Links 11/13/16

When seabirds smell plastic in the ocean, they think it’s time to eat Los Angeles Times

U.S. banks’ post-election rally may be just an appetizer Reuters

Indian Banks Receive $30 Billion in Deposits as ATMs Run Dry Bloomberg

Former Autonomy CFO charged with wire fraud and conspiracy FT

That Big Berkshire Hathaway Railroad Deal Bloomberg

DAPL Ignores 2nd Army Corps Request to Stop Construction for 30 Days Indian Country


England prepares to leave the world LRB


Nusra On The Run – Trump Induces First Major Policy Change On Syria Moon of Alabama

U.S. Base in Afghanistan Hit by Taliban Suicide Bomber WSJ

Iraqi army says advances in Mosul, despite suicide bombers Reuters. Wait, what? Mosul hasn’t fallen yet?

Colombia, FARC Rebel Group Announce New Peace Accord WSJ

Huge Anti-Park Rally Adds Pressure on Korea President to Resign Bloomberg

Can the India-Pakistan Ceasefire Survive? The Diplomat

Trump’s America and Hong Kong’s oath taking crisis: how they are linked South China Morning Post

War Drums

The Danger of Going Soft on Russia Editorial Board, NYT

Trump Transition

Readers, I need to apologize for a Links section that’s way too heavy on US election news. But we are dependent on the news flow, and the Trump Transition is dominating the news flow. More, the news flow is enormous — even if much of it is from institutions and individuals who have been, or at least should be, thoroughly discredited — and I’m sure I’ve missed important stories. So I’m in the odd position of having both too many links and too few. –lambert

Trump promises to make infrastructure a major focus PBS. Trump: “We’re going to rebuild our infrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none. And we will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it.” Assuming that Trump’s public-private partnerships aren’t colonized and deformed by cronies, and assuming the jobs are “good jobs at good wages,” this should go a long way toward solving any legitimacy issues Trump might face (at least after the stimulus kicks in). Something Trump should do but won’t: Fly into Flint, promise a completely new and lead-free water system one (1) year, and then deliver.

Trump’s Surprising Transportation Priorities Fortune. Not self-driving cars.

Obama Administration Gives Up on Pacific Trade Deal WSJ. So Trump deep-sixes TPP and the United States remains sovereign, he doesn’t do a Syrian No-Fly Zone, so no war with Russia, and then he flames out in a legitimacy crisis (see the “Prediction Professor” below). What’s not to like?

Obama Lobbies Against Obliteration by Trump MoDo, NYT

14 Obama regs Trump could undo The Hill

Trump looking at fast ways to quit global climate deal: source Reuters. Interesting if true, like every story single-sourced by the hated press from the overly dynamic Trump transition team. Later addition by Yves: “The howls from foreign governments say they believe this to be serious. But let us not forget that Obama was slow to join climate accords and embraced a boom in fossil fuel production in the US. Had he actually embraced combatting climate change, as opposed to giving it lip service, there would have been momentum and more public support, making it harder for Trump to reverse course.”

The legacy of the 2011 debt ceiling fight is the biggest issue Trump will face on day one Business Insider. Maybe cutting a trillion from defense wouldn’t be a bad thing…

‘Prediction professor’ who called Trump’s big win also made another forecast: Trump will be impeached WaPo (Furzy Mouse). In crisis, tail risk gets riskier.

Trump Lawyers to Begin Settlement Talks on Trump University ABC

Trump’s Personal Investments Ride on Completion of Dakota Access Pipeline EcoWatch

Trump’s potential conflicts Muckety. Handy mapping of relationships.

Bernie’s empire strikes back Politico (MR). The inside part of what I hope turns out to be an inside/outside strategy.

Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders duo will lead liberals in the Senate Boston Globe. Note that Warren was as invested as it’s possible to be in Clinton’s failed strategy of making the election about Trump’s temperament and fitness for office, in great contrast to Sanders’ focus on policy.

Trump’s Insurgency creates our Tahrir Square Moment Global Guerillas. “This suggests that the next open source protest we are likely to see will form to force Donald Trump from the Presidency before the next election — a Tahrir square moment in cities all across the US. A massively and diverse open source protest that has one simple goal: the immediate removal of Donald Trump from office.” The 2011 Tahrir Square protesters had one simple, unifying demand: Erhal! (“Leave!”). And they forced Mubarak from office. The difficulties came afterwards. Power was lying in the street, and the Army picked it up.

Moments of tragic optimism amid a Trump victory City Paper. Report from the ground of an anti-Trump march in Baltimore. Will the “intersectional” (here) protesters make the same mistake Occupy did, structuring meetings and organizing events so working people find it hard to participate?

Democrats won popular vote in the Senate, too USA Today

Labor Secretary Tom Perez interested in Democratic Party chairmanship Yahoo News

2016 Post Mortem

Clinton aides blame loss on everything but themselves Politico

On the call, Clinton surrogates who have supported the campaign from the outside for the past 18 months offered their thanks to the Brooklyn-based operatives. The mood was light and supportive, with Podesta and Palmieri expressing gratitude for everyone’s hard work.

Sycophants to the end. And I have to quote this, since it’s framed as a “What more could they possibly have done?!” defense of the Clinton campaign:

In Scranton and Harrisburg, the campaign aired a commercial that featured a David Letterman clip of Trump admitting to outsourcing manufacturing of the products and clothes that bore his logo.

David Letterman. I bet some artisanal pickle eater in Clinton’s Brooklyn bunker thought that was the best idea ever.

Hillary Clinton Blames F.B.I. Director for Election Loss NYT. Hillary Clinton can never fail. She can only be failed.

Poor Liberals, Nobody to Blame But Themselves Counterpunch

A series of strategic mistakes likely sealed Clinton’s fate WaPo

How Donald Trump exploited the rickety foundation of the Obama coalition The Week

Labor Leaders Deserve Their Share of the Blame for Donald Trump’s Victory In These Times

Watch this pollster eat a bug on live TV after his election prediction went horribly wrong The Week

The Devil in the Polling Data Quanta (part one is here). Correlated error.

Trump v Clinton: Why the pollsters seemed to get it wrong FT

One Factor in Hillary Clinton’s Defeat: Lack of Support From Some Women Voters WSJ. “[Clinton’s] campaign rented a Manhattan convention center with an actual glass ceiling for what they hoped would be an election-night victory party.” Hubris.

2016 was the apathy election Carl Beijer. Today’s must-read. Charts.

The myth of the reactionary white working class WSWS (MR).

Stunned By Trump, The New York Times Finds Time For Some Soul-Searching Deadline Hollywood. Here’s the remarkable letter from Bacquet and Sulzberger to their subscribers:


Reflections on a Democracy in Crisis The Archdruid Report

The Election: Of Hate, Grief, and a New Story Charles Eisenstein

Episodes in Recent American History Counterpunch (RH).

Hot Topics: United States October 2016 Facebook IQ (Furzy Mouse).

How Google and Facebook Can Reshape Elections Der Speigel

Guillotine Watch

Why people shouldn’t snigger at Trump’s opulent $100m penthouse FT. Let the healing begin!

Class Warfare

If you’re obeying the law, you’re contributing CEOs’ astronomical salaries KevinMD (Furzy Mouse).

What I learned after 100,000 miles on the road talking to Trump supporters Chris Arnade, Guardian. Arnade is, IMNSHO, the best on the “flyover” beat. And Lewiston, Maine is one of his favorite towns.

Why You Should Blame The Economics Discipline For Today’s Problems Evonomics

Law and Ownership Reexamined The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation

When and How to Watch the Taurid and Leonid Meteor Showers Weather Underground

Most Massive Super Moon Since 1948 Dispels the Darkness Indian Country

Antidote du jour:


See yesterday’s Links and Antidote du Jour here.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This entry was posted in Links on by .

About Lambert Strether

Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs that provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are different flavors of neoliberalism (“Because markets”). I don’t much care about the “ism” that delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism razing it. I don’t much care, as long as the benefits are delivered. To me, the key issue — and this is why Medicare for All is always first with me — is the tens of thousands of excess “deaths from despair,” as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering and organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics — even the worthy fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama, and Clinton’s wars created — bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration with the news flow — currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in the State and in the press — a news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard as of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political economy is it that halts or even reverses the increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open the space for voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed; let’s call such voices “the left.” Volatility creates opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and opposes all such programs, isn’t allowed to get back into the saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even the horse race, since I’ve been blogging about it daily for fourteen years, but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.


    1. integer

      I discovered a new genre of YouTube video today: compilations of liberals reacting to Trump’s victory. I found the ones I watched to be both amusing and repulsive at the same time. If anyone is interested, a search for “liberal rants tears Trump” will deliver a smorgasbord of liberal anguish.

      1. Arizona Slim

        I’m seeing the same thing on my Facebook feed. To the point where I am SO tempted to tell some of my friends to grow up. Now.

          1. jackiebass

            Your advice sound good but I have a problem with it. I’m wiling to sit back and observe what happens and make a judgement after a year or two. My brother in law, who was a strong Trump supporter, can’t just accept Trump’s victory. He constantly send me stuff that mocks liberals. I told him that I would be willing to debate issues but quit sending me the tabloid quality garbage. That did no good. I’m considering blocking him from my email list. I also go to a bar with mostly Tump supporters. The same thing is happening. They constantly and make fun of Hillary and liberals. They just can’t let go of their hatred for Hillary. This suggest to me that we will have a divided country, with those in power continuing to do their dirty deeds. They will keep these middle class working republicans distracted with issues like guns and abortion. I don’t believe Trump can heal based on all of the derogatory thing that he said and were reveled about him during the campaign. Remember Bush II and you have a preview about what is in store for the country. Unfortunately these working class republicans won’t look at facts and will still vote republican based on guns and abortion.

            1. Waldenpond

              I must be mean… I’d would humorously harken back to 2008…… remind them that the Obama winners couldn’t let it go and had to repeatedly be told ‘you won, get over it’.

              Agree that you don’t like the smugness of liberals either and (tongue in cheek) turn it around…

              You could try (with humor) introduce them as/address them as/respond to them at a dinner? “oh, so and so and so smug, they’re turning blue. They’re so smug, they’ll be voting for Chelsea Clinton next.”

            2. Adam Eran

              Well…propaganda works. It’s no surprise that people accept the narrative giving rise to Trump since Kochs and their allies fund an operation three times the size of the Republican party. I often drive in areas that have no radio reception–except for one station. Guess who is on that station? Answer: Rush Limbaugh.

              The idea that this will turn around, or that some liberal argument or case-making is going to change it is also ….well, at least optimistic. I often think I have the goods, or the facts, and can cite sources, etc. Heck, I can’t convince my own family (of course what do I know?)

              People have believed superstitious nonsense for literally centuries despite the evidence before them. I’m not particularly optimistic we’ve changed that much.

      2. B1whois

        I don’t find people in legitimate pain and fearful for themselves and thier friends/family the least bit funny. Just because they were delusional does not mean they are not another human being.

        1. Aumua

          Laughing at other people’s pain and misfortune is all part of the new national mood. Maybe we should just tell them all to kys, amirite? Liberal cucks..

          I will admit however, in spite of the issues with our new president, that I am still schadenfreuding on those smug bastards in the Clinton campaign, their affiliates, and the MSM being put in their PLACE. Goodbye.

          1. hunkerdown

            Aumua, I see that the mirror afforded will go unobserved. That the lived experience of the flip side of those same derangements, the very ones which liberals cruelly mock conservatives over, which too often but not often enough are, in the end, rational responses to conspiracy fact, will spark no self-awareness. So let’s try freestyle rap:

            The self-styled Rescuer don’t easy off no easier
            Just because they are or were or were seen somewhere near
            Some convenient position to Rescued Victims from hurty
            Or Sorted Worthy from Unworthy on New Republic or Upworthy
            Or delivered Moral Judgment in exquisite form on Medium
            Or Slate or Atlantic or other five-dollar-word tedium
            Looking down on proletarians not supporting the Imperium
            In elections made fake to ensure nobody’s hearing ’em.

            But we ain’t playin’ or payin’ no more
            Whitey know it and it’s skeering ’em
            That we might tell ’em to blow
            They sick and tiring s–t right out they rearium

            1. Aumua

              I don’t know, hard to tell just what you’re saying. You’re not being very clear, but I think you got the wrong idea about me. Just FYI.

        2. none

          I don’t find people in legitimate pain and fearful for themselves and their friends/family the least bit funny.

          The smug liberal weenie brigade that formed the core of the Hillbullies aren’t in anything like legitimate pain or fear. They wanted to enslave the country and make us all march around in identical pantsuits giving the Clinton solute (misspelling not intended but I decided to leave it in after seeing it).

          Obviously I feel sympathy for those in genuine fear. I wonder how many understand that it’s Clinton and the DNC’s own doing.

          1. RepubAnon

            It’s heartening to see us all uniting against the real enemy: the Judean People’s Front (and not the Romans)

            Rather than battling against the evil Hillary-bots, is anyone going to start concentrating on defeating the Republicans in 2018? Or are you all still having too much fun rubbing the DNC’s nose in their poor choice of candidates to start thinking about the current situation – and our country’s future?

            Hillary’s done – the DNC is being taken over by pro-Bernie folks. We now need to stop the unproductive Hillary-hating and get on with the real task: limiting the damage a Trump/Pence Presidency will cause.

            1. Lambert Strether Post author

              > the DNC is being taken over by pro-Bernie folks

              That hasn’t happened yet. When I see personnel changes, then I’ll believe it; there needs to be, as I have said, a hostile takeover of the Democrat Party apparatus, followed by a purge of management.

              Not reinforcing failure is “thinking about the current situation — and our country’s future.” Unlike Obama with banksters and torturers, I am not an advocate of “looking forward and not back.”

            2. jackiebass

              Bill Clinton destroyed the democrat party when his Wall Street arm of the democrat party took over the Democrat party. He moved both parties to the right. To survive democrats need to return to what they were before Bill Clinton.

            3. Cry Shop

              By what mechanism will these Bernie folks take over the institution? As far as I can tell, there are only a few states where either party operates in a transparent and democratic manner. These party operatives will not play a clean game either, whom they can’t ignore, they will attempt to corrupt or bribe, those they can’t corrupt they will dig up dirt upon, those they can’t dig up dirt upon they will have verbally and even physically harassed. This latter happens all the time according to friends in Philadelphia, Chicago. If I had friends in the know in other locations in the USA, then I suspect I’d hear similar stories. If anything, the Democratic machine is more rotten and willing to use violence against it’s own than the Republicans.

        1. Aumua

          Now that was entertaining. And that’s because these guys like so many Clinton supporters before the election, were just so damn smug. I mean I like Cyenk and co. They have some good ideas, but like so many others, The sold their souls in this election and the Devil took his due swiftly.

          1. Teejay

            You neither explained how, to whom or why Cenk (not Cyenk) and company “sold their souls” nor explained how they were smug. You’re not using edited video to support your claim, right? You’ve said they were “Clinton supporters” which is not accurate. They were huge Bernie Sanders supporters that voted for Clinton to ensure a narsisistic, racist, sexist, xenophobic, draft dodging, tax dodger would not have the nuclear launch codes. The DNC and the MSM had decided the candidate the country was suppose too support.

            1. Waldenpond

              Video is direct evidence of claims. So are quotes.

              Cenk was not a huge Sanders supporter. It was a transition. He thought Clinton would win, some of his staff supported Sanders, the network focused on Sanders coverage. What were they supposed to do as Clinton refused to appear and Sanders consented to appear. Cenk stated he would go back to being a Republican if Sanders were elected and acted to some of his policies.

              The coverage switched to Clinton for the General.

              1. Teejay

                “Video is direct evidence of claims.” Edited video. “not a huge Sanders supporter”? He introduced Bernie at rallies!

                “Cenk stated he would go back to being a Republican if Sanders were elected…”? In credible and un believable. I ‘ve been watching his show and video clips for approximately the last seven months. Can you supply anything to substantiate this assertion?

    2. scott 2

      I noticed that it had 8 million views sometime Thursday, and now it’s down to 1.5M. Either way, the best summary so far. NSFW, BTW.

      In a country with elections this close, I should point out that every video of a burning police car, broken window, beat-up dog (yup), blocked emergency room entrance, and pre-printed sign will come back as a reminder 2 and 4 years from now. Rather than advancing the left’s cause, it’s probably driving 1000 more away with each broken window.

      1. ex-PFC Chuck

        Thanks for correcting my NSFW oversight. Since it’s weekend I probably should add an NSFSC – Not Safe For Small Children – since some people will regard it such.

      2. kj1313

        Not following the logic. The Dems lost because of economic anxiety. It’s class, it’s always been class.

      1. uncle tungsten

        Yep he is hot. +1
        Every video on the US election is a scream. Especially the one about weiner and describing the candidates.

        He should be on the list of weekly watches and deserves the odd referral in links.

    3. Barmitt O'bamney

      Yes, that was funny, cathartic and enjoyable – except for the persistent & tortured misuse of the term “Left”. Hillary Clinton, the Democrats, and her backers are in no way Left. No way whatsoever. As he noted Clinton is to the right of Tory PM Teresa May. And Donald at times endorsed a number of positions (out of nationalism) that overlap the Left’s critique of neoliberalism and the Clinton corruption machine.

      Actually I don’t like shouting, and it certainly isn’t a good way to start a conversation of the kind he says the “Left” should stop avoiding with its actual Left critics, and with people on the Right. But I share his exasperation.

    4. DorothyT

      Only criticism is that Jonathan Pie keeps referring to ‘the left.’ I must stand up for the left as represented by Sanders and his issues as the true left as opposed to neoliberals like Obama and Clinton, who deserve Pie’s rant.

      1. TiPs

        That’s my beef, his hypocrisy. He rants about the left generalizing all Trump supporters are racists, then generalizes “the left” is to blame.

      2. Plenue

        I don’t know if you can accurately refer to many of the now crying Clinton supporters as neoliberal though. In my experience there’s a whole category of, yes I’ll say it, Social Justice Warriors, who have exactly zero understanding of anything beyond identity politics. If you directly presented them with an idea like privatizing all public schools, they would probably reject it. But they simply don’t think about economics with any kind of regularity, and it isn’t something that factors into their voting choices.

        1. Lambert Strether Post author

          Adolph Reed, Common Dreams:

          [R]ace politics is not an alternative to class politics; it is a class politics, the politics of the left-wing of neoliberalism. It is the expression and active agency of a political order and moral economy in which capitalist market forces are treated as unassailable nature…. As I have argued, following Walter Michaels and others, within that moral economy a society in which 1% of the population controlled 90% of the resources could be just, provided that roughly 12% of the 1% were black, 12% were Latino, 50% were women, and whatever the appropriate proportions were LGBT people. It would be tough to imagine a normative ideal that expresses more unambiguously the social position of people who consider themselves candidates for inclusion in, or at least significant staff positions in service to, the ruling class.

          1. Plenue

            I guess my point is that they may effectively support a neoliberal worldview, and vote for neoliberal candidates, but they have no understanding of what neoliberalism even is (most, in the US at least, have probably never even heard the phrase).

            1. JTFaraday

              I think the point is, they support neoliberal candidates as the lesser evil but do not support a neoliberal worldview. I agree that allowing yowling red state crackers and the holier and smarter than thou so-called “left” to demonize liberals is a mistake.

              1. JTFaraday

                As exhibit A: this is what the Bernie Bros did during the primary campaign and it DID NOT help their candidate.

                Some people are in denial about this. but I’m not one of them.

    5. Toolate

      I have been wondering if the present liberal memes to explain the election are not in fact being promulgated with the intention of assuring further failures? Or does this go without saying?
      The opportunity for the left here now seems huge as opposed to that had Hillary won, and yet it seems ever more clear to me that it will be squandered.

  1. integer

    Obama’s Final Arms-Export Tally More than Doubles Bush’s

    The Obama administration has approved more than $278 billion in foreign arms sales in its eight years, more than double the total of the previous administration, according to figures released by the Pentagon on Tuesday.

    Many of the approved deals — most but hardly all of which have become actual sales — have been to Mideast nations, including key allies in the campaign against Islamic State militants and countries that have been building up their defenses in fear of a nuclear Iran.

    Saudi Arabia has been the largest recipient, reaping prospective deals worth more than $115 billion, according to notices announcing the deals that were sent to Congress for approval.

    “Nobody even comes close” for the number of deals and total value, said William Hartung, director of the Arms Security Project at the Center for International Policy.

    (Apologies if this was already linked to and I missed it)

    1. HBE

      Nothing to see here, those weapons deals were pushed through by dems and everyone knows dem arm sales are the good type, that lead to peace and freedom. /S

      One thing I’m looking forward to is the delightful liberal hypocrisy that will return to a fever pitch over the next four years.

      Things like this:

      “Trump is a monster! He is heartlessly deporting millions of migrants.” although obama deporting more than any other president ever, was A-OK.

      “OMG we need to stop working with the Russians in Syria, the people are suffering” although a dem administration funding the violent jihadists that led to that suffering was just fine.

      “he’s an evil racist and must be stopped” while the dems building up the largest prison industrial complex in the world, and creating laws that disproportionately left minorities imprisoned was just fine by them.

      It’s sad but I do get some small measure of enjoyment watching them pretend they actually care about these issues all of the sudden, after you know, them being in place for years prior and being great policy then.

      1. Propertius

        I fully expect dozens of posts criticizing Republican use of the “nuclear option” to prevent Democratic filibusters (none of which would have happened anyway), to say nothing of Trump’s excessive reliance on Executive Orders.

        I’m going to need more popcorn.

    2. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

      Nice juxtaposition with the “identity politics” threads above. Just exactly what “identity” do people think Obama has in real life? A casual observer might pick “war monger”.

  2. oho

    “A series of strategic mistakes likely sealed Clinton’s fate’

    to beat on a dead horse—-Clinton held a fraction of Trump’s rallies. Trump was pounding the tarmac 5-6 days a week, 2x-3x times a day for 12 months. The last month, Trump held events 7x/week and 3x-4x/day.

    Clinton didn’t go into ‘rally mode’ until the last 10 days, preferring to send Bubba, Chelsea and Obama.

    If the fate of the Supreme Court, and __________, depended on this election you wouldn’t know if from the non-urgency of Clinton’s rally schedule.

    Oh wait, if you’re a millennial why bother holding a live event when your iPhone can stream any campaign speech.

    1. Sammy Maudlin

      Assuming she was physically capable of maintaining a Trump-like schedule of rallies/appearances, the bottom line is HRC made no effort to reach out to working-class America. Despite reports that WJC was apoplectic at the campaign’s refusal to do so, the strategy was set, defined, and followed to the letter: there will be no reaching out to “working class whites;” the coalition will be urban and professional.

      What does that tell you? To me, it’s that flyover country was not an electorate to be courted, but a people to be conquered.

      They really were a “basket of deplorables” in the eyes of the DNC and the campaign, who stood in the way of installing a new American way of life free of gun nuts and people who have different ideas on bathroom labeling. This is why Bernie Sanders could not be allowed to win, he treated these people as equals, when they were, and are, anything but.

      1. Jim Haygood

        We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” — Hillary Clinton, March 13, 2016

        St. Louis-based Peabody Energy, the largest and most storied U.S. coal company, announced early Wednesday that it was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.” — April 13, 2016

        In fairness, Hillary’s previous sentence referred to “bring[ing] economic opportunity using clean renewable energy.” Nothing wrong with that.

        But any candidate with a modicum of empathy (and without an ill-concealed contempt for half the population) would have promised a safety net for miners. Instead she cackled over their impending destruction, the same way she cackled about Gaddafi’s demise.

        Hillary’s callous, inflammatory remark gave West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Ohio to Trump: just desserts. Revenge of the UMWA, if you will.

        Clintona delenda est.

      2. Pavel

        She preferred to go to the wealthy fundraisers in California, New York, Martha’s Vineyard etc instead of actually going to the Rust Belt states whose votes she needed. Remember after her 9/11 “fall” in NY she cut way back on campaigning? In the meantime Trump was packing people into stadia in FL and OH and MI and elsewhere.

        HRC ran a disastrous, misguided, cloistered campaign in 2008, and lo and behold the DNC decided it was time for her to run another disastrous, misguided, cloistered campaign in 2016. Great work, guys!

        1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          It’s not too late for Democrats to go those Trump counties in the Rust Belt and beg forgiveness. Otherwise, it will be more of the same in 2020 for them.

        2. John k

          She spent all her time with wealthy people because she identifies with them. No wealth = deplorable, loser for short. We’ll win with the elites!
          Nobody mentioned the rust belt is filled with losers…
          Don’t blame Dnc, it carried out hill’s orders to a t. This was all hill’s judgement, just like in 08.
          Funny… in 00 gore ignored bill and lost. In 08/16 hill ignored bill and lost. I’m beginning to sense a pattern here… bill was probably also right trump would be weakest possible opponent, but weakest not weak enough.

          And about her judgement… I ask people for one single example of her good judgement, still waiting. Save me from presidents that routinely make mistakes.

          1. Aumua

            No wealth = deplorable, loser for short.

            Except we all know damn well that that’s not what was meant by deplorables, and it never was. Who really cares, though right? Sounds like our narrative, good enough. Keep repeating it.

            1. jgordon

              In HRC’s world view anyone who failed to support her was deplorable. I really think she just came up with rationalizations after the fact of why that must be so.

              By the way, the same people in the flyover states who voted for Trump in 2016 voted for Obama in 2008. These people are not the racist mysoginists that the ignorant Hillbullies are imagining them to be. They supported Trump because they are poor and helpless. Another four years of the Obama/Hillary economic program was another four years of continued death and despair for them.

              I strongly doubt that Trump will be any better than Hillary for them, but on the bright side at least with Trump they won’t have nuclear fallout to contend with as well. They made the right choice where there were no good choices.

              1. Aumua

                In HRC’s world view anyone who failed to support her was deplorable.
                Maybe. I really don’t know.

                By the way, the same people in the flyover states who voted for Trump in 2016 voted for Obama in 2008.

