Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomohawk | Hacker News Reader

The real bubble is the press. Their unsustainable model of patting themselves on the back and getting in bed with the politicians they're supposed to be shedding light on has them in a downward spiral. Case in point: the front page of the NY Times the day after the election.

The false narrative in tfa is another example of denial. How could Trump win unless everyone in the midwest is a racist homophobe?

The fact is, Hillary was such a poor candidate that even Trump was able to defeat her. Just accept it and move on. Accusing people in the midwest of being racists just makes you look like a fool. Take some constructive action like making sure the Democrat party has a less corrupt nominating process.

View on HN

Hillary wasn't a poor candidate by herself, but because of a decades long slander campaign against her. The Democrats clearly underestimated how much people were willing to believe the baseless attacks against her. Nominating her was a display of unjustified trust in the voters' ability and willingness to see through the lies.

That too is part of the bubble. Or the two bubbles, perhaps. Completely different views of what reality is like. In one reality, Hillary is a crook, global warming a hoax, liberals evil, racism not an issue, and Trump a great business man and family man without any scandals. In the other bubble, it's the other way around.

You are oversimplifing this. These people are pissed off at Washington and Wall Street and they believe Hillary would be more of Obamas business as usual. And guess what? The emails proved them right.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/8/hillary-clinton...

The DNC is full of incompetent hacks whom were arrogant enough to have allowed this to happen. She dismissed half the country as deplorable, visited Virginia and told the miners there she's shutting the coal plants down. Wore 15 thousand dollar pantsuits to events on poverty. Its not surprising that she lost its surprising that she got as many votes as she did.

And guess what. Trump is doing exactly the same:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-transitio...

You didn't think the US Government could be run entirely by outsiders did you ?

I never said I did. She ran a tone deaf campaign and it was made clear she was in the pocket of wall street. Trump at least tried to look like an outsider. That's why he won, like it or not.

It was at one point. While a little troll-y still a fun thing to consider.

> These people are pissed off at Washington and Wall Street and they believe Hillary would be more of Obamas business as usual.

I really question this. It keeps getting said, but looking at the numbers from Wisconsin/Michigan/PA trump did get mroe votes, but really Hillary had a massive drop. He had 1300 more votes in Wisconsin than Romney, Hillary had 250k less than Obama.

So is it really angry white americans who trump stole in droves from the democrats... or a democratic candidate who couldn't get people to show up.

The rest of those red states are pretty much just the states that always vote red + florida (and florida does what florida does).

>but really Hillary had a massive drop

Obama campaigned on change, people voted for him because they believed him. Many of them were white. Now, when those same people refuse to vote or vote for Trump. They are nothing but racists. The media and democratic party narrative doesn't hold water.

Hillary was a poor candidate because she was a neo-liberal who had nothing to offer to the midwestern working class, and quite frankly took them for granted (she visited Wisconsin exactly zero times during the election, apparently she was too busy visiting The Hamptons and Martha's Vineyard).

It's funny that people are raging at the midwest because it's been, for the past few decades, quite blue. Hillary just assumed that they were With Her (even though she clearly wasn't With Them) and now they are at fault for not giving her the votes she felt she was owed.

Obama is also a neoliberal. While it was a mistake for her not to visit Wisconsin, in terms of actual issues she's not that different from Obama.

This is true. I live in the Midwest, voted for Obama twice, but saw that for the most part the government just kept on screwing the rest of us. Didn't matter who we elected, we never got "change". I didn't vote for Trump, but the people I know who did, voted for him because he appeared to be a serious wrench that we could throw into the machine.

People are tired of bombing campaigns, corporate welfare, and feeling like they don't have a say or don't have control over their government. These states Hillary lost: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, she lost because they didn't feel like she was going to do anything different than her predecessor. And it's true. She wouldn't have.

Though it begs the question, was there anything Obama/Clinton should have done? Why is the onus on the government to bring change?

All I hear from that side of the debate is that somehow the government should restore prosperity to these regions. Why aren't these people moving to do something for themselves if they want change?

If all you can imagine your state being good for is low-skilled labor there is nothing the government can do long term to protect that. Protectionism might bring some "jobs" back but it will come at a long term cost of reducing the USA's competitiveness in the global market (this is exactly why globalisation is a thing).

Personally I think policy in Middle America needs to embrace the state of the world (putting aside petty coast vs interior bullshit) and think about what they can do to compete on a global scale. Then maybe their lives would be better.

Well, what do you think they should do? I'm not proposing a solution, but I do think what I said is true. Even if we equal out everything else, and assume that the government is woefully unable to help poor people or those who have lost jobs, at least one of the candidates is giving those people the illusion of change or hope that things can change. Is that not true?

