Voters Repudiate Clinton

Even if Clinton manages to come out with a lead in the popular vote when California’s results are added to the evening’s totals1, the results are a stunning repudiation to pollsters, the punditocracy, the mainstream media, professionals in both major parties, and most important, to Hillary Clinton herself.

I seriously considered shorting the market first thing yesterday morning, and have the e-mail record to prove it. And this wasn’t confirmation bias since I decided not to vote for any Presidential candidate.

It was based on the fact that every single bit of anecdotal information I had from real people ran against what experts and the polls were saying. For instance, the overwhelming majority of Hispanics I ran into, once I gave them latitude to express their views by saying I hated both candidates, made clear they were seriously entertaining a Trump vote, including a van driver in Dallas. The upper income, 30s to middle aged guys in my gym, all of whom save one had been Sanders voters, were voting for Trump (I added another one to that tally tonight). A 70 year old college educated friend in Dallas, never married, who’d lived ten years in New York running a major department at Christies and joked that she was the only one of her girlfriends not to carry a gun in her purse, said apologetically that she thought both candidates were terrible but Trump might be a tiny bit less terrible. The 40-ish partner from Apollo who sat next to me on the plane to Dallas (a rare sighting, private equity partners rarely slum by flying commercial) was reading the New York Post and checking Drudge on his iPhone and thus clearly not going to vote for Clinton.

So even though my sample was small (and I have more examples), it said the closeted Trump voter was a real phenomenon and likely bigger than anyone was allowing for.

The election outcome was based not just on Clinton being a terrible candidate on the merits, but on the abjectly poor conduct of the Clinton campaign.

Let us not forget that Clinton had every advantage: Presidential campaign experience, the full backing of her party, a much bigger ground apparatus, oodles of experts and surrogates, the Mighty Wurlitzer of the media behind her, an opponent widely deemed to be world-class terrible – utterly unqualified, undisciplined, offensive, with a mother lode of scandals – and what historically was deemed the most important asset of all, a large lead in fundraising.

Yet Clinton was a lousy campaigner and strategist. By all accounts, she was a micromanager who regularly overrode her staff’s advice. All the big-ticket Madison Avenue spin-meistering could not get the dogs to eat enough dog food.

You don’t win voters by telling them they are stupid and beneath contempt. That is tantamount to saying you have no intention of representing them

You don’t win voters by failing to offer a positive vision and selling only fear

You don’t win voters by trying to get them to believe you’ll suddenly behave differently and take positions contrary to the ones you’ve held for decades to extract cash from the the richest and most powerful

You don’t win voters with a record of failing upward

You don’t win voters by saying your opponent is a sleaze, even when undeniably true, when you are at least as sleazy yourself

And readers in Lambert’s live blog last night read Clinton’s defeat the same way:


The Red Wave is rolling across this country because
the Democrats wont listen to their base.


Trump’s election is completely due to the incompetence and arrogance of the D elite.


It’s really amazing to see how little of the blame is going to Clinton herself. It was her decision to set-up a private email server. It was her decision to serve as Secretary of State while accepting millions from foreign governments. It was her decision to get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars while unofficially running for President. It was her decision to call millions of Americans deplorable.


The liberal histrionics and gnashing of teeth (especially on twitter) are actually just making me mad now. So, you sat out the fight from 2008 to the present and suddenly NOW the world is coming to an end. Where were you when Occupy was scuttled by your precious Democratic administration? Where were you when Secretary Clinton was negotiating away the last vestiges of labor rights in this country? Where have you been while state after state has passed right to work laws? Where were you when the current administration ramped up deportations? Where were you when the DoJ pumped weapons into Mexico just to see what would happen? Where were you when a sixteen year old American kid was blown to pink mist in Yemen? And the list goes on…

I should make this into a card that I hand to every single person tomorrow who blubbers about the coming apocalypse. The world was already on fire. Now the veil has been lifted. I’d hope to see these fresh discontents on the picket lines, but something tells me that’s unlikely.

We have very little idea of what a Trump presidency will amount to. My best guess has been that he will be a Jimmy Carter cubed in Berlusconi packaging.

Recall that even though Carter has been the best former President of the modern era, he came to Washington as an outsider with his Georgia team. Despite having ben a governor and thus knowing how to draft legislation and get bills passed, he famously got little accomplished despite having a Democratic party majority in the House and Senate.

Trump is likely to spend his first year, and conceivably his entire Presidency, with all of the Democratic party and enough of the Republican party against him to stymie him, fighting for the right to govern. And that assumes he has an agenda beyond the very few goals he has articulated consistently: getting out of “bad” trade deals and entering into better ones; reducing immigration and deporting many undocumented immigrants (and building his famed wall); investing heavily in infrastructure; making NATO members pay their share of its budget (the theoretical level, 2% of each nation’s GDP, is largely footed by the US); cutting back our involvement in overseas conflicts; cutting taxes; and repealing Obamacare.

The only initiatives where the Republicans might back him solidly are cutting taxes and ending Obamacare, and even then, given the lobbying power of Big Pharma and the health insurers, the Republicans might not be as willing to pull the trigger on Obamacare as all their kvetching would lead you to believe.

There is one more Trump campaign promise that will serve as an important early test of his seriousness as well as his survival skills: investigating Clinton. Even if Obama pardons her, as our Jerri-Lynn Scofield has predicted, it will be critical for Trump to carry out a probe of the Clinton Foundation’s business while Clinton was Secretary of State.

If Trump is to cut the cancer of the neocons out of the policy establishment, he has to have them on the run. It is a reasonable surmise that Clinton’s enthusiasm for war was due at least in part to heavy Saudi support of the Foundation. Showing that American’s escalation in the Middle East, which Obama tried with mixed success to temper, was due in part, and perhaps almost entirely, to the personal corruption of the Secretary of State, would keep the hawks at bay, particularly if other prominent insiders and pundits were implicated in Clinton Foundation influence-peddaling.

It will be hard for Trump to do much to alter the course of the military-surveilance complex unless he can hamstring the warmongers. Just as Warren has argued relative to bank regulations, “personnel is policy.” If Trump is a fast learner, he’ll see that that is just as true on the foreign policy front.

Finally, those on the left need to turn the blame cannon aimed squarely at them back on the professional hacks who are truly responsible. Despite their tiresome chest-beating about meritocracy, these Acela corridor bubble-dwellers are constitutionally incapable of holding their fellow club member accountable. Their preening self regard repelled hard-working Americans who’d done the right thing, as in gotten an education, and if they were older, launched a career, bought a house and started a family, only to struggle harder and harder while seeing any vestige of security and hope of improved living standards erode. And unless they were at the top of the professional classes, they felt defeated by not being able to pay for their kids to go to college and being uncertain as to how to advise them with their educations and job prospects.

The Democrats under Clinton and Obama abdicated the duty of the elites, which is to improve the conditions for, or at least limit harm to, the members of the communities they lead. Even Bill Clinton did remember that the most important duty for a Democrat is to create jobs, even if he did so by presiding over a rise in household debt and a stock market bubble.

Young people, who poll well to the left of their elders, have inferred a lesson that the labor movement forgot: the exercise of power includes being willing to inflict punishment in the form of withholding support. Look at how diminished organized labor has become by casting its lot with the feckless Dems who’ve sold them out again and again. Hillary tried the Clinton “They have no where to go” trick one time too many, kicking the left after she only narrowly beat Sanders. And the left decided to return the favor. She made clear she has no intention of representing them. They heard her message loud and clear and acted accordingly.

As reader aab:

The big question to me is, take over the hollow shell of the Democratic Party, or crush it with a new party. Is it possible to take over the Ds — as weak as it is now as a party — without being corrupted and co-opted? I now hate my former party to such a degree, I find myself recoiling at having anything at all to do with it. But given all the institutional constraints, it still may be smart to try; the answer is above my pay grade, as they say.

This is an important question to consider as we see how the Democratic party responds to this well-deserved defeat.


1 As of 6:00 AM, the Wall Street Journal still shows Trump as leading in the popular vote, but only marginally: 58,728,425 versus 58,637,055.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. m

    Trump seems to be gracious when he wins and gets what he wants, but plays really dirty to win. He goes after anyone that is an obstacle. I will laugh when he airs the dirty laundry. At least there may not be war, nothing will get done, except getting rid of the insurance company bailout.

    1. Adamski

      The gracious bits in his victory speech were the same as would have appeared in Clinton’s. Two can play at her game

      1. integer

        Imo Clinton’s victory speech, should she have had the opportunity to give it, would have focused on how her victory was a repudiation of racism/sexism/religious intolerance, etc., of which Trump would’ve been cast as the embodiment. I also wonder if she would have said anything about Russia.

        I would not have liked to hear it, but I would love to read it.

        1. Adamski

          I think we’re both right. She would have said what you said, and crowed that she had defeated intolerance, but also said we all gotta live together, she will be the president of everyone etc. Bush said something similar in 2000

          1. Emma

            IMHO Hillary Clinton just delivered a heartrending speech. Both she and Trump (in his victory speech) were able to rise above their respective occasion, and each in their own way, show the necessary statesmanship. Their calls for unity will hopefully be reflected upon, embraced, and enacted upon by the entire nation in the coming days.

            1. m

              I almost felt bad for her. The purple, they can’t help themselves. The only speech of hers I could bring myself to watch.

    2. tony

      Trump might yet suprise us by getting a lot done. He did so repeatedly during the campaign and the primary. Not that he necessarily accomplishes positive things.

      1. Yves Smith Post author

        The record of celebrity political executives in the US is poor in that regard. Arnold Schwarznegger, who had vastly better interpersonal skills than Trump plus the advantage of having married into the politically expert Kennedy clan, basically ran out steam after six months. Jesse Ventura similarly was not a very productive governor.

          1. aab

            He has never governed. He’s a legislator. (Notice I’m giving the Senate credit for being a functioning legislative body, because I’m kind like that.)

        1. sunny129

          Nevertheless, change of guards at DC is healthy in the long term. Infestations won’t grow continuously!

        2. ex-PFC Chuck

          Ventura’s tenure as governor here in Minnesota was a story of missed opportunities. I presented my view of it about a year ago on another blog. Rather than re-address it here I’ll quote t he two introductory sentences followed by the link.

          If you’re putting Jesse Ventura forward as a candidate to be the man on the white horse, I respectfully disagree. The TL/DR reason is that, based on his performance as the governor of my home state, he does not pick his fights well.

        3. Don W

          I worry that he is exactly as interested in governing a he seems and what we get is rubber stamp of Paul Ryan’s legislative dream agenda.

      2. rd

        Trump has gutted much of the power structure elite in both the Republican and Democratic parties. My hope is that he clears the way for a new set of <50 year olds that are bit players today who can be the leaders of tomorrow. Obama was such a hopeful example like that but then he put Geithner and Holder into his cabinet….

      3. Procopius

        I’m waiting to see who he puts in as Secretaries of State and War. One speculation is John Bolton as Secretary of State, which means start getting bids on a bomb (not fallout) shelter. Rudy Giuliani is expected to be Attorney General. I wish I could stop speculating in the absence of data. I should have learned by now that worrying is useless because 90% of what you worry about never happens and half the rest is not as bad as you expected.

    3. Waldenpond

      Someone commented yesterday that the US is scheduled to have Nato put 300,000 troops in Ukraine in January. We will know in January if Trump has the spine to stop the elite next war plans.

      1. Geoff

        Trump is considering John Bolton as his Secretary of State. He’s surrounded by guys like Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich and others. Any idealism about him not perpetuating our exponential global war seems naive considering his circle of advisors. I hope I’m wrong. He’s a big unknown which is the only hope for now but remember: George W. Bush ran against the Clinton wars too and we all know how that turned out.

        1. Emma

          It would almost appear, in the words of another Donald (Rumsfeld)……..that “there are known knowns” with some of these men Trump is surrounding himself with, while “there are also unknown unknowns” with Donald Trump…..”And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.”

          Bernie Sanders just released an official and constructive statement on the election of Trump, albeit with a key cautionary note, in which he looks to achieve pro-growth policies with Trump and which will positively impact that large slice of America hurting the most:

      2. Russell

        Ukraine land route to the Black sea is likely as IHS Jane’s said. Poland bought 250 German Leapord Tanks, and I believe they will fight. Russian tanks are reported to be superior and tactical nukes are doctrine.
        Far as the irredeemable Democrats: They will not do necessary things In Order, Do Follow-up, Lie in the fine print, and lie for fun or Cover-up for failure.

        Neo Squares and block heads are running our world.
        I beg here there & everywhere to Yves & Lambert to put your writers forthwith in a meeting room with this President Trump.

    4. Lord Koos

      Far more worrisome to me is the very real possibility of a President Pence. Donald may end up impeached or otherwise unable to serve his term due to legal troubles, etc. Pence scares the shit out of me in a way that Trump does not.

      1. Escher

        He’s supposed to. As someone smarter than me has observed, Pence is Trump’s impeachment insurance.

    5. LynnC

      Oh, but there will be war – Trump has made sweeping promises to his base that he can never hope to fulfill (and that’s assuming that he even tries) regarding restoring manufacturing jobs, kicking out all undocumented immigrants (who are actually essential to key sectors such as agriculture) and generally “making America great again”. Once the base figures that out and gets restive, he will need a large national crisis to pull his supporters together again against a common foe – a major conflict would suit that need admirably and be perfectly consistent with his aggressive, impulsive character.

      1. Yves Smith Post author

        Huh? Infrastructure spending would generate tons of jobs, and no less than Larry Summers has pointed out, it pays for itself in GDP terms. $1 of infrastructure spending generates $3 of GDP. Trump could deficit spend and the GDP impact over time would be to reduce the big false scary monster that the orthodox like to handwave about, the Federal debt to GDP ratio.

        1. OIFVet

          Just as long as the infrastructure investment is not a Public-Private Partnership, like Rahm’s example in Chicago. If so, the rentiers are in line for yet another big payday.

          1. John

            Since it’s now a Red Wall it will most definitely be private.
            Get ready for private roads, bridges, water systems etc.

        2. Anon

          Infrastructure requires planning and design at the local level: these are tasks that are performed by folks with college degrees (not factory lay-offs). The actual construction of projects is performed by a work-force that is more and more Latino. So, if the folks who voted for Trump think there is employment coming in the next few months, they will be disappointed. (Again.)

          If a WPA-like general work program is instituted, jobs may appear (but productivity will be low). The Davis-Bacon Act would lift wages, however.

          1. Yves Smith Post author

            Trump never promised to turn on a job spigot overnight. He pretty strongly suggested in his acceptance speech that change would take time. He used words like “rebuilding”. I’m not saying he’ll deliver, but you are suggesting he made promises that I haven’t seem him make. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide a link.

            1. UserFriendly

              I’m just skeptical that he gets much deficit spending past the GOP congress. Dems don’t have an incentive to make his life easier (outside of the fact that it would be good for the country).

      2. rd

        Look at the skill sets necessary to build, maintain, and operate infrastructure. It is an almost perfect match for the unemployed and under-employed coal miners, manufacturing workers etc. So an infrastructure program would be a good solution for his voters while investing in the future of the country and a fair amount of the cost would come back from immediate income taxes and the multiplier of increased economic activity. The infrastructure aspects of the New Deal were some of the most successful in the 1930s – we have a heavily used park across the road from us built by the CCC while the people working on it were able to use their manual skills rebuilding their dignity and giving them a paycheck.

      3. Christer Kamb

        A New Deal from Mr Trump. Big spending packages are necessary to turn America Greater. Infrastructure projects today like real estate projects in the 30´s by Roosevelt. Still it will be difficult to achieve permanent new well paid fulltime-jobs for the low educated. Americans would have to move. Investments should be directed and subsidized. I do not rembember how big the government debt pro capita was after WW2 but there are one important difference for sure. Back then people had savings. This is not really the situation today among the low middle class, I suppose.

        Financing spending could be done the MMT-way, creating money out of thin air by congress(not the FED)instead of issuing debt. Why? Inflation and interest-rates are very low. Inflation will pick up and bankreserves could later be cut by issuing debt to raise floor-rates. A big shunk of todays GD must be prolonged for up to at least 50 years of duration with extra high-rate tail coupons. Why not America Great Bonds!

        “Doubling GDP” definately needs a Keynesian approach. At the same time certain large expeditures have to be slashed. Healthcare and Medicare have to be reformed to better suit the needs of the working poor . Not an easy task. Even with a majority in Congress it will be a tough mission to unite GOP´s.

        1. BecauseTradition

          Inflation will pick up and bankreserves could later be cut by issuing debt to raise floor-rates

          Positive interest paying sovereign debt is welfare proportional to wealth. Screw that. Instead, the proper abolition of government-provided deposit insurance would greatly increase the demand for fiat because the liquidity needs of the entire population, in aggregate, greatly exceed the liquidity needs of the usury cartel. In addition to that, the fiat savings of the population would be actual and not government insured liabilities to fiat.

          1. Christer Kamb

            “…abolition of government-provided deposit insurance…”. Yes for investment-banks it would be a bless. Back to a modern Glass-Steagall.

            If I understand you right money in the bank would be with-drawn by households? Where would it go then? To government securities? No! Bankers are intermediaters of money and their newly created deposits/loans. Still interbankmarket have to place their net liquidity. Household-money will only be transferred into safer banks, I guess.

            How and why would aggregate demand för money increase by taking away deposit insurance? Do you mean less money för banker-speculation?

            Sorry but I do not really understand your point. Household-money are already into circulation(or placed at the centralbank), with or without deposit insurance. Money for government investments either have to be printed, loaned or taxed.

            1. BecauseTradition

              If I understand you right money in the bank would be with-drawn by households? Where would it go then?

              Don’t know what you mean by “right money” but what would be transferred is at least some currently insured deposits and bank reserves 1-for-1 to inherently risk-free accounts at a Postal Checking Service or equivalent. There the reserves would sit subject only to the spending, lending and saving decisions of the account owners themselves and not the PCS and earning no interest either, being risk-free.

              To government securities?

              Beyond an individual citizen limit of, say $250,000 US, negative interest should* be applied to all private sector fiat accounts either at the Postal Checking Service or the central bank** in the case of depository institutions. This would create a market for sovereign securities offering a less negative to 0% yield and thus end the disgrace of positive interest yielding sovereign debt (welfare proportional to wealth).

              How and why would aggregate demand för money increase by taking away deposit insurance?

              Because banks typically have multiple times the amount of deposits than they have fiat to redeem them with. Government provided deposit insurance is a major means by which they get away with this. Remove that and provide a PCS or equivalent and the banks will have to come up with a great deal more fiat or default on their liabilities. That additional fiat should come via equal fiat distributions to all adult citizens since it is they whom the banking cartel has looted. From there the new fiat could be lent or sold to the banks so they can fulfil their liabilities for fiat.

              *To discourage money hoarding, is one reason. Another is to raise revenue, i.e. fiat is a tool that large scale users should pay for using.
              ** I can’t see why depository institutions rate a bank of their own but there’s tradition to follow – for now, I suppose.

              1. Christer Kamb

                Are You proposing something like “Positive Money”? An interest-free society?

                – “right money” : should be understood; “If I understand you right, money……..”

                – deposit insurance in i.e Europe is a new thing since the 80´s due to higher risks because of trading and to low equity-rules. Until then insurance was not needed.
                The problem is not only insurance. You mean people would take their money out from regular well-regulated savings&loan-banks(without insurance)? I do not think so.