                Maybe. Maybe not. Do you have data for that? I agree that most people who voted Trump are not particularly racist, or sexist. It’s the ones who are that ‘deplorables’ was meant to be directed at, I’m pretty sure. I also agree that it’s (very) dubious if Trump will be better for the poor.

                You continue to say “nuclear fallout” as if it was virtually guaranteed with Clinton. But it was never a given. A possibility yes but then, it always is in this age. There is literally nothing guaranteeing that no one will push Trump’s buttons just the right way to make him consider the nuclear option.

                1. jgordon

                  I got my info from an analysts I saw on the Jimmy Dore Show on YouTube. I can not visit YouTube at the moment because I’m on a tiny mobile phone with a browser that has all scripts and pictures disabled. But feel free to search for it.

                  Nuclear Fallout. If Hillary had kept her campaign promises then we *would* have gotten into a war with Russia. Even top Pentagon generals told Congress that. And considering that Russia’s conventional military is far superior to the USA’s how long would it have taken for that to go nuclear? I’m thinking not long at all.

                  1. Aumua

                    Just to clarify, I do not think that we would be better off with Hillary. It’s really bad either way, but we quite possibly would be worse off with her, as a species I mean. I just don’t see her, and/or Putin, and whoever else would have to be complicit, actually following through with nuclear war without serious pause. It could happen. I’m still not convinced that it would have been a sure thing, just like I’m not convinced that Trump is an automatic exemption from that danger. I mean, I don’t know the future, and I am skeptical of those who claim that they do.

                2. aab

                  There is data that counties that went to Obama in 08 went to Trump this time. That’s not perfect, but there are A LOT of them. There is exit polling of people saying they voted for Obama last time and Trump this time. There are black leftists who publicly endorsed Trump and/or said they would vote for him, like Bruce Carter. There is quite a bit of evidence that many voted for Trump who previously voted for Obama for the very logical reason that their lives got worse under Obama, and under Hillary Clinton’s husband.

                  The reality is that racists supported Trump, and racists supported Clinton. All working people — black and white — below the professional class got creamed by Obama’s governance. Lots of small business owners lost their businesses or are struggling much worse, because Democratic economic policy heavily favors multinational corporations. I lost my company in the GFC, because my client companies were start-ups and smaller businesses at that point. Banks stopped doing normal business lending, because they no longer needed to. And health care access not being fixed is brutal for smaller businesses that don’t have economies of scale and negotiating clout to bring to the table.

                  It just isn’t true that racists voted for Trump and good people voted for Clinton. It made no sense for anyone under the top quartile to vote for Clinton, and lots of people figured that out.

                  And Trump is clearly the lesser risk of nuclear war. She was salivating for it, and her track record was horrendous. The Senate has to confirm his Secretary of Defense. The minority party supposedly has all sorts of tools at its disposal. Make sure Trump’s SoD has a cool head. This notion that Donald Trump can launch a nuke as easily as a tweet is silly.

                  His administration is likely to be horrendous is many ways. We don’t need to make up phantom horrors. The Russian War is already started. He may not be able to stop it. But he’s certainly a safer hand in this area, if no other.

        3. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

          Hilary didn’t even deign to face her troops on election night. The reason? They weren’t her “troops” at all, and never were. No, her troops were Goldman, CNN, the Justice Dept, the Saudis, Grandpa Buffet, Grandpa Kissinger, Herr Soros, and the rest of the Martha’s Vineyard and Davos crowd.
          Then the next morning she decided to wear royal purple. How apt, qu’ils mangent de la brioche. She looked great in purple, and if there is a shred of rule-of-law legitimacy left in the nation she will look very sharp indeed in orange.

          1. Elizabeth

            I thought by not showing up on election night for her supporters was really awful. I’ve no doubt she was feeling pain, but she should have made an appearance. Cheesy.

          2. Pavel

            kudos HAL for the brioche quote in its original!

            I’m not actually a great fan of brioches myself, but for those NC readers who might be–if you ever find yourself in Montréal head up to Fairmount Avenue and there is a specialty brioche place more or less opposite the famous original bagel shop. :)

      3. hamstak

        …flyover country was not an electorate to be courted, but a people to be conquered.

        To that point, we have this:

        Clintonian Purple

        As is typical of the too-clever-by-half Clintons, they seem to be partially color-blind to the extent that they are unaware (or perhaps just assuming that everyone “beneath” them is) of a certain historical connotation of purple:

        Royal Purple

        On the notion that purple = red + blue, while the public interpretation is “unity”, the private interpretation could easily be “bipartisanship”.

        Between the weird color signaling and the glass ceiling of the convention center (noted above in the links), there does seem to be a lot of symbol manipulation going on here — in the eyes of this erstwhile anthropology student, it does appear a lot like magic!

      4. Jess

        “flyover country was not an electorate to be courted, but a people to be conquered.”

        That’s a great line, and a true analysis. Well said.

    2. Strategic Fun

      The only strategic mistake was to enter the race in the first place.

      All the rest was just a function of her corruption, her insatiable hunger for power, the blood on her hands and her complete despise for the law and the common man. All this was known before the race.

      She could have done a millon rallies, talked with the press during the 300 days, her fundamental flaws would still have been too much.

      It is Hillarious (new word) to see how she lost twice: first to Bernie and then to Trump. The Trump-loss is super-funny and cosmically just taking into the account their pied-piper strategy and that she cheated a better candidate of the nomination. Charma is a bitch.

      Hillariuos = failing in an utterly funny way due to gross incompetence, corruption, bubble-living, protectedness, cluelessness, lack of self-awareness and in spite of having all the weapons on your side: money, power-brokers, media.

    3. Propertius

      She did, however, maintain a grueling schedule of $50,000/plate fundraisers in the Hamptons.

      She must be heartily sick of lobster and foie gras by this point.

  3. EndOfTheWorld

    RE: HRC blaming the FBI for her loss. What does she want? Does she want these protests to keep going for the eight years that Trump is in office?

    To partially mollify her unbelievably malicious criminal career, she has the opportunity now to at least be gracious in her final defeat. She could give a speech to her deluded supporters out in the streets and let them know there is no hope whatsoever of overturning the Trump presidency. But this would be an altruistic action—-doing some good for the world with no payoff for her. And that’s not the way she operates.

    1. integer

      Agree. Just not her style. She’s more of a “try to start a color revolution” kinda gal.
      I would love to hear the conversations between the Clintons and their big donors since her loss.

      1. temporal

        Purple is the new black.
        Purple never looks back.

        We’ll get ’em next time with our uptown ingenue and you’ll double your investment.

        1. polecat

          ummm …. irradiating purple & black frosting …yuck ! ….

          Halloween is OVER !! you ‘faux liberal wankers’ (DNC)…… move on or step off !

      2. Waldenpond

        People are in the street for Clinton… Clinton. We had a primary where voters were purged to favor Clinton, given never counted provisionals, debates limited and dated to benefit Clinton, fed debate questions, took state money, colluded with media, etc. Now Clinton’s trying to turn over a general election by getting the EC to go faithless.

        Someone online asked: Say, how’s Turkey doing these days?

    2. Code Name D

      I think there is more to these protests than meet the eye. I am seeing reports from you-tube that suggest they are being funded by the Clinton campaign, probably as strategy to rehabilitate her image and optics. But I also suspect she is trying to keep her coalition of sycophants together. Possibly being used as a fund-raising tool of keeping the faithful from backsliding.

      The next big battle is going to be who becomes the new DNC chair. Sanders has already endorsed a candidate. (I know nothing about him, but he has my attention.) Obama followed suite by suggesting Howard Dean be put back in charge. (Likely the change but no change candidate.) I have even heard un-confirmed rumors that Obama might “appoint” a new chair before leaving office, forestalling a party election for one or two years.

      The protests may be a strategy to this end.

      1. pretzelattack

        yeah the battle for control of the democrats is part of the agenda. i just don’t know how much control the top has; witness the tea party.

        1. Katniss Everdeen

          Really interesting “fight” going on this morning on a. m. joy between joan walsh and Krystal Ball (for whom I’m starting to have a newfound respect.}

          Ball is suggesting that a congressman from Youngstown, OH named Tim Ryan may challenge nancy pelosi for minority leader because democrats need a new face, as opposed to a master of congressional “maneuvering,” and that democrats “have lost everything and become irrelevant.”

          walsh, of course, is suggesting that, with the first woman presidential candidate just having lost, dumping the woman majority leader is not the best idea. Because identity.

          Ball also made the observation that it is not inconceivable that one party can represent BOTH the white working class and the people of color working class.

          What havoc Trump has wrought.

          1. UserFriendly

            Ellison is my rep, he isn’t without his faults:

            He can be a bit of a loyalist / apologist. But DNC chair is really all about party loyalty…

            Hairy Reed just endorsed him.

            For what it’s worth my read on him is that he right on the issues, I just sometimes question how he gets there. He doesn’t seem to have a grasp of neoliberalism but rails against the down sides of it. He is also very petty on twitter and blocks lots of people for even minor criticism.

            1. Lambert Strether Post author

              He endorsed Sanders, though.

              Even if Dean was taken over by pod people, he still did a good job as DNC chair (did he not?) with the 50-state strategy. One would like to see somebody with the same grasp of what needs to be done. Does Ellison have that?

              1. UserFriendly

                No, I agree. I think he would be best of the options. Just wanted everyone to go in eyes open.

                He has we are grateful for our donors but the party needs to be more about the people. Refocus on grass roots.

                1. UserFriendly

                  There is also a touch of nepotism, got his wife on the MPLS school board, but that is hardly a scandal.

                  He also didn’t endorse in the State Rep seat he vacated when he ran for congress. AA female who was in it for herself and super progressive white dude (The largest AA state house district, also the one I live in) and the super progressive white dude won by like 10 votes. So I kind of like that he didn’t endorse.

            2. Michael

              I block people on social media tout suite. It’s a psychological self-defense mechanism. I have other places I go to be challenged when I’m ready for it (including, of course, NC).

          2. John k

            Both white working class and people of color… what a novel idea. How about anti-war, too? And gays? Why, it’s almost like what the dems used to represent… is that still legal?

        2. JSM

          Interesting that you mention the Tea Party. They never really got top-down leadership, and look what they managed to ‘accomplish.’ A lesson for the quick-to-give-up left?

          [Reply was intended to be higher up the thread.]

      2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

        You need opportunity, means and motive.

        The motive can be, as you say, for the new DNC chair, or it is to bargain with Comey.

        We really don’t know, but can only guess.

      3. Synoia

        Clinton’s purple revolution – what utter nonsense, Clinton has no experience whatever of Color Revolutions!

        Clinton was wronged by Sanders, Trump, Bill. John Edwards, and Sanders because she is Queen and has no flaws!

        1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          No flaws, except one – she conceded to Trump, when protesters across the country have not done so, and will never do that.

          She will be next on their protest agenda.

      4. Yves Smith

        Please stop with conspiracy theories. They make you and us look bad.

        I doubt the Clinton campaign needs to “fund” anything, save maybe messaging to get people out. A lot of people are very upset. Muslims (and Sikhs, who wear turbans) have legitimate reason to be concerned. Trump has not made any statements along the line of “the overwhelming majority of Muslims in America are good, peaceloving citizens, you need to treat them as such.” And he’s giving the Dems a card to play by failing to address the concerns of people of color and tell the retrograde elements in his base to behave.

        But Clinton and her supporters in the MSM are continuing to fan identity politics which is only going to deepen rifts and is not a winning strategy politically, as we just saw.

        1. jgordon

          The Democrats had better clean out their garbage fast or they’re going even further down the hole in 2020 than they are today. Here is an easy litmus test: anyone who supported Hillary before she got the nomination needs to be thrown out into the gutter immediately.

        2. Carolinian

          He was asked this very thing by Leslie Stahl tonight. He claimed it was the first he had heard about it and turned to the camera and said “just stop” to anyone bothering Muslims or others.

          It almost seems as if the protestors are trying to goad Trump into making one of his gaffes but he’s won and no longer needs to “go there.” Maybe this is the part where he finally starts to act presidential. We’ve been waiting forever.

          1. Lambert Strether Post author

            I think Trump needs to put skin in the game on this. Not enough to say “Just stop.” Some individual needs to be told to stop. If that means throwing a supporter under the bus, so be it; same tactic Bill Clinton used in his Sister Souljah moment.

    3. timbers

      November 13, 2016 at 7:32 am
      RE: HRC blaming the FBI for her loss. What does she want? Does she want these protests to keep going for the eight years that Trump is in office?

      She’ll only be 72 in 2020 and 76 in 2024. And when she losses those, she’ll only be 80 in 2028 and 84 in 2032!

      And if she loses in 2032, she can do a FEDORA and have Chelsea replace her in public appearing exactly like Hillary looked in 2016 as the real Hillary hides in seclusion plotting to win the next Presidential contest.

      “I’m ready for my comeback, Mr. Pedesta.”

      1. EndOfTheWorld

        No, thank God she’s through right now. The stock traders on the floor of the NYSE were singing “ding dong the witch is dead” while she made her faux concession speech. That should make it official.

        1. EndOfTheWorld

          I’m not sure about the “ding dong the witch is dead” singing, but they were booing her and chanting “lock her up”, according to Mr. Google.

          1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            The question for some former Clinton supporters is this:

            Will Hillary be like the Glenn Close character at the end of Fatal Attraction?

            “Don’t count me just yet.”

    4. Paid Minion

      “Clinton blames Comey for loss”

      Right up there with this headline:

      “Bank Robber blames police for ending his career”

      1. Kurt Sperry

        Clinton’s people are now blaming Comey for her loss? Yes, it’s Comey’s fault Hillary chose an insecure email system to evade FOIA accountability, it’s Comey’s fault her emails wound up on Tony Weiner’s laptop. Suuure it is. Yes, blame anyone but the shitty, unlikeable, demonstrably corrupt candidate who lost. Lost to Donald FUCKING Trump. Blame Comey, blame sexism, blame Bernie bros, blame, blame, blame. Because having the DNC and the entirety of the US media jumping up and down on the scale to tip it in her favor wasn’t advantage enough. Because the only alternative is to be adult, to take responsibility, to learn, to adapt, to improve. Fucking Democrats so stupid, so entitled, so dense, so divorced from reality, they will take this learning moment, and throw it away, learn absolutely nothing, double down on the insular stupid and point blame everywhere but where it rightly belongs. Comey to blame? My god, that kind of reality denial makes the climate deniers look bright.

        1. JSM

          Just goes to show that, in spite of winning some states, Dems nominated probably literally the worst major party candidate in American political history.

    5. David N

      “What does she want? Does she want these protests to keep going for the eight years that Trump is in office?”

      I think that’s what they want actually. They want to use opposition to mobilize their base, and maybe have a tidal wave of support in 2020 that way.

    6. uncle tungsten

      Wall street could pass round the hat and pay her for that one last speech.

      Or she could do it as a fundraiser for the Clinton Global Initiative and pass round the hat to the demonstrators.

  4. Pavel

    If the NYT editors both truly believe they reported on “both candidates fairly” then they should be fired immediately. I’ve never seen such biased coverage — a love affair with HRC and sabotaging Bernie, ignoring Jill Stein, and 24/7/365 attacks on Trump, which backfired spectacularly.

    I confess the MSM and “liberals” are driving me insane. The Guardian had a piece yesterday discussing Trump & foreign policy, saying “he will probably ignore the Saudi-led genocide in Yemen.” WTF? It was Obama and Hillary who sold record amounts of arms to the Saudis and haven’t said a word about Yemen!

    Separately over at Daily Kos, a big banner said “Trump may choose torture architect for post!” Er, come on guys, it was Obama who failed to prosecute the Bush era torturers — a failure which in itself is an international war crime.

    In today’s Observer (UK), a piece about Russia repeated the disingenuous line that “Putin seized Crimea and fomented civil war in the Ukraine.” That’s leaving out a bit of the narrative…

    I agree however that the Arnade piece on flyover country was excellent. His stories of the Clinton hubris on the campaign trail are telling.

    1. Kokuanani

      If, as Sulzberger’s letter claims, the NYT “turned on a dime and did what it has done for nearly two years [sic], cover the 2016 election with agility and creativity”:

      * what was it they were doing before they “turned on [that] dime”?
      * exactly WHO characterizes their earlier coverage as “agile” and “creative”

      I’m reminded of those ads currently on tv in which two people go out on a date and speak the truth to each other [“this is my roommate texting me in case I need to get out of here;” “no, I won’t call you back”]. I’d love to have a “truthful” translation of that NYT letter.

        1. polecat

          “Please, please …we don’t want you (your subscription $$$) to leave ….. we’ll be good, really we will ………”

          F#cking legacy trash !!

        2. JoeK

          “I’m leaving you because I’ve discovered you’re a prevaricating hypocrite.”

          “Prevaricating….that’s a pretty big word for a deplorable.”

      1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

        “…We cannot deliver independent, original journalism…without the loyalty of our subscribers.”

        That brings us the question:

        If there are no subscribers around, and the NYTimes produces biased journalism, does it make a ka-ching sound or matter?

        “If you don”t look, we will not be independent.”

      2. Skip Intro

        Used to take a lot more than a dime to turn them… oh how the mighty have fallen. And whose dime was it anyway?

    2. fresno dan

      November 13, 2016 at 7:35 am

      “Separately over at Daily Kos, a big banner said “Trump may choose torture architect for post!” Er, come on guys, it was Obama who failed to prosecute the Bush era torturers — a failure which in itself is an international war crime.”

      Not to mention, we’re still defacto torturing with rendition and other word games to hide it. Is the media too stupid, or too in the tank for Obama? Why not both? Trump will learn soon enough not to plain speak about torture but use the dog whistles that everyone else in Washington uses.

      The media, I guess the financial aspect of the way the industry is currently structured (the desire for outsize profits), seems to make it more and more and more emphasizing the personal, the superficial, the insubstantial.
      And of course, once politicians learn that the lies can lose all finesse, subtlety, nuance that at least bound them and constrained them to some small nearness to reality – the only restraint on their lying – and now the politicians learn that the more effective lies are the bigger, bolder outrageous lies….well, it is just hard for me to see how we ever get out of this tailspin.

      1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

        I think bigger and bolder lies that are more out in the open, more right in front of you, are easier for them to sell and tougher for you to catch.

        1. apber

          Not sure of that. Except for the snowflakes and the great mass of educated, but cognitively dissonant, there are too many who now instantly recognize propaganda, disinformation and outright lies. The Internet has a way of telling the truth if you look for it in the right places.

      2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

        As for the desire for profits, maybe this flow-chart will help:

        Workers with 401K plans demanding profitable stocks —-> CEOs squeezing workers to increase profits —–> Squeezed workers rely further on more profitable stocks to fund retirement —–> More management squeezing workers.

    3. Eureka Springs

      I engaged in a conversation with Markos in a thread/post of his round about eight or ten years ago on the matter of endorsing Dem Senate candidates who had voted pro torture in the Bush Cheney years. His post was in part endorsing reelection of Senator Mark Pryor D- AR at the time.

      He had no problem with Dems supporting torture at all.

    4. jawbone

      NPR yesterday had a segment from the chief of the news division, which was somewhat similar to the NYTimes letter:

      MICHAEL ORESKES, BYLINE: Journalism has been taking it on the chin. Lots of people just don’t believe us anymore. They think we are tools of some amorphous establishment, and they have turned for their news to other channels. Our president-elect hasn’t been subtle in his views of the press. The fallout from this during the campaign was just not acceptable. Colleagues have been abused for their race, their creed, their origins and their gender or just for being journalists. This is more than just personally upsetting. A democracy cannot function without independent sources of reliable information. Politicians of all stripes would love a world without reporters, a world where they decide what you learn about them.

      Read the rest — NPR has a permission requirement, but allows “fair use” by individuals. But this stood out to me when I was casually listening to ATC, so I’ll add it:

      …. We need you, our audiences, to continue to believe in us and what we do, to favor journalism over a government press release or a fake news website. Since we are asking for your support, we owe you a clear statement of who we are and what we do.

      I did talk back to the radio, telling Oreskes that we can’t be called on to “believe” the reporting if it’s so often mere stenography. As in coverage of Syria, yada, yada. No comments allowed.

      1. fresno dan

        November 13, 2016 at 12:08 pm
        Dave Cohen, blog author of “decline of the empire” comments {{in double parens}} on Vox reporter Dave Roberts (indented)

        {{Dave Roberts put his 2 cents in about Trump and climate change at Vox. The story is called Trump’s election marks the end of any serious hope of limiting climate change to 2 degrees}}:

        For all its troubles, the US is an indispensable leader of the free world. Its official posture is now going to be hostile to climate action.
        Under those circumstances, the story about the world unifying to take bold, dramatic action on climate change, beyond what was pledged in Paris, has gone from unlikely to utter fantasy. The best climate activists can hope for is that Trump loses in 2020 in a giant Democratic wave that involves redoubled commitment to climate action.
        The larger climate struggle is not over, of course. It never will be — 3 degrees is much worse than 2 and 4 much worse than 3. The fight goes on. But it is time to honestly acknowledge our failure and grapple with its consequences.

        {{And yet, back in October, before Trump was elected, Dave Roberts wrote—}}

        Are any of the countries that signed the Paris agreement taking the actions necessary to achieve that target?
        No. The US is not. Nor is the world as a whole.
        The actions necessary to hold to 2 degrees, much less 1.5 degrees, are simply outside the bounds of conventional politics in most countries.

        {{I commented on that in Total Human Failure On Climate (DOTE, October 12, 2016).
        So the world was failing to meet those Paris targets as of October, but now meeting them is “an utter fantasy” in November because Donald Trump won. Back in October, human failure was nearly universal because the Paris targets “are simply outside the bounds of conventional politics in most countries.” And of course that list of countries includes, and always has, the United States.
        Now, in November, per the usual Flatland magic, humanity’s failures have disappeared. Now, and in the future, it will be Donald Trump’s fault that humanity failed to meet the Paris targets.
        I daresay that humans are hard-wired to “reason” like this. It’s impossible for humans to acknowledge their generalized failures. They are wired to find someone to blame.
        And now they’ve got Donald Trump and all those ignorant Americans who voted for him.
        How convenient for them. Dave Roberts — Thanks for playing!}}

        Is everything in our lives now branding and advertising?
        I can’t say I follow the global warming issue so closely that I can say that there is no REAL difference between the outcome of Obama and Trump. But in following the Patriot Act, an issue that I was fairly well acquainted with, it would be absurd to say that Obama was MORE of a civil libertarian than Bush was. Would anybody on this blog deny that? And would anyone on this blog deny that the press clearly DID NOT report that Obama was LESS of a civil libertarian than Bush?

        Repubs were not willing to say in ANY way, shape, or form that ANY dem was in ANY way TOUGHER on terrorism, even if it meant destroying the constitution, than Bush. And dems were going to keep their brand as civil libertarians, even though it sure wasn’t “reality based.” And the press simply refuses to challenge both parties when they agree about their self characterizations

      2. craazyman

        Le plus ces changes. . . .

        “Any newspaper, from the first line to the last, is nothing but.a web of horrors. I cannot understand how an innocent hand can touch a newspaper without convulsing in disgust.” -Charles Baudelaire from the 1800s

        (Of course he was a wacko. A Fruitcake. a loo-loo. A weirdo. A looney tune. A nut job. A person who had probably too much imagination for normal life. A crank. A deviant. An eccentric. A flake. A hysteric. An insane person. A jolly good wanker. I forgot “g” A ‘genius” leet’s be fair. A krack pot. A lunatic. A masterberater. A nuckel head. An orpheacil onanistic. A prosedaceous prodigy. A quack. What comes after q? R! A riotous racinator. A seer. A typist? I don’t know if they had typewriters back then. A ululator. He probably did that when drink. A verbal ventriloquist. A weirdo. (I said that but it was a while back). A xylophoneticist. I just mad that up. A zine fiend. Probably). That was him in an alphabetical nutshell.

        Now that we have the internet and Twitter who needs to get their lies and horrors from newspapers or TV? That’s so 20th century. If you want to make something up, you can do it yourself! Why would I want to sit and stare at some dude reading news on a TV? No way. I’d rather see for myself. Even if it requires channeling.

  5. allan

    EndOfTheWorld@7:32 am

    `her deluded supporters out in the streets’

    You are mistaken. Many of the people in the streets look like Bernie’s supporters, not Clinton’s.

    The demonization of Obama by the GOP began immediately after he was elected in 2008.
    A foreign born socialist African witch doctor.
    Who needed to be opposed with `Taliban-like tactics’, in the words of RCCC chair Pete Sessions (R-TX).

    There is no reason that a GOP president should receive any more of a warm welcome or respectful treatment.

    1. EndOfTheWorld

      They demonized Obama, yes. But these protesters right now actually believe they are going to overturn the election. One guy said Hillary should just go to the Supreme Court and argue she deserves to be prez because she won the popular vote. That’s delusion and HRC could dispel this delusion by giving a speech. She knows she is not going to argue this before the Supreme Court or any court. She knows she is not going to lead an armed insurrection either. But she’s fanning the flames by saying she got screwed by the FBI.

      The birthers were making an intellectual argument. There was at least some basis for it—-Obama’s mother was all over the globe. But I don’t remember them taking to the streets and looting stores and beating people.

      1. OIFVet

        The birthers were making an intellectual argument. There was at least some basis for it

        I have very little doubt that Birtherism and Orly Taitz appealed to your intellectual level.

        1. EndOfTheWorld

          OIF Vet I’ll bet you $20,000 cash I can beat you on a standardized IQ test.

          I say it’s possible Barack Obama was born somewhere else. Who the hell knows? Officially he was born in Hawaii, however, so it doesn’t matter. The point is the birthers were not looting buildings or beating people up on youtube.

          I have never heard of Mr. Orly Taitz.

          1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            I have seen a video of one guy getting beat up…quite disturbing, reminiscent of the attack on Reginald Denny here in LA many years ago.

          2. DJG

            End of the World:

            OIFVet wins, kiddo.