In regard to the competitiveness of the USA. I'm not schooled well enough in economics to completely understand everything that is going on, or without speaking about specifics argue for or against your point, but if we need to maintain "competitiveness", and the resulting insanely high profits and income inequality across the board, how are we going to ensure that this fortune is spread throughout the country and not concentrated in the hands of the few? If we can't do that, then we also can't begrudge the poor and those left behind by globalization the change to elect people that will enact policies that will benefit them, even if it's to the detriment of people who, quite frankly, don't care about them because they're just a bunch of poor dumb hicks, or poor black people in the ghetto.

Please keep in mind I'm just open for discussion and expressing a view. I respect what you have to say here, and my goal isn't to cause an argument but to listen to what you have to say, ask questions, and state my opinion as well. :)

they're not asking for the gov't to provide answers - they're asking for reduced taxes, reduced red tape, something about breaking up banks that i don't totally understand, and assurance that their guns are safe (i'm sure i'm missing a lot, but it's that sort of stuff). of my perhaps 12 non-liberal friends here, 4 have started businesses (including one that is pretty innovative). none of them went to more than a year of college, none started with well to do parents, they're making solid money by ohio standards, and employing 15 people in total. not sure if they're an anomaly, but the belief is widespread that if the govt loosens the shackles, new small businesses will blossom

i'm not interested in arguing about whether that belief is well founded or self-consistent, or whether their vision of a hands-off gov't is sustainable (i'd argue that neither is sound, but they're not so obviously wrong as to be equivalent to asking for a handout)

Trump also has nothing to offer the rural midwest. The difference was that he pretended that he had.

Even if manufacturing and coal mining where to increase ten fold, there would be no new jobs for people without a long education, due to automation.

Trump understands their fears. He told the Detroit Auto Club that he was going to put a 35% tax on cars from Mexico if Ford moved its plant there. He talked about other manufacturing jobs being outsourced. Doesn't even matter if he can do anything about it but the fact he said it--while Hillary didn't--meant all the difference in the world.

In one case we got audio tapes, the other transcripts from wall street meetings. testimonies in media vs emails. Statement on rallies vs arms deals and handshakes.

What we got is mathematically 4 realities. Both slander campaigns could be more or less true, in which the two most hated candidates in the world was really poor candidates for the two biggest parties in the united states. Both slander campaigns could be wrong, in which the voters where tricked by two political parties which should have known better to not bet a political election on slander. The two remaining options that only one slander campaign is wrong, is really only believed within the bubbles. It is very unlikely that anyone will be converted who already aren't.

>people were willing to believe the baseless attacks against her

Some people read the damaging emails. Other people only read the emails about Hillary getting a creme brulee because that's what her talking points focused on.

There was a lot in there that was very damaging and she refused to address pretty much all of it.

Which emails were damaging? I didn't read any that I thought were a big deal, do you have any examples?

I'd say about 3/4 or more of these are on point:

http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/

You should click through to the actual emails, I read the emails/links behind the "top 10" and was bitterly disappointed to find nothing juicy at all.

The quotes are out of context, making them seem much worse than when you actually read the surrounding paragraphs. Good try by author of the site to make these seem interesting but to be honest her emails seem entirely pedestrian and boring.

You should click through and actually read them.

So take #2 as an example:

The open borders thing is pretty much slam dunk evidence that she wanted the TPP.

Trump alluded to this in his last advert about "elites".

Did she try to deny this? No, not really. She only came out against the TPP (weakly) after Sanders campaign hammered her on it and once the email was out in the open she lost all credibility on that.

This was a particularly important issue to the rust belt, where she lost heavily.

Even if you aren't, she was likely aware of all of this which is why she tried to conceal the paid speech where she said it.

I don't see why this is interesting/damaging though.

Sure TPP is bad news but I really don't see why her being weakly in support of it followed by weakly against it is really that damaging/interesting.

Same goes with a bunch of the others. The one on her "paying" people to disrupt rallies is a bunch of garbage. She received what looks like a newsletter from something called MoveOn, perhaps she even donated money to it. This thing seems to organise people to to protest against things they find reprehensible (which is apparently Trump to these people). The site tries to make it out that she directly paid people to go and start a riot. In reality it looks like she may have donated money to this thing.

Either way it's still entirely uninteresting, boring, run of the mill stuff.

If there was really damaging emails I am sure they would be at #1.

Hilary lacked appeal. If she wasn't the husband of Bill Clinton I don't think she would even be in politics.

She's been trying to be the Democratic nominee for decades, there was a reason she lost every time until now...and her opponent was openly socialist.

Hillary was a poor candidate. She lost Michigan by 14,000 votes and she never even brought up that Obama and the democrats bailed out GM and Chrysler thereby saving many of their jobs and livelihoods. She was campaigning with lines like "when they say I'm playing the women card--I say deal me in!"

Meanwhile, Trump was saying things like "remember when the cars were made in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico? Now they make the cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in flint."

