 is the new normal. I am worried that b) is the more likely option.


      • 2016 was more like the 1828 US Presidential election than anything else. Note that the 1832 and 1836 elections were not nearly as bad.

      • Trump is to Schwarzenegger as Schwarzenegger is to Ventura. Having a non-politician celebutard succeed makes all the other non-politician celebutards imagine they can do it as well. The Dems having a weak bench (hah!) and a compliant myth-making machine press it is entirely likely they might run a celebutard in 2020. They’ve toyed with the idea of a Warren Beatty candidacy in the past although (even if marriage and fatherhood haven’t moderated his views) his past positions put him insufficiently Left of the current party.

        I’m thinking they run Bruce Springsteen, although if they are so very determined to break that glass ceiling they might turn to Madonna.

        Considering the historic positions advocated by their party, I wouldn’t rule out a run by Cookie Monster.

        • Cookie Monster is a stone cold operator man….

        • Anonymous Coward

          Well, after all Springsteen was … Born to Run.

        • a compliant myth-making machine press

          Thanks for catching that. There is a difference between mythological and outright lie.

        • I’m wondering about that as well. How many celebrity candidates will it take before Americans realize that that’s a bad idea?

          If the Left is right about Trump — that he’s going to be a lousy President — then what makes them think that America’s not going to think “Well, we tried a celebrity, and that didn’t work…why not try something else instead?” and then get burned again.

          I saw Michael Moore talking about Reagan as a celebrity candidate, ignoring that (1) Reagan was also a successful governor, and (2) Reagan had a philosophical core, and he knew how to teach that core.

          Come to think of it, Moore is also ignoring (3) Hillary, who was an anti-celebrity, and only won against Trump because she managed to be more anti-celebrity than Trump was.

  17. Let Godfather add a couple of observations: the cell phone you guys gave me for Christmas has a number that once belonged to Juan, registered Democrat. I had the odd experience of being a Republican getting the treatment one of their own got, and toward the end I was the object of honest, dedicated campaigning. My sincerest complements, they were good. When there was a malfunction that required the Colorado booths to stay open a while longer, I got three voice mails saying, vote if you haven’t voted, polls still open, if you are in line STAY IN LINE. I suspect your Mom’s advice to not let them know how many votes they needed to steal worked, they went to honest, classical campaigning when it was too late.
    I think you younger folk underestimate how much a lot of us older folk loath Hillary. No weaker word will do. She collected swag by the hundreds of millions from the world’s rottenest rulers, in exchange for thank God we’ll never know what, and I hope now that their bribes will never be repaid their workers here in America take it out of her skin. I was dreading the kind of incompetence that Bill showed, seeking out foreign intervention apparently out of amusement, he didn’t care what his politics said, those great weapons were just sitting around, he could not resist using them. See Wiki Incident at Pristina Airport. At Pristina Airport the Russians rolled in, and Bills pale, indoor General Wes Clark ordered the British faction of Nato to RETAKE THE AIRPORT. Kill the Russians. Grizzled old General Sir Michael Jackson, God bless him said to the US President, “I’m not going to start World War Three for you.” Then he offered the British tanks alone to intervene, knowing damned well the British government would refuse exactly that action. And then Bill bombed the Chinese embassy, which the US media treated as some kind of joke.
    The e mails that sent thousands of deadly secrets to the whole world, Hillary going to sleep while her gay friend died at his post along with the men defending him, her referring to half of Trump’s supporters with words that usually signaled that her kind of ruler was about to Gulag them… thank God we’ll never know what we escaped by a hairsbreadth.

    • The Brit singer Blunt was one of those Clark told to get in there and he ignored him. Well he fobbed him off to the Brit command, who told him to pound sand. Then, the Russians ran out of food and we’re more than happy to share the airport for some MREs.

    • I will be curious to see how donations to the Clinton Foundation spike next year, now that donors no longer need fear any donations conveying the wrong impression.

      Hill’s & Bill’s speaking fees may see similar effects.

      • I will be curious to see if the Clinton Foundation still exists next year, now that it is no longer the court of the Empress-In-Waiting.

        • You know, it occurred to me today that she might try yet again, if she’s alive in 2020.

          • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

            Not saying that she won’t try but it’d be a long shot for her.