            Orly Taitz is a woman.

            The child of a U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen by birth. Are you aware that Obama had a mother? And that his mother’s family settled in North America during colonial times? Which means that his half-sister can get into the D.A.R.?

            I find questioning the citizenship of U.S. citizens with immigrant parents or grandparents distasteful, to put it politely. And so should you, if you have half a conscience.

            1. EndOfTheWorld

              It’s never been tested in the courts, but there is a natural born Citizen clause in the US Constitution which comes up whenever it’s possible a candidate was born in a foreign country. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, for example. Cruz was born in Canada and Grayson said he would sue if he was the candidate. I’m not a lawyer. The birthers at least pretended to have evidence O was born overseas. I admit I have never looked into the case much. But the current protesters would have more of a chance in court saying that Trump was born in Madagascar than saying popular vote trumps EC. Yes, I know Obama was a citizen. I don’t know where he was born. Officially he was born in Hawaii. His mom worked overseas a lot.

              1. OIFVet

                The birthers at least pretended to have evidence O was born overseas.

                His mom worked overseas a lot.

                That’s a very intellectual argument, indeed.

                I admit I have never looked into the case much

                That’s because you are intellectually curious, obviously, and thus you had no trouble noticing the overwhelming intellectual merit of the birther arguments.

                I will gladly take your money, thanks for your generosity! Take it away, Thomas Tusser:

                A foole & his money,
                be soone at debate:
                which after with sorow,
                repents him to late.


                1. Barmitt O'bamney

                  I’ve never really been able to understand the whole birther “controversy”. To me, it’s clear from his character that Obama is a natural born American. All too American, if anything. Right up there with W.C. Fields and P.T. Barnum.

          3. clinical wasteman

            1. Most of the time the buildings are busy looting the sometime looters.
            2. I’d heard rumours that someone somewhere still too “standardized IQ tests” seriously, but “I could beat you at that” is quite something. I wouldn’t presume to speak for OIFVet, but I’m sure you could also beat me at, say, Crazy Golf, Candy Crush, stock picking, synchronized swimming, Russian Roulette, cage fighting and “The Apprentice”, should the wretched occasion arise. But as it happens my self-esteem doesn’t rest on any of those things (or on anything else, because self-esteem = consent to the conditions that compose the self.)
            Anyway, I hope your eagerness for Olympian IQ laurels is a sign that the ridiculous, racist test (popularized at Ellis Island c.1912 — see SJ Gould, R.Lewontin) is on the way to joining those other competitive pastimes in getting all the respect it deserves.

        2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          I am curious if Trump was born in the US.

          Has he ever made public his birth certificate?

          And the First-Lady-elect, she was not elected. Nor is she natural born. Is she a citizen?

            1. EndOfTheWorld

              The point is, there was at least a legal basis for the birther’s complaint. The president is supposed to be natural born. It came up this election re Ted Cruz. Alan Grayson said he had a lawsuit ready to go if Cruz was nominated. If somebody proved (which they never did, to my knowledge) that Obama was born in a foreign country, then somebody could sue.

              The protesters today have no legal basis for saying the popular vote trumps the EC. They can’t go to court. The judge would throw it out.

              1. apber

                There are many Youtube videos that examined the released birth certificate and proved that it was layered, contained many anomalies and type faces; i.e it was constructed and not an original document. We may never know the truth, but suspicions remain.

                1. Lambert Strether Post author

                  Digital evidence is not evidence, and meta-evidence in the form of YouTubes about files is not evidence.

                  Quis custodiet ipsos YouTubes?

                  The birther stuff is a nonsense. Stop it.

              2. Katharine

                The point is, there was not a legal basis for the birther’s complaint. A fantasy which is maintained in the face of all evidence is not a legal basis for anything. There is no point in saying that it was possible Obama was born somewhere else, because it is only true in the theoretical sense that anything is possible. It is possible that both you and I are notorious bank robbers, but I happen to know I am not and am willing to assume you are not unless I learn of evidence to the contrary. It would be silly to do otherwise.

                  1. pretzelattack

                    i think they had a faked birth certificate. and orly taitz is a trip. a lawyer dentist, iirc, who may not be practicing either, haven’t heard of her in years.

              3. Pavel

                The amusing thing is that there is actual a good argument that the vote for Hawaii (or “Hawai’i” to be pedantic) statehood was a bit of a stitch-up. In which case Obama wasn’t really born in the USA. I don’t care much about the latter, but I would be interested if the statehood vote was falsified.

              4. Lambert Strether Post author

                > The protesters today have no legal basis for saying the popular vote trumps the EC

                True. It’s about delegitimizing Trump (the coming legitimacy crisis as motivated by Democrats, and not Republicans).

            2. cwaltz

              Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess. I kind of think she looks plastic. I also personally think that anyone votes for a candidate based on their wives or husband’s looks ought to be banned from voting.

              1. Yves Smith

                I agree, but this may be proof of a theory that I had totally discounted. From a West Coast correspondent:

                … I have read countless explanations of why Trump appealed to many people, but one explanation I have never heard, perhaps you have, is that he represented an impossible fantasy for many old white guys/gals. In a strange way they viewed themselves being Trump, even Melania Trump played a role in the Fantasy, he was what when they were young they wished they would become. If you think about it, Trump truly is the Adonis of the Republican ideology… he is white, rich, old timey (think 1950s politically incorrect).

                1. BecauseTradition

                  I would think one’s fantasy would be to marry someone one truly loves or at least someone one is willing to love.

                  But what do I know in a world where Drudge presents sex robots as serious contenders for a male’s attention?

                  And no, I’m not Alan Alda or a wannabe. :)

                2. PlutoniumKun

                  Its kinda interesting, I’m sure there is a PhD in there for someone to study how people project themselves onto candidates, or indeed how peoples sexual/lifestyle fantasies can influence their voting. Just look at the near hysteria over Trudeau in Canada. I know one apolitical female late ’30’s minority NYer who admitted to me to having ‘a thing’ (unspecified, I didn’t want to hear details) about Trump and she voted for him. But likewise, I don’t think it can be denied that for many people, especially older women, Clinton represented a certain fantasy too, the power/revenge one.

                3. aab

                  Eh. That sounds like more “who are these weird creatures not smart enough to move to the coasts and get into banking or entertainment?”

                  I mean, OF COURSE some people felt like his wealth and fame meant he knew what he was doing and OF COURSE having an extremely attractive wife and daughter was appealing to people. Again, he’s signalling that he was able to land two generations of beautiful women (one to produce the daughter, one to bed him now). Given that female beauty is a commodity in our culture, it’s more reinforcement of his wealth and success.

                  But that doesn’t explain why Obama counties flipped to Trump. People are looking for zebras when the horse is right in the middle of the field. The Rust Belt isn’t uniquely packed with people who admire wealth.

              2. BecauseTradition

                People may well think, “Well, if she’s willing to be his wife he can’t be all bad” – assuming they respect her opinion.

            3. JoeK

              “She’s without doubt the most beautiful American first lady ever.”

              If by “beautiful” you merely mean physically attractive, then your claim is on firm ground.

              1. BecauseTradition

                Not my type but I suspect I could get used to her if she had a good personality, intelligence and character.

              2. Aumua

                Oh yeah, she’s bangin dude. I mean, I’d grab her by the concha, if you know what I mean. *wink wink*

            4. aab

              Without a doubt? Don’t you think Jackie Kennedy could give her a run for her money?

              My favorite thing about Melania so far is her fashion snark. I hope that continues.

        1. EndOfTheWorld

          She traveled all over the world. The birthers did not deny she was a citizen, but questioned where the infant Barack was born. I think. I’m not an expert on the birther thing.

      2. rd

        There was no intellectual argument in the Obama birther BS. The Republican primaries proved it.

        1. There was pretty good documentation that Obama was born in the United States to an American mother. Anything else is just National Enquirer/Zero Hedge conspiracy thinking.
        2. Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta Canada to a US mother and a Cuban father and had a birth certificate to prove it. Unlike John McCain, Ted Cruz’s parents had nothing to do the with the US military – they were just there on business.
        3. There was nothing said during the primaries about Cruz not being a “natural-born” citizen despite polling very high and eventually coming in second place. Everything is fair game in Presidential primaries, even fake stuff. If opponents in the Republican party actually believed the “intellectual argument” of the Obama birther BS spewed over the previous few years, then we should have seen lawsuits from all of his opponents to ban Cruz from the primaries because it would have been a slam-dunk win in their eyes.
        4. The inaction on Cruz made it clear that the birther “controversy” was completely fake intended to delegitimize the President.

        BTW – bonus points: The fact that Cruz did not understand that he was a Canadian citizen despite being born in Calgary was disqualifying to me. How could a Harvard-trained lawyer who clerked on the Supreme Court and served in the Senate engaged with immigration and citizenship issues not understand his own citizenship? That struck me as a complete inability to process information in a logical manner.

        1. EndOfTheWorld

          I heard Allan Grayson say on the Thom Hartman Radio Show that he had a lawsuit ready to go if and when Cruz was nominated. That’s what he said; I don’t know if it was the truth. The Obama case is completely different. I don’t see how the birthers could say he was born overseas if they had no evidence whatsoever. Of course all politicians are partisan; that goes without saying.

          1. rd

            Allan Grayson is a Democrat. Of course he could have tossed that out there as chum in the water for the media sharks after the Republican Convention and to force the Republicans to say being born abroad was ok.

            All of the birther stuff was coming from the Republicans. If they thought it was real, it would have been a neat device to eliminate one of the strongest contenders for their nomination. Donald Trump sues everybody for any reasons and he would have been the logical person to file the suit given his claims regarding Obama. The fact that nobody even attempted to make it an issue meant they all thought the intellectual argument was BS.

          2. Fiver

            Trump repeatedly waded into the subject, but framed it to his advantage of course – he would either be asked or himself raise the possibility of a lawsuit against Cruz, then talk about his lawyers having a look at it, or that Cruz should have his lawyers look into it. He would follow with the quick assurance he wasn’t himself interested in suing Cruz, but that someone else might ‘and for sure the Democrats would if Cruz won the nomination’.

            His approach to political opponents has been to beat them up with whatever he has available, which he displayed in spades with Clinton. What I fear most is that the mindless hysteria generated by the Clinton campaign in all its facets, in msm generally, and in a substantial portion of the alternate media, that I believe helped Trump far more than hurt him (exactly as per Brexit) will now prove entirely impotent in the face of a potentially shocking foreign policy move. Trump badly wants a deal with Putin, and I do believe the deal in question sees Putin and Russia left alone (no regime change as was Clinton’s clear goal, no more missile system deployments in eastern Europe) oil prices rising significantly, the Saudis etc., shutting off the money tap for ISIS, winding down the proxy war in Yemen, and in exchange, the annexation of the Golan along with tacit if not explicit US support for extreme moves by Netanyahu re the Palestinians that neither Obama nor France, nor Germany, nor most others in the UN have hitherto contemplated, i.e., essentially the complete abandonment of the Palestinians in exchange for a wider ‘peace’ that would effectively include wrapping up the whole basis for the ‘war on terror’.

            The neocons never miss an opportunity in a crisis. It is not impossible a very substantial number of people have been ‘played’ by Trump every bit as much as Obama did the broad electorate in 2008. Consider this:


        2. Lynne

          NOT defending birthers, but to be accurate, Trump raised the natural born citizen question about Cruz, including in one of the debates. It was almost the only thing Trump was consistent on.

    2. Ché Pasa

      Indeed, you are correct.

      The growing protests — 100,000 or more in LA yesterday, but of course, they’re losers, so it doesn’t matter — are not “her deluded supporters,” though I’m sure there are Hillary supporters among them.

      The spark appears to have been from anarchists, but the protests are being sustained by a wide cross-section of truly dissatisfied voters and non-voters who want neither Trump nor Hillary in the White House, and are terrified of what Trump will do to them and the earth based on his campaign rhetoric and behavior.

      Someone asked in yesterday’s roiling discussion whether — if the situation were reversed and Hillary captured the EC but failed the popular vote — would there be such demonstrations of protest.

      I think there would be. The participants might be somewhat different, the crowds might not be quite so brown-skinned, and they’d probably be even rowdier, but the outcome still would not be acceptable to a wide cross-section of voters and non-voters, and they would want to overturn the results.

      1. temporal

        I’m pretty sure that had the results been different the Trump supporters would be very angry but protests are an urban phenomena.

        Given the demographics of the voters I doubt they’d be out protesting in large numbers. More likely doubling down on guns and joining specialized clubs. Rural folks don’t protest and they certainly don’t randomly destroy other people’s property. Nor do they block roadways knowing that some dude might have just left a bar somewhere. They might start more fights but probably wouldn’t drive to the nearest city to do it.

        These protests are the success of the MSM in creating a demonized Trump while creating a mythology around HRC and what they believe were to be her good works. I’m pretty sure that many of them truly think they’re trying to stop the next Hitler. Rational thought having been replaced with text messaging and social media echo chambers. Overwhelming propaganda being more powerful than learning history and problem solving.

        1. sleepy

          Given the demographics of the voters I doubt they’d be out protesting in large numbers. More likely doubling down on guns and joining specialized clubs. Rural folks don’t protest and they certainly don’t randomly destroy other people’s property. Nor do they block roadways knowing that some dude might have just left a bar somewhere. They might start more fights but probably wouldn’t drive to the nearest city to do it.

          But there is a history of rural Americans engaging in violent protest during the 30s.

          Not sure what the response will be among his supporters when and if Trump abandons them. I agree with you that violence isn’t likely, though received wisdom said that the election of Trump was also unlikely.

          1. Ché Pasa

            So far, the protesters are non-violent (property damage and vandalism are not “violence” in the anarchist playbook, and they seem to be the only ones engaging in those actions). The police on the other hand are resorting to increasing levels of violence (Portland, perhaps elsewhere) to disperse what they call “riots” — which are no such thing. And there was the unknown sniper incident, also in Portland, which left a protester wounded.

            1. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

              They should all be headed to Chappaqua with their protests, that they’re not shows they have not a single, solitary clue about what just happened.

              1. Ché Pasa

                Believe me, there’s plenty of rage against Clinton and the Democratic Party apparat. But they aren’t the ones slated to take the White House are they?

                Are they?

                Most of the protesters seem to know exactly what happened.

        2. Michael

          “and they certainly don’t randomly destroy other people’s property.”

          $6 million of damages at Malheur says you think it doesn’t count if white people do it.

      2. Patricia

        Che, so it has broadened and become about democratic failure and the planet? I am delighted. Where are you finding your info? I’m not on fb and have been only reading about it on huffpo which I don’t trust.

        1. Katniss Everdeen

          And, along those same lines, to allan who wrote,

          “You are mistaken. Many of the people in the streets look like Bernie’s supporters, not Clinton’s.”

          What, pray tell, do Bernie’s supporters “look like?”

          1. Mel

            They have special shoes, I think. Paul Craig Roberts is also thinking about the possibility of an arranged Color Revolution to create a crisis, parallel to Lambert’s note about Egypt. The kind of crisis that is too good to waste, where the Rightful Rulers of America™ can use the disorder and send someone over to put a leash on the stray power and bring it back home.

            1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

              We know they are not Trump supporters – they will look like they are dying.

              Even faced with death, they waited and voted in Nov. 8, instead of engaging in street violence across cities in America simultanously.

              1. Michael

                Oh I dunno, they seemed pretty stoked about engaging in violence starting the 9th, when they felt there would be no consequences.

          2. temporal

            They weren’t crying. Only supporters of feminine mystique ever cry. Not crying is a bro rule. Clinton supporters stayed home, drank cocoa and watched “Pretty in Pink”.

            Dead giveaway.

            1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

              Some Clinton supporters – and with lots of money too – have one motive: Trump will not allow lobbyists for foreign governments to raise money for American elections.

              If Big Money was connected, it would be for that reason, not for Trump’s misogyny or mass deportation.

              And many protesters would have been used unknowingly.

          3. DJG

            allan’s point is correct: Here in Chicago, the demonstrations have been organized by individuals. A large NoDAPL delegation was here to do a snake dance. Members of Black Lives Matter spoke. Gay Liberation Network is involved. These people aren’t exactly Clinton’s natural audience

            1. Steve C

              Hillary was resolutely mealy-mother on DAPL, so protesting Trump isn’t the same as saying the election was decided wrongly. They’re just getting a head start on the struggle against Trump’s fossil fuel brigade.

        2. Ché Pasa


          It doesn’t look like it’s there yet, but it’s headed that way. So many diverse groups are involved, and I don’t think they’ve quite coalesced yet though they are cooperating and collaborating. Most of what I’m learning — and it’s very encouraging — is on my newsfeed and through contact with participants and supporters in several cities.

          1. Patricia

            If you have time, post about it in comments, now/then, would you?

            It’s exactly what we need. Makes me feel hopeful, against better judgement

          2. juliania

            Encouraging? You really want to see a color revolution, Che Pasa? I for one am horrified.

            I will point out that Black Lives Matter (and I have no beef with the organization as such) received a very large stipend from Soros, who is not uninvolved in Ukraine. Do we really suppose this is just good old American high spirits?

            Smacks of treason to me. Not treason against any one individual, but treason against the Constitution.

            1. Ché Pasa

              Juliania, where in the world are you getting the notion I WANT a so-called Color Revolution to take place in this country? Good Lord, no.

              I’m well aware of who/what has been behind them an how they are organized and operated. I’m certainly aware of the Soros (as well as Omidyar’s and many others’) connection in the Ukraine Nazi overthrow of Yanukovich. It wasn’t just Nuland.

              What’s encouraging so far is that the protests against the elevation of Trump are spreading and growing, and they involve many diverse groups and individuals who are finding a common voice, not just against Trump but against a political class and system that has brought us to this point. In a comment above, I made the point that I hope the demonstrators in the streets take inspiration from the Water Protectors in North Dakota. Not the fascists and Nazis of Ukraine – nor the various neoLiberal frauds that wound up profiting from the Color Revolutions.


              [The notion that the protesters are trying to launch a Soros funded Color Revolution is coming solely from Trump partisans which tells me more about them than the protesters.]

          3. Yves Smith

            You are both wrong.

            1. The number of people protesting is trivial. I’ve had direct reports from people in NYC who saw the protests and the MSM estimates look good. The MSM has NO reason to understate the number of protestors given its unified opposition to Trump.

            2. The idea that this is being funded is BS. Tons of people are upset. I am upset. I was going to be upset no matter who won.

            Trump will wind up being popular (something his opponents discount) if he manages to do a lot of deficit spending. Period. The economy has tons of slack. If he creates jobs and gets wages up, he will be forgiven a lot, like making the rich richer, wrecking the climate, appointing jerkface Supreme Court justices, weakening financial services regulations.

            The danger with Trump is not that he fails. It is that he succeeds.

            1. BecauseTradition

              weakening financial services regulations. Yves Smith

              Otoh, he may weaken or eliminate privileges for the banks. After all, what’s free market about those?

            2. Ché Pasa

              Trivial to one is a massive protest to another.

              Counts are all over the place, the estimates in Los Angeles yesterday ranging from 8,000 to 100,000 in the streets. From overhead video and stills, it looks to me to be closer to 100,000 than 8,000. YMMV. That’s one city, one day. There are protests in dozens of cities every day. Some are small, some are large, but cumulatively, they amount to a lot more than a few malcontents.

              The Occupy protests were dismissed by their opponents as “trivial” as well. The NoDAPL protests are also dismissed by their opponents as “trivial” — not only do they usually involve only hundreds at a time, the participants are mostly just Indians and a few black, white or Hispanic allies.

              It’s sad, but you could be right that “if” Trump delivers on some of the bennies he’s talked about for some of those who voted for him, it may be enough to overcome the wreckage in store for so many others.

              Growing numbers of people seem disinclined to let him have the chance.

              1. Yves Smith

                I looked at the photos in the link you provided. The one of Wilshire Blvd that claimed that that photo proved the crowd was 100,000 did no such thing. I went and looked at roughly how long a distance of the run would amount to 1000 people (and I am pretty sure I was over and not undercounting) and there look to be 5,000 to 7,000 people in that image. If that is what you are relying on as proof, you don’t have it, nor are you using any discernment. This site’s overarching mission is promoting critical thinking, and your efforts to force fit material you find on the web into your narrative is 180 degrees at odds with that.

                We don’t welcome “any stick to beat a dog” tactics here. Or as Lambert would say, “Daily Kos is over there.”

              2. Lambert Strether Post author

                > 8,000 to 100,000

                That’s like saying “the temperature ranged from absolute zero to the boiling point,” the range is so broad.

                No conclusion can be drawn from this. This is “any stick to beat a dog”-level tendentious nonsense.

              1. Tom

                The jerk store called … and they are running out of you!

                (sorry, but when am I ever going to have a chance to use that again?)

      3. Carolinian

        Los Angeles undoubtedly has the largest Hispanic population of any major US city…wonder why they’d be protesting. Elsewhere the protests seem to be made up of college students and young people. People certainly have the right to protest all they want and Trump himself said that in a tweet Friday night. However the notion that this represents some sort of general uprising in the streets or will change the course of upcoming events is one of your many unsupported assumptions. People protested Bush Jr.’s “selection” (because that Supreme Court decision really was “illegitimate”) but we got a giant tax cut for the rich and an Iraq war just the same.

        1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          Are they protesting the election itself, coming so soon after?

          Are they protesting voters in America making a wrong choice?

        2. Ché Pasa

          So does the brownness of so many of the protesters bother you somehow? Is their general youth somehow a disqualification from being taken seriously?

          Would the protests be more of a challenge to the ruling class if the protesters were whiter and older, richer and more in tune with the power elites?

          We’ll see, won’t we?

          1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            The more diverse the group, the broader the reach and stronger the message.

            I am sure there are all types in those protests.

            It’s just that they are not focused on the selling out (by conceding on Hillary’s part, and by meeting him in the White House on Obama’s part).

            Hillary and Obama seem to be saying, Trump is the next legitimate president of the United States of America.

            1. Propertius

              Hillary and Obama seem to be saying, Trump is the next legitimate president of the United States of America.

              That’s exactly what they’re saying. He won. She lost. That’s the way it works.

              I didn’t vote for the guy, but my throwing a temper tantrum isn’t going to change the result. You’re not going to get your way all the time – that’s a fact of life in any system that isn’t an outright dictatorship. The Democrats lost because they systematically obliterated the coalition that had held them together since the New Deal. They’ve been complicit in the destruction of large sectors of the economy and in the resultant impoverishment of millions who depended on those sectors.

              What did they expect?

          2. Carolinian

            Didn’t I just say it didn’t bother me? If I were a Hispanic I’d probably be protesting too. What I’m saying is that this is an example of special pleading, not a broad based protest.

            Trying to be cheeky isn’t the same as making a coherent argument. Ad hominem really means you’re out of bullets.

            1. craazyboy

              I think you’d find varied positions among Hispanics. Tho I haven’t compiled a large sample size of opinion. Then the Libruls have taken the illegal immigration issue and conflated it to racism per their political playbook. The feed back is to confuse citizen Hispanics – the Libruls want them to be paranoid about The White Man being after them, and even stealing the babies of the Latinx race.

              I knew a guy here on a student visa. He was upset because he followed the rules, waiting in line, and in his view, our government was letting in the illegals. He also mentioned he had 42 cousins still in Mexico. Wow!

              I new a girl who moved here legally with her immediate family. She said Mom wanted the whole extended family to move here too. I assume she meant legally. Of course some of them may look for jobs.

              It will be hard to make everyone happy.

              1. Michael

                The people who waited in line will be upset.

                The kids whose parents are getting deported will be shattered.

                I mean . . . yeah, I understand. But this isn’t a hard call.

              2. Carolinian

                Immigrants are often quite conservative and may be Republicans. This can apply to Hispanics as well. Apparently Trump did better than Romney with Hispanics.

                Of course it’s in the Dem’s interest to pretend the election was about race and that’s often the unthinking mantra even from writers I respect. More likely this election–like almost every election–was about economics.

            2. Ché Pasa

              I asked because I didn’t see you say that. If you had, I wouldn’t have had to ask, would I?

              My hope is that the Water Protectors in North Dakota serve as the inspiration for those in the streets demonstrating against the elevation of Trump to the Presidency. The Water Protectors have been at it for months, and they are a very diverse group, although the lead is being taken mostly by Native American women. They’re in it for the long haul. Some of them have said that even if they lose the NoDAPL struggle, they’re going to continue their effort because the underlying struggle is for sovereignty, self-worth, and spiritual renewal — for themselves, yes, but also for Americans in general. It’s about Water Protection, but it’s about much, much more than that.

              The people I know who have been up there and participated in the struggle say they have never had such a spiritually uplifting and moving experience in their lives, and they say their lives have been changed forever.

              Whether our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters in the streets protesting the elevation of Trump reach that level of solidarity and determination and purpose remains to be seen, but they do have examples to follow.

              1. integer

                My diagnosis is that those on the left who are currently protesting Trump have a particularly acute case of political shortsightedness.

        1. Mel

          I don’t know. I’m trying to start channelling Paul Goodman, but I haven’t got there yet. Have to dig out those old books. He wouldn’t be smashing cars; that’s just the press doing its traditional thing.

        2. bob

          The press, gotta love em-

          “Police have declared Portland protest marches a riot, as anarchists appeared to take leadership of the third night of demonstrations against Donald J. Trump’s presidency.”

          Anarchists taking leadership of a riot, declared by the police.

      4. DJPS

        Dear Che,
        I think you might be wrong about 100k. There was a fake picture circulating that was actually from Venezuela. Could that be your source?

        FWIW The press is reporting numbers in the region 8-10k in LA

        Where did you find the 100k number?

            1. craazyboy

              The long term plan is for S. Cal to secede from the Union and become another one of Mexico’s states. Probably named New Baja or something. So this is all inconsequential anyway.

              But if you can prove “you were with Her” even white males can get a job in the new government. If not, you get kicked out to Northern California and have to take out a million dollar mortgage as your punishment.