                A growing economy needs credit. Loans creates deposits. Without credit savings would not grow enough to grow the economy long term. Savings = investments.

                You seem to suggest some form of gold-standard. 1 dollar for 1 dollar(100% reserves)? Better to stop “To big to fail” to begin with.

                If aggregate demand for money increase and banks can not create loans the price for money would go up. Banks then have to raise money from their owners which also raise the price of money.

                How would lending work for the household-accounts at PCS? Who will take the lending-risk. Competition between banks for household-money
                will increase interest-rates.

                1. BecauseTradition

                  Are You proposing something like “Positive Money”? An interest-free society? Christer Kamb

                  The Positive Money people believe in positive yeilding sovereign debt as a means to drain reserves. I don’t; that’s welfare proportional to wealth. Instead, let’s have the most negative interest on reserves (except for a negative interest-free $250,000 exception for each adult citizen) with less negative yields on sovereign debt as maturities increase with 0% being the upper limit.

                  – deposit insurance in i.e Europe is a new thing since the 80´s due to higher risks because of trading and to low equity-rules. Until then insurance was not needed.
                  The problem is not only insurance. You mean people would take their money out from regular well-regulated savings&loan-banks(without insurance)? I do not think so.

                  Yes, the problem is not only deposit insurance and the lack of a convenient Postal Checking Service – ALL fiat creation for the private sector
                  should be abolished too and other explicit and implicit privileges for the banks removed. Fiat is the money of all of a nation’s citizens and they should be able to use it safely and conveniently, just as depository institutions do.

                  A growing economy needs credit. Loans creates deposits.

                  100% private banks with 100% voluntary depositors can still create some liabilities and hope to get away with it. And they could always act as loan intermediaries between savers and borrowers.

                  Without credit savings would not grow enough to grow the economy long term. Savings = investments.

                  Equal fiat distributions to all adult citizens, in addition to perpetual deficit spending, could provide all the new capital a growing economy needs and without the inherent boom-bust cycle and growing private debt burden of government privileged private credit creation.

                  You seem to suggest some form of gold-standard. 1 dollar for 1 dollar(100% reserves)?

                  Never a gold-standard since that puts the taxation authority and power of government behind someone’s favorite shiny metal. Nor 100% reserve lending since depository institutions could still create as many deposits/liabilities as they dare but without government privileges (e.g. fiat lender of last resort).

                  Better to stop “To big to fail” to begin with.

                  Better that banks were never privileged to begin with and that includes implicit privileges such as the lack of a convenient, safe, easy to use Postal Savings Service or equivalent for all citizens and their businesses, organizations, etc.

                  If aggregate demand for money increase and banks can not create loans the price for money would go up. Banks then have to raise money from their owners which also raise the price of money.

                  Again equal fiat distributions to all citizens can drive interest rates in fiat to as low as needed.

                  How would lending work for the household-accounts at PCS?

                  All spending, lending and saving decisions would be at the discretion of individual account owners.

                  Who will take the lending-risk.

                  Individual account owners if they choose to lend.

                  Competition between banks for household-money will increase interest-rates.

                  Once again equal fiat distributions to all citizens can drive interest rates in fiat to as low as needed.

  2. disc_writes

    Berlusconi, not Berluscioni.

    Why oh why do foreign journalists always have to misspell Italian names?

  3. Deadl E. Cheese

    I can’t say whether taking over the Democratic Party will be morally better, but it WILL satisfy my schadenfreude.

    Nothing warms the cockles of my heart like watching those useless, simpering fucks like Krugman and Klein and Yglesias and Stewart and Colbert and Maddow and Brazille cry and stamp their feet as their audience dwindles to nothing. Nothing, perhaps, except for the thought of watching those politico subalterns who hitched themselves to Clinton’s bandwagon watch those donations and speaking fees and consulting jobs draw up and they’re forced to fetch coffee for 56-year old mustachioed bikers and 26-year old techdicks to survive.

    I want them to weep uselessly at their failed and unpromising futures, knowing that the salary of a Senator is the best that they can hope for. I want them to fear getting spat in the eye and laughed at by cute millenials when they reveal their affiliations and beliefs. I want the meritocracy to chew them up and spit them out. I want to watch them as their ridiculous world of civility and rationality crumbles. I want to hear the wheeze of contempt and horror as the working class rises up as one and casts these dorks to mediocrity.

    Yes, that’s why I endorse taking over the Democratic Party.

      1. Deadl E. Cheese

        Weakling turd Klein was already publishing Vox articles, mere HOURS after the election, about moving to Canada.

        Klein: if you have the smallest amount of integrity, the smallest amount of calcium in your spine, you and your ridiculous liberal cronies will stay on this crazy fucking train until the end of the line.

        1. cocomaan

          They have no integrity. They couldn’t even face the polls that weren’t in their candidate’s favor.

        2. casino implosion

          “…Weakling turd Klein…”

          Good to see someone that hates Ezra “Ezra” Klein and his ilk as much as I do. I’ll add Andrew Sullivan to that list. I was actually thinking about him as I colored in the little bubble next to TRUMP on the ballot, and the shadenfreud of it all actually caused me to bear down on the pen so hard I almost went through the paper.

        3. Altandmain

          We Canadians don’t want these bastards.

          They are without integrity and would be a drain on Canadian society. We have enough problems here as is.

      2. Tom

        And I kid you not, Kos ends the bleating with this gem:

        But for now, let’s take a moment to grieve, because America isn’t what we thought it was.

        And then, we start fighting. And we’ll need a general. So …

        Bernie Sanders for DNC chair.

        Who is aboard?

        Yeah, great idea.

          1. Baby Gerald

            This is exactly what I wanted to wake up to on this fine morning! Thanks again to Yves, Lambert, Jerri-Lynn and everyone here for making this post-election morning so very enjoyable! :)

            1. Emma

              I hope there will also be some eventual discussion on the results with regards to the Green and Libertarian parties. I was keeping my fingers, (toes, and any other wiggly part of me!) crossed that the Green Party would hit 5%.

              1. sunny 129

                Sorry. Unless the Green & others start working at the GRASS ROOTS, their fortune won’t change, just b/c they pop up during Election time, ONLY!

                1. Emma

                  I’m no expert at all but I think the following article goes some way towards effectively refuting your comment (see below).
                  In addition, it’s struck me that the US Green Party also faces the extra hurdles of having to contend with either an abysmal lack of MSM coverage (as was touched upon by Martin Wolf in the FT some days ago) or what is fleeting coverage at best, and to the detriment of the US Green Party, both disparaging and ill-informed. Here’s the article:

          1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            Sanders is an Independent again. Not sure why. Now, he is going to be a Democrat once more?

            1. sunny 129

              Bernie sanders is a gutless wonder and a hypocrite! Had he stood up to Hillary, when the scandal broke out, I would have respected him but NOT any more. Instead he still endorsed her!

              1. Soulipsis

                Yeah, and if downticket contests were so important to Bernie, then how come his home state now has a corporatist Repugnican governor-elect?

        1. hemeantwell

          Bernie Sanders for DNC chair.

          Who is aboard?

          Yeah, great idea.

          Yes, by backing Clinton Sanders repudiated his positions. But who else could serve as an immediately available placeholder to help supplant the neolib apparatchiks? They are in disarray, going through a shock and awe moment. A “We told you so” campaign by Sanders supporters would be a very effective follow through. Who else do you have in mind?

          1. Patricia

            I’m sure that Sanders and people like Nina, etc will now come forward and being reshaping. May they be wily and strong so we develop the necessary citizens’ action/power.

            But setting aside the utter shamelessness of Kos’ proposal, after what he’s done, offering Bernie head of DNC simply defangs him. (oh god, I hope Bernie knows that.)

            Kos can’t help himself, I suppose, driven to cling to power any possible way he can, but sheesh.

          2. Dave

            I awoke to a strange noise this morning. A kind of wailing, moaning sound, but with electric overtones….

            “What the hell is that noise?” Get out of bed, look down the street.

            Three women squatting behind cars in driveways running hair dryers along the back of their cars, trying to peel off the “I’m with her” decals.

          3. steelhead23

            Hmm. I like Bernie, but we would have to broadly change the DNC for it to actually represent the left. It would have to distance itself from some of its largest funders (Wall Street). I simply don’t see that happening, even after this debacle. And I suspect that a fair number of the DNC’s leaders blame Sanders and the left for the outcome and will, in reactionary fashion, push the left (think working class) even further off their policy positions, thinking that if the nation prefers a right-wing Republican, they would need to move further to the right to compete. It is stupid, of course, but that’s the way they think (look at how the party responded to Reagan). The best thing Bernie could now do to further our cause would be to very publicly join the Green Party and suggest that other like-minded Senators and Congressmen join him. Let the DNC wallow in self-pity.

            1. Synoia

              We need a 40 year old Bernie. Enough of this Baby Boomer generation, they fucked up the world after a few hippies gave them good direction.

              Seduced by the suburban lifestyle.

              I’m a baby boomer, disgusted at my generation after having high hopes in the late ’60s.

        2. Michael

          I agree. Clinton did her best to destroy the left by co-opting it’s labels and making the Democratic Party into the new Republican Party.

          Sanders provided a workable and message that resonated with everyone, that can be built on.

          We also have to stop Trump’s love of the coal companies.

          1. Minnie Mouse

            i wonder if Trump would love a whopping carbon tariff on “made in China”? By the way China is importing coal from North Korea and supplying hard cash to finance their nukes. An environmentally inspired trade war might actually work.

            1. Dave

              How about a federal law,
              “No revenue sharing with any state or municipality that does not buy 100% American when it is possible.”

              And, while at it,
              “Income tax deductability only for wages after E-Verify has vetted the employees.”
              Give companies a one year transition period, that’s only fair.

              1. jawbone

                Especially since it is very, very difficult find all one’s needs, such as governments have, “Made in America.”

                There have several news programs which ran series about individuals trying to live buying only those things Made in the USA. Difficult to find things, and, for those in the lower economic quintiles, extremely difficult to afford them.

                One year? It would take longer than that to get manufacturers build new factories and bring back any overseas facilities now have.

                Could it be done? Hhhmmm…

          2. Brian Daly

            If Bernie’s message “resonated with everyone” why couldn’t he beat one of the weakest democratic nominees in a long time? Trump crushed his primary opponents with just as much, if not more, open hostility from his party leaders

            The delusion on this site that the American public at large wants anything to do with “progressive” values astounds me. The Republicans are as right wing as ever, and they thoroughly dominate the electoral map in the US outside if the coasts. The Democrats dominate the coasts, and they won a huge amount of votes, despite losing. Where are the green party congressmen, mayors, county executives? You guys are tripping.

            1. Adamski

              Because the DNC worked to sabotage Sanders, so did the liberal commentariat, and the unions all stuck with Clinton from the start. With unions’ ability to GOTV, he could have won the primaries with their support. And the broadcast news media ignored Sanders in favour of Clinton and Trump almost until New Hampshire. And because the Republican primaries are winner take all, allowing Trump to build up a big lead, and he had 15 opponents who withdrew only gradually. And probably some other stuff I forgot to include. Oh yeah, Clinton told lies about the FBI investigation (“security inquiry”, “it was allowed”) so primary voters wouldn’t think it harmed her electability. And Sanders had not done the ground work to get black institutions, commentators and celebrities. And Clinton got the Urban Institute to rubbish Sanders’s health plan, when she hadn’t even published one herself (Physicians for a National Health Program said the Urban Institute was making things up). And Krugman blew a campaign spokesman’s endorsement of the “5% growth” claim by Gerald Friedman out of all proportion, since Sanders had made no such claim, and ex-CEA chairmen piled on. And Jeff Weaver concentrated spending on TV ads, which are not demonstrated to have much use in getting votes, instead of ground game to help primary voters navigate the process esp registered independents. And Clinton has been building her machine since 2008

              1. The Cleaner

                I don’t disagree with anything you say, but isn’t it exactly analogous to Clinton supporters blaming everyone but Clinton for her loss? If you think about it, Trump faced much more hostility and opposition in the Republican party and still managed to bulldoze his way to the front. Now I’m not suggesting that Sanders should have adopted Trump’s tactics, but he should have been able to overcome the institutional opposition — particularly given that he was running (be it ever so mildly) against the establishment. Or perhaps Brian is right and the country is really right wing, though the evidence suggests that it’s not.

                  1. UserFriendly

                    Sanders destroyed among voters who use the internet as their primary source. Voters spoon fed the evening news went with Hillary.

                    IMO Sanders was kneecapped by the black political establishment. Many AA voters after years of shitty tricks to steal their votes trust the CBC and other institutions like their churches. For many AA, voting is more a ritual than something you do because you feel motivated by a specific candidate (souls to the polls, ect.).

                    The vast majority of Americans couldn’t tell you a single difference between Clinton and Sanders policy wise because they have so much BS going on in their own lives (thanks neoliberalism).

                    My working theory is that Clinton got the nomination by using her Super Pac funded data operation to target voters who were rather apathetic as to who got the democratic nomination and got them to vote for her in the least painful way possible. She did better then expected in every state I can think of with a significant amount of absentee voting. Clearly it wasn’t due to a wave of enthusiasm.

                    AZ, FL, CA, OH, TN and WY come to mind. WY because it was a caucus where Bernie was favored but I remember a story about some vote by mail they had. I can also think of some notable states with little to no absentee voting where she did much worse than expected given other factors; MI, MO, IL, IN, and KY.

                    1. aab

                      I never saw any evidence of such a tactic. Her absentee voting scam was old school. Her campaign went to group homes for people who had the mental capacity of small children and told them they could go to McDonald’s if they signed their name. They went to nursing homes, showed them letters from “President Clinton” asking them to vote for “him.” That kind of thing doesn’t take Big Data, just a criminal perspective and a lot of cash.

                      I read somewhere that she was doing a Facebook style granular slice ‘n dice of various groups, but I think that was just for marketing, and it was more along the lines of which color pantsuit she wore. It wasn’t about issues and it wasn’t about facilitating the voting process. It was treating her as a consumer product.

                      I think her SuperPacs dumping a ton of money (with promises of more) in ads to the media companies owned by her donors to control what they would say and incentivize them to block Bernie even more than their existing class interests would had more to do with the outcome. The New York media literally refused to report that Bernie had been invited to the Vatican in the run-up to that primary. That’s nuts.

              2. ken

                Also superdelegates. Would Sanders have won with out the SD system? What if the SD had 99% supported Sanders over the SS Clinton?

              3. Waldenpond

                Here’s what I see as some Sanders issues from the primary:

                Clinton weakness: out of touch with every day people.
                Sanders reality: Sanders kept being surprised by how bad it is for people. That is equally out of touch. I was annoyed that he kept being surprised and had to adapt his campaign for the misery.

                Clinton weakness: refusal to apologize for a bad vote like the Iraq war because it was the best available info.
                Sanders reality: voting for the devastating crime bill because of the violence against women’s act.

                Clinton weakness: ran a poor campaign, kept calling her competitor a racist refused to focus on his financial corruption and exploitation of the 99%.
                Sanders reality: ran a poor campaign, kept calling is competitor a friend and refused to focus on her financial corruption and exploitation of the 99%.

                Clinton weakness: foreign policy positions.
                Sanders reality: support for drone program etc.

                1. TimmyB

                  Sanders ran a poor campaign by failing to point out Clinton’s many failings. He never should have given her a pass on her setting up a private email system to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests, the Clinton Foundation and all the other skeletons in her closet.

                  Moreover, he did her and the Democratic Party no favors by ignoring that skeleton army. One didn’t have to have more than a room temperature I.Q. to know Trump would beat her like a drum over those those skeletons. She was extremely weak there, and Sanders completely ignored it. He lost because of it. Trump focused on it and won. That was a grave error on Sander’s part.

                  1. laughingsong

                    Sanders had to campaign between a rock and a hard place. I suspect that if Sanders could have run as a 3rd-party or independent candidate, he could have laid out all of Clinton’s many failings. But he knew he needed one of the national party machines to have any chance, and it wasn’t going to be Republicans. He started out relatively unknown as it was. But being part of the Dems meant dealing with a party controlled by his primary opponent. I can just imagine what Podesta, Mook, Brazile, and DWS would have done if he had gone for the jugular. The man would have ended up in the political equivalent of a back-alley dumpster. These people are Mafiosi in all but name.

                  2. Waldenpond

                    Yes, a weakness that made me meh about his candidacy. I just did not think he was serious. I watched local young people upset and felt they were more serious about getting him elected than he was.

                    I think not criticizing the Ds was an error also. His came across as someone who supports the system and the D party generally and while the e-mails confirmed the corruption of the party, he is silent. Then commenting that poor people don’t vote… why would they vote for corrupt Ds?

                    I’m still pissed off about him because I thought if he was serious he would have done what was needed so we didn’t end up with Trump.

                    1. jonboinAR

                      It seems that his plan of pursuing a negative, that is, trying to make sure that Trump didn’t become president, backfired on him. He seemed to passive-aggressively self-sabotage by refusing to go balls-to-the-wall against Hillary. If he’d done what he didn’t, we’d be celebrating today, likely. Would the markets be up, or down? JH?

                  3. Waldenpond

                    Also, I would demand a statement from Sanders on the drone program. During the primary, he stated he supports the drone program and will use it. I was appalled at the time. He’ll have to say he 1. supports Trump showing he’s an imperialist 2, he’ll support with conditions showing he’s no different than Obama’s smart wars/not dump program that led to the slaughter of people in 7 countries, or 3. he’ll withhold support for the drone program under a Trump administration and look like a hypocrite.

                    I’d bet on 2 but I want to see him squirm. If people justify his position like they do with Obama because he’s on their team, at least I’ll know I can discount him in 2020.

                    1. Vatch

                      I think you’re exaggerating Sanders’s support for the drone program.


                      On ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” Sanders said, “I think we have to use drones very, very selectively and effectively. That has not always been the case.” He added, “What you can argue is that there are times and places where drone attacks have been effective. … There are times and places where they have been absolutely countereffective and have caused more problems than they have solved. When you kill innocent people, the end result is that people in the region become anti-American who otherwise would not have been.

                      That’s hardly an enthusiastic endorsement of drones. If he had said that he would completely reject drones, he would have been bombarded with accusations of supporting terrorism.

              4. wombat

                To add to the list…
                1) Superdelegates and the media announcing the oligarchy delegates as delegates won on all their bar graphs even from the beginning of the primary process- giving Clinton an apparently insurmountable lead.
                2) Donna Brazile et al tipping off Clinton before key debates.
                3) The initial debate schedule stymying any chance to challenge Clinton.
                4) Bernie’s mistake of not challenging Hillary’s issues: “The American people don’t care about your damn emails”
                5) Religion: Hillary easily winning all the red states in the primaries… especially when southern Baptist “peeps” were leveraged against Bernie.
                (Ironically, Hillary handily won all the states in the primaries, that were no help to her in the general election).

            2. Alan Bickley

              On issue after issue, majorities have favored progressive approaches – not merely recently – for years. The economic disquiet that propelled Trump to victory was Bernie’s before it became Donald’s. Families living on the edge evidently decided that not falling into the abyss was more important than the candidate’s civility and the opponent’s morally empty wish to be the first etc., etc.

          3. George S

            The schadenfreude is a little overwhelming here. I agree with most everything said about Clinton, Obama, and the Dems, and I’ve been frustrated with the party for years(registered independent since the early 1990s, and never voted for Bill Clinton).