            IIRC the Democrats have never support a candidate who lost against a Republican (for the Presidency) when the candidate attempted a second try.

            Gore lost to Bush and he did poorly attempting to gain the Democratic nomination against Bush again.

            • William Jennings Bryan and Grover Cleveland would be two exceptions.

              • Bryan was an insurgent trying to take the party away from the Wall Street money-men (the “Gold-Bugs”, “Bourbon Democrats” and other pejoratives). He is more comparable to Trump than to Hillary.

                Cleveland OTOH was a relatively conservative Democrat who narrowly lost his re-election bid in an election tainted with fraud. He is more comparable to Gerry Ford…who *was* a plausible contender in 1980.

            • Considering the amount of money the Dems draw from Hollywood, they might be willing to attempt a reboot of the franchise. Hillary 2020: The Quickening

          • Had she won, I was going to post in places that no President has died in office in my lifetime… yet.

          • BobtheRegisterredFool

            If. She is old, probably not in very good health, does not have good mental habits, has received a tremendous psychic shock, and is perhaps going to be at loose ends. The mind can have great impact on physical health.

            • And, I repeat, some of the worst thugs in the world bribed her and aren’t getting diddly for their bribes. I don’t think “oh, well” is going to hold them for four years.

              • And <I<that concern, meine Freunde, is why I take great pleasure in directing your attention toward:

                Chelsea Clinton being groomed to run for Congress
                While some pundits are declaring the Clinton political dynasty dead, sources tell us that it is far from over. Chelsea Clinton is being groomed for the New York seat held by Rep. Nita Lowey.

                Chelsea could run for the seat in NYC’s 17th Congressional District once Lowey, a respected, 79-year-old career politician with nearly 30 years in office, decides to retire, we have exclusively learned.

                Lowey’s district includes parts of Rockland and Westchester counties and, conveniently, Chappaqua, the Clinton family home base.


                A source told us, “While it is true the Clintons need some time to regroup after Hillary’s crushing loss, they will not give up. Chelsea would be the next extension of the Clinton brand. In the past few years, she has taken a very visible role in the Clinton Foundation and on the campaign trail. While politics isn’t the life Hillary wanted for Chelsea, she chose to go on the campaign trail for her mother and has turned out to be very poised, articulate and comfortable with the visibility.”

          • And that thought terrifies me enough to hope, in the darker parts of my heart, that the consequences of whatever she’s hiding take her sooner rather than later.

            • BobtheRegisterredFool

              Her days of her strongest personal ability are behind her, and will be much further behind in 2020.

        • The knives will be out for the Clintons shortly. First, you have the ritual anger at those stoopidhead flyover racist. Then, once the shock wears off, and the realization that the Empress has no power, the insiders will begin to talk. Once they grok that there will be no repercussions, the talk will grow. You will also have ambitious people in the Democratic party who realize this will be their chance to move the old Clinton supporters aside and move up.

          • There will probably be some bloodshed at the DNC, as well. I doubt the Sandersnistas will consider Donna “Pssst – here’s the questions” Brazile an acceptable replacement for Debbie Whassernam-Schultz.

            Bernie’s Brigade being the most organized power center left, they will likely claim control of the party apparatus.

            Nancy Pelosi may be announcing her retirement. She’s 76 and not likely to be Speaker again. For that matter, 65-year-old Chuck Schumer is now the face of the Democrat party; as Senate Minority Leader he is the highest ranking Democrat in the nation. Tim Kaine, as the last vice-presidential candidate might also be able to wield some power, and he’s only 58 (Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe is 56 but carries the Clinton baggage.)

            Looking at the list of state governors with a D [] and discarding those from states like Connecticut, there’re Cuomo (NY) Brown (CA) Hickenlooper (CO) Dayton (MN) and I don’t see much more. I don’t think being governor of Washington, Oregon, Missouri or Louisiana is a stepping stone to the Democrat nomination, but then again, what else they got? With Democrats holding fewer than 1/3 the governor seats they don’t have a lot to draw from.

            And, not that it in any way relates, George Soros is 86.

            • I don’t think being governor of Washington, Oregon, Missouri or Louisiana is a stepping stone to the Democrat nomination, but then again,

              …but then again, they couldn’t be worse than Arkansas.