                1. alex morfesis

                  orale vato…you should not believe everything hillbotz put out there…leela daou retweet of some group named gaydaysLA does not mean 100k actually were on wilshire…

            2. Yves Smith

              It is not “hundreds of thousands”. It was 8,000-10,000. Tight shots will make a crowd look bigger than it is. That trick is also used all the time with demonstration, to take one clip of a scuffle and use it to depict a protest as a riot.


              And the MSM in general, and CNN in particular, is pro-Clinton. They have no incentive to understate protest numbers. By contrast, the media was totally in the can as far as the Iraq War was concerned.

              And the protests in the US were not large. You forget that Sunday was a bitterly cold day. And in NYC, the protestors were routed into Harlem, so no one has a good count.

              1. Ché Pasa

                The media, the entire political class, including most Clintonites and the Democratic Party apparat are telling the protesters to desist and to accept the outcome. Those in the streets choose to disobey.

                    1. Yves Smith

                      No, confirmation that no one regards these protests as a threat. They just dissipate energy in a non-productive manner. Sanders realizes the protests don’t undermine Trump, they just look like sore loserdom (even though the protestors have legitimate concerns re Trump’s racist dog whistles, trying to overturn the election is silly) and make the Dems look bad if the Dems are perceived to be endorsing or encouraging them.

        1. Ché Pasa

          It was in my newsfeed this morning, but now it doesn’t appear to be there. Thanks for letting me know it may have been fake. I’ll see if I can find the source.

        2. subgenius

          Well, the groups I have seen around dtla are 10s to 100s…haven’t seen a 1000+ crowd, although LAPD are definitely geared up to deal with that size

        1. rd

          The demonstrations are in the wrong place in any case. They are generally in states that voted for Hillary. If they were happening in Indianapolis, IN and Columbus, OH then they would mean something in the states that voted for Trump and impacted the Electoral College outcome. I have yet to see any news coverage of significant protests in flyover country.

          Personally, I am hearing a lot from people who are appalled that Trump was elected. I hear “I can’t believe that people voted for Trump” instead of “I can’t believe people didn’t vote for Hillary.” I think this explains why she lost.

          1. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

            They SHOULD have been in New York when Bernie was cheated; then in Philadelphia when Bernie was rolled at the Convention. Today they should be in Brooklyn (Clinton HQ) or better yet, outside her house in Chappaqua. She selected Trump as the candidate she wanted to run against (see the Podesta Pied Piper stuff) and then ran the worst possible campaign absolutely devoid of reasons to vore for her.

            1. Anonymous

              Wikileaks does show they said things like this.

              However, there is also another leaked email (WikiLeaks #4664)
              that suggests they considered T a formidable opponent and
              discussed plans to smear him as a racist and bigot.

      5. Lambert Strether Post author

        — 100,000 or more in LA yesterday, but of course, they’re losers, so it doesn’t matter —

        Given the 8,000 figure you later retreat to, I’m not sure the irony in “so it doesn’t matter” was heavy enough to be set off by dashes.

        Based on what I know (little) from sources I trust (very few, hence the previous “little”) I’ve got no beef with what they’re doing, and if what they’re doing is well-thought-out, it won’t need made up numbers to make it work. Performative speech on Clinton’s coming triumph didn’t work real well for the Democrats, and so I see no reason to reinforce failure by adopting the same tactic.

      6. Anonymous

        How do you know this about the protesters in LA?

        Have you conducted interviews of a representative sample of the LA protesters?

        I seriously doubt they are Bernie supporters. There were no protests in LA when HRC stole the nomination from Bernie in June.

    3. Lambert Strether Post author

      The link I provided mentions Sanders supporters.

      I deliberately avoided a mainstream source on this. After all, if I were a Democrat loyalist trying to foment this, I’d make sure stories were planted in the press (and my next step would be to raise up spokesholes and turn them into celebrities).

      If readers have organic reports of Trump protests, I would very much like to see them. The organic reports we had from the ground on Trump rallies were very useful.

      1. Carolinian

        Just talking on the phone to an AZ friend whose daughter was in Portland on a business trip. She said the daughter was trapped for three nights in her hotel by the protests/riots and that they spray painted the hotel.

        Meanwhile MIchael Moore barges into Trump Tower to deliver a note telling Trump to step aside. Which is funny because some of us assumed Michael Moore lived in Trump Tower. Unclear whether Moore wants Pence to also quit or for the country to spend another two years running the election over and giving Hillary a mulligan. His self confessed ardor for Mrs. C must be intense.

        1. Buttinsky

          Michael Moore has officially lost his mind. “You lost. Step aside.”

          Pray tell, Michael, which one of the candidates who got a whopping 27% of eligible voters to vote for him/her did not lose the election? The one who actually did not win by the rules of the Electoral College game?

          Thanks for so graciously rewriting the rules for us.

          Good grief. It’s like anybody I ever admired has turned into a babbling idiot overnight. And all in service to… Hillary Clinton??!!??!! That’s the real wound. It’s so important to these people to delude themselves that Hillary and the equally corrupt, incompetent, evil Democratic Party actually won.

        2. Lambert Strether Post author

          Thanks for the report from Portland, Oregon*. (I’m sure that Portland is not Los Angeles is not Chicago is not Baltimore is certainly not Oakland.) That’s not to denigrate, but to say that the local organizers and the participants will differ, as they did with Occupy.

          * Hmm. IIRC, a Baltimore event (maybe not this one) targeted a “tourist area.” Sounds like the Portland one did too?

    4. Steve C

      So it’s all about Team D vs. Team R then. Obama was the one who rehabilitated the Rs when they were flat on their backs in 2009. Something about bipartisanship and impressing elite opinion being more important than a working class agenda.

      Trump claimed to oppose Social Security/Medicare cuts/privatization. That should be the left’s goal. Hold his feet to that fire. Don’t try to score points for Team D. They don’t deserve your loyalty. And it’s a losing strategy.

      1. JSM

        Agreed. Protesting is all well and good and they have a few laudable points/intentions.

        But one wishes the left would learn to be both strategic and tactical.

      2. marym

        Yes. Focus on the issues, and be very clear as to the impact of his emerging positions. Also, Trump has gotten something of a pass because he doesn’t himself have much history on issues, but his transition team and eventual appointments do, and this needs scrutiny too.

    5. EndOfTheWorld

      I was a Bernie supporter and I voted for Trump over HRC. Many did. He’s closer to Bernie on the trade issues. I don’t think a lot of Bernie supporters are protesting the election.

      1. Pavel

        Well one of the (probably few) positive effects of the Trump victory is that TPP seems to be dead. So that is one great success story. We know that if Obama and Hillary had their way, it would be passed.

  6. Clive

    I don’t like at all adding to the nonsense, but I can’t resist this for the brazen, monumental wrongness of it. From the Guardian, You liked Sanders. So why didn’t you vote Clinton? By the aptly named Lucia Graves. Because she’s digging (or helping to dig, she’s not alone in the quest) the Guardian’s credibility grave.

    OMG, the stupid, I just can’t…

    1. PlutoniumKun

      I think of all the Clinton brown nosing reporters the Guardian hired last year to cover the elections, she was the worst – and there was stiff competition for that prize. Given that she was perhaps the worst offender for spreading dirt (bernie bros, etc) about Sanders, it shows some hard neck to write that.

        1. Steve C

          We really owed Hillary our vote. Didn’t we? After all, it was her turn now. She had waited long enough.

      1. Clive

        Just watching The View on BBC NI, you know you’re in terrible trouble when Ian Paisely Jr. is the one talking the most sense. Fionnuala O’Connor is priceless; if any regional theater is looking at their panto season casting and is still lacking a suitable pantomime dame, they should look no further.

      2. Pavel

        Jill Abramson (sp?) was by far the worst IMHO. What a cheerleader for HRC! I think the scathing comments on all her columns were one of the reasons the Grauniad ended up turning off the comments system on anything to do with Hillary.

        1. PlutoniumKun

          I was trying to shut Jill Abramson from my mind. I only read her first two columns, they had me so reduced to fury that I had to stop reading the Guardian for a few days after. It explains everything you need to know about the state of the NYT these days that she was editor.

      1. Clive

        Yay! See, Hillary really was nice and decent all along, just terribly misunderstood and badly advised. Who knew?

        Just sitting through Washington Journal now on C-SPAN. By the time this is all done, I’m probably going to join a monastery — one of those austere orders where they forbid TV, radio and newspapers (the internet too, one assumes). It’s all I’ll be fit for.

        1. Jim Haygood

          These are resilient women, often working two or three jobs, for whom boorish men are an occasional occupational hazard, not an existential threat.” — Tina Brown

          “Boorish men” — what can we do to make amends for our miserable, offensive existence, now that Hillary’s final solution of free orchiectomies for the deplorable gender is off the table?

        2. ambrit

          The Beatification of Dame Hillary of Foggy Bottom proceeds apace. Soon I anticipate reading about Saint Hillary Stylites. She’s already high up on that pedestal.

          1. flora

            Good snark. There’s something existential, almost religious, in the way the Dem estab assumes their meritocratic and credentialed professionals *deserve* to rule. How could Hillary, in her meritocratic greatness, lose to… to… him?

        3. Synoia

          Hillary really was nice and decent all along, just terribly misunderstood and badly advised.

          Yes,her advisers and communication staff were imposed on her from outside, so she had no choices, nor any responsibility for the choices.

          In addition, Sander’s efforts were an irritation, not suggestions on how to win.

        4. Tom

          “Hillary really was nice and decent all along, just terribly misunderstood and badly advised.”

          As explained by Eric Burdon and the Animals:

          Baby, do you understand me now
          Sometimes I feel a little mad
          But don’t you know that no one alive
          Can always be an angel
          When things go wrong I seem to be bad
          But I’m just a soul whose intentions are good
          Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood

          P.S. Thank God Hillary is out, so I don’t have to dig up the lyrics to Sky Pilot.

    2. HBE

      Probably my favorite line from the whole piece, although there were so many choices it’s hard to choose just one.

      “…the most progressive Democratic platform in history was on the ballot with her; any Bernie Sanders supporter worth their salt should’ve been able to see that.”

      Certainly it was extremely progressive! It would have allowed us to progress even faster down the maw of neoliberalism, into war with Russia, and civilian slaughter in the mid east.

      I mean seriously what is wrong with those saltless Bernie supporters, war is peace, neoliberalism is freedom, murder saves! /S

    3. John Wright

      This is an amazing editorial, it is almost as if it is a final encore to advertise the writer’s skills.

      The author is trying very hard to spin straw into gold…

      It has lines like “The most progressive Democratic platform” in history, knowing full well how Wendy Sherman enforced EXACTLY what went into the platform, overruling the Bernie supporters.

      The DNC silenced the Bernie convention delegates, displaced them with paid seat warmers and then installed Tim Kaine as VP candidate.

      The final killer of HRC’s campaign was the leak of Hillary’s “private vs public positions” statement.

      Anyone who has not been in a coma during this campaign knows a “most progressive Democratic platform” is not binding, and is further weakened when the ostensible platform enforcer has a record of “private positions” that differ from her campaign speech positions.

      I believe the Democrats would have won this election if they had fielded a Bernie Sanders + either Elizabeth Warren or Tulsi Gabbard ticket, which could have set up a woman for the next election.

      This election had little to do with “gender-based double standards” and more with the ethical standards of the Bernie supporters who could not see fit to vote for Clinton.

      1. Tulsi Gabbard for President

        The door is open for Tulsi in 2020, if she wants it.

        Would not have been, if HRC and the Clinton machine had won.

    4. Temporarily Sane

      Because she’s digging (or helping to dig, she’s not alone in the quest) the Guardian’s credibility grave.

      The Guardian’s credibility died after Alan Rusbridger stepped down as editor-in-chief. Its smearing of Corbyn, shilling for Clinton, lopsided Brexit coverage, atrociously one-sided reporting on the Syrian war, hysterical anti-Trump hit pieces, wholesale demonizing of Russia and doubling down on the identity politics crap have turned a decent paper into a neo-liberal propaganda organ. And they wonder why ever fewer people are willing to pay to read predictable clickbait riddled neolib nonsense.

      1. uncle tungsten

        Please, please, can NC drop the Guardian references in links. It is a rain soaked rag that the dog dragged in. It has been trash since the previous editor resigned and it prints swill. Let it RIP. (I assume it has been taken over by desperate Blairites)

        1. clinical wasteman

          On the general standard of that paper, no question. The idea that it suddenly got drastically worse post-Rusbridger is a novelty, though. Everyone I know in London has been saying these things about the Guardian — and we’ve been right every time — throughout the 21 years I’ve lived here. The takeover by Blairites happened early in the 1990s, not that the Wilsonites (as in Harold, not Woodrow, to the extent that there’s a difference) previously in charge were much better. The current editorial policy drills new depths of dismal, but — cruel and unusual as it may be to believe — K.Viner was voted Editor-in-Chief for lesser evil reasons: her opponent was the gargoyle known as Jonathan Freedland. Look up his columns and you’ll see what I mean.

  7. Otis B Driftwood

    We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign. You can rely on the The New York Times … blah, blah, blah, blah.

    So much for a heartfelt, soul-searching mea culpa. It’s almost ironic in its cluelessness. No one, absolutely no one who has paid attention, believes for an instant that they NYT was anything but a PR arm for the Clinton campaign.

    They don’t make any attempt at all to apologize for their role in undermining the Sanders campaign. Forget their GE coverage, I am convinced the concerted effort by the DNC and MSM to destroy Sanders is why Trump is now our president-elect. Where is Sulzberger’s insincere apology for that?

    I haven’t looked at my local paper yet, the SF Chronicle, which did no better than follow the NYT/WaPo lead. And I wouldn’t be surprised to find much the same kind of mealy mouthed excuse for their abject failure this election season. Their editorial board, like that of the NYT, should resign en masse. That would be a good start to their program of “rededication”. Loyal subscribers and the genuine journalists left at these failing organizations should expect nothing less.

  8. jefemt

    Post mortems continue to miss or chose to not cover three contributing factors to the Tuesday Surprise:
    -revulsion, rejection and boycott of the Dem party and its ‘rigged’ maltreatment of strong candidate Sanders, who was the candidate who could beat Trump with an alternative ‘different path’ platform than Trump.
    -revulsion and rejection of the dirty Clinton dynasty and its world-view (good luck, Chelsea…)
    -the media’s own culpability– their overt aiding and abetting of Clinton and the DNC, and the purposeful void of Bernie coverage. The rigged system…noted by Bernie and Trump both (remember the 1 1/2 hr coverage of Trump’s empty podium and open mike when Bernie was simultaneously giving an historic speech at a very critical time in the Dim primary run-up? )

    After the results came in, Jessie’s Café had a fun loop of old Andy Griffith clips with Jim Nabors saying, Shazaam! and Golly! The clips did not include a clip of Nabors saying, ‘Surprise Surprise Surprise ‘
    Team Trump might not have made the clip, but they must be enjoying the careful edit.

    1. dcrane

      Agreed. But don’t forget the media’s failure to call out the radical Tea Party because of the Prime Directive of Both-sides-do-it-ism. The GOP was willing to sabotage the nation’s economy and its legislative policies like Obamacare in order to destroy President Obama. What would Obamacare be like today if people hadn’t been constantly misled about the subsidies, or if the states had encouraged exchanges rather than fought them? OCare was a disappointment from the beginning, but without this sabotage it might be working much better today. And what would the national economic situation be today if Obama had been given the leeway to pursue a much larger infrastructure-rebuilding stimulus in 2009 (which they’ll now be happy to give to President Trump)?

      For eight years, the media pretended not to notice that the principal goal of most Republicans in Congress was the destruction of President Obama. How many times did anyone in the MSM report this undeniable motivation? This has enabled the expansion of the fact-free universe on the Right where Trump has thrived. The media didn’t just screw Bernie – they have been setting the stage for Trump as well.

      I agree with Pie that the Democratic Party is responsible for Trump’s election, but I rank them #3 after the Republican Party and the Media.

      1. Fiver

        Nonsense. Obama bears very heavy responsibility – he had a flattened Republican Party, both Houses and a real mandate for change that he immediately squandered via a complete abdication of responsibility vis a vis taking on Wall Street (he had overwhelming support for that fight) instead wasting all of his political capital on a year-long, disastrous, Congress-led, industry-written farce of a health-care plan – the worst timing I’ve ever seen . He also did absolutely nothing about the pack of war criminals who bore direct responsibility for the calamitous, illegal conduct of foreign policy, spying, torture, war crimes, and all the rest – all was forgiven and forgotten – also during his first 2 years with both Houses.

        It is not even close to too much to say that Obama was a much worse President than Bush as Obama was elected precisely to undo the horrific damage Bush/Cheney had unleashed across the board. Instead, all the entrenched power interests became much stronger under Obama, not weaker. The US public was yearning for an authentic leader with vision acting in the public interest in 2008. In 2016, the public was offered no positive choice, so this time sent the Hulk.

  9. EndOfTheWorld

    RE: Trump’s surprising transportation priorities. OK, he has said he likes public transport. Will he get this past opposition from the auto and oil industry?

    1. PlutoniumKun

      They will oppose it, but there are plenty of very wealthy people who will see money in it. Just as an example, Bechtel is a long time Republican backing company (I’ve no idea if the Bechtel family were Trump supporters) who are very big in project managing big public infrastructure developments. There are lots of Republican funders out there who would have a very discreet sharp words with their pet Congressman if they opposed a big rail scheme.

      1. EndOfTheWorld

        Railroads are good. Less traffic congestion, less tearing up of the roads, less smog. Also, the whole American reliance on the automobile is why everybody is so alienated. Public trans brings people together. The problem is many of us don’t want to be together, because we don’t trust each other. A vicious circle. But Trump lived in NY and the subway is still king up there. People take the subway without getting killed.

        1. Plutoniumkun

          One unstated reason (or at least not stated often) for many US cities having lousy public transport is that funding proposals are always shot down when they realise that the lines will connect downtown with black neighbourhoods. Atlanta as an example. There are some interesting studies around (not least one on Detroits new bike sharing scheme), which show that public transport initiatives have a much better chance of succeeding if they limit themselves to prosperous white neighbourhoods.

          I think this leads to a related issue of the background of Trumps Republican supporters. He is, of course a New Yorker, as is Guiliani. In my experience NY Republicans are quite a different species than most of the rest – they don’t have some of the same racial hangups or problem with public infrastructure. There might be some interesting policy discussions coming out of that culture clash.

          1. EndOfTheWorld

            Trump did well with the black voters, for a Republican. Don King backed his fellow wheeler-dealer.

        2. Katniss Everdeen

          Wasn’t it just a few months ago that we were reading about the shitcanning of mass transit plans because we would soon have self-driving cars/ubers?

          1. Optimader

            Convert all RR carriages to barcars with a robot bartender — and one free drink coupon w a ticket

      2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

        Also, by proposing self-driving trains and buses, that will help bringing in some tech billionaires.

      3. Jeremy Grimm

        I couldn’t help but connect the information in the two links:
        “Trump’s Surprising Transportation Priorities” and “Big Berkshire Hathaway Railroad Deal”.

  10. Paid Minion

    “….Mosul hasn’t fallen yet?”

    How long do you think it would take to “secure” Phoenix, if the entire population was held hostage by suicidal fundies whackos? Who had dug a bunch of tunnels, the location and extent of which were/are unknown?

    Just another example of how a small group of motivated individuals can really throw sand in the gears of modern society

    1. Synoia

      Who had dug a bunch of tunnels

      I believe you grossly underestimate the effort and risk of “crazies digging tunnels.”

      The quickest solution to crazies in self dug tunnels is to collapse the tunnels. GPR (Ground Penetrating radar) finds tunnels easily, and a small effort of comparing City Planing maps with the GPR results would yield a thorough set of results.

      If you will indulge in conspiracy theories, please indulge in ones where you are expert.

      1. Paid Minion

        This assumes that there are no civilians in the tunnels and/or you aren’t interested in saving as many of them as possible, if they are being held in the tunnels.

        If you aren’t worried about civilian casualties, by all means lay siege to the place and bomb it into dust.

        If you are an Iraqi government, OTOH, you might be hesitant to write off a few hundred thousand, plus or minus.

        But that assumes that you operate a little differently than the US government, who has no problem “writing off” anyone

        1. Paid Minion

          Conspiracy Theory? WTF are you talking about? I was only commenting on how long clearing Mosul might take. A city woth the same population (approximately) of Phoenix.

      2. Riley Brown

        GPR (Ground Penetrating radar) finds tunnels easily

        Have you used GPR? I have. It involves tedious time consuming work spread out over the entirety of the area you want to map. You place a bunch of pieces of metal on the ground, connected to each other and to a computer via wires, and hit each one with a hammer. Then you wait until the person at the computer tells you if they got good or bad results. You then either move on to hit the next one if you got good results, or you hit the same one again if you got bad results. Once the entire line is completed you move the metal and wire a few feet and do it all over again. And again, and again, and again. This is impossible to do quickly on a massive scale and much more difficult in cities, and I would imagine impossible in a war zone. Oh, and the person at the computer needs training.

        and a small effort of comparing City Planing maps with the GPR results

        Assuming good maps of Mosul’s underground infrastructure exists despite years and years of wars, and before that sanctions, the maps would have to be digitized using a GIS format compatible with the GPR data and humans would have to review each anomaly to determine if it is a bunker full of civilians or a tunnel full of militants. Or a sink hole or unpermitted basement. Oh, and you need programmers to write the software to detect the anomalies for the humans to review.

        Frustrating when people who have no idea what they are talking about confidently call monumental — perhaps impossible! — tasks easy.

        1. jgordon

          This a great explanation of why all the green energy initiates inexplicably failed and will fail. Waving away the monumental difficulty of a nigh impossible task and confidently/smugly proclaiming “don’t worry; they’ll get it solved”.

  11. Phil Snead

    WHOEVER thought up the idea of these 2 sharing a pulpit!? The obvious disconnect between the two of them casts this as a debate not a discussion – with no debate rules that might have structured the flow a bit. It comes off unfortunately as a bit of bullying, as which I’m sure it was not intended. One literally must play bits of the one or the other, and not of both in sequence, to take any coherent ideas from it. Nice job, Brown!

  12. dk

    Bacquet and Sulzberger letter:

    We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the Presidential campaign.

    “Both”? That just about says it all. Of course, belief washes every sin, and one should be forgiven through one’s faith in oneself; fairness as an article of faith. And anyway, two (candidates, parties, competing narratives, ) should be enough for NYT readership (and it makes then easier to steer).

    The Deadline Hollywood article is pretty disquieting too.

    By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called “the narrative.” We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line.

    Reality usually had a way of intervening. … Once, in the Los Angeles bureau, I listened to a visiting National staff reporter tell a contact, more or less: “My editor needs someone to say such-and-such, could you say that?”

    1. Anonymous2

      My uncle was a public figure. He once was giving an interview to a national newspaper. As my uncle’s secretary followed the reporter and photographer up the stairs to my uncle’s office, the secretary heard the photographer ask the journalist ‘are we for or against?’.

      I assume he was not supposed to hear, but it speaks volumes to me.

    2. KurtisMayfield

      That is not the most surprising part of the letter. They weasel worded around admitting to not writing honestly during the campaign. That third paragraph is pretty damning.

      My question would be to the NYT: “Would you have written this letter if HRC won?”

      I will wait for their answer to not echo through eternity.

    3. JSM

      Beat your friends over the head with the counternarrative and you will not only gain credibility but eventually look like a genius. It’s a fun game for one player.

  13. Carla

    Re: “Trump promises to make infrastructure a major focus”

    Lambert says “Assuming that Trump’s public-private partnerships aren’t colonized and deformed by cronies, and assuming the jobs are “good jobs at good wages,” this should go a long way toward solving any legitimacy issues Trump might face (at least after the stimulus kicks in).”

    Why would anyone, and particularly anyone HERE, make such an assumption? I am staggered…

    1. PlutoniumKun

      PPP’s are pushed by the financial industry. They are actually a pain in the butt for the construction and engineering industry, they make life very complicated for them. My sense (looking at which companies are surging in the stock market) is that Wall Street has lost a lot of political leverage, while traditional big construction firms see this as boom time. It depends a lot of course as to who gets treasury, but I suspect that those pushing PPP’s will find they have much less traction than they would under Obama/Clinton.

      1. Carla

        Thank you. I was hoping someone else would chime in, because PPP’s have been the embodiment of colonization and cronyism for a long time. As someone much smarter than I am once said “Where does the public/private partnership leave the public? Out of the picture, but paying the bill.”

        Can we really expect that to change under, for example, Treasury Secretary Jamie Dimon?

        1. EndOfTheWorld

          Jamie Dimon will not be Treasury sec. Jamie Dimon spread that rumor himself. Jamie Dimon loves to see the words “Jamie Dimon” in the press.

        2. BecauseTradition

          I’ll chime in too. PPP are fascist BY NATURE, ie. private enrichment by public means. And iirc, it was the Roman Army that built Roman roads, aqueducts, etc. Seems like we could likewise use our military and other civil servants for constructive use.

          Also, why on earth would a monetary sovereign ever need financial help from its own private sector? Who’s the dog and who’s the tail when it comes to the general welfare?

        3. craazyboy

          Outside of the Army Corps of Engineers, the USG doesn’t have the “means of production” in today’s world. So they have to contract out the work.

          But this really isn’t any different than the private sector does it. Take the case of an Electric Utility. When they decide to build a new power plant, they hire an architect-engineering firm. Then a general contractor who hires a bunch of specialty sub contractors. Then material and equipment is purchased from industry vendors.

          During this process the utility is very involved in managing, evaluating competitive bids and generally doing oversight insuring the best overall result possible and try to minimize cost overruns. Even so, it’s still a rocky road.

          As long as the USG can implement this same kind of oversight, I don’t see any reason they couldn’t get the same results. [less than catastrophic]

          Actually, I wouldn’t mind if the USG decided to get into being the “means of production” in certain industries. Say, pharma, and build a bunch of little pharma factories scattered around the country. Next we find out probably at least half of all pharma products cost about the same as aspirin. But that takes time and planning. The USG can’t just wake up one morning and say OMG! we gots to stimulate the economy – because jobs!