            I can’t, however, get past the threshold issues of bigotry and misogyny as measures of character, and Trump fails spectacularly. What’s more, nothing he says, about what he’s going to achieve, is remotely credible. He won’t shake up Washington; yes, he’s tweaked a bunch of insiders, but will he take on corporate influence? Not a chance. He’s already told the fossil fuel industry that they will love him. The oligarchy will be well-tended by this authoritarian clown, whose environmental policies, by the way, are stupid and evil.

            And before there’s too much more genuflection before the white working class, let’s remember that this remains a broadly and deeply racist country, and that’s not exclusively the function of suburban whites’ myopia and self-deception. There also remains a deep anti-intellectualism that compromises any solid understanding of our environmental predicament. These two strains–bigotry and anti-intellectualism/anti-science–have costs that go far beyond the discomfiting of the “Acela corridor” crowd.

            1. Alex

              I think one thing to maybe remember is that we have actual evidence of Clinton not taking on corporate influence and the fossil fuel industry. Voters might have preferred the chance, however remote, to the historical record.

              In your last paragraph, one could easily substitute “class” for “race”.

              I agree somewhat on the anti-illectualism but think that is more a symptom than a cause of our current predicament.

              1. George S

                One could substitute “class” for “race” in the last paragraph and be correct–and let’s hope that yesterday’s outcome helps to bury the myth that ours is not a class-based society–but that would divert attention from the vicious legacy of racism in this country. We are in an era of what sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva calls “color-blind racism,” where every racist (with exceptions like David Duke) denies that he or she is a racist but can still oppose measures designed to address the inequities. This is a toxic phenomenon that deserves the light of day.

                Anti-intellectualism is now both symptom and cause–a poisonous feedback loop, one that has made, for example, climatology the kind of profession that can bring you death threats, and helped Congress get away with defunding independent science, thereby turning scientific endeavor increasingly over to corporate-funded interests. Either way, anti-intellectualism should invite response.

                I haven’t forgotten about Clinton and the fossil fuel industry. She did, after all, promote fracking in Poland. I just think it would have been easier to hold her feet to the fire on climate change, given that she claims to believe in it, than to change the position of Donald Trump, who is very likely to be immovable.

            2. JonboinAR

              But again, you, as a representative of those who fight bigotry and misogyny, seem to possess a blind spot regarding those evils, and that is when it’s directed against white people and culture, in this case, rural whites. Clinton was nearly as open in her contempt for a huge demographic as Trump was for another one, and it played a big role in her losing. I contend that her being elected instead of Trump would not have reduced bigotry so much as redirected it.

              1. George S

                I reject the accusation of a personal blind spot. How do you know where and how I’ve taken the “fight”?

                I don’t contend that electing Clinton would have addressed color-blind racism in any substantive way, any more than Obama did with his “post-racial” detachment. Color-blind racism is cross-party and cross-socioeconomic class, and hardly the exclusive province of “rural” whites. There’s plenty of it here in the suburbs, among the professional, educated classes, and I said nothing to implicate rural or poor whites specifically. To suggest that I did is to have misread what I said.

                But I can’t help but ask: why are so many white people so ready to so viciously blame the other victims of our runaway plutocracy? Why was it so easy for so many to believe such an obviously phony crony capitalist? I can’t help but believe that Trump’s racist rhetoric was deliberately designed to push those buttons. And by the way, it was not “one” demographic that Trump expressed contempt for, but several, repeatedly. Clinton’s “deplorables” remark was stupid (although the conduct at Trump’s rallies was deplorable), and it was emblematic of her elitism and distance from the rest of us, but to draw an equivalence with Trump’s deliberate, cynical manipulations is a mistake, in my view. None of that should be taken as suggesting that Clinton/Obama/Dems be given a pass. They shouldn’t.

            3. mk

              We need to focus on and organize around what unites us (bernie supporters and trump supporters), the economy.

            4. Ian Ollmann

              We elected a black man twice to the Presidency. He continues to enjoy better approval ratings than either of the two candidates. There will always be racism, just like there will always be idiots, but the core of it is broken in this country and it belongs to the lunatic fringe now. It is nothing like what it was in the ’70s. Even Archie Bunker was shocking then. This election does not reveal that we have suddenly regressed 50 years on race overnight. We are better than that.

              The racism from Trump, while inexcusable, was instead code for “I am not an elite intellectual who cares nothing for you.” This is where the right and (pseudo-)left have gone wrong. They are too married to ideology to place country and countrymen over politics and partisanship. The message was packaged in the language of incoherent rage because that is the common man today. He is hurting. He doesn’t know what happened, but he has a good guess who done it to him.

              Trump was a disaster candidate. Anyone who honestly cares could have beaten him handily. He beat the Republican field because they all compete to outdo one another to see who can be the most ideological pure soulless monster, where as Trump is nearly ideologically incoherent. Mr. Clinton’s dodge to the right to escape the liberal label in 92 and subsequent sale of his base down the river with welfare reform and NAFTA, left Mrs. Clinton with no credibility on compassion in ’16. She was exactly the wrong candidate.

              I voted against Mr Trump and would do so again in a heartbeat, but I am grateful to him for explaining to us in the most astonishing terms just how the Democrats have gone wrong in the last 25 years. I can’t think of a better way to reset the left. That change was not going to come from inside. I hope the Democrats learn and learn well. It is an expensive lesson.

            5. M

              Of course, now we see a little more what Trump’s plans are. Reince Priebus as chief of staff, oil company shill leading the EPA transition, corporate lobbyists in charge of the labor dept transition, Jamie fucking Dimon floated for treasury secretary! Rudy Giuliani for AG, Gingrich or Bolton for Sec State? Not to mention that a literal white supremacist is going to be a top advisor to the president.

              Someone above was crowing about Trump changing the guard and preventing infestations like he really thought Trump would “drain the swamp”. Trump associates with some of the shittiest people in the world, and he has his whole life (Roy Cohn being a notable example). Expecting him to shake things up in any positive matter is delusional.

                1. M

                  Yet he’s considering a Goldman Sachs guy for Sec Treasury and their stocks are up on the news that he’s going to repeal Dodd-Frank. And Sanders and Warren’s protestations of his appointees will fall on deaf ears.

                  Quite a victory for you and yours, eh?

        3. Adamski

          As any regular reader of Down With Tyranny! knows, the DNC is a big part of the problem with the party, along with the DCCC etc because they hoover up donations from the oligarchy and work to undermine liberal candidates. If they really did put Sanders in charge of the party machine (not merely pretend to) then the whole thing could be used for the “political revolution”

          1. aab

            It worked GREAT to put Dean in charge. He delivered a sturdy Congressional majority to the Democratic Party. Which the Democratic Party immediately fired him over, and installed incompetent frat boy Kaine to dismantle, because majorities mean delivering policy for your base and not your donors. Can’t have that.

      3. different clue

        I read this Kosbleat. Right through to the last sentence.

        Why would Bernie Sanders want to be Chairman of a party of Clintonites, Obamacrats, Kossholes and Koswipes? If Sanders agreed to be Chairman of the DNC, he would want to purge and bern the Clintonites and Obamacrats out of it till it became the opposite of the Party it is now. Would the Kossies like it then?

    1. Adamski

      Wow I thought you might be kidding. The diary is really by Kos. He who banned ppl from attacking Clinton when she was ahead in the primaries on the grounds that it would weaken her in the general. And said Sanders has the vision but Clinton has the wonk.

    2. Kemal Erdogan

      oh yes, indeed. I felt the same when reading Krugman’s comments this morning. Such a joy.

    3. fresno dan

      Deadl E. Cheese
      November 9, 2016 at 4:30 am

      Just to see the usual suspects suffer makes a Trump victory worth it….

      1. jawbone

        Oh, my. I wonder how the younger generations of today and future generations as they are born and mature will feel about a Trump victory being “worth it.”

        Presidents last 4 years, with a renewal possible for a total of 8.

        Supreme Court justices, depending on how old they are when put on the Court, can last many generations, longer than some people’s entire lives.

        I wonder how much people, as the years go by, will think it was “worth it” to elect Trump. People whose voting rights are further eroded, whose environment becomes unlivable, who cannot get a decent living from low wage jobs…name any of so many important issues which a court teeming with ultraconservative judges will decide in favor of, probably, corporations and rightwingers — how will such people agree it was worth it?.

        I did not vote for Hillary. Living in NJ I had the luxury of voting for Stein to try to raise the Green Party’s percentage of the popular vote. As of today, Stein got .9 percent of the presidential vote, up from .36 in 2012.

        I’m also old enough that, given my family’s genetics and health history, I probably will be around for, I hope, a couple decades. I will see some of the effects of these judges’ votes.

        Can Bernie organize enough people able to carve time from their two to three jobs, necessary to support a family, to build a real opposition to the Corporatists of both parties? What if Trump does push through a “health” plan based on healthcare savings accounts and nothing else? What do those with little to no discretionary income do??? What if he makes cuts to SocSec and privatizes it, as Repubs and Corporatist Dems seem to so dearly desire? Ah, yes, that’s what the Soylent Green Corporation is for, right? The old “Hurry up and die” elites answer to the needs of the elderly. There will be some new jobs there….

        OK, gotta pick myself up and…find my local Bernie organization.

        1. different clue

          Well . . . having some Fightin’ Liberals on the Supreme Court would mean nothing if they became a cloud of ionized plasma floating above a deep glowing crater.

    4. Brian Daly

      Why don’t you try to take over the Republican party, if you’re all that? I mean, why fuck around with this namby pamby liberal lip service. Seriously.

      1. Knot Galt

        I strongly concur with the sediment. With a Republican controlled Government and a reflection of Reagan, a whole host of corruption is likely to be afoot. As was said before but regarding Hillary, it will be up to us to hold the Republicans accountable and keep their feet close to the fire. So our period of self loathing will need to be short. The House and Senate will need to be overturned in two years and that seems to be the biggest battle of all!

        Don’t forget about the goal of gridlock! As has been mentioned, I hope enough Republicans join Dems in keeping Trump on the straight and narrow. If Shrub was any indication, I suspect the Republicans will tighten everybody’s nooses. Now is not the time to gloat. Fight locally!

        1. Yves Smith Post author

          You think there wouldn’t have been with Clinton? As we wrote, one of her top Treasury secretary picks was advancing an idea she had already said she wanted, that of government mandated retirement accounts that would funnel cash directly from worker paychecks to Wall Street. His version, which was presumably her version, called for 3% of all workers’ pay to be hoovered off. This is more than any estimate of what it would take to fix Social Security.

          See here for details:

          1. ChrisPacific

            I would add this to the list of her blunders. Allowing this policy to become public knowledge before the election, after a primary and campaign season in which her ties to Wall Street were raised and questioned at every turn, surely didn’t do her any good with voters. It was not difficult to join the dots from this to the massively increased revenues to Wall Street that would result, and many of the media reports did so.

            I’m still not sure why she did it, when she could have kept quiet on the whole thing until after the election. The only explanation I can think of is that she was overconfident about her chances, and wanted to get it out there beforehand so she could claim to have a mandate for it.

            1. aab

              Because she really, really wanted to win with affluent Republicans. The mandate claim is possible, but I wonder if they’re even competent enough to think like that. I really think the elite insiders running the campaign (down to the unpaid interns) did not understand what was wrong with that idea. After all, they all love Wall Street. It’s where their friends work.

              1. Repugnican

                I just find it mesmerizing that up to this day they’ve managed to blame everything and everyone BUT her for why this election turned out the way it did. They told us to be “With Her” because she was the only one who could take on Donald Trump and win. They said you had to bite your tongue and support her, because if you didn’t, you were culpable in her loss.They promised us a wipeout in the style of Reagan ’84. Well that happened, alright. Donald Trump wiped the floor with this woman. And he did it by winning her states.

                In one night, she successfully undid what took her party decades to accomplish. Her desperate attempt at courting suburban Republicans and abandonment of working class Democrats since they were guaranteed to swing her way since TINA and there was no wayyyy they would go for a “racist, sexist,misogynistic deplorable” was the surest sign of arrogance, and only lead to her total humiliation when neither group showed up to vote for her. She is now directly responsible for letting Solid Blue strongholds like Michigan and Wisconsin turn Red, and turn Red for a Reality-TV star fronting as a Republican. She. lost. to. a. ce-leb-rity.

                Not only has the Democratic Party lost the White House, but also the House and the Senate. Let that sink in. So now Democrats have been shut of the Executive and Legislative Branches, AND the Supreme Court, and its all thanks to the hard efforts of Team Hillary Clinton. All in one night. Unbelievable. There should be an award for this kind of political Seppeku.

                1. Lambert Strether

                  > I just find it mesmerizing that up to this day they’ve managed to blame everything and everyone BUT her for why this election turned out the way it did.

                  And they aren’t sitting down. And they aren’t shutting up. 2016 continues to be extraordinary.

              2. Repugnican

                I just find it mesmerizing that up to this day they’ve managed to blame everything and everyone BUT her for why this election turned out the way it did. They told us to be “With Her” because she was the only one who could take on Donald Trump and win. They said you had to bite your tongue and supporter, because if you didn’t, you were culpable in her loss.They promised us a wipeout in the style of Reagan ’84. Well that happened, alright. Donald Trump wiped the floor with this woman. And he did it by winning her states.

                In one night, she successfully undid what took her party decades to accomplish. Her desperate attempt at courting suburban Republicans and abandonment of working class Democrats since they were guaranteed to swing her way since TINA and there was no wayyyy they would go for a “racist, sexist,misogynistic deplorable” was the surest sign of arrogance, and only lead to her total humiliation when neither group showed up to vote for her. She is now directly responsible for letting Solid Blue strongholds like Michigan and Wisconsin turn Red, and turn Red for a Reality-TV star fronting as a Republican. She. lost. to. a. ce-leb-rity.

                Not only has the Democratic Party lost the White House, but also the House and the Senate. Let that sink in. So now Democrats have been shut of the Executive and Legislative Branches, AND the Supreme Court, and its all thanks to the hard efforts of Team Hillary Clinton. In one night. There should be an award for this kind of unbelievable political Seppeku.

    5. CLBasso

      And so it begins. The hateful name-calling. That’s how it’s done: hey I don’t like what you said. Therefore I get to call you names. Because that’s what we get to do now. “simmering, useless fucks” indeed. Terrific insight

      1. ewmayer

        In case it helps, he said the useless fucks were “simpering”, not “simmering”. :) Look, given that Trump was the Schadenfreude candidate for so many of us after the DNC/HRC crooks so blatantly cheated Bernie out of the Dem nomination, ya gotta expect that some folks are going to express said Schadenfreude in more strident taking-names terms than those of a more diplomatic or merely tittering-with-guilt-edged-glee bent . It’s a big tent! “Useless fucks” is only a blunter form of “useless eaters”, and we know with 100% certainty that the people he derides pay no heed to politer forms of contrary messaging. Sometimes a well-thrown F-bomb can work wonders.

    6. Jess

      Instead of Sanders to head the DNC, how about Alan Grayson? He’s out of office and would surely love to castrate and behead all those current DNC honchos.

      1. shargash

        In almost any area of life but politics, the dismal performance of Democrats over the last three election cycles would mandate a thorough housecleaning. Like a sports team that went from winning the championship to the basement in three seasons, the Ds need to clean house. Everyone should go, bring in new blood, and try to rebuild. But this is politics, so I fear there will be a lot of soul searching, the result of which will be that the leadership did nothing wrong, except maybe be too liberal.

  4. I Have Strange Dreams

    As a European I breath a huge sigh of relief that Clintoon did not get it in. I really hope Trump follows through on his foreign policy pledges. The EU needs to build a partnership with Russia and get its own house in order.

    1. PlutoniumKun

      Exactly. This is brilliant news for Europeans. Senior European politicians and the markets are horrified, which should be good news for everyone. Europe has no choice now but to stand on its own feet, stop hiding behind Nato and the last remains of Imperialism (last seen with the French and British joyfully bombing Libya) and realise they have to come to a grown up accommodation with its eastern and southern neighbours. That means not depending on the US umbrella for military protection, recognising legitimate Russian interests, and seeking genuine peace in north Africa and the Middle East.

      And economically, if Trump does (as seem likely) pursue fiscal expansion through infrastructure growth and tax cuts, while simultaneously cracking down on imports, then the EU might have little option but to throw off the German obsession with exports and start some proper domestic demand boosting.

      And ironically, Trumps climate change denialism might be the final death for the sort of ‘soft’ denialism which has embraced Europe, convinced that it is a ‘good guy’ in this while in reality doing very little. Hopefully Europe will feel it has no choice but to take a lead.

      1. Ignacio

        The outcome will undoubtely have an effect on the “alliance of the deplorables” of Europe (Farage, Le Pen, and the like). In my opinion there is only one thing that the EU is doing almost rigth (although it should be pushing much harder): climate change preventing action. Perhaps, the driver is energy dependence rather than climate change fear but policies are in place and gaining ground. Soft denialists presiding in countries like Spain (Rajoy) just do what they can to delay measures imposed by the EU. In this sense, the EU is leading the way while national leaders are the laggards.

        Besides, it is very hypocritical that the EU tries to push simultaneously for climate change figthing measures and austerity.

      2. Maybe...

        In his victory speech, he mentioned about war that US will be friends with those “who wants to be friends”. Gives a lot of leeway to keep on killing as usual. On thursday obama most likely will lay down the land for him regarding the imperative of generate chaos everywhere. When i checked this morning Lockheed Martin stock price hardly moved.

        EU – refugee management is privatized and Soros has invested 500MUSD in the refugee business so we shouldnt expect the end of war very soon.

        It would be beautiful would he actually disengage from the wars, have NATO remove the 300k soldiers in Europe.

        In the choice between dysentery and cholera, the razorthin chance of Trump actually would do something different than Lady Macbeth, was the thing that made him better than the Clinton-promise of perpetual war.

        Still he will rape the US population by tax-cuts and don’t be surprised if Trump-related companies get to update the infrastructure.

        He didn’t even allude to “drain the swamp” in his speech.

        1. ggm

          Drain the swamp and lock her up had no place in his victory speech since that would amount to tastelessly kicking them while they are down. I wouldn’t read too much into those omissions.

    2. Ohnoyoucantdothat

      First some context: I live in Crimea. I’ve been here, most of the time, for the last 11+ years. Went thru Maidan, the Russian ‘invasion’, the referendum and eventual union with Russia. I’m currently dealing with the sanctions which have all but cut off access to my funds in US. So these comments are colored by that history.

      1. Russians rarely smile in public. Riding public transport is akin to attending a funeral. But lately it’s been much worse. We’ve been very much on a conflict footing of late and the sadness has been overwhelming. This morning, for the first time, people are smiling. TV commentators, not known for their happy demeanor, are almost giddy. And the politicians have big smiles. There is hope in the air. Hope that doesn’t crash into some alternate reality once Trump is in office.

      2. On the flip side, there are rumors that Poroshenko, the Ukrainian president, is drinking heavily. He just lost his biggest champion and will probably kiss Nuland goodbye in the near future. The Ukrainian position just went into the proverbial shitter. As they are already a failing state I see little to be optimistic about in their future. NATO membership is probably off the table as is the EU. Truly sad how Nuland and others used them for their nefarious game with Russia.

      3. I’m conflicted by all this. Trump is no savior by any stretch. I’ve got big issues with his positions but the same problem with Clinton. If he protects SS and if he resets the relationship with Russia I’ll be happy but I’m not deluded that he will be transformational. At best, he tears the Washington consensus apart and runs the neocons out of town. Maybe he discovers MMT and destroys all this balanced budget crap. And maybe he provides space for a true resurgence of the left. Wouldn’t that be nice?