            • Apparently Bernie Sanders is pushing for Keith Ellison (Dem/professional Muslim, MN) for head of the DNC.
              *trots off to refill popcorn cart*

            • If Jerry Brown ran again, he might set a record for most attempts at the Democratic nomination, a kind of Democratic version of Harold Stassen.

              I mean, I was still in *high school* when the “boy wonder” made his first run, in…1976 (!) So if he ran again in 2020, that would be 44 years since.

              By contrast, Stassen ran NINE CONSECUTIVE TIMES, from 1944 to 1992, spanning 48 years, though only the first couple were taken seriously by anyone but him.

              • Brown is getting very old. He’ll be 82 in 2020. If he were to run for president again, then his age would be brought up as an issue.

    • I had a similar experience. A text message a day when early voting started, then ~4 a day and a phone call as election day approached. While they were from different volunteer’s phone numbers, and claimed to be from different organizations, they were mostly one of three copy-paste blocks of text.

      “Hey [not my name], it’s [volunteer or made-up name] with [NextGen Climate, NCDems, Color of Change, Climate for Change, etc]. If you’re still at [not my address] you can vote at [not my polling location]. Can we count on you to vote for Hillary no matter what?”

      I replied “UNSUBSCRIBE. STAAAAHP. DO NOT WANT.” but they didn’t stop.

      • I bet that if you had replied “Thanks for the info, I can’t wait to make America Great Again.” They would have stopped.

        • Last election we were being driven crazy by the dems with the same kind of shit on our house phone. I told them I would crawl through broken glass to vote against Obama (I might have called him … well, what he is, given his mom’s marriage couldn’t be legal) I screamed obscenities at them. NOTHING. Then Marsh answered with “Zionist conspiracy center of America, how can we help you make Israel secure?” They never called AGAIN.

    • If Bill seemed to be doing stuff for no reason, then it was to distract a group you couldn’t see– I know some of his military stuff was done to hide the damage they were doing to rural interests.

  18. Key to Trump’s success, in my opinion, is that the Hillary campaign never took him seriously. Trump was the guy they most wanted to have on the Republican side of the ticket, ‘cos he was seen more as the punchline to one of their nasty little in-jokes.

    So, the media and the Democratic Party (redundant, I know…) did everything to ensure he’d be the nominee. Tons of free publicity, and ignoring all the reasonable candidates did the trick. They pulled the same “Lucy with the football” trick they have been pulling since the 1980s, and turned on him once he had the nomination. NBC held on to those tapes until the moment they thought they would do the most damage, and then released them. Ethical journalists would have released those back before he was the nominee, but we are talking about American “jornolistas” of the early 21st Century, so they didn’t.

    And, it all blew up in their faces. I honestly don’t think anyone but Trump could have won, in this environment. Maybe I’m wrong, but I really think a key reason behind him winning was sheer hubris on the part of ghe Hillary campaign and their media lackeys. Hubris they would never have had taking on a “serious” candidate.

    They did it to themselves. Which is what makes the whole thing so darkly humorous… I’m going to be laughing my ass off, as I labor on the giant ray gun I have no doubt he will be building. (Classic Simpsons reference to Kang and Kodos, there…)

    • I’ve still got a headache from the folks outraged that he’s not willing to pretend to be a good Christian guy, while actually being an amoral jerk.

      He’s way too ruled by his id, but he’s been pretty dang open about it the whole time. Seriously, who the frak is surprised that he was doing lockerroom talk?

      He’s not a Republican, so nobody was shocked that he acted like a Democrat– and their usual “hypocrite” accusation didn’t work, because he doesn’t fake it.

    • Erm. I vaguely know the Simpsons is some kind of cartoon about duck people. Kang and Kodos were characters from Star Trek.

      Frankly, I felt Kodos the Executioner was unfairly maligned…

      • BobtheRegisterredFool

        They aren’t duck people. That is just a specific cartoonishly exaggerated art style.

        Blah, blah, blah, Bettie Boop, Popeye, blah, blah, astro boy, CLAMP, Torimiya, Miyashita, Kubo Tite, blah, blah, blah….