          1. BecauseTradition

            Actually, I wouldn’t mind if the USG decided to get into being the “means of production” in certain industries. Say, pharma, and build a bunch of little pharma factories scattered around the country. Next we find out probably at least half of all pharma products cost about the same as aspirin. not so craazyboy

            Excellent idea and for the moment I can’t see how the private sector could complain if the factories were subject to the same regulations, taxes, etc and broke even wrt costs. Heck, maybe even forget taxes in the case where the patent has expired since the drug should then be considered in the public domain and provided at cost as a public service by government.

            For that matter, why don’t we have not-for-profit drug manufacturers? A drug I take was invented 64 years ago and must be dirt cheap to make but costs me about $160 a month.

            1. BecauseTradition

              And heck, what private sector entrepreneur worth his salt is there that thinks he can’t compete with GOVERNMENT on a level playing field and WIN?

        4. jgordon

          A discredited rumor. It was spread by the Washinton Post, a rinky-dink outfit well known for colluding with clients and printing whatever slanderous propaganda they’re instructed to print. Especially when it comes to Trump.

      2. jsn

        PPPs have been so corrosive in New York that the State now looks at every architect’s visit to the buildings department, zoning and any other public agency or hearing as “lobbying.”

        But no one can define where a legitimate, statutorily required submission, filing or appearance ends and lobbying begins.

        The “appearance of corruption” is corruption and PPPs prove it.

      3. apber

        I was involved in several PPPs back in the late 70s, early 80s. The paperwork was over-the-top, but the corruption was worse. The jobs had to be union, adding at least 30% to the cost. One of my supervisors was killed when he refused to featherbed 15 “connected” relatives. Couldn’t prove it at the time, but vowed never again to get involved with the government

      4. Michael

        Good grief.

        The level of corruption under Trump is going to make Obama look like a choirboy. I understand why Clinton lost, and she deserved to, but the commentariat at NC’s absurd kid gloves treatment of Trump is incomprehensible to me. The man defines corruption.

        1. Yves Smith

          Huh? Clinton was selling favors out of the Department of State. I have a specific story from foreign government sources and I am hardly plugged into that circle. And it wasn’t the Middle East, either. So you are really kidding yourself about Clinton. We would have gotten Philippines-level corruption with her, although she would have covered her tracks better than Trump.

        2. Pavel

          Are you kidding? It is the Clintons who “define corruption”. Go to Counterpunch and search for Cockburn & St Claire’s decades of reports on their shenanigans in Arkansas and then in Washington. They went from being “flat broke” to having $200 million in a few short years after leaving the White House — WJC running a “Foundation” and HRC being Secretary of State. Trump may have done many shady deals in real estate and bribing public officials, but he wasn’t in public office — that is the main difference.

      5. Tom

        Forgive me, but I don’t understand why the discussion of infrastructure investments always ends up with the public/private partnership arrangement being seen as the inevitable mechanism.
        Why can’t/doesn’t the government just award a one-off contract for a bridge, let’s say, and that’s as far as it goes. The winning contractor builds the bridge to specs and within budget/timelines, they get paid and make their profit, and they go on to bid for some more one-off contracts. Seems like everyone’s happy.
        Why must the project be privatized and the contractor be enticed with ownership and an ongoing stream of revenue in perpetuity? I mean, from the contractor’s point of view, sure, why not? But if the Federal government has the infrastructure funding available to build that bridge, the why give away the store?

        1. BecauseTradition

          But if the Federal government has the infrastructure funding available to build that bridge, the why give away the store?

          As a monetary sovereign the Federal Government ALWAYS has the necessary funds.

        2. PlutoniumKun

          Actually, you are quite right – leaving to one side my snippiness about Wall Street, the simplest and most cost effective way to build public infrastructure is to borrow money when its cheap (and nobody can borrow money as cheap as a government), get a public agency to do the design and regulatory work, then issue it as a contract to the private sector and let them build it. It is by far the simplest and most effective way to do it. Anyone who suggests any other way is an economist or is interested in encouraging corruption (which is often the same thing of course.

          1. BecauseTradition

            (and nobody can borrow money as cheap as a government)

            Even at negative rates, if a monetary sovereign.

          2. Tom

            Thanks for the explanations.

            I’ve been reading an article linked here the other day (Beware Donald Trump’s Infrastructure Plan) and the article doesn’t really seem to be about Trump’s infrastructure plan in particular — it’s more like a general scare story with Trump as a stand-in for anybody that wants to invest in infrastructure.

            But with Trump as the stand-in, the author says because Trump wants in to invest in infrastructure, that automatically means public/private partnerships, which automatically means shitty deals, bad quality in the finished product, loss of control of the asset, poor maintenance, unhappy citizens, etc. etc.

            But the author just doesn’t do a very good job of making the leap from “a need for infrastructure investment” to “the only way to do it is with poorly negotiated public/private parternships”. I guess the takeaway the author wants you to have is that since Trump wants to build infrastructure, that must mean he wants crappy PPPs from sea to shining sea.

            1. Phil King

              There are a couple links in the article that give details, eg Trump’s Contract with the American Worker doc

    2. Yves Smith

      Public private partnerships won’t drive spending to the areas that need jobs.

      Trump is not close to the private equity or hedge fund industry. They didn’t support his campaign and his tax plan gets rid of the carried interest tax break. He could in theory break out of the capture here but he’s had public private partnerships as the mechanism so long that it’s vanishingly small odds that he’d change course.

      He had initially sounded like he wanted direct Federal spending but he picked up a lot of orthodox Republican stuff once he won the nomination, including getting really loud on law ‘n order, when that was just an occasional mention before.

      But raw deficit spending will create jobs, and he is talking $1 trillion. Even with the considerable dampening effect of relying on trickle down economics, that would have an impact.

      My belief is if Trump has his legitimacy crisis, it will start early, by trying to push through some programs the Republicans don’t like, like busting trade deals. And even if his infrastructure plans get done, it will take a while for the $ to flow. That’s another reason why it’s a bad idea to use public private partnerships. He could give block grants to states to start repaving roads (which could get going in six months) while the bigger projects are being designed and costed out.

    3. KGC

      FWIW, from the little I can glean from the rather gauzy descriptions of the proposed structure, they’re not replicating the typical PPP deal. Instead, they’re adapting the CAPCO idea – tax credits against funding ( – which was a way to fund qualifying ventures that guaranteed a return even if the funding company threw the money out the window. CAPCO deals are for insurance companies (typically P&I)), which have money they have to invest and premium taxes they have to pay; the new PPP deals are for any company with a large tax liability if and when they repatriate capital and no requirement to invest funds. Not that I can tell much from the brief descriptions: as implemented, they may well be more tailored to the broader range of envisaged transactions. If so, as they now have to lure companies into participating, they’ll very likely provide an overall benefit that yields a quite reasonable profit even if the investment is a total loss. Not, need it be said, to the public…

        1. Tom

          From the end of the article, a one-sentence summary of how Trump became President-Elect:

          “Trump is there because everything else failed.”

  14. Carolinian

    Re Global Guerillas–a clue for the clueless. America is not Egypt, the Ukraine, Venezuela or any of the other places where the color revolutionaries use media control and middle class protestors to remove or try to remove regimes that are imperially inconvenient or, in the case of Egypt, actually deserve to be replaced. Our democracy may be deeply flawed but it’s the only thing that stands between us and that fascism they claim to be afraid of. These protests, as a coda to the election, merely emphasize how the current left is so titanically full of crap. Protest Trump’s policies by all means but lets first find out what they are. And just to add that as a political tactic you will only be driving the country to the right.

    1. pretzelattack

      i don’t know what the political effect of the protests will be, and what they will morph into. the elites probably hope they will be useful in controlling trump, and in fighting the dissolution or takeover of the democratic party, but their political judgement is suspect; the protests may have the opposite effect. i think increasing tension between trump and the elite class he is financially a member of is probably useful. having been blackballed at the political country club, he may want to stay outside, pissing in. that role seems to fit his personality.

      1. Lambert Strether Post author

        The elites should be careful what they wish for.

        Remember that Bill Clinton encouraged Trump to run, and boosting Trump (and Cruz) was explicitly an aim of the Clinton campaign, as shown by the Podesta mails, because they thought he would be the best candidate. So how did that work out for them?

        So, even if these events are “Color Revolutions” (dubious) and funded by Soros (more dubious), the strategy reminds me very much of the Czar’s secret police encouraging revolutionaries because they felt they could control them. So how did that work out for them?

        As I’ve been saying, I think a legitimacy crisis is coming. I’ve been imagining how it work under a Democrat administration simply because that comes easier to me, but whichever end of the Overton Window the ruling party occupies, the crisis is coming. Whether these demonstrations are the vehicle for it is an open question. Even if they’re organic, as opposed to being inspired by Clintonite losers and the press, they might not be, and will not be if they stick in identity politics mode.

        1. Ché Pasa

          At least in Portland, Oakland, Albuquerque, and Los Angeles they are anything but Clintonite inspired. The media is generally lowballing them and where I am, is obsessively focused on the “violence” (ie: graffiti, vandalism, not even any dumpster fires here yet.)

          The political class of both parties and the media are basically telling the protesters to desist and accept the elevation of Trump. Period.

          The exceptions I’ve seen are basically saying “peaceful” protest is a constitutional right which shouldn’t be interfered with, but whatever they do, the protesters shouldn’t become like those they’re protesting against.

          Where are you getting the idea it’s a Clintonite plot? That’s just daft.

          1. ginnie nyc

            I’m sorry, but burning cars (Oakland) and punching out a 72 yo (NYC, in front of Trump Tower) are not ‘graffiti and vandalism”. It’s violence.

        2. Adam Eran

          Boss Twede used to say “I don’t care who people vote for as long as I can pick the candidates.” I say his spirit lives on.

      2. JSM

        That should tell you what you would really worry the elite: the populist left supporting populist policies Trump actually adheres to.

    2. Barmitt O'bamney

      Nothing could legitimize Trump more surely or quickly. Are we sure it’s Soros funding these dipshits and not the Koch Bros?

      1. Carolinian

        The Soros thing is just a rumor being put out by Paul Craig Roberts and others.

        But there’s no question that “de-legitimization” is the tactic being used by Soros and various CIA connected NGOs to soft power governments they don’t like oblivion. Back in the 60s “spreading democracy” used to be our imperial excuse. Now democratically elected governments like the one that existed in Ukraine are attacked for being corrupt and “illegitimate” and therefore coup worthy after Nuland hands out cookies and some suitably large demonstrations and constant media coverage have done their work. De-legitimization was also the excuse for the soft coup in Brazil where the right is currently ravaging the country.

        However the “reasoning by analogy” that makes people think this will be a good tactic in the US is quite looney. More likely it will simply be viewed as Occupy Sore Loser.

          1. Yves Smith

            And the point? MoveOn is using this as yet another petition opportunity?

            It’s pretty disturbing to see site regulars take up and amplify distortions by the pro-Trump camp. The allegation from them is that protestors were paid, meaning they rounded up people with nothing better to do and handed them a $20 or more to show up and protest. That is utterly different from established political organizers, who organize all sorts of initiatives, working on anti-Trump efforts as part and parcel of the sort of thing they did versus bad Obama initiatives.

        1. Barmitt O'bamney

          I see this took on a life of its own. Don’t care about the rumor one way or the other. It’s a joke set up.

          My point is that if these purple meatheads want to drive the nice, polite liberal professionals and suburbanites who voted for Hillary right into the arms of the Big Orange Daddy, giving him more legitimacy and a firmer grip on power, they have hit on exactly the right tactic. Heightening the contradictions will go his way. That’s why they call ’em Leftards.

    3. craazyboy

      Yeah, just cause Hillbots, Obots, Correct The Broken Record, and illegal immigrants took to the streets for a couple days doesn’t make for a “Color Revolution”.

  15. Paid Minion

    Clinton supporters: “We was robbed!”

    By the racist, sexist Right Wing Conspiracy, who fabricated all of the dirt about Hillary

    Boo-effing Hoo. Life is too short get these people to quit believing their delusions.

    Tea Partiers aren’t the only people keeping their “fact books” in three ring binders.

  16. Samuel Conner

    Re: the HRC campaign’s self-defense: call it the “Lemony Snicket” explanation — a series of unfortunate events.

    At least Mook maintained a sunny outlook.

  17. Steve H.

    : Hillary Clinton didn’t fail us. We failed her

    Jaw dropped. Satire/snark\s becomes reality. ‘She can only be failed’ now requires citation.

    1. Steve H.

      Citation: searched on “only be failed” and came up with nothing on ngrams, and syntactically correct references are solely technical pre-2006. (“the create/open registry APIs can only be failed in the pre-create callback”; “whether they fail on their own or can only be failed by propagation of failures of other components”; “thankfully this roll can only be failed but not botched”.)

      While the middle quote fits the meaning, social context shows up in 2006. “Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed” rang the most bells for me, from digby. But he is predated by Theodore Dalrymple, in the summer of 2006, darkly reflected now:

      “In the current climate, you can’t fail as a minority: you can only be failed by others.”

    2. Gareth

      And because we failed Hillary she will run in 2020, giving us a chance to correct our betrayal … and to keep the Clinton Foundation grift churning four more years. I’m afraid we haven’t seen the last of the Queen of Chaos.

      1. ambrit

        She looks physically bad. She might not survive another four years. So, Chelsea to the rescue! I really wonder what Chelsea thinks of this.

        1. a different chris

          Dick Cheney is still with us, do not underestimate the life-extending abilities of power and wealth.

    3. craazyboy

      hahaha. I recall some real snark back when the campaign season began. Someone characterized Hillary as saying, “OK folks…don’t screw this up for me!” [recall Bernie was in the race then]

      Oh nos. We did.

    4. Lambert Strether Post author

      It’s a snowclone.

      ” ______ can never fail. [He|she|it] can only be failed” was originated, IIRC, by Digby, many many years ago. She filled in the blank with “Republicans,” but happily we see the formula has broader application.

      1. aab

        I used to read Digby. She was one of the first Team Blue bloggers I quit on. She went irrational Hillbot really, really early.

        I honestly don’t understand how intelligent people can be this deluded. Up to a point, I get it. I don’t respect it, but I understand how it happens. But Amanda Marcotte now has a Sinclair Lewis avatar on Twitter. REALLY? Seriously, REALLY? Does she know ANYTHING about Sinclair Lewis? Is this some new, inverted version of Clintonian projection, where they now pretend alliance with exactly the voices who most accurately indicted their behavior?

  18. fresno dan

    the Trump Transition is dominating the news flow. More, the news flow is enormous — even if much of it is from institutions and individuals who have been, or at least should be, thoroughly discredited — and I’m sure I’ve missed important stories. So I’m in the odd position of having both too many links and too few. –lambert
    It reminds me of a Woody Allen joke:
    Two old ladies are in the Catskills eating at a resort. The first old lady says that the food is so terrible. The other old lady say yeah, and the portions are so small…

  19. pretzelattack

    re the danger of going soft on russia link to the nyt

    oh, good lord. warmongers gotta monger. is that bullshit really getting them more subscribers?

    1. Sandy

      I’m so disillusioned with this country. It used to be I just hated the government (I wanted it to be better, I don’t hate the mere concept of government). The so called intellectuals and leaders proved to be quite unimpressive after this election cycle. They suffer some of the most basic cognitive biases. This was the year that I as a 30yr old man realized I’m a superior thinker with better sensibilities than people paid to share their thoughts, and I’m nothing special.

      I find it inevitable that the US will decline rapidly and get crushed by China et al. I think the country will be a better place as a humble #2. We have an extremely unimpressive populace at all levels (thankfully I have NC!)

    2. craazyboy

      Didn’t bother reading the link ’cause got better things to do. For instance, I can pick my nose and write this comment at the same time.

      But I figure it must be that population 150 million Russia might decide to take over population 800 million Helpless Europeans. And that Team America must help because our annual defense budget is nearly half that of Russia’s entire GDP of $1.3 trillion.

      Or maybe the article is innumerate?

    3. flora

      If nothing else, the outcome of this year’s election should be a caution sign to pols who might take guidance from the NYT or WaPo. Hmmm, yeah, we have to get tough with Russia because the NYT says so, and the NYT was right about the election and the voters …. Credibility shot to hell….
      Of course, if the NYT and WaPo are merely acting as lobbyists for favored industries (or candidates) that’s a different story.

  20. S Haust

    “Sycophants to the end.”

    But what are you talking about? This article was published on Feb. 19, 2016, about 9 months
    before “the end”, if that’s even what it is. Besides, it’s, “An exclusive first look at Thomas
    Frank’s new book Listen, Liberal!”, which has been around for more than a few days.

  21. HBE

    The Danger of Going Soft on Russia Editorial Board, NYT

    This paper needs to crawl somewhere dark, curl up and die. Every paragraph was such rage inducing idiocy, I didn’t think a human could manage to write it without their head exploding.

    “Russia’s hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to interfere in the election was brazen.” You know what was brazen NYT, operating as an arm of the Clinton campaign and then releasing and editorial about how fair and independent your coverage was.

    “Even worse were actions that threatened human life and global stability, like Mr. Putin’s airstrikes against civilians in Syria, his positioning of nuclear-capable weaponry near Poland and the Baltic States, his annexation of Crimea and the war he waged in eastern Ukraine.”
    Are you facking kidding me. You know there was this little threat to global stability in Iraq NYT, and you played an integral role in selling that war the the American people. As to the other two items in this paragraph, I can’t even form a cogent sentence about nukes or Ukraine, because the complete hypocrisy and idiocy of the last sentences was so great I am in a state of disbelief anyone could actually write them.

    “Since Mr. Trump has refused to criticize the Kremlin, it’s important that Mr. Obama figure out, before he leaves office, how to punish Russia for the hacking in a way that demonstrates Washington’s determination to resist cyberattacks without further escalating the conflict.”
    Shorter: we seem to have a president who isn’t a complete warmonger, we must start a war before he reaches office or we could have peace.

    I cannot believe a human being wrote this article without their head exploding, please tell me the NYT editorial board is just a computer that auto-generated this article because it had a virus or Joseph McCarthy time traveling to opine on the pages of the NYT.

    Please, please, please NYT just fade into the oblivion you are so deserving of, this paper needs to be put out of it’s misery.

    “NYT dies after hemorrhaging credibility” that’s the headline I want to see tomorrow.

    1. sleepy

      [Putin’s] positioning of nuclear-capable weaponry near Poland and the Baltic States

      Those nukes are all on Russian territory. Is the NyTimes now proposing a nuclear-free Europe or just a nuclear-free Russia? lol.

      1. jawbone

        Also, are they advocating the US remove all nukes from US territory?

        But, of course, the US is the hegemon and can do as it pleases…bcz…hegemony.

    2. Kurt Sperry

      I’m not sure if the NYT’s shameless hackery in Clinton’s service represented a new low for the paper, or whether it just provided a brightly lit window into what has always been a paper with more interest in pushing a political agenda than being an objective, fact-based news reporting institution. I suspect the latter, that the NYT has always been–at least in its political reportage–little better than a shameless propaganda tool for the ruling class, but that the almost unprecedented threat to their preferred corporate Democratic Party represented by Sanders forced them into panic mode and as a result, like the majority of the so-called “liberal media”, they could no longer maintain their cool, patrician, objective facade. The threat Sanders represented to the status quo seemingly shook the establishment to its core and forced the mask of cool objectivity to slip and the actual truth to be briefly revealed. You saw the same with the DNC, another supposedly objective status quo institution that was forced by abject fear into dropping any pretense of impartiality and openly and, in a palpable state of terror, in full public view frantically pushing its thumb on the scales with all their might to prevent the unthinkable from happening.

      And it wasn’t just the NYT or the DNC that panicked and dropped the facade of cool objectivity, it was the other consolidated print media–the other big dailies, the network news operations, and the big cable news outlets as well. Rachel Maddow’s slide from journalist to slimy partisan hack was just her getting caught in a much larger tidal wave of corruption. Does anyone doubt she would have speedily been fired from MSNBC if she had tried any other way?

      So this was easily the most clarifying election I can ever remember. Sanders’ unexpected challenge forced the media to make the strong biases they harbor in private, and put them right out in the open, in full public view. It was enough to beat back the threat from Sanders, if just barely, but it also put Donald Trump into the White House as an unintended consequence. So, in the aftermath, we have a consolidated corporate media that just threw away any pretense it might have had for being fact-based, impartial and objective, and at the same time were, in the end, unwitting abettors of the rise of Trump. So now we see the pathetic and tragic result, that they are recoiling in wide-eyed terror at what they have done, while at the same time cowardly refusing to acknowledge–yet again–the cold reality of it. Next, we’ll see them try to get back onside with the public and conceal their culpability for creating a Trump presidency by joining in the orgy of Trump revulsion, hoping their own responsibility will get lost in the wash of panic.

      Let’s not allow that to happen. Even though they may share our revulsion with Trump, they are most assuredly not on our side.

      1. flora

        Media has always had a partisan slant. When there were many, many owners of newspapers then a person could get multiple points of view, read one or two or three local newspapers with differing political slants, make up their own mind based on the reporting. Now the media is tightly consolidated; there’s only one point of view presented, the point of view of a tiny number of mega-corp owners. If you depended on the MSM you wouldn’t know Occupy ever happened.

    3. tgs

      Thanks for the summary. Now I don’t have to read it myself. The NYT is hopeless, as is the Guardian and the rest of the liberal media. I sincerely hope that Trump continues to disappoint them on the foreign policy front.

      From the WSJ:

      Although he wasn’t specific, Mr. Trump suggested a shift away from what he said was the current Obama administration policy of attempting to find moderate Syrian opposition groups to support in the civil war there. “I’ve had an opposite view of many people regarding Syria,” he said.

      He suggested a sharper focus on fighting Islamic State, or ISIS, in Syria, rather than on ousting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. “My attitude was you’re fighting Syria, Syria is fighting ISIS, and you have to get rid of ISIS. Russia is now totally aligned with Syria, and now you have Iran, which is becoming powerful, because of us, is aligned with Syria. … Now we’re backing rebels against Syria, and we have no idea who these people are.”

      Of course, Trump’s view of the Iran deal is uninformed and stupid. I truly hope the neocons do not screw up his sane view of the Syria situation.

    4. EGrise

      That’s the bipartisan consensus for you; “not deliberately antagonizing Russia” = “going soft on Russia like some sort of pinko”.

      What a world we live in.

    5. YY

      I just used up the 10th free view for the month of NYT with this nonsense, just as well as NYT is not at all essential. The comments however are very encouraging as a great majority of readers are of the opinion that this is a bunch of crock.

  22. fresno dan

    ‘Prediction professor’ who called Trump’s big win also made another forecast: Trump will be impeached WaPo (Furzy Mouse). In crisis, tail risk gets riskier.

    At the end of our September conversation, Lichtman made another call: that if elected, Trump would eventually be impeached by a Republican Congress that would prefer a President Mike Pence — someone whom establishment Republicans know and trust.

    “I’m going to make another prediction,” he said. “This one is not based on a system; it’s just my gut. They don’t want Trump as president, because they can’t control him. He’s unpredictable. They’d love to have Pence — an absolutely down-the-line, conservative, controllable Republican. And I’m quite certain Trump will give someone grounds for impeachment, either by doing something that endangers national security or because it helps his pocketbook.”

    So while Republican voters clearly came home before Nov. 8 — network exit polls show 90 percent of GOP voters cast ballots for Trump — it’s less clear that the party leadership is on board. (Lichtman actually isn’t the only person to predict a Trump impeachment; this morning, the New York Times’s David Brooks suggested that a Trump impeachment or resignation was “probably” in the cards sometime within the next year.)

    fresno dan
    November 10, 2016 at 10:25 am
    November 10, 2016 at 9:09 am

    Just an off the wall thought: What do you think the odds are that repubs (not alone of course, but they have to acquiesce) impeach Trump at some point in the future?

    A – trump really has broken enough tax and other laws that he has to go (implausible I know at least from the standpoint of taxes – what repub is gonna defend penalties for not paying taxes?)
    B – more interesting, Trump’s New York liberal comes out and it is a bridge too far for the establishment (dem tribalism and the fact that they are not actually liberal prevents any of them defending Trump – maybe way too much disarmament with Putin?)
    C – ???

    Reply ↓
    November 10, 2016 at 10:47 am
    Zero. Trump isn’t a criminal, and he doesn’t have enough close associates* who could bring him down. He just beat the snot out of the “responsible Republicans” who couldn’t beat Obama in 2012 either. After what he did to the GOP, he’s just so far beyond the potential for impeachment.

    I do see politics as tribal, and Trump is the leader of the tribe until he dies, is done with two terms, or loses. If the Republicans don’t do what Trump wants (Trump can still be manipulated, but it will have to come from him), the GOP rank and file will crush whoever opposes Trump from their side as blood traitors. Even with a predictably poor economy, less than loyal Republicans will be blamed first by Trump voters.

    *Giuliani maybe?

    Time will tell. I certainly agree politics is tribal – its just that Trump isn’t part of the tribe…
    Maybe I should have asked the repubs will TRY to impeach Trump. And because I am not actually betting money, and why won’t things get even screwier, Trump will be saved from impeachment conviction by dems…

    1. RMO

      The clear demonstration of just how incompetent and delusional the Democratic party elites and the media elites are shouldn’t blind us to the fact the in many ways the GOP elites are just as bad. I’m convinced they only let Trump win the primary because they thought he would lose against Hillary too. If they had foreseen him winning I’m convinced they would have manipulated their primary too. After all, they would most likely still have the house and senate, Hillary would mostly have tried to implement policies they supported and any they didn’t they could easily block. After all, even with a supermajority in Obama’s first term they had no difficulty whatsoever getting almost everything they wanted. If Trump gets quickly co-opted to perform exactly like a modern Republican president they still may not want him because he didn’t get there in the accepted insider way. I can see them being dumb enough to support impeaching him if they get the chance. The reaction of this by their base will deal them quite a blow. You’re already well down the path of the citizenry not trusting in either of the main parties, government agencies, media outlets, business institutions etc. – This is a very bad trend. A nation is a very fragile thing. A shared delusion. Once he people stop believing in it, things can go to pieces very quickly and very violently. I think of myself as a cynical bastard but I still have hope that the U.S. can yet pull itself out of it’s plunge, even this late. After all, we can be pretty confident that the only thing that gave the world president Trump was the Democratic party knifing Bernie (and the nation really) in the back.