      1. Whine Country

        You make an interesting point about hope. I would say that even though hope might not be expressed so openly in the US I believe that Trump is the one who you can have some hope in Clinton was going to be exactly like what we have experienced for the previous three presidential cycles, a sock puppet only slightly off center and controlled by the oligarchs. We know precisely what she would do as President. With Trump, everyone is guessing but at least for the moment we can all hope that he will rise to the occasion.

        1. Ohnoyoucantdothat

          There are many political shows on Russian TV. Nothing as cordial as Face the Nation. They invite politicians from all the competing parties and let them argue about issues of the day. They tend to all yell at once so it’s not unusual to have 3 or 4 people pushing their position at the same time. I can’t follow them but my wife seems to get it. Over the last several months all the programs have been focused on Syria and the US election. Everyone was concerned about Clinton and what she would do. Her insane ‘No Fly Zone’ was a big problem because no one thought Putin would back down. Neither did I. Not his style at all. It would have led to a big confrontation. Hoping the neocons don’t convince Trump to go there.

          Did you know that they were conducting civil defence drills in Moscow and elsewhere? That’s how serious they took the threat. People were genuinely frightened that a war would start. My wife among them. We had even started talking about how to get out of here. We live maybe 50 miles from Sevastopol and I’m sure it would be a primary target.

          As for the sanctions, they target the little people as always. Banks that have branches in Crimea have lost all access to money transfer services. No Western Union, no VISA/Mastercard and no SWIFT. I’m forced to return home every spring to pick up a years worth of cash. Not the best way to get money.

          Have to stop. Tablet battery is fast going. More later.

          1. Foy

            It’s great to read these reports of yours from on the ground Ohnoyoucantdothat. I really appreciate these types of comments, hope to see more in the future. Yep, sanctions only hurt the little people…

      2. AnnaZimmerman

        Your account of how sad and frightened ordinary Russians have been actually made me cry. Thank you for sharing this.

      3. jawbone

        Fascinating comment. Please bring us more info about what’s happening in the Crimea.

        I did fear Hillary using ever more draconian financial sanctions against Russia, probably also bearing down on Iran and any other non-kowtowing countries. The US seems able to gin up rationals for just about any actions it wants to take against other nations.

      4. Waldenpond

        Thanks for the feedback. Is there any reporting on the expected move by Nato to put troops in Ukraine in January?

        1. Chrysanthemum

          That was not the rumor as I heard it. It was a project to be able to call activate and deploy as many as 300,000 European troops within a three month time frame should exigencies arise. Something they are not nearly able to do at present.

          Into Ukraine? Not as I heard it. Posturing by Stoltenberg and Brits. Scaring everyone sick as usual.

          1. Yves Smith Post author

            If you “heard” it by definition, it’s a rumor. We aren’t keen about them unless you give an idea of who the source was and why it should be deemed to be credible.

  5. Chris

    Yes, the people don’t like her much, which is probably good.

    Who knows what extra percentage Don got from NC’s blog? It’d be a bit, eh? Good on you Yves.

    Might be all for shit, but I think we all know what the world has just avoided.

    1. Yves Smith Post author

      No, I doubt we persuaded anyone. Those who hated both candidates but believed, to use Glen Ford’s formulation, that Trump might be the less effective evil, had very few places to find the like-minded. And there were very many in the commentariat who agreed Clinton was terrible but still could not pull the lever for Trump.

      1. Cry Shop

        I agree that your impact on readers directly probably was just to firm up already held convictions with more facts, but don’t under estimate the impact these facts might have had on giving confidence to them to speak out. When people who are known for integrity in their community put out an opinion, supported with detailed facts, it can persuade – much more effectively per unit of energy than mass media.

        That’s why I think you hit the nail on the head with your Links post with regard to the feedback from the Dallas meeting. It’s important to provide data integrated into tested tools of persuasion, particularly for those who want to be led instead of lead.

      2. Massinissa

        “but still could not pull the lever for Trump.”

        Thats me. I wanted Trump to win but I had to vote in Stein. Wouldnt have been able to live with myself if I had voted for either duopoly candidate.

        1. shargash

          Me too. Lesserevilism only works (when it works at all) when it is a metaphor. I only made up my mind the day before the election that I couldn’t vote for Trump. Today I am at peace with myself.

      3. Morgan Phillips

        I happily pulled the lever for Trump. Actually, more filled in the appropriate bubble with a marker, but either way it didn’t matter as a Massachusetts resident. However, on a happier note we had a banner year for ballot initiatives – Yes to pot, no to charters, no to slot parlors and yes to more humane treatment of animals.

      4. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

        “What the world has avoided” is the institution of single-party rule in the US, delivered via the destruction of the very instruments of our democracy, including the press, extending to the law of the land, and the entire party structure. I think it’s a sad day for America but a real celebration for American democracy. My guess is that less than 10% of people voted for Trump because of hard-core racism, to see the ridiculous “Dem” powers that be say that’s entirely what this is about is denial of the very highest order.

        1. redleg

          My wife, being too distraught to talk to me at all this morning, upset our kids with her doom/gloom over the election outcome.
          I told my kids that Trump won because more people voted against Clinton than against Trump, and not to interpret anyone’s support for one candidate or another as being bad people (like my spouse told them a few minutes earlier).
          Drama in the redleg house. Even my spouse is hippy punching because I vociferously denounced Clinton for Stein. I hope the kids listen to me more than their mother on this issue, or its going to be a tough holiday season with the red-state relatives.

          1. pricklyone

            Of course, more people voted FOR Clinton, than Trump. So what “evidence” can anyone provide that these votes were against anyone, unless you have access to the mind of every voter?

      5. notabanker

        H/T to this site for the discussion on political ad signs many moons ago (and continuing throughout). Over the last few months I have spent quite a bit of time driving through NE Ohio, NW PA and far west NY. I ventured from the edge of suburbia to Amish country in the south and wine country towards Canada.

        It was an extremely rare occurrence to see ONE Clinton sign on a trip. You could drive for 100 miles and not see one. Or see the one lonely bastion on the side of a busy freeway, obviously a targeted placement. Only to see three or four bigger obvious placement Trump signs immediately before and after.

        My wife and I discussed it frequently, to say it was conspicuous is an understatement.

        1. JW

          You know, no one around me had signs up. I think the awareness of severe polarization is the main driver, then, that both candidates were so flawed that few would risk vandalism (and these are $700k+ houses) for the idiot of their choice.

  6. PlutoniumKun

    I just got out of bed, deliberately didn’t look at any news last night or listen to the radio. I was convinced it would be a narrow win for Hilary, she had too many inbaked advantages. I have to admit my first reaction on hearing the news was a deep belly laugh. Trump stands for everything I loath, but the world desperately needs an enema to clear out the rottenness, starting with ‘the leader of the free world’. Trump won’t do it, but he is the catalyst who can lead to the disembowelment of existing US political structures, and will terrify European and Asian elites into reforms.

    He might of course also start a nuclear war for the lols, but he’s no more likely to do that than good old Clinton.

    1. Cry Shop

      Agree in general, but I don’t think Trump is a catalyst (an accelerator/enabler of the reaction) but one of many toxic end products (Xi, Mody, etc. etc.) produced by an unbalanced system abused for far too long/

      1. PlutoniumKun

        Yes, well, metaphors can only take us so far. Realistically, Trump will give yet more tax cuts to the rich, probably screw up the world economy and is a disaster for the climate. But… at least that gives four years for a proper opposition to develop in the US and the rest of the world to realise that its leaders (especially in Europe) must enact deep change if the same things aren’t going to happen to them.

        I realise of course that there is just as much chance of the opposite happening – the likes of Le Pen coming to power in France, Russia becoming more aggressive, the Saudi’s taking greater risks with war, China falling into recession and taking refuge in nationalism, the Paris agreement on CO2 emissions falling apart…. but there was just as much a chance of that with Clinton in charge. Basically, when Sanders fell short it was obvious the world was in for a very grim 4-5 years at least.

        1. Kate Sims

          Do you think this newly elected gang of criminals will ever allow another election to happen, if there’s any chance they might lose? Hillary Clinton and her husband richly deserved to lose for all their sins (mainly Bill’s), but they are not an existential threat to such democracy as we have left. Trump, Christie, Giuliani and Ailes are.

        2. Brian Daly

          OMG, do you really think the economicaly devastated denizens of Red America have it within themselves to form a proper “opposition”? Why would that happen four years from now? You’re talking about the kind of people who have health insurance only because of the ACA who think the ACA is the worst thing ever. People are really like this. I’m not seeing a current of rational political thinking sweeping through the Midwest anytime…well, ever to be frank.

          1. IdahoSpud

            Ah yes the vaunted ACA…. as though cutting a big check to an insurance company every month guarantees you access to decent healthcare.

            If you have a Yuuuuge deductible, you pretty much don’t have health coverage, yes?

            Red America, and people who aren’t partisan hacks, clearly see the ACA for the fleecing that it is.

            1. tongorad

              If you have a Yuuuuge deductible, you pretty much don’t have health coverage, yes?

              Exactly. My employer’s insurance scheme offers an additional cancer package. WTF am I paying all this money for if it doesn’t even cover that?

              We’re all being mugged.

        3. AnnaZimmerman

          Russia ‘becoming more aggressive’?? Funny, I’ve not heard any reports of Russian tanks/missiles lining up across the Mexican border.

          1. PlutoniumKun

            No, but they have moved medium ranged missiles to Kalingrad.

            Russia didn’t start this – Nuland and Clinton and her crew did it in the Ukraine and Syria. But the Russians have been making very aggressive moves along the borders in Europe, both as a direct response to Nato moves, and also clearly intending to rattle the Poles and Germans..

        4. Binky

          How can effective opposition to government programs form in an environment with total communications surveillance?

          1. subgenius

            You operate in the cracks. Admittedly, it takes a bit of knowledge and imagination. I recommend that the general population starts exploring these spheres…

    2. Big River Bandido

      I just got out of bed, deliberately didn’t look at any news last night or listen to the radio. I was convinced it would be a narrow win for Hilary, she had too many inbaked advantages. I have to admit my first reaction on hearing the news was a deep belly laugh.

      I work out of town every Tuesday and Wednesday, and usually when work is done I’m exhausted and knock out by 9PM. Such was the case last night, and like you, I ignored the media. I only just now heard the news from my partner, and my first response was the same as yours.

      The people already lost this election 6 months ago, when the corrupt Democrats rigged their nomination process against the most popular politician in America. I’m not glad Trump won. But I sure am glad that the Clintons and their worthless, soulless syncophants lost.

      1. Katharine

        >The people already lost this election 6 months ago, when the corrupt Democrats rigged their nomination process against the most popular politician in America.

        Exactly. And the one thing you won’t see amid all the breast-beating in the mainstream media is anyone taking responsibility for their part in undermining Bernie’s campaign and promoting Trump’s.

        1. Big River Bandido

          On that note, I chose to glance at DailyKos for the first time in 9 months, and got a hearty laugh. One of their front pagers has a post up that Jill Stein’s vote total in Michigan is greater than Trump’s margin of victory there.

          IOW, they’re hoping to use the “Nader” meme again. I think it won’t work this time.

          1. Patricia

            Michigan hasn’t been called yet–a few liberal precincts still to be counted. Trump won without MI.

            Plus three times as many Johnson votes as Stein. But unlike Greens, Libertarians own their votes. Apparently

          2. Nippermom

            Unfortunately for those trying to make that disingenuous argument, Trump clearly reached the required 270 electoral votes before Michigan was factored into the equation. But then, the party apologists never trouble themselves with facts.

          3. Lee

            I also took a peek at Daily Kos today for the first time in months. What Kos et al did to Sanders and his supporters on that site was disgusting and unconscionable. I have to admit, seeing them now with their hair on fire is sweet, sweet schadenfreude.

            1. Aumua

              I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, it is truly, deeply gratifying to see ‘them’ get checked so hard here. Especially the main stream media.. those lying fucking bastards with their non-stop mind control propaganda this whole election cycle. Just yesterday, it was “Clinton has a 90% chance of winning”, the not so subliminal subtext being “It’s hopeless, give up, she’s already won”. All based on useless, bullshit, lying ‘polls’. Don’t even get me started on Those Nefarious Russians.. You know, the elites really pulled out all the stops to get Clinton in there, and it didn’t work. That in itself is kind of scary, because you got to think what is their reaction going to be? They know their control is slipping.

              And now of course on the other hand, as the giddiness of seeing them defeated wears off, the reality is going to start to sink in of what “great things” Trump has planned for the U.S., and what he truly represents for America, and for Humanity. I still have hope that the bigotry, division, and hatred is rearing it’s head more fully now, so that we can finally take one last good look at it, and decide together that we don’t need that any more as a species. I will admit I’m an idealist that way, but things are still looking worse than ever for team Humanity today.

              1. Binky

                It is the 79th anniversary of Kristallnacht and the 83rd anniversary of the Beer Hall Putsch. The philosophy of that political movement was inspired by US and British industry, colonial practice and ideology. That government gave Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford medals for their contributions.

                I’m sure it won’t end up like a Philip Roth or Sinclair Lewis novel this time, though.

        2. PlutoniumKun

          Exactly. And the one thing you won’t see amid all the breast-beating in the mainstream media is anyone taking responsibility for their part in undermining Bernie’s campaign and promoting Trump’s.

          I had to laugh at the Guardian this morning running Thomas Franks excellent analysis of what went wrong, and then adding a paragraph at the bottom asking for contributions to continue its journalism. The sheer tone deafness of the Guardian thinking that its readers don’t see that its disgraceful coverage of Sanders was one of the biggest reasons for Trumps triumph would be funny if it wasn’t so ridiculous.

    3. Tom

      I’m wondering if maybe, just maybe, Trump will shatter the low expectations of his Presidency and actually do a good job of it. I just watched his victory speech and the tone and humility — and yes, even graciousness — of his remarks were spot on.
      Once the “end of the world” blubbering settles down and he takes office and gets down to business, I wouldn’t be surprised if he surprises us all again.

      1. Annotherone

        @ Tom…Ye gods! Isn’t all the the “end of world blubbering” terrible though?! I’m as lefty as they come, former Sanders supporter, but I’m willing to give Trump a chance – for a while anyway. I hope I’d have been willing to give Clinton a chance, for a while too. I have a gut feeling that Donald Trump could surprise us yet (and in a good-ish way) .

        1. NotTimothyGeithner

          Give Trump a chance? Did you people learn nothing from Obama? These people only understand constant pressure.

          1. juliania

            Excuse me? Obama ignored ‘constant pressure’. Not to have a continuance of the false Democratic regime is a huge relief. A cancer has been on the presidency. Whether that has been replaced by a national binge fest is something we will have to wait to see, and the knives will be out very early on, just as they have been in Great Britain. “These people” do fight back, you can bet on that.

            To me, Trump has the vulnerabilities of a Yeltsin figure. But he’s not Obama; he’s not either of the Clintons. And he’s not “these people.” Russians had a horrible time under Yeltsin, but their eyes were opened, and at the very least they now have leadership that is concerned about the people it governs.

            We haven’t had that in a long time. We mightn’t get it yet. But it is worth fighting for.

            1. nycTerrierist

              “Excuse me? Obama ignored ‘constant pressure’. Not to have a continuance of the false Democratic regime is a huge relief.”

              Great point. Helpful and clarifying to lose that extra layer of mendacity.

            2. Foy

              “To me, Trump has the vulnerabilities of a Yeltsin figure”

              Yelstin was a drunk, Trump has never had a drink apparently, big difference right there.

        2. shargash

          Trump’s problem is that he has zero constituency in what could be called the Parliamentary Republican Party. He really is a RINO (a life-long Democrat, by most accounts, until he decided to run for president).

          IMO, this will prevent him from reaching out to work with the Democrats. The Democrats in turn will do their best to wreck his presidency. This will drive him into the arms of the legacy Republican party.

          I expect him to govern as a traditional Republican, with a few bones tossed to his base. This is a shame, because there could have been an alliance, at least on some issues, between the Bernie base and the Trump base. But you have to have congresscritters to have an alliance.

        3. redleg

          Perhaps congress will grow a spine and start checking/balancing the executive.

          That might be worth it all by itself.

      2. Otis B Driftwood

        Right, maybe we’ll get the flip side of the “hope” we all felt after Obama’s election in ’08, as it was swiftly followed with disappointment. This morning I feel dread and it would good if that expectation were 180 degrees wrong, too.

  7. Kulantan

    I think that the question of “to build or take over” is a bit of a false dichotomy. The American Left need a new party either way. To reform an institution requires pressure in the right direction from inside and outside. Otherwise the Democrats can keep telling themselves that the Left has no alternative (and after four years of Trump, they might be right).

    I like the sound of Occupy the Nation.

    1. Lee

      Reforming the Dem party would require the current leadership giving up all that squillionaire campaign loot and those cushy private sector lobbying jobs. If only someone could come up with an alternative campaign fundraising model. Oh, wait….

  8. uncle tungsten

    Thanks Yves, it is mighty important to consider that the Democrat machinery is well worth retaining, it has a vast effective infrastructure but a horribly corrupted root and branch system. Perhaps it could be systematically reformed to the extent of being electable again, but the contacts it has broken with its people will need to be honored in that reformation.

    Jeremy Corbyn and the British Labour Party are on that journey right now with their ‘Momentum’ equivalent of ‘Our revolution’.

    1. Clive

      I’d exercise a tad of caution about that line of thinking. I did think the same. What I hadn’t counted on what the tenacity of what we call here “the establishment” (a shorthand I don’t like using but it will have to suffice for the sake of brevity) to utilise the Mighty Media Wurlitzer, the pundits, the credential’ed classes, gerrymandering and good old fashioned sheer bloody nerve to mount a surprisingly effective counter-counter-revoluton.

      Even with Corbyn as leader, we’ve had palace coups attempted, local parties (like mine here in Hampshire) muzzled, procedural ruses, party member voter suppression (only “full” i.e. top whack membership fee paying members allowed to vote) — and that’s just off the top of my head.

      So, my earlier naively has given way to a more realistic, if pessimistic, assessment.

      1. aab

        I have been envying the British system, because the Red Tories were unable to stop Corbyn’s rise. But it will be interesting to see where the two systems end up in a few years. Is it possible the left will have a clearer path to an actual return to governing in the states? I wouldn’t place or take bets on the outcome. But it will be interesting.

      2. PlutoniumKun

        I think the UK shares with the US the poison of the single non-transferable vote system. This makes establishing new parties incredibly difficult, so ‘entryism’ is the only real alternative. But as you say, there is incredible momentum behind older organisational structures. Progress can only be made when key people are put into positions of administrative control.

        Incidentally, I was reading Thomas Franks excellent article in the Guardian this morning and noted the total tone deafness of the Guardian asking for readers contribution for its journalism underneath. One start for the UK left would be to make it very clear to the supposed main left leaning newspaper in the country that it won’t get a penny from most of its readers until it clears out the Clinton propagandists that have destroyed its reputation in the last year (starting with its editor). Its coverage of Sanders was a disgrace.

        1. Clive

          I agree — “first past the post” (or variants like the U.S. Electoral College system) are a big impediment to new parties and promote / sustain two party politics. But that said, proportional electoral systems (like Japan’s god-awful mish mash) also seem to end up coalescing around notionally left-wing / right-wing party power blocks too. Similarly the Republic of Ireland with its Fianna Fail / Fine Gael Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. But not to quite the same degree as the U.S. where I’d say you’re spot-on — the edifices are so embedded that the barriers to entry seem insurmountable.