    • What Kirk said, plus the fact that the media has been able to freely suppress, mock, and shout down anything against their worldview.
      Anything not 100% congruent with your worldview meant you were either team stupid or team evil, no nuance allowed.
      Eventually people do get tired of having concerns Progsplained away and ignored.

  19. When the Bourbons returned to the throne in France, Talleyrand quipped: “They have forgotten nothing, and learned nothing.” Ditto here. Romney was a committed progressive, McCain was THE Reagan conservative, and Trump is our Happy Warrior – and Donald evoked the most ardent fervor of any candidate for the GOP since Ronald (how could anyone not notice that?) – we all need to get out of our bubbles and open our eyes 🙂

    On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:25 AM, According To Hoyt wrote:

    > accordingtohoyt posted: “This Was My First Election – E. Marshall Hoyt > This was my first election. I’m not particularly happy about that, of > course, I missed the chance to vote in 2012 by a mere couple of weeks. But > I did my civic duty, and I voted. Voting did not instill me wit” >

    • Interesting perspective, but you’re wrong. Outside your echo chamber, committed democrat Trump only evoked “OMG, can I bring myself to vote for him?”
      AT BEST he’s only as liberal as Romney. I’m sort of hoping for that.

      • I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s much less liberal now, having experienced their treatment of the apostate.

      • I keep seeing the “Trump is really Reagan” without any substance. I guess Trump is Reagan because he beat a Dem that was supposed to win. Does that mean W was Reagan as well because he beat Gore? We know George Herbert Walker Bush won by running as Reagan’s third term, but it turned out he wasn’t able to just be Reagan, and that (and Ross Perot) in the end is why GHW lost to Billy-Jeff.

        Trump is Trump – If the concept is you’ll be able to box him in by saying he has to be consistent with Ronald Reagan’s legacy, that won’t work. He’s going to do what he wants, without any reference to the extensive conservative principles that Reagan had built up and documented in writing (see “Reagan, In His Own Hand”). That’s why conservative voters were so hesitant, and only the alternative of the Dowager Empress of Chappaqua and all she entailed made the choice obvious.

        My hope is that Trump will switch from his crazy inside-the-OODA-loop campaigning mode to a business executive manager mode of hiring the best people, making sure reporting is set up to catch things before they get too bad, and specifying targets and managing towards them. I’m hoping.

        Oh, and McCain as “THE Reagan Conservative?” Yeah, no.

        • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

          Trump isn’t Reagan.

          However, there are some parallels IMO. Both invoked a popular “movement” against the Status Quo. Both ran against a hated Democrat. Both faced a very hostile News Media.

          However, it remains to be seen “how good of President Trump will be”, “what principles Trump will be governing from”, etc.

          On the Gripping Hand, I dislike the idea that we must select the “Right Person For President” to win. We still need to send Good People to DC to fight. We still need to convince the average person that’s “we’re correct”.

          The best we can say about Trump is that he doesn’t appear to be as Big Of Enemy as Clinton would have been, but we still need to “fight” in other ways.

          • As said, there were parallels.

            What happened was that Trump fans then used those parallels to try and play up the similarities, sometimes to ridiculous levels.

            Even Obama isn’t immune from that. If you go to the White House page, and check the list of former presidents, there’s a brief entry down toward the bottom of Reagan’s page that helpfully explains why Obama is so much like Reagan. /rolleyes

  20. I was going to say that evidence from Washington State works against your notion of not trying to cheat…but it might actually support it.

    That guy who murdered his ex girlfriend in a mall in Washington, who voted twice as a non-citizen (No, I’m not buying one anonymous source that claimed he was, only after it became an outrage.) got the folks in charge of elections in a bunch of different counties really wound up, and working hard at their jobs, and pushing the whole “make Washington ID valid for flying” thing. I got a couple of pictures printed at Walmart, and there was a long line– of people there to get their passport photos. All older, with Mexican accents*.

    When I went to check the election stuff on the Washington State site, the really big counties that we know do a lot of fraud (to the tune of a 20% higher turn-out) were reporting zero percent processed on votes. The results also tilted towards the same “golly it’s amazing we found a few more boxes” type results. (Just in case, there’s still a quarter of our “estimated on hand” ballots to be processed, more than half in the Seattle Blob.)