Hillary failed to relate to voters. She lost the majority of women and working class, who should be the reliable democratic base. She was the image of robotic boredom and I voted for her. Tim Kaine was a waste of a VP spot and a snub to Bernie. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazile made Hillary look completely untrustworthy. Hillary arrogantly expected Obama's coalition to fall in line behind her without offering them anything to rally behind other than again Trump, which clearly wasn't enough.

Democrats have to own this failure and ask themselves what they could have done better.

I certainly agree with you, and thanks for putting to words many of my thoughts.

However I also believe that there is some truth to most explanations for this election in the HN threads and various op-eds. There's too many factors to reduce it to just one party/group to blame.

You nailed it with the VP comment. What the fuck did Timmeh bring to the ticket? VA? Arguably, but that's a low bar to hurdle.

If Hillary was playing to win she should have nominated a true-blue progressive and especially one that could have harness some of the OWS/99% energy (without actually formally supporting either).

Her campaign was about Her. Problem is, many many folks are just busy surviving and didn't see themselves with "Her".

> The fact is, Hillary was such a poor candidate that even Trump was able to defeat her. Just accept it and move on.

This is false. It has nothing to do with Hillary.

> The false narrative in tfa is another example of denial. How could Trump win unless everyone in the midwest is a racist homophobe?

The false narrative is that Trump was a strong candidate. On the contrary, I'm betting he knew exactly how to play the game. Democrats have always had a hard time getting a 3rd term. They've only done it twice since 1836. The so-called keys to the White House pointed to a Republican victory. Trump is a sales man, he knew that the average American voter doesn't want to listen to policy, but rather catchy phrases that are vague patriotic ("I like Ike"). He is a weak candidate who knew how to work the system for a win. He's now filling his cabinet with people who shouldn't be there (Ben Carson, Sarah Palin, Rudy Guiliani), because the reality is he doesn't care one bit about policy or being the president. In their desire for "change" voters have managed to elect a person who doesn't care about them and whose apathy is going to do a lot of harm.

Can you explain to me why you feel that Rudy Guiliani is unqualified to be appointed US Attorney General?

Noun, verb, 911. This guy fed on all the hate and misery and used it to propel his career.

Expect all the BushCo. prescience that led to the 9/11 attacks to lead to another one - which the Trump administration will use to launch another war.

Don't think it can happen?

It has everything to do with Hillary. Heck, I've listened 2 and half hours of podcast between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan explaining why people should vote for her despite all the horrors they told about her, how ambitious, self-centered, egomaniac, greedy, dishonest, demagogue she is. I'm not american, but they successfully convinced me that in any case, she wasn't any better.

> Hillary was such a poor candidate that even Trump was able to defeat her

Which is sad because she really truly is more qualified than he is, I think. But she's just so damn unlikeable.

It's not even about the emails or anything. She literally represents everything everyone (including many liberals[1]) wanted to change about The Man. The only thing she had going for her on an emotional personal level was that she's a woman and that having the first lady president would be cool.

Imho Sanders stood a better chance. At least he was [trying to?] giving hope to the same audience as Trump was.

I guess we'll see what happens next.

[1] Here I consider things like "alt hacker propaganda" a la Mr. Robot and movements like Occupy Wall Street as "liberals". Perhaps they're more libertarians, I don't know. But the zeitgeist amongst many young people has been extremely anti-establishment in recent years.

Yup.

People were rabid to vote against trump. Not so much to vote for Hillary. Turnout sucked.

Compare it to rabid Trump supporters, or Obama.

What you say is exactly what happened. If people wanted so much not to elect Trump, they could vote for Sanders, and I am somehow sure Sanders would won the presidential elections. And in my opinion, he would be best bet for America that is shaken by many things right now. Seeing wealthy, white people, from America (mostly artists and to some extent engineers), crying all over the internet how everything is doomed and unfair is making me nausea. Guess what?

My country was destroyed by provoked civil war and NATO bombing after that. (Bill Clinton played big part in that) After that we have chosen new government, everything was going to be better, new economy, new young smart people, then our prime minister (who was the bastion of those changes and reforms) got assassinated. And after that? After that we got same shitty government that was during the 90s (right/extremists, radical party), and now they "are" pro-EU oriented. So much bullshit, country elected the party that was the worst possible choice, that nobody from circles of my family, friends and people I know didn't even dare to think of as a leading party. And it happened. And guess what, you live with it! How? Well, country is people, not one man. Sure it is bad, it hurts, but you live your life following your own internal compass, not somebody else's.

The truth as always lies somewhere in the middle.

People who voted for Trump do have to own his clearly racist, xenophobic and misogynist behaviour during the campaign.

But equally Hillary needed to have a answer for the real suffering that is happening amongst people who are being left behind by technological advancement and globalisation. And she didn't. And actually neither do the Democrats. And as we will soon learn neither do the Republicans.

> The truth as always lies somewhere in the middle

Not always

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy

Reply on news.ycombinator.com