          I suppose the main contrast is Germany (and, for comic relief, Italy too) with their rag bag of squidgy centrists, deep blue nationalists, deep green environmentalists plus the inevitable guy who got into parliament on the policy platform that it was every citizen’s right to be able to be allowed to sodomise a donkey in the Trevi Fountain.

          I’m really not sure, on balance, which system is worse. My thinking is perhaps too coloured by the Liberal Democrats, here in the UK, which despite no Proportional Representation, did manage to get into (coalition) government. And then promptly betrayed everyone and everything they ever purported to stand for in their Grand Bargaining with the Conservatives. It all led me to conclude it was the parties that are the problems, not the electoral systems per se.

          Also agree totally about the Guardian, by the way, Reading the comments did wonders for restoring my faith in people’s ability to be discerning.

          1. PlutoniumKun

            Yes, I get that, although I would argue that the electoral system does fundamentally change electoral discourse. Japan of course is hampered with a system (a present from the US Occupation) that gives disproportionate power to rural constituencies, which (along with other aspects of Japanese society) results in a deeply conservative inbuilt majority. I would argue that the Irish system results in more economically left wing governments than would be the case if Ireland had first past the post (leaving to one side social issues, where Ireland has been deeply conservative). Up until about 15 years ago the electoral majority in Ireland were rural dwellers, and as a land owning society there is a huge built in conservative majority. But the moderating influence of regular minority left/green parties has prevented either FG or FF from ‘campaigning from the left, ruling from the right’ as has become the norm elsewhere.

            Despite its inbuilt conservativism, the electoral system has resulted in (I would argue) more genuine left and green voices in Parliament than there are in the UK. This has been a strong force preventing either FG or FF from opting for populist right wing policies in economics, foreign policy, or immigration. Both have to pay lip service to welfare, health and so on. Its not perfect, but I think if Ireland had first past the post (and in times past, FF tried very hard to impose that system), it would have had a much more conservative series of governments (again, in terms of economics and foreign policy, not social policy). Ireland, for example, has never had governments as overtly economically right wing as the UK, Canada or Australia have had recently, and these are countries with far bigger urban votes, and urban working class voters.

          2. susan the other

            Clive, this morning’s headlines have more than a few western leaders claiming it is “the end of an era” – that of neoliberalism. But neoliberalism ended when it came to a stop in a big log jam of political paralysis. I don’t want to be optimistic because the Donald doesn’t reassure me much but I will say this: If he does his usual stuff he will get things moving again. That sounds too simple to be important but I think it is enormous. We know that Obama and Hillary were working toward private public partnerships to get the ball rolling again and that they talked like they were environmentalists. Trump will do similarly but with tax cuts. The thought of PPPs made me nervous because it was just more elitist power concentration, group think log jam. The one thing Trump said that gave me a small sense of optimism was that he wanted to clean up the environment; he wanted “crystal clear water and clean clear air”. He is avoiding the whole subject of GW but if the world cleans up the air and the water it will be a giant step forward. Trump can facilitate this in his infrastructure program – build it yes, but build it clean and leave it cleaner than you found it. Here’s hoping.

            1. Clive

              Yes, you’re not wrong. It (neoliberalism) is, I believe, dead. I figured myself it had died with the Brexit vote, that was when I knew it needed the last rites reading.

              But like the eponymous parrot in the Monty Python sketch, there’s plenty of pet shop proprietors telling incredulous onlookers that it’s still alive. When their numbers reduce (they’ll never disappear entirely) and they get more universal derision (you don’t just here it in places like the Naked Capitalism commentariat for example) then progress might be possible. Like you, I keep hoping.

              1. Uahsenaa

                Beware of dead things. As Nietzsche was quick to add to his death of God pronouncement, they have a tendency to cast a long shadow, which has certainly been the case with Blairites/Brownites in the Labour party. They have a bad habit, like zombies, of being reanimated at the worst possible moments.

      3. efschumacher

        Well, Trump doesn’t like TPP. TTIP is dead. Britain is looking for big trade deals, and Trump likes Britain and respects Brexit. Maybe the UK just leapt to the front of the queue, and the biggest Trade Deal of all is possible (without ISDS).

        Notwithstanding all other sturm und drang, I’m still planning to come home next year. Well, Yorkshire anyway.

      4. Ignacio

        Let me suggest, instead of the “establishment”, a Clintonian “alliance of the comfortable”

    2. Alex

      I agree on the need for organizational infrastructure, but I think Sanders demonstrated that something remarkably effective can be built quite quickly essentially outside the existing system. He got amazingly close, given the powers arrayed against him.

      1. PlutoniumKun

        Sanders got a lot of opprobrium for his support for Clinton, but maybe, just maybe, he has played this very cleverly.

        He is in an excellent position now to lead an internal revolution within the Dems. He has both mass popular support, and an increasingly strong position (along with Warren) inside the party. Lets hope he realises that he now has a position of great strength to ensure that there is a real internal revolution.

        1. hemeantwell

          At this point I’m inclined to agree. A Sanders-based purging of the Democratic party would legitimately send a signal to disaffected working and middle class voters that they have an alternative to Trump Republicanism as the inevitable disappointments pile up.

        2. Cry Shop

          What worries me is Sanders, or rather what he symbolizes. He’s it. There is no one else in our government organs anywhere who has his clarity and ethics, and he’s no spring chicken. Gabbard, others are well meaning, but lack his political skills. Warren is another neo-liberal who believes in the market, she just wants it a transparent market. Where is the future leadership going to come from?

          Actually I should stop worrying, but I keep hoping against all hope that we’re not about to do the species in when every indication is we’re actively paddling toward Niagara Falls.

          1. PlutoniumKun

            Yes, that’s the problem isn’t it? The Dems have so successfully purged themselves of real progressives there is nobody left to lead the revolution. Its very sad that you can – quite literally – list on the fingers of one hand senior Dems that you could trust to do the right thing. Essentially, that’s the list of senior Dems who had the courage to support Sanders.

            So the odds are against him. But he has his list and his grassroots supporters. So far, he’s proven very astute at playing a very weak hand. Lets hope he continues like this.

            1. Alex

              I think Trump just demonstrated you can get quite far with very little existing party support, even against an arguably stronger central party organisation (although the Tea Party weakened that a bit).

              Institutional momentum is thankfully not a law of physics.

      2. Arizona Slim

        Remarkably effective? Really?

        I was a Sanders volunteer, and I saw the incompetence of the campaign management up close. Here’s one example:

        On Sunday, February 28, I proudly mailed my primary ballot. My next stop was a Sanders phone banking party.

        When I got to the party host’s house, a sign on the door said that the party had been moved to the just-opened Tucson campaign headquarters. So, I hopped back on my bike and pedaled over there.

        When I got to the HQ, the front door was unlocked, but not a soul was inside the building. No sign of a phone banking party that was about to happen. Matter of fact, the place barely had a stick of furniture.

        After a few minutes, I realized that this phone banking party wasn’t going to happen, and I left.

        Mind you, the Sanders HQ was just a few steps away from the University of Arizona campus. And, if you’ve been around the UA for more than five minutes, you’ll know that it’s the property theft capital of Tucson. You do NOT leave doors unlocked and offices unattended.

        It was at that moment that I learned just how competent the much-vaunted Bernie campaign management really was.

        I could go on with stories from other local volunteers, but I think that mine is enough.

        1. Alex

          I think your post reinforces my point. Even with as much disorganisation as you cite, Sanders, in comparatively little time and using almost exclusively small donors, built real support that got him within striking distance of Clinton (who felt massively threatened by his popularity).

          By effective I meant the impact, measured in primary votes, against the investment required.

          I’d also add the Podesta mails reveal that the DNC also have no idea how to run a campaign. If anything, they’re too organised, and have no layers of what I would term ideological resilience.

  9. aab

    I am flattered I was quoted in this piece. I cherish Naked Capitalism. I was beating myself up for days that my fundraising post didn’t get much traction; I know the money kept rolling in, but I wasn’t sure I actually added any value to that process, and I really wanted to.

    I have learned so much from this site, and it helped keep me sane during this long, hideous campaign. Thank you Yves, Lambert, and every single commenter for enriching my intellectual life every day.

    1. dk

      Back at ya, aab.

      And double to Yves and Lambert, and Jerri-Lynn, too. The level of articles and discussion around here was head and shoulders above the pack. When the going gets murky, the clear eyed need to keep talking.

    2. aab

      And Jerri-Lynn! Sorry. I was migraining AND sick with a cold for election day, and now it’s the middle of the night. Keep the Obamamometer analysis coming.

      1. Cry Shop

        +1 Yes, Obama has more than a small part in this whole debacle. His ego could not handle Sander’s relative honesty.

    3. Uahsenaa

      I think we all add, and we all add by trying to remain sane in the midst of what are, on the face of them, crazy times. We add by taking each other seriously, even when we disagree, which is why the commentariat here is so remarkable. There is the occasional throwing the toys out of the pram, but I like that it’s taken in stride and rarely devolves into shouting and name calling.

  10. Strategist

    Great piece, great insights. Many thanks.
    From here in London, it feels exactly like Brexit morning, 24 June 2016. The left behind have given a giant f— you to the system, and in doing so have given power to some people without a plan, and who seem highly unlikely to deliver results for them.

    1. makedoanmend

      I know what you’re saying and agree. I really do.

      However, the other side had a plan (loosely called neo-liberalism) and we’re going to continue to implement it one way or another. This c. 40 year old plan, coupled with its recent incarnation ‘austerity’, is delivering misery every day to most people directly or indirectly.

      Nothing changed today except we went from a slow boil for most people into the deep fat frier, imo.

      What’s a voter to do? Beg to be slow boiled again?

      Or do people in a democracy start to demand democratic remedies – in the body politic, the economic and the cultural spheres?

      I supposed we all got work to do – but I ain’t putting my faith in any team any more. I want real people fighting for my corner from city hall to the chambers of national power.

      My new slogan is: “you want my vote, earn it pal”.

    2. Tom Allen

      It seems the DNC took a look at the losing anti-Brexit campaign and said, “Let’s do what they did. Surely it will work out differently!”

  11. Marco

    The poisoned chalice of identity politics on full display as Van Jones calls the election result a “White Lash” right from the CNN pulpit. Team D will never change.

  12. Faye Carr

    Thank you Yves. A link to this will be my one consistant comment and response in my social media day. With the tag line:
    “Yes, what she said.”

  13. Pavel

    Woke up this morning in France at 8AM and read the news. Just like Brexit. Well, at least the DNC is toast. I see already the MSM is realising that, guess what, given a choice between a hateful, distrusted outsider and a hateful, distrusted uber-establishment figure they’ll take the outsider.

  14. Rajesh

    This election was a case of the “children” not wanting “daddy” to give away some of HIS family’s jewels to the needy stranger “non-whites”. It was about the majority wanting to hold on to their privileges. This was an election about a bunch of people wanting to hold on to the things they have inherited from their forefathers. Also now that America has struck oil it’s now OK to throw Muslims under the bus

      1. econoclasm

        Eh? It seems to me that Rajesh was making an interpretation, and as such the comment was no more “made up” than 95% of the comments on NC.

        Yes, Clinton was a terrible (and corrupt) candidate. But that and racism are not mutually exclusive explanations of this election result, no? People have all kinds of reasons for voting the way they do.

        Are folks to be threatened with house rules for positing that racism plays a role? Which sorts of interpretations are to be categorised as “making stuff up”, and which are OK?

        1. Yves Smith Post author

          Yes, I fully meant this to be a threat. We’ve had a lot of newbies disregarding our written site Policies. Lambert and I have seen the deterioration in the caliber of comments as a result, so cracking the whip is in order.

          He was offering a personal view as if it were fact. This site is not a chat board.

          Having someone run a variant of the talking points that lost the Dems the election is noise. If he had some data to substantiate his views, that might be different, but this is the “deplorables” meme that he appears to have internalized.

          1. Paul Art

            He is probably here on a H1-B and realizes that with Trump victorious he might have to pack up and leave after his 6 years is up.

          2. Rajesh

            I have expressed my views in a fashion similar to so many on nc but admittedly contrary to yours. I’m shocked at your response! The response above mine is also a bad one to make no?

            1. Big River Bandido

              Your point is just pure bullshit. This election was not decided by a surge of support for any particular set of policies — turnout and enthusiasm cratered everywhere.

              Clinton lost because the Democrats’ core constituencies — the very voters you claim to champion — disagreed with you. They certainly didn’t see Clinton as their champion, and couldn’t be bothered to come out and vote for her. Maybe if POC *had* supported Clinton in anywhere near the numbers they supported Obama, Gore, and Bill Clinton, *maybe* HRC would have had a chance. But they didn’t, because she simply wasn’t credible to them.

              Trying to read that result in the infantile way you did is just…infantile.

              1. Rajesh

                there were problem areas such as flint for example and maybe faith in democrats were lacking…but look they inherited a mess 8 years ago and large portions of the economy are doing so much better now. The other candidate didn’t have flawless credentials either. I’m not on a h1b by the way…Jesus Christ

                1. Nippermom

                  What portions of the economy would those be? The sectors that benefit the top 10%, perhaps. The rest of us are still seeing stagnant or even falling wages and rising costs in critical areas. Many people, especially those required to participate in the wonder that is Obama care, are seeing their health insurance (I won’t flatter it by calling it health care) costs skyrocket astronomically. Please don’t pretend the Democrats have done any better by the majority of Americans than the Republicans.

                2. pretzelattack

                  they inherited a mess, and in many ways made the mess worse. clinton was campaigning on continuing the same policies, despite her many backflips.

                3. Whine Country

                  How many times have we heard the expression, if you want change then you need to vote. It’s OK when we year after year vote for the same old, same old. People of all races, religions and every other belief joined to make a CHANGE. A knee jerk reaction that it was racially, or religion based is precisely the attitude that Democrat Party politics attempts to exploit, and now one of its proponents use the same stereotypical attitudes to disparage those who exercised their right to vote for who they choose, and MAKE A CHANGE. That’s supposed to be how we do things but unfortunately it is rarely the result. If any non-white group can be recognized as a group, demand respect and vote accordingly, what principle would deny whites from also doing so, whether they are rich or poor. We are Americans and we are all EQUAL. Rajesh, what part of equal do you not understand?

                4. Active Listener

                  Yes, now is not the time to start promoting the use of harmful racial stereotypes. There’s going to be enough of that bubbling up in the coming days. If anything positive is going to emerge from the Trump presidency, it’s going to require a collective effort to steer his energized electorate away from race- and gender-based scapegoating.

                  1. ChiGal in Carolina

                    This comment seems to acknowledge that Rajesh is correct but that focusing on what folks have in common is strategically more beneficial.

                    That said, the tectonic plate of demographic change is real and the loss of status/power is rarely accepted with grace.

                    1. Rajesh

                      i guess im guilty of going too far with the rhetoric… lets hope for peace and pray things get better now under Trump.

              1. Rajesh

                a black church was burnt and a guy in Des Moines shot 2 cops for throwing him out of a stadium where he was waving the confederate flag. There was also he David duke endorsement, banning Muslims and building the wall that prompted my post…look if you think I’m wrong that’s cool.

          3. Brad

            Disagree. When the smoke clears it will be easily established that the Trump vote slants decidedly on the “white” side, and there is a reason for that. Just as there was a reason why every white supremacist org out there lined up behind Trump. That is not the same as saying the Trump campaign itself was essentially white supremacist, but it is an objective fact and not mere interpretation.

            It’s the same reasoning behind the very expression “white working class” that people toss around so carelessly. It refers to a kind of *race privilege* when it comes to dishing out the jobs, housing, health care and so forth. Check out the stats, its very real. Its not open to interpretation. It’s why we never hear talk about a “black working class”. “Those people” don’t matter as workers. What’s been more officially “deplorable” in American history than the African-American?

            The problem of late is that white race privilege has grown less effective in bringing home the bacon. Hence part of the animus behind Trump has been the demand to restore that race privilege. Yet it is precisely the social blinders of that privilege that have been the most convenient foil enabling the liberal Democrats to throw these same people under the bus.

            Call that “interpretation” if you want, but white supremacy is only one of the fundamental threads of US history after all. It was invented here. Don’t see the point of ignoring such a profound historical *fact*.

            BTW, I was born and raised in a steel mill town on the east side of Baltimore Co. (the former Bethlehem Steel Shipyard at Sparrows Point, now all de-industrialized). All Black and White steelworkers. I worked half my adult working life in factory jobs. So I know all about where such people are coming from. It’s no big deal to grasp. For the record I voted for Jill Stein, though I think the Greens are a recruiting kindergarten for the Democrats.

            Like Rakesh said, “This was an election about a bunch of people wanting to hold on to the things they have inherited from their forefathers”. Rakesh is absolutely right on this. As in keep the land they stole for its original inhabitants. Don’t kid yourselves. Standing Rock is a fact. How’s the struggle of Native Americans “wanting to hold on to the things they have inherited from their forefathers” going to do under climate change denier Trump? I’ll leave the “interpretation” to you.

            Finally the “H1B” reference to Rakesh’s nationality in a previous comment is also a fact. A fact to be condemned here in no uncertain terms.

            1. hemeantwell

              Like Rakesh said, “This was an election about a bunch of people wanting to hold on to the things they have inherited from their forefathers”. Rakesh is absolutely right on this

              The way some people feel free to engage in sweeping characterizations of Trump supporters, even as they also acknowledge the polyglot character of his “platform,” is amazing. Sure, there are some people who see the route to preservation of their inheritance as the dawn of a new White Era. There are other people who are voting for economic nationalism for the same reason. One doesn’t entail the other. What is most stupefying about this “analysis” is that you blind yourself to the possibility of organizing to split his “coalition,” if you can call it that. Instead you encourage either indignant repudiation and passivity.

            2. Kurt Sperry

              Agreed, the “H1B” dig was beneath what I had thought this site was about. I was disappointed to see it remain in the comment string.

              1. Aumua

                Kind of proves the point, doesn’t it? These kind of comments will now get more of a pass, because that is the new national mood, as legitimized by our new president.

                So, I disagree with what Active Listener said, that now is not the time to promote the use of harmful stereotypes. I say, when in Rome..

          4. ChiGal in Carolina

            I really think we need to be able on this site to talk about the reality of demographic changes and their consequences without someone playing the identity politics card to cut off discussion.

            1. Whine Country

              I lived in Carolina for 8 years but not long enough to become as diplomatic as you ChiGal. To my mind Brad is just full of shit.

        2. aab

          There’s a lot of data showing that racism was not salient. Trump won white voters who had voted for Obama — not all of them, obviously, but enough to suggest that people were swinging not on the basis of racism that made a real difference in the outcome.

          I’m not saying that some Trump supporters — or even Trump himself — are not racist. But that is not why people voted the way they did. Trump did better with Latinos and black voters than Romney had. Not by much, but even those tiny incremental pieces helped him. Clinton is a racist, too, remember? There were lots of black and Latino communities who recognize Clinton as the murderous, exploitative racist she is.

          Since the Democratic Party and the media elite will try to ignore this, let’s try to remember here that Bernie was on track to win Georgia, if he had been nominated. Once voters got to meet him, they were prepared to vote for the socialist Jew, even in the deep South.