      Thanks for the antidote. I needed that. I wonder what chord they’re howling? My dog howls just like that whenever I play guitar, flute or double bass – he’s quiet when my wife plays piano or violin so I think it’s a comment on my talent as she’s a much better musician that I am!

    2. PlutoniumKun

      I suspect they will float the idea of impeaching him as a way of keeping him ‘onside’ with mainstream Republicanism. But even they can’t be unaware that any attempt at impeaching him would raise fury among much of their base. if an attempt failed (for example, if Dems terrified of President Pence got behind Trump), then the revenge of angry Trump supporters on those Republicans would be intense – and not just at the ballot box.

      1. Cry Shop

        The downside of the Obama election strategy is the constituents project what they want onto the blank screen, when the projectionist finally rolls the real film, the misalignment either deflates the audience or creates a riot. They’ll give Trump 6 months or a year to wear out his welcome and then pounce.

    3. Yves Smith

      Congress doesn’t need a real reason to impeach someone, but the optics are way better if they do.

      He’s guaranteed to have such massive conflicts of interest with his business empire it will be easy to accuse him of self dealing. It will happen, whether by accident or design, and which won’t matter.

      1. uncle tungsten

        The Clintons continued to self deal and get away with self dealing for a loooooong time. There was no impeachment for that crime and $hillary could yet get away with it. But I don’t think Trump will pass on this opportunity. That will be up to Obummer to do something to save their wretched necks.

  23. sleepy

    Chris Arnade’s article–

    I have followed Arnade on twitter for the past 6 months or so, and have generally liked his articles. But imho he still takes a tone of cultural voyeurism when he leaves the east coast and tends to focus on the rest of the nation as mostly filled with people as cultural and social oddities. In a way, it bears some similarities to Trump’s stereotyped descriptions of life in black America. The difference I suppose is that Arnade humanizes his subjects while he stereotypes them.

    If you want to define provincialism as cultural self-absorption and self-centeredness, the east coast despite its self-proclaimed cosmopolitianism, is as provincial as Iowa is thought to be. By that measure, Manhattan is full of hicks!

    Beyond that West Virginia is only an hour northwest of Washington, and 50 miles outside of NYC, if not less, you will find the same despair and the same decay that you find in small town Wisconsin, and for the same reasons.

    1. nippersdad

      I had that impression as well. It sounded like a somewhat sympathetic portrayal of “The People Of Wal-Mart.” Flyover country contains a lot of different kinds of people/demographics; he really needs to investigate the areas that lie between the razor wire enclosed empty factories and the University towns that he appears to gravitate towards. Really, just another variant of the stereotyped Coastal elites vs. backwoods-left-behinds stories that we have all become so inured to over the past few decades. So, not really a new genre at all.

      1. Tom

        First of all,

        It sounded like a somewhat sympathetic portrayal of “The People Of Wal-Mart.”

        is kinda brilliant.

        Second of all, it can seem at times that articles like Arnade’s are populated by familiar characters from central casting.

        For added atmosphere, the photos of those featured in the article are usually taken in stark settings, often shot in black and white for maximum grittiness. Backgrounds with a chainlink fence are a plus, as is an out-of-focus glimpse of a mongrel dog licking its balls.

        I often come away with a feeling of witnessing a well-executed show of concern.

        1. Lambert Strether Post author

          No. This is what Arnade does. He’s criss-crossing the country, driving his own car, hanging out in bars and whatever the local variety of joint is. He’s the reverse of the big-foot parachuting in and then heading back to write up the story in his cube.

    2. jsn

      This has struck me as true for the 30 years I’ve lived in New York.

      As a product of court ordered desegregation in the Austin of my childhood, it seemed to me on arriving in Brooklyn in 86 that an equal effort there might have yielded even better results.

      Wednesday I sat alone in my Manhattan office of 120 not in grief, trauma or disbelief, and this after six months of telling everyone there that Sanders had been the last, best possibility of a Dem win.

      Unselfconscious elites may be the most provential people on earth: their social province is certainly the smallest.

  24. Ulysses

    “Protest Trump’s policies by all means but lets first find out what they are.”

    That is very good advice! Unfortunately I am not very optimistic that President-elect Trump and his supporters are interested in crafting sensible, realistic policies that will benefit the U.S. and the world.

    We can enjoy ourselves imagining that there will be wonderful changes– now that some factions among our kleptocratic elites have suffered their comeuppance. I would have to agree with Chris Hedges on the delusional nature of such thinking:

    “Trump is emblematic of what anthropologists call “crisis cults.” A society in terminal decline often retreats into magical thinking. Reality is too much to bear. It places its faith in the fantastic and impossible promises of a demagogue or charlatan who promises the return of a lost golden age.”

    1. Carolinian

      Hedges always over eggs the pudding IMO. Ordinary people probably have a lot more realistic assessment of Trump than he assumes.

      1. Observer

        With respect, Hedges can sometimes sound dramatic, but he is certainly smarter than me. I think “A charlatan promising a return to a lost golden age” actually sums it up pretty realistically. IMHO, Americans know Trump’s a charlatan and they get that he’s a demagogue. His supporters said they didn’t care. They rolled the dice on Donald on the slim chance he might actually pull off a magic trick and bring back their jobs, hence Making America Great Again. Obamacare doesn’t matter if you’re working full time with benefits.

        But, per Hedges’ point, be careful what (or who?) you wish for.

        1. BecauseTradition

          A charlatan promising a return to a lost golden age” actually sums it up pretty realistically.

          In some ways, particularly wrt to racism, we are better than we’ve ever been. And who can disagree that we shouldn’t let criminals into the country?

          Jobs? Those are on the way out anyway because of automation. But that opens the possibility of a American Golden Age ala Greece’s Golden Age but without the slavery, including wage and debt slavery (though it pains me to use “golden” as an adjective for good).

  25. ex-PFC Chuck

    The show put on by the Leonid meteor shower varies widely in intensity from year to year. In the late 1990s (’98 IIRC but it could have been a year either side) I had a consulting gig that had me spending weeks at a time on the Space Coast of Florida. I usually stayed at a mom and pop motel right on the beach in a small town about 30 miles south of the Cape, and the night of the Leonid’s peak I watched the spectacular show, alleged to be the best one since the singular performance of 1966. Conditions were nearly perfect: clear sky, no moon, and far enough away from built up areas that pollute the sky with excessive light. The meteorites came flying overhead from the east so frequently that the show reminded me of the scene near the end of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. I could actually hear a sizzle when many of them passed directly above me. It was one of the most memorable experiences of my life.

  26. Linda Amick

    They allowed Friday’s Bill Maher show to be streamed in full on the internet. That show says it all. The dem elites who are followed by a so called liberal public in the rest of the country who wanna be part of the actual “smart people” are self promoting, self congratulating narcissists.

    I live in rural America. The small factories are gone. Local businesses fail due to competition from the behemoths Walmart, Home Depot and the like. People here KNOW the story. They KNOW they have no support from the ruling classes.

    Many may be racist and sexist but overwhelmingly they are honest folk who just want to subsist comfortably and have some local opportunities for their children and families.

    1. sleepy

      Did your local Sears and Penney’s pull out yet? Ours did. We lost our KMart, but stil got WalMart. My small town though has seen a boom in payday lenders, pawn shops, used car lots, liquor stores, and smoke shops.

      When I moved here to the smalltown upper midwest almost 20 yr ago, there was still a bit of a Norman Rockwell vibe to the place. Now parts of it look like rural Romania in the winter, circa 1978.

      1. Waldenpond

        We have a Penney’s catalog in a tiny shipping/packaging outlet. If you order from them, you get free shipping. KMart hanging on and Walmart was voted down but managed to sneak into a spot in the old mall (one wing is abandoned). Bookstores have been gone for a long time and we ended up with a second used bookstore. Watch out for the pot holes. The rain has just started and the usual ones have already opened up and are 4 inches deep. Looking out the window right now, my neighbors are going to have to come up with a different way of covering up the broken window panes. The plastic tore, the plywood cracked and fell off. I think they will have to board the whole thing even though it’ll be dark.

    2. Lee

      I watched it too. I guess I’m a San Francisco bay area cosmopolitan, having lived here my whole life. Or maybe not, because I have blue collar roots. In any event, I share your sentiments.

      1. anonymouse

        Dreadful. However, most of the incidents are being perpetrated by Trump supporters. Black and brown children are being taunted by their classmates, people being told )in New York, no less!) to move to the back of the bus, racist graffiti popping up, hateful notes being left on windshields of LGBT families and brown and black families. These things are happening. Google them for yourself.

        1. Patricia

          Yes they are. Random sh*t at gas stations, convenience stores, on cars, and a lot at junior-highs and high schools. A few college/uni.

          Glad they are being listed and as much as possible shut down. Best done without venom or shock but deliberately, firmly, thoroughly.

          Southern Poverty Law Center:

            1. anonymouse

              Thank you for posting this. The incidents seem quite harrowing:
              >white males going up to women saying that it was now “legal to grab them by the pussy”.

        2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          It looks as if efforts in the last 50 years to improve race relations have done nothing fundamental, but only superficially suppressed.

          Kids still taunting kids. And people still spray painting racist graffiti.

      1. anonymouse

        Completely understandable. No need to take their word for it. A Twitter search will quickly surface firsthand reports from the people who are the actual victims of the wave of hate crimes which Trump’s victory has encouraged.

        1. nippersdad

          But how much of that is directly related to people finding what they are looking for? Black people have been being killed by police for years, yet we really only saw an uptick in reportage after the BLM movement.

          These instances are awful, but I doubt that they haven’t been going on for some time.

          1. anonymouse

            To be sure, they’ve never stopped. What I’m saying, and what others are reporting, is there seems to be an increase in these incidents and the perpetrators are specifically referencing Trump’s victory as their motivation.

            I believe the Southern Poverty Law Center is an organization which has some credibility here on NC. Here is what they say (see the USA Today article I cited above):
            Since the election, we’ve seen a big uptick in incidents of vandalism, threats, intimidation spurred by the rhetoric surrounding Mr. Trump’s election,” Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala., told USA TODAY. “The white supremacists out there are celebrating his victory and many are feeling their oats,” Cohen said.

            The incidents, some that bring up memories of the Jim Crow era, continued into Friday. In Philadelphia, the University of Pennsylvania issued a statement saying it was working to find the source of racist messages sent to black freshmen, and in Syracuse, N.Y., a group of pickup trucks – one draped with the Confederate flag – drove through an anti-Trump rally. In Columbus, Ohio, a man banged on the car window while a Muslim woman was driving, her children and elderly parents with her, and told her, “C–t, you don’t belong in this country,” according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, based in Washington.
            All those were added to the list of incidents that included black children being told to get to the back of a bus and Latino children being taunted about the wall that Trump promised to build between Mexico and the United States.

            1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

              If you go by ‘who benefits,’ those perpetrators can not be doing to further their purported cause.

              They had more reason with a government not on their side, and less with Trump in charge now.

              1. anonymouse

                >They had more reason with a government not on their side, and less with Trump in charge now.

                Agree and that’s what makes this so frightening. They’re doing this because they feel the wind in their sails. So what will cause them to stop?

                1. integer

                  Don’t discount the possibility that agent provocateurs are commiting some of the offences. Having witnessed liberal righteousness in all its intellectual poverty over the last few days, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if some had taken it upon themselves to stir discontent.

            2. nippersdad

              I hold the SPLC in the highest regard, and there is clearly something to the idea that white supremacists are enthused about a Trump victory, however we have seen how in the tank the MSM has been for Clinton, and it would not surprise me in the least to find that they are catapulting the propaganda, or more likely finally reporting on things like this, to save their (badly damaged) reputations. The SPLC must get its’ news from the same people that we do, so they too are not immune to propaganda at this early stage.

    1. CRS

      What’s not to like?

      Medicare privatization
      financial deregulation
      freeze on federal hiring
      gutting of the EPA

      I’m glad Trump is stopping the TPP and may renegotiate NAFTA, but with a Republican Congress he can do a world of damage outside of that.

      1. pretzelattack

        no doubt, and that is why we must turn to making sure he is a 1 term president. impeachment would serve nicely.

  27. timbers

    Alexander Mercouris says “total calliope” of morale of US funded terrorists (Al-Qaeda) in Allepo due to Trump winning and Obama ending US support the same day Trump visited the WH, to adjust to likely new Trump policy. Syrian army taking areas in western Allepo in the last 3 days with ease instead of with the help of more damaging Russian bombardment. Also notes the Western smear campaign and daily hostile denunciations against Russia has gone silent. Tensions between the West and Russia down and another report Trump is planning to meet with Putin.

    Syrian army is now looking to free other towns besides Allepo to remove US backed terrorists.

    This might explain why Russia has repeatedly delayed it’s much anticipated attack on the US terrorists in western Allepo which was baffling me.

    Probably being too upbeat on Trump at the moment, because we’re seeing dramatic change on the issues I was looking at – Syria, tensions with Russia, and TPP. Very possible most of the otter issues could get quite depressing. But at least there is this so far.

    For now, the likely hood of not having a nuclear war can have the affect of lifting your spirits.

    1. BecauseTradition

      For now, the likely hood of not having a nuclear war can have the affect of lifting your spirits. timbers

      It sure can. The US need never fear an invasion of its own soil as long as we have nukes and can deliver them so “fight them there or fight them here” was/is/and perhaps ever shall be, bogus. And it’s particularly hypocritical given that cheap domestic labor apparently trumps cultural and security concerns wrt immigration.

      Also this for supposedly Christian Hillary:

      Ecclesiastes 9:4 For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion.

    2. sleepy

      While I assume that Trump genuinely wants peace in the Mideast and recognizes the folly of our current policy, the possibility of hundreds of billions spent rebuilding Syria may have occurred to him as well.

    3. a different chris

      A “total calliope” ???? Sounds like fun. :)

      I am also worried about the “otter” issues, and pretty much all wildlife, admittedly. But we forget we are only 5% of the world and how much environmental destruction our elites unleash with every bombing sortie. Not saying our withdrawal will stop war everywhere, but it will turn down the intensity quite a bit as far as Mom Earth is concerned.

      1. sleepy

        Well there is the possible sale of public lands, and the increased privatization of what remains nominally public, such as private operation of public campgrounds which is already happening. That, together with repeal or reduced enforcement of the EPA and the Endangered Species Act doesn’t bode well for the otters and others.

  28. Eduardo Quince

    the campaign aired a commercial that featured a David Letterman clip of Trump

    It also aired a radio commercial featuring a Howard Stern clip of Trump. Is Howard no longer NSFP (not safe for politics)?

  29. Ivy

    artisanal pickle eater

    Thanks for a morning chuckle. Maybe they should’ve surveyed a few dollar store shoppers to find out about that underappreciated market, as there are surprisingly many pickle varieties available.

    1. polecat

      I can ‘can’ any pickles worth their ‘salt’ …. as good or better than ANY over-priced, haute-inspired brands….

      ….. so good …. soooo DESPICABLY GOOD ! ‘;]

  30. David

    On covering the news “fairly”, this isn’t altogether a new problem, but it’s generally shown up more in coverage of foreign and international news. The well was poisoned by much of the media’s decision in the 1990s to become the advertising arm of the human rights lobby, which enabled them to report on crises and conflicts (Bosnia is a very good example) in a way that was heavily biased, whilst claiming all the time to be upholding journalistic standards. The impossibility of being totally “objective” was parlayed into the decision not to try to be objective at all, based on arguments such as “you can’t be objective as between good and evil.” I remember some journalists arguing, for example, that they were under no obligation to report the words of Bosnian Serb leaders during the civil war accurately, or even at all. This attitude has steadily become pervasive in foreign reporting, but the Trump campaign is probably the first time it’s been applied on a large scale to internal western politics. Because it’s based on assumed moral superiority, rather than old-fashioned bias, moreover, this attitude is not consciously hypocritical. After all, the editors are arguing, all they are really doing is reporting the objective fact that Clinton is wonderful and Trump is the devil incarnate. If the facts don’t support that view, then there’s a fault with reality, which needs correcting.
    This is much more dangerous than old-fashioned bias ever was.

  31. Katharine

    I hope those of you in New Zealand are all okay. I haven’t seen much detail yet, but that was one big earthquake.

    1. Jeotsu

      It was quite the shake. The intensity was not too great where we are, but when it goes on for over a minute you know somebody nearby is getting a very serious event.

      Shaking continues now. We’re getting perceptible aftershocks every few minutes.

      Take a look at to get a nice real-time record of the shakes coming in.

      Last I checked there has been one fatality. Hopefully that is all. We’ll see the extent of the housing and infrastructure damage as the inspectors get out this morning.

      Some small tsunamis. Thankfully good public education meant most coastal communities knew the drill and self-evacuated when they felt the strong shaking.

      1. juliania

        The Phillipines and NW South America got smaller ones at almost the same time. The ocean is getting heavier.

    2. ChrisPacific

      All fine here and no damage. Unfortunately that’s not true everywhere and there has been significant damage closer to the center and a couple of fatalities. It was definitely a big one.

  32. craazyman

    Huge props to Oprah and Dave Chappelle. Both are on the internet saying good, clear, fair stuff about Trump. God Bless them both. That’s the kind of sanity the nation needs.

    I bet Trump surprises a lot of people. Maybe even himself. I’m not pessimistic at all — but only time will tell. I can’t believe all the whining and hand wringing by the Librulls and Hil-Bots. The “identity politics” basket cases whinging and whining and moaning and groaning. Oh man.

    Evidently somebody designed a Trench Coat after one Albert Camus wore! Can you believe it? They even call it the “Al”. It costs $1800. Which is about normal for a good trench coat. I’m thinking of buying it — because I want a nice Trench Coat — but I’m not sure. It’s almost too over the top, if they just let you know he wore the same style and didn’t call it “Al” it might be easier. But then what difference does it make what they call it. The coat doesn’t know it has a name and I can call it whatever I want. Joseph A. Bank has a cheap one for $200. But it doesn’t look as good. Of course Burberry has a good one — but I don’t know. I have a Burberry coat that’s OK already. A little worn but it’s pretty good.

    These are hard decisions. Usually I procrastinate and never get anything. The money piles up and then I waste it in the stock market and lose it. I still need a 10 bagger if anybody has one. And a rain coat. OK, a Trench Coat. OK, a good trench coat that makes me look “suave and sophisticated” on the streets of New Yawk. That’s me. Suave.

    If the Fed buys all the govermint debt in the country and cancels it what would happen? Everybody would have lots of money and the economy would boom. What’s the difference between the debt and the money? hahah. That’s pretty funny to think about. If somebody does they’ll surprise themselves. If they can.

    1. craazyboy

      Actually, the same people that have all the money now would still have it. But after realizing the umbilical cord to debt has been severed (about 1.5 seconds), they would say ZOMG, this shit isn’t worth anything and all run out and buy Old Master’s paintings and classic cars. Except for the people that only have or make a little of it. We’d be screwed.

    2. Annotherone

      @ crazyman – When we switched onto SNL last night, a little late, Dave Chapelle was offering some sane remarks on the matter of the Trump. First sense I’d heard for days, other than a video of Ellen advising a bit more togetherness after the election result.

      Re trenchcoats – a Burberry with a bit of proper wear on it IS très suave, a new one – not so much!

      1. nippersdad

        Re: Broken in Burberry. Agreed. Like new tweeds, they need to be rubbed in the dirt a few times to look really “right.”

      2. lyman alpha blob

        Saw that too and thought Chapelle’s remarks were quite good.

        Hadn’t seen Chapelle on the TV for years and I was admittedly a little bleary eyed while watching last night but it certainly looked like the skinny Dave Chapelle I remembered looked like he’d been bench pressing Toyotas.

      3. KGC

        Have a Burberry trenchcoat that’s at least 25 years old (probably more); still going strong, warm and rain-repellent, though I had to have the lining pulled up earlier this year due to sagging. (Ah, gravity!) Just like my face, but much easier to fix. Coat should now outlast me. Paid something like $500 for it on sale and under $200 for the repair. Not only do I think it’s “suave,” the kids at Burberry expressed envy of it when I picked it up after the repair!

      4. Tom

        Chapelle is one fearless comedian in his opening monologue. Wades right into the middle of this f*cked up post-election period and gets some laughs but more importantly, gives some powerful messages about where we’ve been and how we move forward.

    3. Jim Haygood

      “I still need a 10 bagger if anybody has one.”

      Shorting the S&P futures could deliver a triple, sometime in the next couple of years. But picking that moment (you actually need to short on a burst of euphoria, which feels quite unintuitive) will be exquisitely difficult and error prone.

      Short-term, all the hopeful chatter about fiscal stimulus and infrastructure investment should boost the collective morale, leading inexorably to Dow 20,000 and beyond. But then we enter a cloud bank flying on instruments, with no reliable contextual guideposts.

      Random candid conversations on the streets and subways of New York City have always been as good a clue as any to the collective consciousness. Keep your ears peeled, brother.

      1. craazyman

        I agee and tried a few times — while under Dr. Hussman’s mathematically magic spell. And lost money. Luckily not too much. When he started writing about the Sornette bubble or some sort of narrowing ocillation of S&P daily prices, that was one time.

        now I’m too scared to make a trade. It’s been this way for almost 2 years. If I buy or sell anything, I’m 100% convinced I’ll end up losing money. LOL. I guess some people weren’t meant to be rich. Most people evidently, given the math.

    4. Clive

      I have a sure-fire 10 Bagger in development. I’ll cut you in for my U.S. franchise operation when I take it global. I, as with all great business ideas can’t claim credit for it, I stole the idea from a friend.

      The business is to monetize bad image. For the English version it works like this: you know all those annoying sales calls and product pushers who try to grab you in the street, the shopping mall, the subway and so on? How do you go about defraying their advances? I never knew. I’d find myself mumbling an embarrassing excuse like “eh, sorry, erm, no, I’m actually quite happy with my utility provider / cellphone / deodorant / breakfast cereal / organic cheese provider” and try to shuffle off and be lost in the crowd. But these guys are trained not to give up, right? They’ll try to convince you with a rapid fire follow up such as “don’t you care about sick puppies then?” and you risk getting hooked back in.

      But not any more! My friend’s can’t fail repost is “I cannot possibly consider your (insert product here); I refuse to buy from any company which doesn’t have ‘British’ in its name”. Problem immediately solved! The would-be extorter is instantly put into fight-or-flight mode, and will inevitably choose “flight”. Why? Because now they think they’ve a rabid, swivel-eyed Brexiter loon on their hands. They’re worried you might start up about “keeping those Eurocrats’ hands off our proud British sausages” or something like that. They are gone before you can blink.

      Now, I’ll need you to help with the U.S. cultural interpretation. Naturally, the “I refuse to buy from anyone who doesn’t have ‘America’ in their company name” is fine straight off. In the mind of the listener, they’re already conjuring up you’re a KKK member. But we’ll need to come up with a few variations. “I’ll only buy from someone who’s representing a company that proudly has ‘USA’ in its corporate slogan”. That kind of thing. But that won’t take long.

      Then we’ll go all social media. We can offer our “instantly convince anyone you’re an uncloseted out-in-public misogynistic bigot” retorts by a tweet, guaranteed word pattern returned in 30 seconds or less. Or maybe add an Instagram bolt-on which sends stars-and-stripes graphics with waving fists or the like. And think about a subscription model once we have users hooked on a “free” service. For premier customers, we can get special editions personally written by Camille Paglia.

      Trust me, this can’t fail. We’ll be sitting in Nantucket bay in our own beachfronts within a year.

      1. PlutoniumKun

        For some strange reason, in Britain I always found ‘sorry, I’m a catholic’ was incredibly effective with them. I started using it on Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons, but oddly enough I found it worked equally well on chuggers and utility salespeople.

      2. uncle tungsten

        Clive:] An emoticon for a ‘pussy grabber’ you can get one for $2 dowload.
        another one for a jailed clinton $5.

        we can do business

  33. John Zelnicker

    “Clinton aides blame loss on everything but themselves Politico”

    An interesting tidbit from the article is that apparently Bill Clinton advised reaching out to the working class voters who helped put him in office, but was shot down by the campaign leaders. They made one half-assed attempt with the post convention bus tour through PA and OH, but otherwise nothing. They seemed to think that Bill was just not accepting the new “demographic map” and that the old codger, as good as he had been, just wasn’t “getting it”.

    I opposed many, if not most, of Bill Clinton’s policies, but he is one of the savviest politicians of the past 50 years. The campaign’s refusal to take him seriously on this issue, I believe, is confirming evidence of their blindness to the political realities of today.

    1. crittermom

      I especially enjoyed this gem from the article:
      “Internally, staff felt that Clinton’s loss ultimately boiled down to white working class voters rejecting her because she was a woman.”

      The Dems still really, really don’t get it, do they?
      I am a woman and find her to be an insult to my gender.
      But that’s because I reject who she is as a person and her two-faced policies. I rejected the person and her thinking, not her gender. Duh?

      A friend is fond of saying ‘ya can’t fix stupid’.
      There’s proof positive.

      Happy to see Bernie and Warren are getting noticed, but still question why, after reading so many folks commenting they were voting Green (as a protest of LOTE), that the end result at the polls seemed to be minuscule numbers? I had thought they’d be much higher.

      1. nippersdad

        I have been wondering why Stein’s numbers were so small as well. One hates to seem all foily, but those numbers do not add up to reflect the psychology that we have been seeing for months now.