    * We use to have a whole lot of legal Mexicans in my area, before the illegals got so strong. Now, it’s just too dangerous– the illegals can’t tell the legals from the illegals, so the predators will victimize all of the folks who have Mexican accents on the assumption that they’re less likely to go to the cops. Some of our best hands were third generation legals who make Trump sound like a member of the USCCB when they talk about the “Mexicans.” Sadly, they sounded more Mexican to American ears than their parents, because they were put in ESL education. Their grandparents are horrified, both because of the language loss and because they speak really, really bad Spanish– half ghetto talk, half a mish-mash of the different rules followed by different countries.

    • Shorter:
      They still rigged, but only where they felt threatened.

    • We use to have a whole lot of legal Mexicans in my area, before the illegals got so strong. Now, it’s just too dangerous …

      This (along with the “line-jumping” issue) has long been the strongest argument against the current lawless treatment of “undocumented” citizens. It actively endangers those who are here legally. It is one reason I’ve long believed the people who should be most irate at illegal entrants ought be those who are having their legitimacy challenged because of the Gresham’s Law effect of the trespassers.

      When I was growing up, “don’t make us look bad in front of [other groups]” was a byword; now it seems to be inverted so that “acting white” is a repudiation of (imagined) authenticity for certain minorities. I can’t understand more people not being outraged at being human shields for the bad actors in their communities (but maybe that’s just a “white” thing?)

      • Per exit polling (and thus suspect, but it’s what we have) Trump increased his share of the Hispanic vote total by 7% over what Romney got (Romney 27% to Trump 29%), so he ended up just short of 3 in 10. I’ve experienced first hand the negative views that many US citizens of Mexican descent hold about Mexican illegals. Just because they share a heritage does not mean they hold monolithic viewpoints, or even get along. There’s lots of class differentiation by region within Mexico too, and that does not even start o look at how, say, people of Mexican descent view people from Guatemala or Nicaragua.

        And since we’re looking into statistics, also note Trump increased his share over what Romney got with black voters by one third. Yes Trump still only ended up getting 9% of the black vote, but a third-again increase is nothing to sneeze at.

        • The black vote, though, may be more about the opponent, blacks being (slightly) less monolithically loyal to Hillary than they were to Obama.

        • I do not denigrate Trump’s achievement, but wonder whether his “increased” share of the Black vote wasn’t simply getting the same amount of voters but of a diminished total for that group?

          Using numbers, say Romney got 1 million of a total black vote of 100 million — 1%. Now Trump gets 1 million from a total pool of 50 million black voters — 2% Has Trump actually doubled Romney’s share?

          As it stands, with current reports, we don’t know how many additional “minority” votes Trump received.

          For that matter, I wonder how many of Hillary’s ten million fewer votes than Obama’s peak actually existed.

        • Just because they share a heritage does not mean they hold monolithic viewpoints, or even get along.

          Imagine how the folks who left California because it’s a hot mess feel about new Californians showing up to turn the place into a new California.

  21. … many of whom voted [T]rump and drank a bottle of alcohol for being forced to do so, …

    Already bought more ouzo. Last bottle went out with the recycling… on Tuesday. No, not “dry hammering” it. At least not yet.

    How will Trump be? No idea for sure. I’m hoping he won’t be “like LBJ” but we shall see.

  22. I’ve been seeing some comments about how Trump should be accomodating to the press.

    R-ight. The media gorons really *do* have shorter memories than a goldfish…

    • That is the media’s over-privileged sense of entitlement speaking; water is under the bridge and they’ve no need to remember or apologise for what they’ve done.

      Jim Rutenberg and Dean Baquet aside, they will insist there was nothing personal, they were just doing their jobs. Trump needs to be reasonable and see it their way.

      Their alternative is to look at all the stops they pulled out, all the rules of journalistic ethics they discarded and accept their irrelevance.

  23. Oh, and Happy 241st Birthday USMC!!

    (I’ll go start on my pushups for forgetting until now…)

    • From the halls of Montezuma,
      To the shores of Tripoli,
      We fight our country’s battles
      in the air on land and sea.
      First to fight for right and freedom,
      and to keep our honor clean,
      We are proud to claim the title
      of United States Marine.

      • Sings along:
        If the army and navy
        ever get to Heaven scenes
        they will find the streets are guarded
        by United States Marines!