          1. sleepy

            My heavily democratic and blue collar, 97% white Iowa county was easily carried by Obama twice. Last night Trump took it, and it wasn’t even close.

          2. Uahsenaa

            I would add that he did better among Latinxs even AFTER saying in no uncertain terms that Mexican immigrants are mostly criminals. He loudly an publicly insulted them, and yet still did better than his Republican predecessor. I’d say that’s pretty remarkable and indicative of how willing people were to overlook his awfulness in order to lob a hand grenade into the hard of government.

            1. aab

              True, although I think had the Democratic Party run someone not complicit in coups, assassinations and deportations — even if they had not offered good policy — fewer would have gone to Trump, and more would have come out and voted.

              As with many things in this race, Clinton was at least as bad as Trump in this regard. So voters had to chose along different lines. That would almost necessarily advantage Trump, at least a bit.

        3. Rajesh

          Dude I’m not a newbie I have contributed to the nc fundraiser for the last 2 years and also contribute on a monthly basis. I’m not implying that my views should be worth more because of this but rather that I’m not a newbie.

          1. Anna Zimmerman

            I fully support your right to make your point Rajesh, particularly as you did it in a respectful and non-confrontational manner. God forbid NC turns into the kind of strident outfit that is afraid to have its received wisdom challenged. I would also question whether we can ever refer to ‘facts’ with regard to such a nebulous discipline as psephology, and particularly so given that the election has only just taken place. Let’s get a grip guys – this discussion is one part data-driven, two parts speculation, and possibly three parts anecdotalism. Which doesn’t mean that it isn’t worthwhile, I should add.

            1. Yves Smith Post author

              I beg to differ with your depiction of Rajesh’s opening remark. He was clearly demonizing Trump voters as racists. That is not respectful to people who’ve suffered real economic hardship and had Trump as their only advocate. And aab pointed out how minority groups voted for Trump at higher levels than they did for Romney. Sanders, who stumped all over the US, tweeted that he believe that, contra Rajesh, that most Trump voters are neither racist nor sexist.

              1. Aumua

                I agree that most of of those who voted for trump are not particularly racist or sexist. My bone of contention is that enough of them are that it’s a real issue, and maybe now that we got Hillary out, we can stop minimizing the truth about that. I think we’re going to be seeing some serious ripple effects of these racists and sexist undertones as we go forward as a nation.

                1. Whine Country

                  So Yves asks that our posts cite facts instead of spouting nonsense and Auma responds to Yves comment that most Trump supporters are neither racist nor sexist with the unsupported statement, oh well enough of them are…. what is it you don’t understand about stereotyping. Oh I keep forgetting it’s politically correct stereotyping. You’re either part of the problem or part of the solution

                    1. Yves Smith Post author

                      You are only presenting one part of the story:

                      David Duke’s Donald Trump Endorsement Never Happened, Former KKK Grand Wizard Says


                      Donald Trump’s campaign denounces support from KKK newspaper


                      Having said that, Trump’s failure to denounce or at least distance himself from Duke within 24 hours of being asked about him (he could plausibly have said he was caught off guard and couldn’t place the name) is something Trump can’t walk from, even if it was a political calculation as opposed to a reflection of his views (remember, he has lived his life in NYC with is multi-ethnic; displays of bigotry are not well received here, since the cultural is also more in your face than most of the US. And New York Magazine has been making fun of him since the mid-1980s, but I don’t recall ever seeing NYMag go after Trump on that front).

                    2. aab

                      This is unuseful. Let’s posit that Trump is racist (there’s evidence) and some of his supporters are racist (there’s evidence.)

                      Hillary and Bill Clinton are racist (there’s evidence) and plenty of her supporters are racist (there’s evidence.)

                      So now where are we? We get back to debating the relative demerits of someone saying openly racist things and someone dogwhistling racist things and passing racist policies. That doesn’t seem productive.

                      America is a racist country. It’s an ideology created by elite whites to keep poor whites and poor blacks from uniting to overthrow them. It is not even a little surprising that the two conservative, hyper-wealthy candidates are personally racist and have racist supporters.

                      We need class-based discourse and class-based policy to get past that. Tossing crumbs to one set of victims or another, while insulting the victims not being fed crumbs is how racism continues to enrich the ruling class and impoverish (economically and morally) the rest of us.

                2. fajensen

                  I am sure that at least an equal number of black racists voted for Obama.

                  Was *that* a Real Issue We Must Fear or is it the results that count – meaning that Obama did not enact racist policies even though some of his supporters are racists.

                  A politician doesn’t get to sort the vote according to taste.

      2. Lee

        For the first time in months I’ve been reading over at Daily Kos that Trump’s victory was white people’s fault and/or that of Bernie Sanders and his supporters. BTW the Bernie folks have returned to that site with a vengeance. Quite a shit storm over there. The discussion here is much more sane and informative.

    1. Massinissa

      Because it is IMPOSSIBLE for the white working class to have any legitimate grievances at all right? Go read the latest article by Bill Black please.

    2. DarkMatters

      “Also now that America has struck oil it’s now OK to throw Muslims under the bus.”

      What bus? It pains me to have to say that fear of Islam is well-grounded and hardly a paranoid fantasy. The Explanatory Memorandum discussing the Muslim Brotherhood’s plans came out during the Holy Land Foundation trial:

      “The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

      Western civilization has already lost a free press; writers and artists have been threatened and/or killed for work critical of Islam. In the US, speech, press and religious freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution are under assault. I have in mind the failed HR569, which specifically assaults both freedom of religion by singling out a single religion, and freedom of speech, by a contorted definition of hate speech.

      Nor is it reassuring that governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar are simultaneously funding both ISIS and the private foundation of a certain former Secretary of State, as Julian Assange pointed out in his recent interview with with John Pilger.

      Verse 3.151 of the Quran says “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. I don’t know about anyone else, but terror is already in mine, and it’s long past time that we honestly take notice. I do hope that political backlash over this issue, once addressed, will be well-considered, and not extreme as typical of political reactions.

        1. fajensen

          Because. Once you open up that line of inquiry, you will have a purge of the state department and mil / sec complex that will leave no room in prison for a decade of dope fiends.

          During the endless hearings you will have the rest of the “intelligence” complex and state department exposed like the stupid, overpaid and generally useless buorocrats (sp?) they really are.

          This is a bigger mess than Kim Philby.

          Finally, MSM media and decision makers will be forced to report that “gee, gosh, golly, they really want to destroy us like they have been saying openly for years ”

          Then globalization and multi culturalism will be officially as dead as communism.

          I’d say Trump should go for it.

  15. Sammy J

    The campaigns were reading alt media websites. There is a high probability the z site was taken over by Mercer (giving the Trump campaign a better read on the electorate). Whereas the Clinton campaign was being wagged by what Google and others was providing to them. (Google approach more likely to strip out context?)

    1. PlutoniumKun

      From what I’ve read, the Trump campaign seemed to think they had little chance too up to midnight last night, so I’m not sure its a case that they read the electorate better. The Republicans of course were stung 4 years ago when they were convinced Mittens was going to win.

  16. Cry Shop

    A plurality of voters repudiate the system might fit a wider case of voters actual motivation. Affixing the casus belli on Clinton alone is giving rise to too narrow a case.

    For example, her thrashing paired with Bush’s thrashing alone show a plurality are fed up with dynastic rule. However, the showings of Gary and Jill indicate they are not quite ready to defenestrate the two party single oligarchy dictatorship.

    Best comment comment on this outcome I’ve read was in’s post Viva Las Vegas (italics are mine)

    What ever happens, it will be a surprise. That State Apparatus and the Internet have convinced many that privacy outside their own minds does not exist. No one trusts pollsters to not have a virus on their network, or just to be dishonest; and thus many will not speak their minds on an issue which can have such severe impact on their work and social life. Anyone planning voting(or who has already voted) for Clinton in a Trump heavy environment or anyone voting(or who has already voted) for Trump in a Clinton heavy environment, is very likely to think twice about giving any information to an “anonymous” pollster, and if they do, they will probably lie in a way that protects them best from downstream consequences. The downside of honest is just too great.

    Is the USA going to be the Next Syria, ie: a formerly stable balkanized state under a two party – one oligarchy dictatorship that will descend into internecine violence as the combination of economics, climate change, and demographics change hit at the same time the government loses moral authority. Don’t forget the enforcement part of that state system, the one with the monopoly on legal violence, is stacked solidly with Trump supporters.

    I guess we’re going to get the crap sandwich with mayo, or was that mustard. In 8 or less years we’ll get the environmental collapse special of the epoch.

    1. Whine Country

      How would most answer this question: “Are you voting for Clinton or are you a deplorable white redneck racist? Seriously.

  17. SeanL

    Clinton lost it went she made Kaine VP instead of Warren. Warren was the only person who could effectively counter Trump.

    1. aab

      Nah, that wouldn’t have helped. TWO elite women? Yeah, the rust belt would have gone gangbusters for that. She sullied her reputation with progressives with how she handled the primary, too.

      Kaine didn’t help, but even Bernie as VP would probably not have worked. Nominating Hillary Clinton was destined to fail, unless she could rig enough. We now know she could not.

      1. NotTimothyGeithner

        Kaine reinforced Hillary’s poor record and was a symbol that the Democratic elite want to be the John Birch Book Club Republicans. Minority and you turnout was down as a result of this and Clinton’s most fervent supporters not actually organizing.

        1. aab

          I agree that Kaine reinforced everything bad about Clinton and her strategy. But he wasn’t salient. I really don’t think so. Kaine isn’t the reason minority and youth turnout was down. Clinton was the reason. Clinton was the candidate. She would never have allowed a progressive on the ticket, anyway. She knows she’s dying. She wasn’t going to hand power to another woman, or to her enemies on the left. That was never happening.

          1. NotTimothyGeithner

            For the relatively small margins, a good choice could have made a difference if Hillary did nothing else. There are countless should ofs and would ofs, but the Supreme Court argument could have made a difference. Kaine destroyed that, and it demonstrated a fundamental contempt for the base of Democratic majorities for 60 years in the last century.

            Amazingly enough, Kaine was a huge Lieberman backer during Holy Joe’s 2004 primary effort.

  18. vlade

    I believe it was here where I said that selecting HRC over Sanders handed the presidency to Trump. I do wonder whether DNC will get any relevant lessons from that, although I doubt it.

    On the Acela corridor – it was funny seeing Krugman to flap around as his chances of Treasury Secretary were disappearing..

    1. PlutoniumKun

      And you were right of course. But not alone. Back in the Spring before I gave up on the Guardian for its disgraceful reporting of Sanders many, many people btl under every damned article boosting HRC were pointing out that every poll indicated that Sanders was a far better candidate for the Dems and that Trump was ideally positioned to exploit Clintons many weaknesses. But what did we know? We aren’t paid political ‘experts’.

      1. John Wright

        I believe that most Dems knew Sanders was the far more electable candidate.

        I went to one of his rallies in May, and the crowd really, really, liked the guy.

        But Sanders was never viewed as a trusted supporter of elite Dems needs/goals.

        The Dem elites assumed HRC would still win, but with a smaller margin than Sanders.

        Indeed, Sanders was a “far better candidate” but not for their interests.

        Some of these Hillary supporting political experts are now out of a job, but they would have lost their jobs earlier if Sanders had been the candidate.

        1. shargash

          This is admittedly anecdotal, but I have a journalist friend who is very plugged into elite opinion. He simply dismissed Sanders as being unelectable. He really didn’t want to even have a conversation about it — America would never, ever vote for a socialist. Period.

          1. hemeantwell

            Yeah, I’ve seen that, too. And these were people who also would take polls seriously, ignoring the fact that Sanders polled better than Clinton.

          2. Kurt Sperry

            That’s fear-bluster and that’s good. If they really believe it, it will make them weaker and easier opponents to defeat.

    2. savedbyirony

      I recall many here over time making the observation that the DNC would rather lose with Clinton than win with Sanders. Well, they earned their loss (i mean they really earned it). They can take their “pragmatic” candidate and now explain to all those “donors” how it was still money well spent, as it’s NOT Sanders in office. And i so hope Trump follows thru on a thorough Clinton/Clinton Foundation investigation.

      1. ChiGal in Carolina

        TPTB don’t care about the Clintons. They, not the DNC, would rather have lost with Clinton than won with Sanders.

        Trump shares much of their agenda, lowering corporate and elite taxes thus reducing the safety net and privatizing whatever of it is left.

  19. Expat

    I was for Trump because I was more against Clinton. The US cannot call itself a democracy if the wife of a former president becomes president. Nor can it call itself a democracy when the son of a former President becomes president. Or, for that matter, when there is another son running for the nomination.

    I am not happy Trump won but maybe I would be as unhappy had Clinton won. What a terrible, terrible state of affairs. I travel all through Africa and the Middle East meeting executives from international private companies and national companies. You know things are bad in America when Africans from places like Nigeria or Zimbabwe pat you on the shoulder and offer their condolences for the candidates we were offered!

    I would console myself on being French as well, but our president has a 4% approval rating and will run again to face the same old crooks from last time.

    1. Disturbed Voter

      Against monarchy in the US, not against it elsewhere … the US has been too much like a monarchy since 2000. Now we can have “new men” and “new women” as they would say in the Roman Republic … have a chance at the “cursus honorum”. And I don’t think we are going to slide into Caesarian autocracy either.

    2. Cry Shop

      The Bush dynasty didn’t do the Clinton dynasty any favors; and Jeb Bush’s collapse certainly was a good indicator that the grass roots were tired of corrupt, incompetent coat-tail riders.

      What I really enjoyed also is that this hopefully has skippered all that bs about an Obama dynasty. Not that Michelle was likely to want to give up returning to collecting and shoveling out money for the Chicago machine, but Obama was an idiot to go out thumping for the black vote. Now he’s labeled himself as damaged goods. He should have done what Ike did to Nixon.

  20. skippy

    Yves…. cough….

    The Century of the Self | Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering – meets its enviable conclusion, sorta like some of those economic models have a propensity too do so spectacularly… eh

    Snort…. seems Trumps little escapade got a little out of hand, well see what happens as the reality clock ticks down, more than likely some variant of Bush Jr after the bomb was dropped on him…. economics says – NO – to any of that….

    Disheveled Marsupial…. FYI the Oz mob is still rubbing their eyes in disbelief, even old guard labour sorts like Kim Beazley…

    1. Foy

      Yep, skippy the cognitive dissonance our media and politicians have been showing has been hilarious. Just sent the Insiders TV show a little message asking how many forks they still have in Donald and whether he’s cooked yet, (as they claimed you could stick a fork in him 2 weeks ago).

  21. Percyhegemony

    This is what happens when the Democratic Party interferes with what its voters wanted. If you use your might to advance the less popular candidate through dubious means what do you expect? I think if this played out the way it might have, with Sanders vs Trump, the outcome might have been different. Like Yves said about the gym guys, I can count many people I know personally with the same feelings – wanted Bernie, refused to vote for Hillary, therefore voted for Trump.

    In a way it serves the Democratic party right.

    1. EndOfTheWorld

      Bernie gave a speech to some of the Democratic Party bigwigs at the beginning of his campaign. He said: “YOU NEED ME.” They didn’t listen, because they are a bunch of dumbasses. Bernie Sanders would have beaten the hell out of Trump. He was beating him in the polls. I would have voted for Bernie but instead voted for Trump. I plan to never vote for another Democrat as long as I live, after the way they hosed Bernie. I think the Democratic Party should voluntarily cease to exist now, and maybe let the Greens fill in the space.

    2. Pat

      Not that I would expect the Access Hollywood tape to have come out in a Sanders vs. Trump race, but think how different that would have played. Not only was Sanders clearer on policy, but he did not have the history of offensive behaviour. He was no pot yelling about the kettle.

      But they were with Her.

      1. fosforos

        It was the Access Holywood tape that put Trump over the top–not its content, of course, but the constant pounding on it to demonize him (the demonization was already starting to backfire because the Putin-baiting was making people scared). What happened was that a lot of midwestern women, who did not automatically disqualify Clinton or even admired her as a “bitch,” suddenly began to see her as a “castrating bitch” attacking their husbands’ very masculinity. In those close races that marginal difference was likely decisive.

        1. jrs

          and so the election really was about nothing in this estimation. maybe someday we’ll have an election about something you know like issues or something?

  22. Collapsar

    As bad a candidate as HRC is, I still believe Trump was worse at running for office simply because of all the times he self immolated. That being said, I still thought that it would result not in Trump winning, but Clinton losing because of the people she surrounded herself with. Starting with Al Gore’s campaign manager, Donna Brazille on down, she was flanked by people who only know how to lose.

    1. Yves Smith Post author

      And on top of that, sycophants. I spent maybe an hour or two with the Wikileaks e-mails from the State Department dumps, doing some keyword searches. And while I didn’t come up with any information of the sort I was looking for, it was stunning to see how even the comparatively few messages I read were thick with sucking up to Hillary. Stuff like, “I’ve never been prouder of anything I’ve done with you” and going on further about how awesome the not-terribly-consequential project and Her Mightiness were.

      OMG, if people working for me tried that crap, I’d slap them and if that didn’t work, I’d fire them. Toadying puts a huge amount of noise in the signal.

      1. Socal Rhino

        I’d like to think the same and it’s something I watch for, but I don’t think it’s true generally. Stronger leaders fight their biases, but I’m not one who thinks we’re currently over burdened with strong leadership in any walk of life. When I studied organizational behavior in grad school, read academic papers showing that the one fool proof method for career advancement is sucking up to your boss. And somewhat counterintuitively, it doesn’t matter if your boss realizes that you are doing it. All my corporate experience supports that.

        I think Bernie would have beaten Trump, then faced the same resistance Trump will face. He and Warren may well be more effective in opposition.

        1. pretzelattack

          i think bernie would have faced considerably more resistance than trump, because a lot of trump policies will be congenial to republicans. warren i agree will be more effective in the senate opposing trump and the pro corruption wing of the democratic party.

          1. dk

            Yes, a Bernie win might also have made some of the left more complacent. The presidency is by no means the ball game, much less the series.

      2. Tim

        I think the wikileaks were nontrivial. They just kept on coming and seeing how they ran things and what they really thought about their own candidate were quite damning to even the most laymans’ psychological opinion of Hillary.

        Lifting the vale of a political apparatus and seeing that no, they really are just ignorant, incompetent and corrupt is not something somebody can easily dispatch from the formation of an opinion leading to a decision.

        At the end of the day trump won for two reasons: Hillary was contemptible, and the masses of people who are drowning economically reached for the lifeline offered by Trump. Trump was contemptible in his own way too, so the deciding factor goes to the economic lifeline. It’s the economy stupid!

    2. EndOfTheWorld

      Trump didn’t “self-immolate”. He says what he thinks. We need a lot more of that in this screwed-up country.

  23. ChrisFromGeorgia

    Yves, I also had the thought to load up on shorts yesterday around 3:45PM. It was a classic set up. Taleb probably made a small fortune.

    Oh well, I still have some non-leveraged short S&P ETF shares that I have held for over six months that will at least be a lot less underwater, plus my small pile of metals.

  24. S Haust

    Last night, instead of gaping at the toob, I went (with my wife) to see Strauss’ opera Salome.
    There’s no real story; just a tableau of every kind of depravity, coming from every quarter.

    But just think, 2000 years later, we have Hillary, Huma, Anthony Weiner and, um, yes, even
    Bill. It’s all still there in a slightly different permutation. My god, find a good enough composer
    and one could write almost the same opera all over again. Ah yes, Trump too.