      2. Aleric

        It looks like Greens and marginal Green/Dem voters stayed home at a higher rate than the Dem base. Not sure why – perhaps turned off by the nastiness – told too many times that a vote for Stein was a vote for Trump, and just decided to stay away. (Which meant that the down-ballot Dems also got burned.) A datapoint is that the two counties in MN with the highest % of Green voters (both are outside the metro area at opposite ends of the state) both had big drops in voter turnout against the overall trend of increased turnout outside the TC metro area.

        1. juliania

          My theory, for what it’s worth (probably nothing) is that it was independent non-Greens who stayed away or didn’t get excited, simply because the Greens actually had old school Democratic policies even more so than Bernie – and that simply seemed like ‘more of the same’ to anyone. And it would be why Gary Johnson did better than Jill Stein – he was in the old style Republican mold and actually was the Republican governor of New Mexico before Richardson.

          I don’t think a Green voter would be deterred by the slurs concerning inadvertent Trump advocacy. At least, I wasn’t. Clinton was far, far the worst candidate to me, and Jill was the best. So that was where I put my vote. And I still think that way.

      3. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

        “The Dems still really, really don’t get it, do they?”

        The brainwashing goes deep.

        And they are wasting their time and energy (assigning blame or protesting) if they are not out talking to voters who rejected them in the Rust Belt.

      4. marym

        In suburban Cook County IL there were 4 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Commissioner open positions on the ballot. The Green candidates received 9.54 – 10.12%. In 2012 the Greens (3 positions) received 2.79 – 5.68%.

        Stein Baraka and the Senate candidate received 2.79% and 5.68% respectively. In 2012 Stein received less that 1%.

        1. Daryl

          I personally don’t have a problem with voting for a woman, but when it comes down to a lawyer and a doctor…

      5. redleg

        I wish I had stayed home instead of supporting Stein.
        The verbal abuse I am receiving from Clinton voters suffering from cognitive dissonance is incredible. Apparently, as an outspoken Stein supporter who is a white male, I am personally responsible for Trump’s election, am a racist, misogynist (but Stein?!), and otherwise guilty of various micro aggressions for bringing up Clinton corruption at all, ever.
        This had already cost me friends and business relationships (not kidding). My wife stopped talking to me until yesterday. Considering that my crunchy liberal friends/relatives/associates (& spouse) all preach inclusion, unity, the dangers of micro aggressions, etc., they have no inhibitions for launching tirades against a white man who *dared* to defy Her Majesty when Trump was on the line.


        1. Daryl

          The way I see it, I don’t even have to tell people I voted for Stein. I only have to answer to my own conscience, not Clinton supporters.

          1. tegnost

            no one is required to state who they voted for, that’s why back before mail in voting there was a curtain on the voting booth

        2. Aumua

          Don’t forgot anti-semite. You are obviously an anti-semite too, voting for not-Clinton.

          I voted for Stein, and I’m goddamn proud of it. I’ll take both sides on, to hell with Dollary Clump come on, put em up!

        3. Lambert Strether Post author

          The “Love trumps hate” concept is applied very selectively; one might say Pharasiically. I’m sorry for what happened; I have other friends this happened to as well. It happened to me in 2008 when, ironically enough, I supported Clinton. It took about a year for those relationships to heal.

    2. polecat

      Did you mean the ‘We’re sh!t-spewing for Her’ bus … that one ……??

      ‘half-assed’ indeed …..

  34. olga

    The headline does not do this justice, but all should read one of today’s links: Episodes in Recent American History Counterpunch (RH).

  35. hreik

    Why would the NYTimes issue such a letter at all? Guilty conscience. They elevated her and changed a positive front page piece (March 2016, I think) about Bernie to something negative b/f it was printed. The on line version was positive, the edited and print one, not so much.

    They are clueless and have their corporate heads up their corporate a$$es.

  36. Olivier

    I’d absolutely love to see an attempt to impeach Trump. Assuming he still polls good by then and has a suitably fired-up base that would provide him with the perfect opportunity to put this degenerate republic out of its misery by dissolving Congress and sending all these loathsome critters to a hard labor camp. But will he have the nerve for such a gamble?

    1. John Zelnicker

      @Olivier – Umm, the US is not a parliamentary system. It is, as you note, a republic. The President cannot dissolve Congress. Or did I miss your sarcasm?

      1. Olivier

        I know full well the President is not supposed to dissolve Congress but it’s time to think and act out of the box. Will Trump dare? Or will that be left to one of his successors?

        1. John Zelnicker

          @Olivier – I guess I am still a bit confused: “not supposed to dissolve Congress”. Thinking out of the box is a good thing, we do need more of it, but how do you envision that such a dissolution would be accomplished, short of a military coup?

          1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            In the last few years, there have been quite a few Hollywood about North Koreans attaching the ‘Olympus’ White House or renegade members of the security state plotting against the Commander in Chief.

            I now look forward to movies of the president harming the nation or betraying his oath by colluding with a foreign government to save his job.

            1. Propertius

              I now look forward to movies of the president harming the nation or betraying his oath by colluding with a foreign government to save his job.

              My memory’s a little hazy, but wasn’t this the plot of Season 5 of 24?

          2. Olivier

            Yes, that would probably require a military coup or a plebiscite or both but I think that at this rate before long the times will be ripe for such a thing.

            1. polecat


              time to place an order for marble, …….
              …and yes, the coif will be pigmented orange !

              1. Olivier

                Yes, caesarism. Why does the prospect seem so incongruous? All things must die eventually and like it or not this is how exhausted republics and democracies usually die. Or do you really think this republic can still be salvaged?

                Even if Trump balks at that and submits his impeachment for sordid political reasons by a congressional cabal would be sure to hasten the process: the political capital thus created would still be there for someone else to use.

  37. Like my Weepy Boohoo Face on Facebook!

    Tell you how fucked up this whole USA kluge is: the nation has undergone another cathartic four-year cycle of public accountability, repudiation, and disgrace. Which one prompted the histrionic national conniption fit?

    Universal Periodic Review of US dereliction of state duties?

    Human Rights Committee review of US bad faith respecting civil and political rights?

    CERD review of US contempt for its supreme law against racial discrimination?

    CAT review of US failure to stop and punish the grave crime of torture?

    Some hopeless chumps get to pick between a rich asshole and a crabby kleptocrat?


  38. ChiGal in Carolina

    Thanks for the Charles Eisenstein link. The man is a treasure (emphasis mine):

    We are entering a space between stories. After various retrograde versions of a new story rise and fall and we enter a period of true unknowing, an authentic next story will emerge. What would it take for it to embody love, compassion, and interbeing? I see its lineaments in those marginal structures and practices that we call holistic, alternative, regenerative, and restorative. All of them source from empathy, the result of the compassionate inquiry: What is it like to be you?

    It is time now to bring this question and the empathy it arouses into our political discourse as a new animating force. If you are appalled at the election outcome and feel the call of hate, perhaps try asking yourself, “What is it like to be a Trump supporter?” Ask it not with a patronizing condescension, but for real, looking underneath the caricature of misogynist and bigot to find the real person.

    Even if the person you face IS a misogynist or bigot, ask, “Is this who they are, really?” Ask what confluence of circumstances, social, economic, and biographical, may have brought them there. You may still not know how to engage them, but at least you will not be on the warpath automatically. We hate what we fear, and we fear what we do not know. So let’s stop making our opponents invisible behind a caricature of evil.

    We’ve got to stop acting out hate. I see no less of it in the liberal media than I do in the right-wing. It is just better disguised, hiding beneath pseudo-psychological epithets and dehumanizing ideological labels. Exercising it, we create more of it. What is beneath the hate? My acupuncturist Sarah Fields wrote to me, “Hate is just a bodyguard for grief. When people lose the hate, they are forced to deal with the pain beneath.”

    I think the pain beneath is fundamentally the same pain that animates misogyny and racism – hate in a different form. Please stop thinking you are better than these people! We are all victims of the same world-dominating machine, suffering different mutations of the same wound of separation. Something hurts in there. We live in a civilization that has robbed nearly all of us of deep community, intimate connection with nature, unconditional love, freedom to explore the kingdom of childhood, and so much more. The acute trauma endured by the incarcerated, the abused, the raped, the trafficked, the starved, the murdered, and the dispossessed does not exempt the perpetrators. They feel it in mirror image, adding damage to their souls atop the damage that compels them to violence. Thus it is that suicide is the leading cause of death in the U.S. military. Thus it is that addiction is rampant among the police. Thus it is that depression is epidemic in the upper middle class. We are all in this together.

    Something hurts in there. Can you feel it? We are all in this together. One earth, one tribe, one people.


    1. John Zelnicker

      @ChiGal in Carolina – Eloquent, indeed! Thank you for posting this. Eisenstein is absolutely correct. It has been well established that hate and bigotry correlate closely with the difficulties people have in maintaining their economic status. It seems to be a part of human nature that when someone is oppressed by the system, they will strike out at whatever person or group appears to be advantaged over them by that system. Hillary was very wrong, those people are not “deplorable”, they are hurting and those of us who are privileged need to understand that, and dedicate ourselves to bringing economic and social justice to everyone.

      1. ChiGal in Carolina

        “does not exempt the perpetrators”

        Are NCers up for empathy even for the MIC, the police, the 10%?

        Moving on from the Hillary hate?

        (of which I myself am guilty in spades, but recriminations are surely not the way forward – the video rant posted at the top of comments was followed by a Bernie interview in which he resolutely and repeatedly refused to be baited by the Wolf drone into Schadenfreude and kept on keeping on giving his stump speech, i.e. focusing on the issues)

        Bernie: as ever, eyes on the prize

        1. RMO

          Wonderful quote. And yes, he’s not a savior but I can’t remember any other person in U.S. national politics that has impressed me, and continued to impress me over a sustained period of time than Bernie Sanders. His events were pulling in bigger crowds than Trumps even though the media at first ignored him and then later ridiculed him. That tells me the U.S. may still have a chance of not going down the tubes.

          “Are NCers up for empathy even for the MIC, the police, the 10%?” Honestly? Yes, I am. No matter how terrible someone’s actions are trying to understand the reasons behind them gives a better chance of change in a positive direction than anger and condemnation.

        2. John Zelnicker

          @ChiGal in Carolina – I’m up for empathy for the enlisted and NCO ranks of the military, the police officers on the street, and even some of the 10%. The enlisted and NCO ranks, and the patrol officers are the working class of the military and law enforcement and have as much difficulty maintaining their economic status as any other working class person. If we are going to be a great country, we cannot allocate empathy to one group that’s in pain and not to another that’s also in pain due to the machinations of the financial elites.

          Bernie has been right the entire time.

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      Just because one votes, it does not imply one is very or not at all enthusiastic.

      So, the number does not indicate the emotional state necessarily.

      All we can say is that roughly 120 million Americans voted.

    2. phred

      Agreed. I prefer “hostility” to “apathy”, but in fairness to all of my “other/no vote” compatriots alternative motivations (or lack thereof) are fairly limitless. The one thing that is certain is that the majority of voters did not favor either Trump or Clinton sufficiently to vote for them.

    3. optimader

      And I was very motivated.

      But like I said
      Good News: HRC lost
      Bad News: DT won…

      Or stated another way, her loosing wa more impotant than his winning

      1. Mark Kinnucan

        Beijer didn’t make as much of it as I thought it warranted, but the drop-off in Democratic support among some of the demo groups he looked at was jaw-dropping. African Americans, 9 percentage points, for instance.

        I looked at the drop off in support for Clinton versus Obama 2012 in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Needless to say, it was way larger than Trump’s margin of victory. And most of it wasn’t third parties, it was not showing up.

        The upshot is that this was a hold your nose election on both sides, and substantial numbers of people on both sides, including large numbers of NC readers, couldn’t bring themselves to do it.

        I gotta think that, given how divisive Trump was on the Republican side, if the Democrats had had the good sense to nominate someone without Hillary’s baggage — anyone — they’d have walked away with a victory. Which of course, Sanders said over and over during the primaries till he was blue in the face.

        The numbers in Beijer’s article bear that out.

  39. DarkMatters

    “our Tahrir square moment”

    Just what America needs: a color revolution! And it worked out so well in Georgia, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, though work still needs to be done especially in Syria.

    Just like Ukraine: overthrow a constitutionally-elected President cause you don’t like the result. We’re already ready to blame police for violence, as news sources did the Berkut, so provacateurs can now start sniping at demonstrators to inflame tensions even more. We even have totally corrupt politicos, our own Poroshenko’s if you will, ready to move in. (chocolate, foundation, what’s the difference?)

    I do stand behind proposals to do a careful vote count, although we know how well that works out from Florida 2000.

    When we see demonstrators carrying purple umbrellas, funded by some benignly-named political organization, we’ll know the movement signifies something more than political plum.

    1. cocomaan

      I spent a nice summer in Egypt in 2006, so under Mubarak. There were soldiers in white on every block with rifles and shotguns, while the secret police, soldiers in black, moved at random and didn’t greet you back. Kefiyah, the resistance movement, was already active at that time.

      Egypt is still under a military dictatorship now, despite Tahrir. The deep state had absolute continuity. The idea that a Tahrir square style insurgency would help the USA is very much in doubt.

      Plus, this is more techno-fetishism. The true reasons for the 2011 revolution were less about Twitter organizing and more about food costs. There was a major commodities spike after the financial collapse.

      1. DarkMatters

        I hope I didn’t come across as an advocate of color revolutions. To the contrary, I find the demonstrations (some organized by MoveOn) to be eerily reminiscent of the putatively democratic outbursts. And many of these exploited pre-existing economic or ethnic tensions. The Syrian rebellion was also motivated in part by the former, Libya and Ukraine, by the latter. Nor am I especially star-struck by technology: I actually believe that paper ballots hand-counted in public are the least-corruptible way to tally votes.

        1. cocomaan

          Oh sorry, no, my post was pretty much agreeing with you and my comments were against the guy writing the article, who seemed to think that Tahrir was creatio ex nihilo.’

          After what we’ve seen over the past year in the media, in the Podesta emails, and in general, we should be very suspect of everything that even has a whiff of top-down organizing!

    2. Waldenpond

      It’s nice to see what might be possible change at the state and local level. The protests are a hodge podge, demonstrating multiple issues, the election and just generally venting anger. (I hope the ‘rape melania’ sign was photoshopped)

      When challenged on Ellison though, it’s back to the same excuses…. don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, yes I am against the facts demonstrated by your evidence (dark money, continually raises campaign millions in contrast to opponents 10s of thousands, supports bombing Syria) but…he’s done some good things.

      I don’t count the votes of individuals as ‘good things’. I look to what the party does and the Ds consistently select individuals (1-6) to deliver votes and talking points knowing full well they, as a party, do not support the positions they delegate to individuals. Other Ds may jump on a vote to deceive their local voters (re-election) but there will never be enough votes. It’s a show.

      Sure progressives are warmongers too, but doesn’t crossing the financialization threshold put him directly in neolib territory? Ellison is lesser evil and will be held to account once he’s installed as chair?

  40. optimader

    need to apologize for a Links section that’s way too heavy on US election news. But we are dependent on the news flow, and the Trump Transition is dominating the news flow.

    Well, if there is a good time to be heavy on election news, this is it!

    “I bet some artisanal pickle eater in Clinton’s Brooklyn bunker thought that was the best idea ever.”
    Which idea was Letterman referring to?
    We can pickle that (Portlandia)

    WSJ. “[Clinton’s] campaign rented a Manhattan convention center with an actual glass ceiling for what they hoped would be an election-night victory party.” Hubris
    A case study neoliberal example of Hypocrisy w/ a capital H to put in a footnote next to spending US$3m on one’s daughters wedding.

  41. Dirk77

    Re: If You Are Obeying The Law… I wish I could understand Reno’s points better. ACA is helping to bloat medical costs how?

    1. Mel

      By doing nothing to control costs. Insurance companies are ultimately concerned to take in more in premiums than they pay out in benefits. In a perverse way, higher prices make for a bigger cash flow that they can slice profit from.

      1. a different chris

        Oh yeah, say you’re required by law to only make 10% profit on your “services”. So why would you want to keep prices down? 10% of 100million vs. 10% of 1 billion is how you get paid.

        You can argue that there is competition, but their incentives are pushed same way as yours, so maybe it slows growth a little but the trend is still up.

      2. Barmitt O'bamney

        I tried to explain to Democrats at the time (on a certain site) that in cheering for the ACA they were cheering for the same cost-plus pricing scheme that they had all denounced as corrupt profiteering by Halliburton during the Iraq war. The difference between the two cases being that the Medical Loss Ratio proposed in the lobbyist written ACA was actually a fatter slice of a bigger and more permanent pie than even the Iraq war, which as Col, Kilgore would have wistfully observed would have to end… someday. This peculiar arrangement of guaranteed profitability, plus subsidies from our Treasury into the insurance mafia’s pockets was – I tried to argue with my limited grasp of economics- a perfect example of a perverse incentive. Supposedly the deal was structured to “bend the cost curve down”, but because the mafia was assured at least n% profit margin, whatever their costs, the deal would tend towards the opposite effect: to grow their gross revenues, insurers would wink at provider cost increases knowing they could safely pass it all on to subscribers and taxpayers. That structure would almost certainly lead to skyrocketing premiums, just as cost-plus pricing for Halliburton had led to them intentionally abusing and destroying their own equipment in Iraq, so they could bill the government multiple times for the cost of replacing the gear, collecting a guaranteed profit each time. It was a system designed to be gamed.

        You can imagine how my objection was received. I didn’t like Obamacare because it had Obama in it, and I was racist. The devastating simplicity of their logic led to only one response: I had to stop being a Democrat.

        1. Dirk77

          Cost plus? Different Chris was implying that but I guess I couldn’t believe it. Explains a lot. Thanks.

          1. Barmitt O'bamney

            The way Halliburton milked the Iraq War was the subject of the documentary “Iraq For Sale.” I’ve seen it show up at times in streaming services, even though it’s really old news now. That’s where I’m drawing my analogy from with the perverse structuring of Obamacare. Having seen that scam before under Bush – with the help of that movie- I thought I recognized it again under Obama.

            I understand that cost plus pricing is standard in government contracting. But the abuse potential is high when the contract is for something that is ongoing or recurrent. In both cases the contractor has the ability to ratchet their net profit upwards by ratcheting
            up their reported costs. The government appears in the role of a passive host to a parasite unable to check the bleeding. Also in both cases, a primary beneficiary had a surprising role in creating the situation they and their old companies benefited from. Cheney was a huge financial beneficiary from the Iraq War. He also was a leading figure in instigating it and selling it to the public as unavoidable and necessary. The health insurance cartel had a mole (Elizabeth Fowler, former VP at Wellpoint) placed on the Senate Finance Committee. As lead counsel for that committee, she more than anyone is responsible for the original draft of the law. And Obama would later move her into the executive branch to oversee implementing the law. The conflict of public and private interests embodied by these individuals, left undeclared and free to do its work in the shadows by our corporate press, is literally larger than the GDP of many third world nations. Truly when it comes to corruption, Rome has nothing on us.

        2. Ivy

          The ACA structure is somewhat reminiscent of that used back in the dark ages by regulated utilities. They got a negotiated return on an asset base that they were effectively incentivized to grow (with your best poker face, ponder if would you like 10% of X, or 10% of X+ Y?). That served their investors and management more than their customers, but those customers didn’t donate to elections with the same zeal as investors and managers.

          Now the stakes are orders of magnitude higher, with as-yet unindicted co-conspirator pharma and associated hanger-on companies. Look who advertises the most on the nightly news to see who has the most to lose through consumer-friendly legislation. Stop me before I hyphenate again.

      3. Dirk77

        The presence is ACA then inhibits any true capping of costs because it IS the means now by which the fed gov manages health care? And unless you want to rewrite the ACA law you are stuck with bad policy?

  42. Watt4Bob

    The people have spoken, and what they’ve said should be clear to anybody who has been paying attention for the last decade or two.

    The concept is as American as apple pie and fits precisely, and comfortably because we’ve been taught its righteousness and utility by our leaders for decades now.

    It’s a one-size-fits-all solution that we’ve been touting all over the world;

    “What is clearly needed, is regime-change.”

    I think the next six months will prove to be the crucial period…

    Let’s start by looking forward, not backwards…

    1. polecat

      Yeah … Forward .. to a prison sentence for Her, Bubba, Anointed Daughter, and assorted miscreants …. yes, THAT kind of ‘forward’ …

      …… I’d buy That for a quatloo ! ……

  43. KnotRP

    On the topic of normal distributions & power laws from a few days back,
    read Mandlebrot’s “The (Mis)Behavior of Markets” for further amusement.
    The (mis)use of financial hammers on economic screws will never end
    because if all a financial consultant has is a hammer, everything *has* to
    be a nail and people can be (e)conned into thinking things keep falling
    apart not through incompetence of the carpenter, but because the
    screws weren’t hit *hard enough*.

  44. a different chris

    I am enjoying the “Why you should blame economists” article…, he’s close, and of course he’s writing to us low-brows so maybe he understands this but I don’t think so:

    >This is not to say that I think they are all correct–they can’t be since they contain mutually exclusive propositions.

    Yes, they can all be correct just at different times. I would like to make the Chicago School denizens make one choice of outergarmets and insist they wear them all year round. Maybe they would finally get the point.

    1. optimader
      The Wrecking Crew documentary shows up occasionally for free, worth the $4.00 to support the filmmakers effort, but you can get the sense of it at the vids of the link. LRussel was legendary.

      TWC were the stealth studio musicians that played much of the music that was cut on pop LPs in the day..Carl Kaye, a 15yo bass guitar savant. They were “The Beach Boys”.
      Doubt too many ppl here know the story, Historically significant stuff before the crapification of what passes for popular music these days.

  45. DJG

    The moon on its wonderful journey.

    I believe that tonight in Japanese reckoning is thirteenth night. And I am further reminded of the great writer Higuchi Ichiyo and her story The Thirteenth Night.

    And the “super” moon is a pretext to invoke:

    A waka poem by Murasaki Shikibu that says:

    A meeting by chance,
    I did not have any time
    to recognize you
    already going away
    like the Moon behind the clouds.

    [in my own translation and with translator’s misgivings]

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      In Zen, the moon is a metaphor for enlightenment and used in poetry that way often – it’s roundness – no beginning, no end, not sharp edges, all that – and it shines for all.

      A super moon is great enlightenment.

    2. ChiGal in Carolina

      Nice poem, thanks for that. So understated, so poignant. Apropos as we discuss the failures to connect that have led us to this moment.

      Gonna try to watch the moonrise today about 5p in these parts, but uncharacteristically it may be cloudy :-(

  46. bob

    ” “[Clinton’s] campaign rented a Manhattan convention center with an actual glass ceiling for what they hoped would be an election-night victory party.” Hubris. ”

    It was a 1 billion dollar glass ceiling. Cuomo kicked in the 1 billion in his 2016 budget.

    1. Jim Haygood

      Mr. Trump was responsible for the designation and construction of the Jacob Javits Convention Center on land controlled by him, known as the West 34th Street Railroad Yards.

      If Hillary were a native New Yorker, she would have known this and avoided the bad juju of scheduling her victory celebration in a building that Trump was involved in developing.

      She was completely unaware that years ago, Big Dog Trump peed on the corner of the Javits Center to mark it forever as his territory.

  47. JEHR

    From a wee small voice of a Canadian reader of NC: Mr. Trump has impressed at least one of the conservatives running for leader of the conservative party in Canada.

  48. LT

    Interesting article that some think the Republican establishment will turn on Trump and eventually go for impeachment for a more controllable Pence.
    I don’t think the Republicans would risk the wrath of the voters they still need.
    I would think they’d martyr him and move on from there with the rallying support auch an event would provide.
    That’s assuming the deep state finds Trump “umcontrollable” and honestly, the jury is still out on that.

    As for other events, it is quite something to watch Hillary and Obama try to quiet down the populace after saying he was a fascist, Russian double agent who will rape your daughter. (They all but said that). Then they turn around and try to tell lemmings that they should give Trump a chance…out of respect for the system.
    And the crisis of legitimacy is full throttle.

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      They likely would like to try to impeach around the time when he is about ready to put into law that no lobbyists for foreign governments can raise money for American elections.

      It will not be over TPP (which is dead already by Obama), not over any environment issues, infrastructure spending, Medicare, Social Security, federal hiring freeze, etc.

  49. LT

    Open source insurgency leading to a military coup like in Egypt…
    With the Democrats still having the majority with the popular vote, the alleged left would give the authoritian coup legitimacy.
    I call the protesters out in force the alleged left because once official policies are announced by the Trump government, especially around economics, the protests will fracture. They are not all of the same mind on economic issues and they fear radical critique of the economic system.

  50. alex morfesis

    tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies…goodness…vat a country…non right winger “conforming non conformists” walking around complaining about not being allowed to break the law as illegal aliens (LA) and just doing the kumbaya with hollowwood…

    what with all those plans to sell their bevhillz mcmansionz and leave this vast great country ???

    and meryl streep types doing the we love the little people nonsense…forgetting to mention her ties to the olin foundation via the simon family…the same liberal simon family with whom she fought with the sec to allow her to keep her money in their family office operation even though her brother was no longer married into the simon family…


    and the best trade will be shorting the living hell out of reits…

    if el cadillo donaldo actually starts removing tenants from millions of housing units by moving them back south of the border…

    who exactly is going to move into all those vacant apartments

    didn’t michael milken make his name and fortune from the 1970’s reit crash ??

    guessing steve wilkos will be trumps chief of staff…

    what…you didn’t read the fine print from the WWF hall of fame member when his name was on the ballot with the double asterisks to the right ???

    he has both wilbur ross and betsy McCaughey on his team…

    amerikkka…what a concept…

  51. Elizabeth Burton

    Way back right after Trump first announced his candidacy, I warned that his message was guaranteed to appeal to the very kind of blue-color ignored who came out to vote for him in droves, along with the usual GOP suspects. Having grown up among them, I am fully aware that blaming the Other and the government for their problems is an ingrained part of the culture, and that Trump had the savvy and the skill to exploit them in the same way they’ve been exploited by snake-oil salesman from time immemorial.