        Even if they are a cadet branch of the U.S. Navy…. 😁

  24. * Told every pollster who called that I was writing in my dog, Check.
    * Voted for the one candidate who could stop Hillary, Check.
    * Suffered extreme nausea and guilt sweats, Check.
    * Got falling down drunk watching the election returns, Check.
    * Giggled like a small girl when Wisconsin (!) flipped, Check. (This is where I fell down.)
    * Decided to go to bed when I pulled a muscle roaring at Rachel Maddow’s on-air implosion. Even if we’re stuck with Trump, at least I got to watch some genuinely annoying folks drown in their own bile. So there’s that.

    I’m not altogether sure about the Dems not feeling they had to cheat this time. There may be something to it, particularly in the “low” turnout in Philadelphia. Other than that question, you’ve nailed it.

    As I told my youngest – it was her first presidential election, too – I’m so very, very sorry that this is what we gave you for your first chance to exercise your franchise.

  25. No one who voted Trump- who only did it as a vote against Clinton- was public about their vote.

    Well, actually, no. I’ve been very public about it. On comments on this blog, other blogs I comment on, and on my facebook page. It’s actually been one of the more common reasons given for voting for Trump. Often phrased similarly to “I’d crawl across broken glass to vote for Syd the syphilitic camel to vote against Clinton, and Trump is a better choice then Syd.”

  26. The source for this is surprising:

    So far, he’s the only one in the mainline media who seems to have a clue.

  27. One of the hate crimes supposedly committed by Trump supporters has already turned out to be a hoax. The Muslim student in Lafayette that claimed she was attacked by two white men (one of whom had on a white Trump hat) has since now admitted that it didn’t happen.

    • BobtheRegisterredFool

      For speaking Latin I was beaten by a busload of protesters wearing a Trump shirt. They broke my legs and called me a scab, whatever that means. I just got out of ICU. I cannot help but think that it would never have happened if Castle had won. Vae Victis.

      • ALL of them were ONE trump t-shirt. It was really stretched 😀

        • BobtheRegisterredFool

          I’ve been trying to figure out plotting for years, to learn how to make a longer story. I can take this longer than I ever have before. Main problem is that the main character would have to be an Amberite who minmaxed everything into Endurance. As in Strength and Warfare sold down to Human, and Psyche at Chaos. With Bad Stuff.

  28. OT
    RIP Leonard Cohen, He’s followed his Muse.

  29. This was the year we voted for the narcissistic, blow-hard crony-capitalist Democrat slut.

    He won in part because the usual suspects ran a hate campaign accusing him of being a racist, sexist, homophobic, ignorant Republican slut.

    The poor fools who still believe what their would-be masters tell them are in tears of rage and horror (and only the total wankers are mostly upset about the Republican part). The most useful thing we can do is hit them repeatedly with the reality stick. Scott Adams has some good deprogramming information on this. Check his blog.

    The rest of the U.S. played the lesser-of-two-evils game, with a solid percentage placing a gamble on the, “maybe a guy with no political machine to back him will feel beholden to us,” and an even smaller percentage of true believers thought he could #DrainTheSwamp. (I know some of these folks have been Mean to You on the Internets, but since they were facing real-life violence, I tend to give them a pass.) A really tiny percentage of gullible fools actually thought a President Trump would usher in a new era of Juden-heisse, segregation and gay-bashing. Suckers: left or “right” bigotry really does make you stupid.

    Frankly, I’m cautiously optimistic. Very few of the anti-Trumpers got his faults (much less his virtues) right. And his faults were the very one America was designed to deal with.

    • While there were a myriad of sound reasons to not vote for Hillary (evidence: early on, even a Democrat that had voted Democrat starting with FDR was grumping, “I can’t vote for that woman.” — I expect he had no problem voting Mondale-Ferraro. They managed to lose a lifelong FDR-Democrat. Ouch!) the defining screwup was not Benghazi, or emails, or… many other things, but the “basket of deplorables” comment. That, ‘deplorable’ was adopted almost instantly by Trump supporters and even offended fence-sitters in a Yankee Doodle fashion. That’s how a candidate loses America. Even Trump non-supporters had fun with it – we did here.

    • I too am cautiously optimistic.