    The line in the performance that kept repeating and repeating, “Something terrible will happen”.
    Not a very good translation from the German but at least functional.


  25. EndOfTheWorld

    I thought about increasing my position in gold mining stocks since some predictors predicted gold would go up if Trump won. Gold went up quickly but lost most of its gain.

    Actually, what I really wanted to do, if I knew how to do it legally and safely, was to simply place a bet on Trump. I think you coulda got five to one odds.

    1. fajensen

      My son cleared 600 eye on election night. Trump was 6:1 on while the polls were equal.

      Mispriced bets are easy money. I am of course annoyed that I didn’t bet Trump when Sanders was shafted. That was like 100:1.

        1. UserFriendly

          You can do it anywhere. I bought about 40 shares of specific states in the electoral college; buy in of $0.60 – $0.80 and a return of $1 per share for correct bets and made about $10. I also bought 30 shares of Trump winning at $0.37 a pop shortly after Bernie dropped out for another $20 ish. If I wasn’t about to default on my student loans I would have bet more.

          They do charge some minor fees too, but there are people that put up serious money and do well.

    2. PlutoniumKun

      In online betting yesterday he was 4-1. Hilary was 5/2 on. I was actually tempted to put money on Trump, but I thought bookmakers weren’t stupid.

    3. RMO

      You could do that legally here in BC. Two friends of mine – very leftist, admirers of Bernie yet still thinking that HRC might just be very slightly the less awful choice – did just that. They won a few hundred dollars.

      Just think: if the DNC and beltway elite had run the primary ethically I would have slept soundly last night and woken up feeling all warm and fuzzy in the knowledge that a self-described socialist was the president-elect of the county that is only a fifteen minute drive from my house. He might even have accomplished some positive changes before waking up with a horse’s head in his bed! But no, not only did they have to run the only candidate that could have been beaten by Trump, the siphoned off almost all the money that should have gone to the house and senate races and pumped that into the doomed Clinton campaign too. Truly world class incompetence.

  26. Praedor

    I’m sure it was meant Yves, but I’d add that voters repudiated Clinton and Clintonism. The Democrat Party has been fully operating on pure Clintonism (third way) crap since Billy got his penis into the White House. Happily, that mode of operation has been fully rejected now, though I daresay that the Party will not see it that way and, in usual Dem fashion, will DOUBLE DOWN on the Clintonism for a while.

    I hope I’m wrong and that the Clintonist hold-overs will resign and disappear into Hedge Fund crime syndicates, their natural habitat. At least Nuland will NOT be Sec State and Kagan will NOT have the President’s ear. Hopefullly they too will resign into obscurity. Today.

    1. Yves Smith Post author

      Hillary was not running on the same positions as Bill, even though she took credit for his record whenever possible. Her flogging identity politics to the max, particularly the woman card, was not at all how Bill campaigned either time.

      And I have to tell you, many people, women as well as men, despised her. I can’t tell you how many people who were in demographic groups that were supposed to back her who could barely contain their antipathy when I brought up her name. Among other things, they were ripshit about her selling favors out of the State Department. While I wasn’t angry about it, I recognized her as a crook as soon as I heard about the commodities trades back in 1992 and those took place in 1978, and was also deeply disturbed by her making an utter botch of health care reform. So I get where they were coming from.

      1. Kfish

        I’m not American, but I am a professional-class young woman of exactly the type that the Clinton campaign was aiming for. The way that the campaign expected the vote of people like me, because our genitalia matched, was deeply offensive. The co-opting of feminist icons to lecture me about how voting for someone totally opposed to my value system was the only feminist choice? Simply the icing on the cake.

        1. NotTimothyGeithner

          I was at a bar near my Alma mater, a public ivy, before a lightly attended football game, and I was in the bar with a friend and the bartender, a fellow alum and a recent graduate. The Democratic congressional candidate was a professional woman, but at no point had this bartender received any kind of contact from that campaign despite having good voted in the primaries for Bernie. Her address and voter participation are public record, and this town is where Democrats need every vote to win.

          They didn’t even ask for her vote. They expected it.

          1. ginnie nyc

            I know all about this. I’ve been registered Democrat since 1976, similar (formerly) pro profile – not one single contact from the Clinton campaign this entire election cycle. Not that I would vote for her, but one likes to be asked.

          2. Liberal Mole

            Well, I’m in NY and I received at least 3 automated calls from Clinton. She has a horrid voice, be thankful you didn’t hear it. For a Sanders volunteer like myself I could not hang up on it any faster. After the voter disenfranchisement and electoral fraud they committed in the primary here I would never vote for that corrupt POS. It was the daughter of my congresswoman, Lowey, who bribed the woman who removed 100,000 democrats from the voter rolls. Paid 6 million for a rat infested brownstone in Harlem that she couldn’t sell the year before for 3 million. That was in the NYT. The Times recently had an article about a lovely, fully renovated to the gills brownstone in Midtown – selling for 5 million.

      2. chuck roast

        Yeah, ya’ know back in Bubba’s early days I thought that the guy was complete wimp. And when Hillary took over health care reform, I thought, “man, this woman’s got balls! We’re gonna have universal health care!”
        Well no…after she surrendered to the insurance companies she rolled-over to big-pharm and the whole deal dissipated into an historical footnote. Then I found out that the arch-clown Ira Magaziner was her chief aide in the debacle.
        Idiots on parade.
        When she used to say, “And I took on those insurance companies!” I literally kept waiting for her nose to grow.

  27. DSP

    Um,with this Presidential Pardon business,don’t you have to be charged with something to be pardoned…..or is it a Get-out-of -Jail card forever.?
    This result has given the rest of the western world the evidence that the the ballot-box can shake up the system.
    Lastly,the work has just started.The Power has to be continually reminded that you are still there.How you work this out will be followed by a lot of people around the world.
    Signed,A Foreigner(who lives in a smugly complacent country in Oceania)

    1. Yves Smith Post author

      I raised this point with Jerri-Lynn and am not really satisfied with the answer. President Ford pardoned Nixon, although that “pardon” IMHO should be more accurately called an amnesty.

    2. PlutoniumKun

      Yes, that’s the thing that confuses me over the pardon system. Does it have to specify specific crimes? Or can it be a blank ‘everything committed between 1978 and this date?’. If its an open blank amnesty, that is surely opening Obama to the type of opprobrium that his ego can’t take. But if he specifies what the pardon is for, he is implicitly admitting that he thinks she broke laws X, Y and Z.

      1. John Zelnicker

        @PlutoniumKun – IIRC, Ford pardoned Nixon without reference to any particulars; a blanket amnesty, if you will. And, Nixon had not been formally charged at that point. He resigned to avoid the inevitable impeachment that was moving through Congress.

        1. fosforos

          Wouldn’t it have wonderful if Obama–determined as he was not to try Bush for his war crimes and tortures–had at least *pardoned* him?

        2. PlutoniumKun

          Another question I would have is if Obama can spread a pardon wider than the named person. For example, he might grant HRC a pardon over handling classified data illegally, but would that extend to her staff? It would be hugely embarrassing if Huma, for example, were to face a trial for a crime HRC is explicitly pardoned for.

          1. EndOfTheWorld

            I think he has to pardon the whole lot of them by name, and I think he will. But what do I know? I’m not a lawyer. But with a Republican prez, House, and Senate there will be investigations. Some of the criminality will come out. Maybe if Obama doesn’t pardon them, Trump will. Prison time is not as important as sheer public humiliation. Maybe The Donald was ESPing when he made his joke at the Cardinal’s roast: “Hillary bumped into me and she said, ‘Pardon me.'”

            1. PlutoniumKun

              Of course, if he did pardon every single one of her staff and everyone on the email list, that would leave only one person left who used the server to discuss government business, and so could be liable to prosecution. A certain B.H Obama….

              Wouldn’t that be hilarious?

            2. hemeantwell

              Thanks for clarifying the amnesty option. This scenario suggests itself: O issues a blanket pardon and then has his action trashed by investigations. One more peak neoliberal Dem with a destroyed reputation, that much less opposition to a post-debacle house cleaning.

    3. Skip Intro

      I was sure HRC would get the pardon if she won, now I’m not so sure. What is Obama’s real upside on this? After 2008 I don’t think they were real friends. There is more downside to his ‘legacy’ to protect so obviously corrupt a figure, who led him to his admitted biggest foreign policy blunder in Libya, fumbled the 3rd term election and thus TPP, and deceived him vis-a-vis Sidney Blumenthal as S.o.S.
      And having the Clinton Foundation hobbled or dismantled only makes his Foundation that much easier to get off the ground. I am going have to bet against Jerri-Lynn on this one.

      1. EndOfTheWorld

        He could pardon himself, as well. In fact, I think it would be so cool if he pardoned only himself, and left everybody else hanging. Why not? Let everybody know who’s boss.

  28. vlade

    You know what, despite all of this, HRC still has an outside chance (which would depend on how fast the states can move).

    There’s a National Popular Vote Bill ( If my maths are right, if everyone state that voted Clinton + generously assuming AZ, MN and MI end up Clinton (unlikely) and those that haven’t signed up to this bill signed up to it pronto, it would be exactly the 270 electoral votes that would make the electors go with the popular vote (which Clinton is likely to win). If they managed to do it before Dec date when I believe the official election is done, HRC could still get the presidency. Now imagine that… call of stolen election? (when the popular vote winer gets it?)

    That could be the US equivalent of Supreme Court A50 ruling in the UK..

      1. vlade

        The point of the bill is that the states would legally (i.e. state legislation, not federal) tie their electors to vote for whoever gets the popular vote. Which I believe is within states’ gift.

        As I found out yesterday, the selection of the electors is entirely up to individual states legislations (as set by the USC) – no popular vote is required or mandated.

        1. Yves Smith Post author

          If anyone tried that, it would go to the courts immediately and I can guarantee it would be struck down. The judiciary will not validate changing Presidential election rules mid-stream because the party that lost didn’t like the result.

          And even starting down this path would bring Trump supporters with guns out en masse. The militia talk by gun fans (gunz as a protector of liberties) has been way way overdone, but a stunt like this would mobilize them, and the police, which skew conservative, would not stand in their way in many, potentially most, jurisdictions.

          1. vlade

            I’m not sure federal judiciary could strike it down, as it’s the constitutional right for the states to select electors as they wish – but then I am not a legal expert and certainly not a US constitutional lawyer.

            Trump supporters are an entirely different beast of course – that’s what I meant by comparing it with the potential SupremeCourt A50 ruling (except UK doesn’t have gun totting population).

            I do not consider this to be a real option TBH, but brought it up as a curiosity.

      2. Expat

        It is a dangerous precedent. While Trump does not have an overwhelming victory nor has he won the popular vote, our system is what it is.

        America got the president they wanted. That says it all. The problem is that the elites and the coastal democrats are out of touch with the “fly-over states” and anyone who can’t mix a good martini. Why in God’s name these “deplorables” chose Donald Trump as their savior is beyond me.

        I don’t think Trump will as bad as many think. We certainly know just how bad Hillary would have been. There is a chance that Trump will at least shake things up a bit.

        I’m not really upset about Trump winning. It’s more acute embarrassment.

        1. pretzelattack

          i’m not sure how many look on trump as a savior, but he’s certainly more likely to oppose trade deals than clinton, which is a big factor.

        2. PlutoniumKun

          My worry would be not Trump in power, but the weakness of the Dems in the two Houses. He has quite a free hand to pursue what he wants if he decides to rule as a ‘conventional’ Republican. He may well be tempted to go orthodox right wing if it means an easier life for himself.

          1. pretzelattack

            true, and he seems somewhat lazy. i’m hoping for friction between trump and the leading republicans who tried to throw him under the bus. now he’s the driver, whoops.

            1. EndOfTheWorld

              Trump and his team ran a really great campaign. That’s how he won. He had a great female campaign manager. He hired great people. He is a very good speaker. Not that I’m the type that likes to watch speeches, but he packed ’em in.
              It used to be said that if somebody can make it through the rigors of a presidential campaign and emerge victorious, he will make a good prez. If there is any logic in our system, that’s it.

            2. PlutoniumKun

              I think there will be a huge battle in the next 2 months over who gets his ear. Quite literally, the future of the world hangs on him choosing the right people.

              I would note that in business he has shown himself to be quite astute in choosing people who have competences that he doesn’t have (basically, most things). But he is a neophyte to government and foreign policy. There are lots of poisonous toads out there who will be doing their best to influence him in a very malign way.

              1. EndOfTheWorld

                PuKen, IMHO you’re overestimating the complexity of politics. Really it’s not that complicated. He has to have good lawyers to tell him what’s legal. Outside of that he will do a complete Frank Sinatra—-he’ll do it his way. Watch.

              2. Lord Koos

                I would seriously worry about Mike Pence, either becoming president, or being a hands-on, Cheney style VP. Trump is not good but Pence is from hell.

          2. polecat

            It seems to me the electorate wants real changes for their betterment, and if the Republicans (and Demorats) in CONgress do not deliver for the ‘deplorable plebes’ in an equitable fashion ….. then I think all hell really will break loose ….
            People are in absolutely no mood to be taken advantaged of …. and will let D.C. know ….with a vengeance ! That’s what I see as a result of this election ….

    1. Katharine

      It’s a fine movement, and my state was the first to sign on, but even if enough others suddenly joined (not going to happen: quite apart from the fact that some legislators don’t want to yield to the popular vote, the legislatures are not in session) you couldn’t interrupt an existing electoral process. That would, as Yves notes, be dangerously disorderly.

  29. Pepe Aguglia

    Voters Repudiate Clinton

    And even more deliciously…
    Voters brutally repudiate Obama, his legacy in tatters (and his narcissistic ego terminally bruised) even before leaving office (but I bet that still won’t stop him from doing everything in his power to ram the TPP down our throats on his way out the door)

    1. nycTerrierist

      Great post and commentary all.

      The Dems deserved this – they lost when they screwed Sanders who would have womped Trump.

      Clinton richly deserved the middle finger. At the very least, this stops the Bush/Clinton/Obama neo-lib dynasties. Offensive!

      Clinton would be just as bad on climate change as Trump – but with more dissembling and confusion, thus slowing down much-needed opposition.

      I’m almost hopeful this morning.

  30. CRS

    I think the biggest risk Trump poses is his likelihood of picking a hard-money Federal Reserve chairman who will raise interest rates quickly. I think this is why the market is tanking and it will likely cause us to fall back into recession.

    1. Eduardo Quince

      Presidents are invariably in favor of easy money while in office notwithstanding any previous campaign rhetoric to the contrary

    1. Vatch

      Neither did Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. But Tulsi Gabbard of Hawai’i was reelected to the U.S. House.

  31. Big River Bandido

    Excellent piece. I quibble with this one clause, though:

    Let us not forget that Clinton had every advantage: Presidential campaign experience, the full backing of her party, … [emphasis mine]

    Clinton never had the *full* backing of her party. Or perhaps more to the point, she never have the backing of her *full* party. There was always a large swath of traditional Democratic voters who were never, ever going to support her. The left simply abandoned the Democrats, and rightly so.

    1. Yves Smith Post author

      She had the full backing of the party, which is the elected officials, the party machinery, the state parties, etc. Trump most decidedly did not. He made a hostile takeover and had lots of dissent from powerful barons in the party. By contrast, Dem officials and big donors were on board from Obama on down.

      And all the polls showed very strong support for Clinton among registered Dems. Independents, which are now a bigger group in the US than either party’s membership, are a different kettle of fish.

      1. Quanka

        Exactly. The party is not the same thing as the voters.
        The Democratic party is not liberal, or progressive – they are a bunch of power hungry rats willing to throw working class people under the bus (cue trade agreements to take but one of a hundred examples). HRC had the full backing of the party but a significant group of people within that party have been marginalized by Dems for the past 30 years and would not “eat the dog food” (love the apt metaphor) any longer.

  32. YY

    I guess Comey will retain his job, but will he happily report to Christie? If a Christie DOJ pursues HRC, for dishonesty/corruption the level of irony would be ridiculous. Will Giuliani be head of domestic/international policing against terror and dissidents? Maybe John Bolton in the State Dept will start the wars that Trump otherwise would not have dreamed of.

    I think the scary part is not Trump, but the quality of people that he will attract and more importantly the lack of people willing to make the necessary career sacrifice for the good of the country, because who the boss is. Whatever happens will be a direct result of the deluded notion that HRC was a viable candidate, not on the Republicans and the right wing who did their best to provide loser opposition.

    1. John Zelnicker

      @YY – I agree wholeheartedly. I was actually more afraid of what Clinton would do as a warmonger than what Trump may do based on his apparent incompetence vis-a-vis governing. However, the President appoints people to over 1,200 executive positions in the cabinet agencies, as well as the heads of regulatory agencies. With right-wing nutters like Christie and Giuliani as his advisers, this is where the greatest damage may be wrought.

      1. nycTerrierist


        If we dodge the TPP bullet, the next biggest concern: who runs the regulatory agencies.

        The USDA and so-called ‘Wildlife Services’ are already a disgrace.

        1. John Zelnicker

          @nycTerrierist – And the FDA is already deep in the pocket of Big Pharma. I imagine we could make a long list of regulatory agencies that have already been captured by the industries they are supposed to regulate. I don’t see Trump appointing anyone to change that.

          And, the President appoints most of the 90+ U.S. Attorneys who prosecute federal cases around the country. Ugh.

      2. Avalon Sparks

        Good Lord don’t let him bring back Ashcroft, Delay or Graham in any capacity.

        I still have a sneaking suspicion that Trump leans more Dem, and not just on social issues. Although he does have that authoritarian thing down pat.

        I heard a speech he gave to Republicans in September 2015 – heard, not watched and I don’t know exactly who of that group was in the audience. Aside from progressive taxing, he sounded like a full blown Democrat and burped out almost all the traditional talking points as such. The Pubs were cheering and clapping and I wondered if they heard a word he said. I distinctly remember he said he was for the right to choose, slammed the endless war, dissed Wall Street and was already talking TPP and Nafta as horrible for the US. Once the debates rolled around he moved tea bagger full on right. I also remember he was the only Pub to bring up concerns about the Flint Water crisis during any of the Republican debates and he brought it up a couple of times during different debates, and it wasn’t related to a question about it. I’ll admit I watched the first two seasons of “The Apprentice” and my perception was over indulgent ego, tough but fair, and he also seemed to have a heart underneath it all. That being said, it was the oxymoron called “Reality TV”…

        Ultimately I decided he couldn’t possibly be worse than HER, so I guess we’ll see. I missed the mark on a couple of predictions this election cycle, so I’m don’t feeling that confident in my batting record these days.

        1. Cry Shop

          Trump is unlikely to trust anyone in the Republican Party establishment. The question for me is will he reach out to Bernie Sanders, who’s played a smart game of disliking the policies, and not the man.

      3. Avalon Sparks

        Good Lord don’t let him bring back Ashcroft, Delay or Graham in any capacity.

        I still have a sneaking suspicion that Trump leans more Dem, and not just on social issues. Although he does have that authoritarian thing down pat.