    I wish I’d been wrong. Oh, do I wish.

    And now I see a growing element in the media seeking to dismiss that reality, instead falling back on the narrative that it was really the racism and the sexism and the misogyny and [fill in the blank] that drives those nasty people. I also see the comfortable in the middle class embracing that narrative with obscene enthusiasm, and dismissing sharply anyone who dares even suggest that being down so long it looks like up is a reason to vote for that nasty man.

    These would include the many, many ardent “feminists” who threw vitriol at Melania Trump over and over every time those nude shots (which, frankly, I considered nicely done) appeared on social media sneering at the idea that THAT WOMAN wasn’t fit to be First Lady.

    Yes, there was racism and other bigotry on flagrant display for the entire Republican campaign, but why is it suggesting the constant reference to those who found the message at least momentarily inspiring as “stupid” and “rednecks” and racists and/or Nazis is just as much a form of bigotry as anything the Trump said?

    Then it occurred to me. By downgrading the idea anyone voted for Trump because he promised to help their economic problems, our new overlords can pretend those people simply misunderstood. Oh, they may actually throw out a bone, because those non-blue collar types who also voted for him want that infrastructure money, too, because they have to drive on those roads and cross those bridges. Otherwise, they’re free to continue as they are, claiming they never said anything about actually fixing anything.

    1. bob

      “who came out to vote for him in droves”

      Fail. The story of this election were the people who stayed home.

      1. Watt4Bob

        I think you’re focused on only half the picture, one side of the coin, if you will.

        From 538;

        The drop in turnout was uneven. On average, turnout was unchanged in states that voted for Trump, while it fell by an average of 2.3 percentage points in states that voted for Clinton. Relatedly, turnout was higher in competitive states — most of which Trump won. In the 14 swing states — those where either the winning party in the presidential race switched from 2012 or where the margin was within 5 percentage points — an average of 65.3 percent of eligible voters cast ballots. In the other 36 states and Washington, D.C., turnout averaged just 56.3 percent.1 That gap exacerbates a tendency for turnout to be higher in the places where candidates concentrate their travel, advertising and other get-out-the-vote efforts.


        About 57 percent of eligible voters cast ballots this year, down from 58.6 percent in 2012 and 61.6 percent in 2008, which was the highest mark in 40 years.

        So, if the highest turnout in 40 years was 2008 @ 61.6% and this year’s turn-out in swing-states that voted for Trump averaged 65.3%, I’d say there is substantial evidence that, yes, lots of people stayed-home-for Hilary, but, in places where it would make a difference, came-out-in-droves for Trump.

        All lot of people want to ignore the other side of the coin for some reason.

        1. bob

          The assertion was that people “came out in droves”

          They did not. They stayed home. That’s what a “drop in turn out” means.

          1. Watt4Bob

            Don’t like reading links?

            Don’t like numbers?

            As a a percentage of eligible voters, turn out was down, but in absolute numbers it was up.

            And, and this is a big and, in the swing-states that Trump won, turnout was way up.

            In the 14 swing states — those where either the winning party in the presidential race switched from 2012 or where the margin was within 5 percentage points — an average of 65.3 percent of eligible voters cast ballots.

            2008 was the biggest turnout in 40 years at 61.6 percent, Trumps numbers in 14 swing states was 65.3 percent.

            Last I looked 65.3 > 61.6.

            Talking turnout is just another way of blaming the stupid, the racists, the uniformed, the hippies, the BernieBros, and the kids who failed to visit Hilary’s website.

            The story of this election won’t be found in the pile of excuses proffered by the losing side.

            1. bob

              You keep posting links that say turnout was down. As the final numbers are months, if not years away, please explain how a rounding error equates to –

              The voters turning out in droves. They didn’t.

        2. Richard

          …or the Trump states were where Hillary’s people bused in the illegals and dead people to (try to) counter the Trump enthusiasts – who ALSO turned out in droves, where in the Clinton states they didn’t bother…meaning that the Clinton people, as expected, also didn’t bother to turn out because they thought it was in the bag for her.

          1. Lambert Strether Post author

            > Hillary’s people bused in the illegals and dead people

            They couldn’t have used buses for dead people; surely that’s illegal. Link, please. (It’s not enough that people could or would do things; you have to show that they did.)

    2. Carolinian

      Seems the motto is when in a hole keep digging. Whether HRC winds up 200,000 votes ahead or 2 million the fact remains that the majority of voters will have voted against her because of the third party vote. And one can make a more than plausible case that had the Republicans had a less controversial candidate he/she would have won overwhelmingly. The number one issue cited in the exit polls was change and therefore the meta message has to be that this was an election all about Hillary and her pals and not about Trump. He was simply the vehicle for the majority of voters (including those third party voters) to get what they wanted which was to get rid of Hillary and the current Dem regime. The only way the losers of the election can come up with some sort of victory is to suggest that not only Trump but all those people who voted for him are illegitimate or, if you will, deplorables.

      If totalitarianism ever comes to this country it will be totalitarianism of the self-claimed left. Perhaps that’s an exaggerated view but it’s the message that the purple revolutionists are putting out. They feel they have a “responsibility to protect” America from its own voters.

      1. tgs

        Excellent point about the third party vote – which the media dismisses as the ‘protest vote’. The majority of those who voted did not vote for Hillary. I couldn’t find totals but between Michigan and Florida alone the greens and libs won about 500,000 votes. To say that Hillary won the popular vote is to already assume that only votes for the duopoly are real votes.

        As to the alleged ‘left’ out on the streets, to me there is something very ‘safe space’ about it. There is a sense, of course, in which institutions not to mention the country as a whole should be safe spaces – you should be able to go to school or work and not get shot or otherwise harmed.

        But the new notion of ‘safe space’ seems to involve not being exposed to anything you don’t like or hear anything you don’t won’t to hear. In some ways, it asserts the a right not to be offended. Problem is that there is no such right save in the possible case of ‘hate speech’ and that too is controversial. The ‘he is not my president’ riff strikes me that way. The presidency of the USA is not determined by how I or anyone else ‘feels’.

  52. Hierophant

    I received this email a couple of days ago from the Movementforthe99%. Did they forget that Trump voters/supporters are part of the 99%? It is really sad to see the Left going in this direction. I was a big Bernie supporter, voted Green in 2012, and this year I realized the biggest impediment to getting Leftist policies implemented is the Left itself. They just don’t understand how to reach out to anyone who doesn’t hold 100% of their beliefs.


    The unthinkable has happened – Donald Trump has won. Further, the Republicans have seized control of both chambers of congress. With this power they are planning to unleash a storm of attacks against the most vulnerable in our society. This cannot stand. We need to stand as one and revive the solidarity in the old labor slogan, “an injury to one, is an injury all.” We need to build the fightback to Trump and the Right.

    Within hours of Trump being elected, Movement for the 99%, with Socialist Alternative and Socialist Students, put out the call for mass protests across the country to unite against sexism and racism and to begin building the movement against Trump and the the billionaire class. In less than 24 hours nearly 40,000 people answered our call! Please contribute $25 to grow our movement.

    The numbers of people – mostly young people – who attended in each city is electrifying: New York City had 10,000 people; Philadelphia 6,000; Boston 10,000; Seattle 6,000; and Oakland 5,000. Our protests were a top story on newscasts across the country and internationally – from CNN to The Guardian.

    This only the beginning.

    Plans are underway for huge nationwide protests around Trump’s inauguration on January 20th and 21st. We need to build a grassroots movement against threats to escalate mass deportations of immigrants and a clampdown on muslim communities, among other attacks. Movement for the 99% will be at the forefront of building these demonstrations and organizing broad community coalitions to stand united against bigotry and hate.

    But to challenge Trump’s agenda, we need your help. We need the millions of people who stood for Bernie’s political revolution to join in building an independent grassroots movement that can stand against fierce attacks from Trump and the Right. We need to raise $10,000 in the next week to begin building for the Inauguration protests being planned across the country. Please contribute $25, $50, or $100 today!

  53. meme

    Paul Krugman gets it wrong again in his Thoughts for the Horrified column . Never does he mention the part that the economy that left so many behind had anything to do with Trump’s victory. He seems to think half of the country are members of alt-right.

    First of all, remember that elections determine who gets the power, not who offers the truth. The Trump campaign was unprecedented in its dishonesty; the fact that the lies didn’t exact a political price, that they even resonated with a large bloc of voters, doesn’t make them any less false. No, our inner cities aren’t war zones with record crime. No, we aren’t the highest-taxed nation in the world. No, climate change isn’t a hoax promoted by the Chinese.

    So if you’re tempted to concede that the alt-right’s vision of the world might have some truth to it, don’t. Lies are lies, no matter how much power backs them up.

  54. Z

    Being Hillary Clinton means never having to say you’re wrong …

    Their spin now is that going after Trump was the best-polled strategy, as if they couldn’t have BOTH gone after Trump and offered some economic plan that recognized and addressed the depth of the economic injustices that have been done to the vast majority of this country … no, don’t want to confuse that silly American electorate with more than one theme at a time. Who are they fooling? They made the deliberate decision to not make the economy a campaign theme because that would have lead to them having to make promises that they and their sponsors had no intention of keeping. So, they fused their post-coronation plans with their campaign strategy: promise them almost nothing and then when we sell their asses out once we get into office we can say that we didn’t break any promises.


  55. Buttinsky

    Hillary Clinton’s “Purple Revolution”? As usual, the poor thing is terribly deluded. She thinks she’s Charles II, awaiting the Restoration, when it’s clear the election rendered her, irrevocably, the executed Charles I.

    1. jawbone

      OK, has any reporter or friend of the Clintons asked why the purple? I posted a comment yesterday about several different takes on what the color represented — Hillary campaign said it was to represent unity, with red and blue blended into purple. Perhaps as a nod to the Obama speech? Others noted purple represents royalty, wisdom, mourning and so forth. Some mentioned that purple was on the suffragette flag, altho’ the American version was different, but the UK versions and the US versions were used.

      Purple is, according to some commenters, used by the anti-bullying groups.

      Today is when I saw commenting that purple was used by George Soros’s “color revolution.” Of which I had heard nothing. I also did not know that Soros was now in control of Anyone know differently? And is this why Trump tweeted about “professional protesters”?

      1. jawbone

        NYTimes fashion as politics article:

        Hillary Clinton began the messaging when she wore a purple-lapel Ralph Lauren pantsuit for her concession speech on Wednesday morning, uniting red and blue in a single shade as she urged the country to unite. And Michelle Obama continued the subliminal signals when she chose a purple Narciso Rodriguez dress with an orange aftershock sunburst curve for her meeting with Melania Trump.

        It was a nice bit of color diplomacy.

        Hhmmm — might be my computer, but I thought Michelle Obama was wearing blue. Looking more carefully, now I see purple.

        Melania wore what I termed NYC black.

      2. tgs

        Soros has provided funding to both personally and through his foundation – millions of dollars. I have not seen any convincing evidence that he is involved in planning or strategy. Probably not. Which is not to say he doesn’t support these kinds of actions.

        1. RMO

          Isn’t a dark purple what one would get by mixing the colours of arterial and venous blood? I remember one of Harry Harrison’s Stainless Steel Rat stories where he was as first puzzled by the military of a planet wearing purple uniforms until he figured that out.

          Anyways, good to see that the NYT continues on with its tradition of being a reliable source of the fearless, incisive journalism the world needs.

  56. meeps

    The Eisenstein essay is timely, Lambert. Thanks for the reminder.

    I took a jab at Ebell here a few days ago, when my comment would have stood on its own without it. It was a lapse of self-awareness and discipline on my part, both of which are necessary to avoid the trap of identity politics. My apologies. I’m a work in progress.

  57. EndOfTheWorld

    Leon Russell dead. I like a musician like him that is not roped in by any genre. Played with the Beach Boys, Jerry Lee Lewis, Joe Cocker, New Grass Revival, Glenn Campbell, and Frank Sinatra, to name a few. I believe he was in Phil Spector’s Wall of Sound. Great song writer, singer, and musician. He just kept touring till he died.

  58. Dave

    User friendly, your staffing suggestion, or cabinet picks from UKC are an incredible idea. Is there a Trump Admin website where such comments could be sent?

    Screw the New York Times…for decades it’s been held up as the gold standard of journalism.
    Now it looks like a lead sinker or a wrap for intellectual fish who have been hooked.
    Mock that paper and convince people who subscribe to it to drop it.

    It’s not just the reporters and the editorial board, but is also the advertisers in the NYT and other MSM papers. They too are part of the problem and they too should be rewarded for subsidizing, and in some cases, promoting the erroneous disinformation.

    We can keep voting every day, well into the new year, by boycotting the NYT advertisers plus, making a big shopping list of what we are running out of and then going on a spending splurge but only after inauguration day.

    1. EndOfTheWorld

      UMKC, not UKC, Mr. Dave. BTW, a good interview with Hudson today on Max Keiser. He said Trump decided not to debate Bernie after thinking about it, because he wanted HRC to win as she would be easier to defeat. So he was smart there.

      1. Quentin

        Ann Coulter said back in August 2015 that Bernie Sanders would be the Republicans worst nightmare. Hillary Clinton not so much. I don’t remember where I read that. I found the statement an eye popper then. I realise that this Conservative lady is not often mentioned in these parts.

  59. Z

    These consistent hagiographies … almost like they’re Clinton campaign talking points … from the neo-liberal rags about Clinton’s “selfless public service” are vomit inducing. The Clinton family has over $100M in wealth that is almost completely derived from their “selfless public service”.


  60. none

    A massively and diverse open source protest that has one simple goal: the immediate removal of Donald Trump from office.” The 2011 Tahrir Square protesters had one simple, unifying demand: Erhal! (“Leave!”). And they forced Mubarak from office. The difficulties came afterwards. Power was lying in the street, and the Army picked it up.

    Joke from reddit:

    Q. How much is Trump’s life insurance?

    A. Just one pence.

  61. ewmayer

    o “Trump v Clinton: Why the pollsters seemed to get it wrong FT” — LOL, ‘seemed to’, really?

    o “Reflections on a Democracy in Crisis The Archdruid Report” — ‘In crisis’ because the faux-gressives didn’t get the outcome they felt entitled to? You want to see a real Democracy in Crisis, look no further than the corrupt machinations of the oh-so-ironically-named Democratic Party in attempting to force Hillary down voter’s throats.

    o “Law and Ownership Reexamined The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation” — Given that it’s Haaaaahhvahd, shouldn’ it be named The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Malgovernance and Financial Misregulation? That certainly is the way their students practice it.

    1. Waldenpond

      [I’m not sure how many people have noticed, though, that the election of Donald Trump was not merely a rebuke to the liberal left; it was also a defeat for the religious right.]

      I didn’t see much change in the vote on the right and Pence is the VP choice. I can’t think of anything that is going to change in the state/church nor the ability of the corporation to enforce it’s religious beliefs. Re Clinton, I thought her turnout was lower because she is perceived as farther to the right (corporations over govt, lower regulation, national security)

      [it’s time for government at all levels to give up trying to impose cultural uniformity on the lively diversity of our republic’s many nations, and settle for their proper role of ensuring equal protection under the laws, and those other benefits that governments, by their nature, are best suited to provide for their citizens.]

      Isn’t this just a more polite way of saying: State’s rights. If you don’t like it, leave.

  62. Roland

    Power was not “lying in the street” in Egypt.

    Egypt was an example of a successful revolution, followed by an equally successful counter-revolution.

    The revolution succeeded. The incumbent government was toppled. There were elections, a new government, and a new constitution.

    But then came a successful counter-revolution. Urban petty bourgeois (including a large number of students), faced with the prospect of an enfranchised rural and lower-class urban population, switched sides, supported the military coup, and looked on while Egypt’s biggest democratic political party was violently suppressed.

    In the end, for too many middle-class Egyptians, personal status mattered more than their country’s development. That was the key to Sisi’s victory.

    To value secularist ideas, above mass political participation, was the historic blunder of the Egyptian Left. It is not surprising that they made this blunder, because too many among the Egyptian Left are not proletarians, but petty bourgeois or wannabe.u

  63. alex morfesis

    Rinse previous as chief of staff…wow…forget drain the swamp…el cadillo Americano wont even drain the bathtub…

    countercoup2018 krewe fire up those engines…

    telemachos…we are going to need a few more arrows

    Short reits…12 bagger…

  64. Roland

    I might add that Erdogan is looking smarter and smarter. By starting a mild rapprochement with Russia, he covered himself both ways. He could always abandon the rapprochement if Clinton won, and join in the NATO Syrian war that she would have been sure to start. Since Trump won, he has already begun work on a potential face-saving way to de-escalate in Syria.

    I also wonder if Turkey had good low-level intel about the real state of the political mood in the USA. It would be curious if the leaders of a foreign state had a better feel for things than many political insiders in the USA.

    Erdogan is a formidable politician. For example, Kurds are in trouble, unless they can find some statespeople of similar calibre.o

  65. Phil King

    Article with an update on Trump’s possible cabinet picks. There’s a link to an article on his transition team in it as well.

    Two new names stood out for me in particular. Zalmay Khalilzad was an inner-circle neocon in the Bush era, back from the dead apparently. Joe Arpaio (already mentioned here at NC I think) is a white nationalist dream come true, as is the hard-right Kris Kobach (not mentioned in the articles) who I understand is advising Trump on immigration issues.

    This next piece is another intro to Trump’s transition team and some of the lobbyists and consultants that are a part of it. Wall Street showed up too, looks like. I’d say that overall it’s meet the new boss, same as the old boss – which is true to a large extent – but the new boss also has a particularly nasty right-wing streak.

    1. Phil King

      I should add that, in the Trump sectoral interest ecosystem, ‘old economy’ interests eg heavy industry and agro seem heavily represented. With plenty of anti-enviros and anti-regulatory-istas to give it juice.

    2. Phil King

      I’d add, though, that in the Trump sectoral-interest ecosystem, “old economy’ interests eg heavy industry and industrial agro seem especially well-represented, as well as anti-enviros and anti-regulatory-istas who’ll seed the soil.

    3. Carolinian

      He was just asked about this on 60 Minutes and said he had to use lobbyists as potential appointments and advisers because “everyone down there is a lobbyist” of some type. Said he is still committed to getting lobbyists out of government.

      For what it’s worth.

      An interesting interview btw. He toned down his mannerisms quite a bit and at times seemed to be channeling his one time associate/rival Merv Griffin who had that same gravelly voice. He said he’s still committed to appointing an abortion opponent to the SC and if Roe is ever struck down will just have to go back to the states for regulation. He also said he is puzzled why gays are demonstrating because he has never spoken against them (and really, what is that all about?)

      1. Phil King

        Meh. Personnel is policy. As to what it’s worth ( ie Trump’s rationale) : nada.

        He’s playing coy as to not understanding why gays are protesting. The religious right is integral to his constituency (as
        it is, now, to the party as a whole). Pence, for instance, is a promoter of ‘conversion therapy.’ Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon hail
        from this religious-right, ‘free enterprise’ shit-show :

        There’s a link in the article to the
        2014 membership directory.

        1. Carolinian

          The religious right supported him and in greater numbers than Romney according to the article I read (they don’t like Mormons) but the article also said they always vote Republican anyway. Trump’s own religiosity seems perfunctory at best and his libertine past doesn’t indicate he’s a prude.

          In truth the GOP’s pitch to the evangelicals has always been a bit of a sham and the evangelicals don’t seem to have gotten much out of it. Trump did say gay marriage was now settled law and he was fine with that.

          I suspect Trump’s tv interview will win some people over as he was very smooth. People are right to suspect him of pulling a con but that’s true with any politician–Obama being the most recent example.

        2. Lambert Strether Post author

          And the difference between these people and the Republicans who endorsed Clinton, and whose voters she sought, and who she would work with would be? Reagan started his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi!

  66. allan

    HRC deadenders, like Imperial Army infantrymen still fighting from caves in 1949:

    I REPEAT: #Hillary lost because the right, left, and media effectively savaged her public image beyond recovery. It’s just that simple. [@PeterDaou]

    It’s on your heads, NCers.

  67. John k

    Some pundit (Newsweek)? Said the country had moved hard right. But trump got no more votes than Romney. But 10,000,000 fewer voted Clinton than big o in 2012… and she is more hard right than he. IMO country moving left.

    1. flora

      The Clintons and their Dem party kicked all the New Deal constituents – labor, SS and safety nets, Wall St. regulations – and embraced all the old New Deal enemies – banks, Wall St., monopolies, etc. Clinton dems said of the New Deal constituents, “where else they gonna go?” Guess the Dem estab just found out.

  68. different clue

    So, a Screaming Mob will Tahrir-ize Trump into leaving office? Really? And give us what? Clinton?

    I forget the name of Mister Global Guerillas just now, but I have read his site off and on for years. He is a pro upper-class Libertarian. All his posts come as close as he dare get them to being chapters in a cookbook for overthrowing public governance in favor of purely private Propertarian Tyranny power. He once posted a post about the wonderful possibility of a big investor buying a whole bunch of land in Chile so that rich or wanna-be-rich Propertarians could go found a real-life Galt’s Gulch.

    I voted for Trump. Trump won the election by all the rules we have. If the Clintonites and/or the Soros Color Revolutionists think differently, let them sue in court.

    God Damn every member of the Screaming Mob which wants to anti-Constitutionally oust Trump and bring us a War With Russia President in his place. God Damn them each. God Damn them all. God Damn them, every one. And let the police crush any black bloc arsonists with whatever force Mayor Daley would have thought appropriate.

    And remember, I never said I was Liberal. I have said that I am NOT on The Left. And don’t anyone dare call me Progressive. Not when it comes to Screaming Mobs of dirt, garbage and filth fulfilling John Robb’s Propertarianarchist Fantasies.

    1. different clue

      And esPECially God Damn John Robb for his open-ended efforts to create Color Revolution conditions in this country.

      I begin to wonder whether that Gene Sharp person and his book weren’t CIA InFop Psy-Oppers to begin with.

  69. Roland

    Note the absurdity of comparing protesters against Trump’s election victory to the 2011 Tahrir Square demonstrations.

    In Egypt, there was no other way to change the government.

    In the USA, a regular election took place, with relatively few irregularities. None of Trump’s rivals denounced the process until after they lost.e

    1. Jim Haygood

      One reason US protesters are so shocked is that the Mainstream Media, led by the NYT, spent this entire year convincing them that Hillary’s election was a lock.

      It wasn’t just the fake polls. No, the MSM upped the ante into the far reaches of Fantasyland — with stories about Hillary’s cabinet; Hillary’s White House staff; Hillary’s long coattails winning the Senate, possibly the House, maybe even Texas, for the D party. Meanwhile, their dark characterizations of Trump made Jack the Ripper and Idi Amin look like philanthropes by comparison.

      So when reality struck early Wednesday morning, it was literally as inconceivable as a snowstorm in August. True believers, thrown into irresolvable cognitive dissonance, lashed out at everyone except their true victimizers — the lying liar presstitutes of the MSM.

      It’s okay if they don’t get it yet. We do.

  70. Jen

    Harry Reid endorsed Keith Ellison. And Axelrove is tweeting that DWS was a disaster, but because she was both DNC chair and a member of congress, and therefore could not devote her full attention to her DNC duties. Pass the popcorn.

    1. tegnost

      clearly DWS is a deplorable person, she is a representative of the 10% in a district largely composed of 10%ers, who led a strategy (all dems need are the 10%ers from each party) that failed to deliver her own state and had a large role in losing the election for the democrats

  71. Cry Shop

    Potential Guillotine Watch? Having a platform isn’t the first priority…

    “He (Kurt Wagner) is married to Mary Mancini who was elected Chair of the Tennessee Democratic Party on January 10, 2015 as the second woman to be elected to that position.[3] Previously she ran, unsuccessfully, in the Democratic primary against Jeff Yarbro for Senate District 21, which includes much of West Nashville in 2014. “I tell everybody, if you want to run for office some day and have an incredible fundraising event, marry a musician about 15-20 years before you declare your candidacy,” Mancini said in a press release.[4]”

  72. VietnamVet

    It has not been a week but already the TPP trade deal is dead, the USA stopped support of Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria and WWIII with Russia was avoided. Three home runs and the game hasn’t even started yet. The real contest will be if Donald Trump delivers on his promise of creating “big-league” jobs.

    Will the people’s money continue to be diverted to the connected or can the Trump Administration assure that instead it is used to build quality infrastructure that benefits everyone?

  73. Plenue

    “Wait, what? Mosul hasn’t fallen yet?”

    Not sure if this is sarcasm or not. But no, it hasn’t fallen. The Iraqi forces are having a hard slog of it, they’re mostly still in the outer districts. No idea if this is because militias seizing territory to the west of the city is what halted the flow of ISIS fleeing to Syria, or if the rumors about the USAF giving ISIS a free pass were simply bunk and they never intended to flee in large numbers to begin with. As things stand now, ISIS seems to have resolved to attempt to hold the city.

      1. Plenue

        I doubt many people living under ISIS actually like it. Mosul is effectively being held hostage, just like East Aleppo is. People have apparently been attempting to rise up; ISIS has executed scores of ‘traitors’ in the last few weeks.

  74. LT

    Trump just said on 60 minutes that he is going to push term limits.
    Now that would throw a real wrench in established politicians’ plans.
    When was the last time a Pres said they were going to push for term limits?

    1. Cry Shop

      That’s just going to make party machines more important than individual candidates performance, so I can see why Trump’s advisors favors it. Get rid of Orin Hatch, and aother will replace him. Get rid of a Sanders or Warren, and it’s likely those with control of the nomination process who’ll control who replaces them.

  75. A

    I am appalled by the “schadenfreude” exhibited here in the aftermath of Trump’s election. It’s a victory for the alt-right, a vicious troll-hate-fest movement that has turned disinformation into an art. Their leader is now in the white house. I have donated to this blog in the past but never will again.

Comments are closed.