        I heard a speech he gave to Republicans in September 2015 – heard, not watched and I don’t know exactly who of that group was in the audience. Aside from progressive taxing, he sounded like a full blown Democrat and burped out almost all the traditional talking points as such. The Pubs were cheering and clapping and I wondered if they heard a word he said. I distinctly remember he said he was for the right to choose, slammed the endless war, dissed Wall Street and was already talking TPP and Nafta as horrible for the US. Once the debates rolled around he moved tea bagger full on right. I also remember he was the only Pub to bring up concerns about the Flint Water crisis during any of the Republican debates and he brought it up a couple of times during different debates, and it wasn’t related to a question about it. I’ll admit I watched the first two seasons of “The Apprentice” and my perception was over indulgent ego, tough but fair, and he also seemed to have a heart underneath it all. That being said, it was the oxymoron called “Reality TV”…

        Ultimately I decided he couldn’t possibly be worse than HER, so I guess we’ll see. I missed the mark on a couple of predictions this election cycle, so I’m don’t feeling that confident in my batting record these days.

  33. greg

    This election is mostly irrelevant. The global economy will grow until it can no longer support itself. Then it will collapse.

    The only thing that will save us is if the legitimacy of our aristocracy collapses first. In this, the election of Trump, since he has divided his own party, since he has thrown into question the legitimacy of his own election, (“The election will be rigged.”) may be a step.

  34. DSP

    I would like to see President Trump pursue this but,strangely enough he doesn’t seem particularly vindictive.And doing this would probably peel open the Republicans as well.

  35. Joe

    The interesting part of this whole train wreck, to me, is that a lot of very rich, very powerful people have spent the last year very publicly insulting the next President. These are the people that constantly have their hands out to receive corporate welfare.

    I wonder if the future El Presidente is a forgive and forget kind of guy?

    1. sgt_doom

      No, not the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers and Soros and the others? Say it ain’t so . . . .

      David and Nelson Rockefeller (unfortunately Nelson is deceased) wanted for the murders of the Kennedy brothers and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

      Time they got their comeuppance . . . .

  36. Quanka

    “Stunning Upset” — ha. Get out of the Acela corridor you fools. +1 to many of the comments here, +2 for Yves, Lambert, JLS for helping me keep my sanity the last 18 months.

    Second the motion for Trump to follow through on his campaign promise to investigate the Clinton Foundation. I think a further blowing up of the existing power structure is in order, the “establishment” (I also hate that word) clearly didnt get the message last night.

    1. diptherio

      Nah…if you’re into explosions I think Trump pardoning Clinton on his first day in office (or giving her an amnesty, or whatevs) and stating that “We need to look forward, not backward,” would really set things off.

      Can’t wait to see the other side have their extreme disenchanting, as happened to many on the left during the Obama administration. Gonna be an entertaining ride…

    2. fajensen

      Hmm. Going after the Clintons would be seen as vindictive and so far Trump has turned off the “violence” as soon as he won.

      However, investigating Huma Abedin and Weiner for espionage would not only be the logical thing to do, it would also just by coincidence implicate the Clinton foundation – thus achieving the same goal while not being vindictive.
      Huma is a new development, not old emails, if you like.

      1. aab

        The people who would see it as vindictive are exactly the people who should be ignored. I hope Trump ignores them. I don’t know if he has the stomach for it.

        She committed crimes against the state. It is far past time for that to be punished.

        1. fajensen

          Absolutely – Just sometimes it is better to go around a barrier than to brute-force ones way trough.

  37. Feelintheberninwi

    I live in the middle of Wisconsin. Spent lots of time working In the community trying to preregister voters as a special registration deputy. This means being at the library and other community locations. I was part of a nonpartisan citizens group that did this before the April primary and again this fall. (Of course all these citizens are Dems leaning)

    What I saw that surprised me was young white males who had never voted (25-40) and older white men who hadn’t voted for years. Saw this in April mixed with young obvious Bernie supporters.

    Yesterday, I did same day registration at the polls in a fairly representative ward of my community, there were no Bernie supporters and it was the whole family. Because of registering, I get to see their age and also ask if they have voted before. Talked to one man who hadn’t voted since the first Bush. Steady stream all day of registering voters I knew were not coming in to vote for the Hill.

    I’m a member of the local Democratic Party. There was absolutely no effort to get people registered in any way shape or form by the Democratic Party. Local or state. I was vocal about our need to work on this, but no interest. All the interest was on crying about the horror of voter ID law changes.

    And the Hill campaign pretty much ran the local office and from the moment their local hired person came in, she drove away the Bernie supporters with her strong Hill focus. Bernie had brought out a substantial young active non Dem base that disappeared.

    We worked very hard for our local candidates, but always competing with the Hill for volunteers, etc, inspite of being told there would be cooperation. Result 1? Our candidates were pulled down by Hill. Result 2? Dem party is going to lose many of the Bernie backers.

    Bernie would have been a much better candidate. He won here and the Hill campaign had no idea of how to handle us or the voters. For canvassing it was support to be all about a “personal story” with the Hill. I flat out told the organizer, the voter doesn’t care about me or Hillary, they care about themselves! Get some marketing training. Find out what matters. Then they went on the college debt rant. Head slap again, most of our population is blue collar. They just don’t get it. There is a giant disconnect and lack of understanding of the flyover Midwest.

    The good news? I never wanted to ever go back to the Clinton days. I’m sick of family political dynasties.

    1. dk

      Wanna know why D.C. Dems don’t do major registration drives? There’s no money in it, it’s to hard to sell to the big $$$ donors. And besides, more voters means it costs more to reach them and turn them out; again, harder to pitch. And finally, winning races by bigger margins means that it’s harder to claim dire need in the next election cycle. It’s all bout the money, and the profits for the consultants.

      I’ve gotten that straight from horse’s mouths over the last +20 years. Being a voter file specialist, one gets to ask questions and get answers. The rest of what you describe is classic political carpetbag consulting; crush the locals to get the job done, leave as little as possible to the grassroots.

      Why? Because cohesive and effective local party organizations and grassroots movements are the most dangerous things to the national parties. They can’t be controlled; the carpetbaggers are offering their donor-clients control; your community’s political docility/compliance is the product.

      It’s not a disconnect, its a feature.

  38. Uahsenaa

    I would like to revise my rant slightly, though I think people rightly recognized it as a rant rather than an attempt at real persuasion, with regard to something jrs noted, that mixed in among those D voters are some people I have in fact seen on the picket lines.

    I teach rhetoric, which is to say I try to get young people both to understand how language coheres into modes of argumentation and persuasion as well as how to construct language in such a way as to more effectively express themselves. My initial impulse, though well justified by the events of the past 15 years (i.e. post 9/11), may not be the right way to go about this. I have always believed that you cannot be dismissive of someone else’s opinions no matter how odious you may find them, because lingering behind them is a real drive, a real motivation that you can know at least in part and potentially redirect toward positive ends.

    Leftish types are upset, and it won’t do much good to tell them, in effect, “I told you so.” Now more than ever we need to understand where our friends are coming from–and acknowledge that they are, in fact, our friends and not some neoliberal fifth column–in the hope that we can guide them through the much harder task of seeing how the working class has been absolutely gutted, something they clearly didn’t want to see, even though people like Thomas Frank have been saying it for some time now. For people want real hope (not Hopey Changey TM), but in the absence of that will go with rage.

    1. Patricia

      Gotta give a little time for schadenfreude, though. It’ll be short and sweet and can strengthen resolve, so that when we decide to acknowledge and go back to work with some of our friends, we maintain firmness/clarity. We’ve been bad at that part.

      And if we don’t do the same for those on the other side, we will also be lost.

      Corruption in all the nooks/crannies–to beat it back requires more strength than we have right now.

    2. DJG

      Uahsenaa: If my Facebook feed is any indication, some folks do require what we can refer to as a “wake-up call.” I live in Chicago, where the Democratic Party has been a failure for years. The Clinton campaign was a failure.

      And it isn’t schadenfreude to ask so-called “liberals”: “Do you want change or not? Or do you just want the sushi rearranged on your plate at a Dem Party fundraiser? Would it be okay for you “liberals” at least to stop looting the public through scams like charters schools (choice!), privatization of parking and other public works (efficiency!), and half-assed health-care reform (smaller networks are good!)?”

      The Democrats and liberals have to be shown that real effort is going to be required. Some people and their opinions are going to have to be retired. Trotting out re-treads like the Clintons and Rahm and Evan Bayh is not acceptable. Tom Frank is a very civil way of dislodging their mental blocks.

      But then I voted for Jill Stein, so I must be the cause of the Clintons’ loss, the end of the Clinton dynasty, and the ironies of the Electoral College.

      1. Uahsenaa

        I understand the frustration–I really do. I gave vent to it last night. What I’m trying to say is merely being right, even if you have all the particulars in place, is quite often simply not good enough. It’s not an effective rhetorical strategy, and, as I think Obama has shown, you can do quite a bit just with finding a more effective way to express yourself, even when, as in his case, there is no “there” there.

        I have a child whose emotional reactions to everything are incredibly intense, and I’ve had to learn over the years to deal with her in counter-intuitive ways, because merely knowing what’s best and declaiming it doesn’t get me anywhere. Browbeating my students rarely gets me the desired result and often has the side-effect of increasing animus toward me, meaning they simply refuse to listen.

        That said, I’m on board with taking the likes of Clinton et al. as well as their courtiers, the Neera Tandens and the John Podestas of the world, down a peg. However, I think there’s a way to do that and not alienate people who likely feel rather lost at the moment.

      2. sgt_doom

        To one and all who have yet to figure it out:

        the democratic party is over!


        The founding of a progressive party is long overdue, but otherwise I’m going to switch from the Green Party (too predatory capitalism supportive) to the Socialist Alternative Party.

    3. pictboy3

      As someone who has done a lot of amateur mediation work for years now, I find that people respond to all arguments on an emotional level first. When you come at them from a position of adversarial hostility, they immediately put their defenses up and won’t engage with you rationally, even if you have the far superior position. I even find myself doing it. So I agree with you that we should be gracious when dealing with our wayward brethren (I count Republicans in this as well), if we want to be able to steer the ship away from the rocks. If you want to be treated as a friend, you have act like one.

    4. mk

      Sorry, don’t agree. Sent this email to former friends this morning:
      11-9-16 6:30am

      Just wanted to let my former friends know that I voted for HRC, what I view as the lessor of TWO EVILS, and to my surprise our country has chosen TRUMP to lead us. We all knew from the beginning that Bernie beat Trump in all of the polls, all polls showed that Bernie was the candidate to beat Trump. Bernie stood for health care for everyone, free college tuition, ending the war on drugs, ending fracking, clean sustainable energy, support for labor unions, etc. HRC represented banking interests, MONSANTO GMO interests, FRACKING and OIL company interests. Here is a woman who knew she would be running for president in 2016 and who was so arrogant to think that she didn’t have to worry about what it would look like to take millions of dollars from banks for speeches, then not release the transcripts, accept millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments while Secretary of State, kept classified communications on servers in her home (many people in jail for doing far less). She has only herself to blame, she had the entire democratic party establishment behind her, both Obamas behind her, all the celebrities behind her, even Bernie Sanders campaigned hard for her (he is a man of his word) and she still lost.

      When my friends said they were voting for HRC and not Bernie, I took it personally. My friends are more concerned about having a vagina in office than they are about whether or not I have access to health care, that my grand daughter has access to college, that we have access to healthy and real food etc. My so-called friends care more about the gender of our leader than they do about the issues, I realized that I did not share the same values as people I was calling my friends. I want better friends.

      We could have been celebrating a Bernie victory had my friends shared the same values as me, we could have been working on legislation to stop fracking, gmos, to improve access to health care for everyone, access to college for those who want it. Instead,… who knows.

      1. Avalon Sparks

        I like it – that’s a pretty good letter. What was it with the woman thing? I still don’t get it, and I’m wondering why it wasn’t important to me at all. The only thing I kept coming back to was it was a ‘nice to have’ but too many other more pressing items were on the table. I understand the historic aspect of it. Is it weird that I was more excited about the first African American President, then the first women president. Maybe it was a timing thing on where our country is at, at this moment.

        A friendship (30 years) took some serious blows and hits last week when my best friend and I were discussing our votes. The same best friend I talked to in Nov/2000 at 3AM as we cried our hearts out over Bush, lamenting war and trickle down and all the rest of the ‘horrors’. My friend has a Master Degree and has been a political wonk since forever, we loved talking politics but refrained for the most part this cycle due to our different candidates in the primary. She kept saying she didn’t want any old white men telling her what to do, it was time for a woman. She was sick of old white men. (for reference we are both Caucasian) That was it – the VJ was the only relevant issue. Last night as we texted back and forth at 3AM she was furious. Again it was all about the First Woman President thing, and this was our only chance. She said if we can’t get a woman candidate as well qualified and experienced as Hillary elected, this country will never elect a woman. I could only text back that the gender of the President was not even a factor in my choice for President and to placate her because she was so upset I just added that I was sorry, but maybe I was just weird or something because it wasn’t really important to me. I ended with ‘How about Warren in 2020 then?” She wrote back that this country will never elect a woman and she was moving. We are both in are early 50’s and we sure weren’t burning our bras in our 20’s. I don’t get where the “Let’s go VJ, nothing else really matters” mindset is coming from.

        After some thought, I think that perhaps my friend has been influenced to an extent by the current wave of misandry, primarily in advertising. It’s another topic but in my opinion there seems to be quite a bit of men bashing in advertising these days. There’s the smart perky woman with all the answers and the befuddled man who can’t balance his checking account without her help. I’m not on board personally with bashing one gender to empower another, but I’ve observed a number of women, although usually younger than my peer group, going that route these days.

  39. QuarterBack

    Both party establishments played the same game of hollow undelivered promises backed by a tribalist reliance that fear of the bogeymen of the other party would keep everyone in the tribe. Trump hijacked the RNC by raising the BS card against the tribe, which just opened the gates for the masses looking for any reason to leave the tribe that they were fully disgusted with to begin with. When it was time for the DNC, it was just “rinse, lather, repeat”. The message to both parties was clearly a giant F U. I firmly believe that Bernie would have beat Trump, because he would have been the FU-light candidate for many who didn’t support him directly. The DNC ultimately decided to go all in, and they lost it all. Both party leaderships, media owners, and globalist banking interests forced this aweful decision and must now lay in the bed they have made.

  40. John

    It was always a lose lose for Americans with these two candidates.
    This is what we will get and it will be swift and brutal since the Republicans must have learned from 2010 that the next election could go to the Democrats:

    Another 4 years of the elites looting what is left of the middle class.

    Which will pretty much be gone by the end of Trump’s term if they do what they
    have promised to do in the past 8 years should they seize the House, Senate,
    and White House.

  41. Grant Kraus

    You don’t win voters by telling them they are stupid and beneath contempt. That is tantamount to saying you have no intention of representing them

    You don’t win voters by failing to offer a positive vision and selling only fear

    You don’t win voters by trying to get them to believe you’ll suddenly behave differently and take positions contrary to the ones you’ve held for decades to extract cash from the the richest and most powerful

    You don’t win voters with a record of failing upward

    You don’t win voters by saying your opponent is a sleaze, even when undeniably true, when you are at least as sleazy yourself

    I always appreciate the insights from this site, and agree with most of this post. In particular, I agree that the heavy reliance on identity politics hurt Clinton. But it seems to me that Trump won by following this script. Would it be fair to say that Trump could win this way, while Clinton (obviously) could not?

    1. John Zelnicker

      @Grant Kraus – Trump did not tell people they were stupid and beneath contempt. He claimed he would represent them.

      Although he played on fear, he also offered a positive vision.

      He didn’t try to tell them he was different than he had been in the past.

      Although Trump has a record of business failure, he keeps pushing forward and wins enough times to brag about being a winner.

      These differences, along with the almost rabid desire of the working class to stick it to the establishment, were enough to defeat Clinton, even if Trump did use his a form of identity politics.

      1. Grant Kraus

        Respectfully, I think we just see this differently.

        I think Trump did express contempt towards “people,” like Mexicans, Muslims, and African Americans. He just didn’t do that to other whites. Even if he didn’t use the exact words “stupid” or “beneath contempt” about those people, neither did Clinton.

        I think his mix of fear and positive vision wasn’t that different from Clinton’s. In any event, it was mostly fear.

        I think Trump’s position on abortion, an issue important to many of his supporters, is different than his position in the past. His positions on illegal immigrants, banning Muslims, the minimum wage,and other issues changed significantly even over the course of the campaign, let alone over the course of his career.

        His record of failing upward is not that far off from Clinton’s. It’s not as though she never succeeded at anything or that she didn’t keep pushing forward too.

        And I think we agree they both used identity politics as central elements of their campaigns.

        I’m not disputing that Clinton ran a different campaign from Trump’s in important ways or that her campaign was (obviously) a failure. I think your point about the desire of the working class to stick it to the establishment (though I think it was more than just the working class) is a more persuasive explanation — along with Clinton’s unwillingness/inability to speak persuasively to voter’s economic insecurity — than qualities that, in my opinion, both candidates/campaigns shared.

      2. Grant Kraus

        I think we agree more than we disagree on this. I agree that the desire of the working class (and others) to stick it to the establishment was a major factor, probably more so than the others in the list I quoted. And I think we both agree that both candidates used a form of identity politics. It’s interesting to think about why Trump’s was more successful. That said, I do think Trump expressed clear contempt for many groups of people — Mexicans, Muslims, and African Americans for starters. Unlike Clinton, though, he didn’t express contempt for people whose votes he needed to win. And I also think that Clinton had successes too, and kept pushing forward. Again, we may see those points differently, but I think I agree with you on the main drivers of Trump’s win.

  42. Merf56

    Well well well… at least the long dreary cold days of winter here in PA will be ‘interesting’ in early 2017… Trump’s first 100 days….. I am stocking up on fleece and Lagavulin….. at least it won’t be boring….
    Reading all the excellent comments here as well as Yves excellent piece has left my mind reeling with reasons and solutions.
    And a smidge ( albeit very small- more like flyspeck really ….) of hope, that maybe the Dems will use this opportunity to smash the party to bits and remake it into a progressive working people’s powerhouse that can get behind in the future…. or maybe I am just exhausted and depressed by it all and seeing possibilities where there are none.
    A sincere thank you to all you people commenting here and Yves & associates who are all much much wiser and thoughtful than myself.

  43. mk

    Wow, we voted for HRC, even though I threatened to vote for Trump, I had my partner complete my mail-in ballot to prevent me from marking Trump last minute. We went for lessor evil, thinking that the great turnout of people voting were doing the same. What a surprise to wake up this morning to a President Elect Trump! Google reports a republican controlled congress too – will Trump be worse than Bush and Obama?

    On the other hand, something to feel hopeful about, THE WAR ON DRUGS IS COMING TO AN END IN CALIFORNIA!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU CALIFORNIA VOTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  44. Starveling

    Reading Krugman, Matty Y, and Ezra Klein tears make whatever happens in the next four years worth it.

    I really hope that this is a mortal wound for DNC-style ‘liberalism’.

    1. pretzelattack

      i’m still reeling. i thought the mighty wurlitzer would drag her over the line, but it seems less effective than advertised.

      1. Uahsenaa

        One of the odd knock on effects of propaganda, especially propaganda that so clearly and consistently fails to mesh with reality, is that people eventually learn to simply read past it. In countries where the press has been far more co-opted and for a much longer time, you’ll find that when you talk to people they have a pretty keen sense of how to read between the lines. I see this especially among my Chinese friends who often point to something completely innocuous in the Chinese press and say straight out, “yeah, that’s a much bigger deal than they’re making it out to be” or “clearly, someone’s head is about to roll.”

        The US MSM, even just in my lifetime, has steadily lost all credibility, and as a result, I think people are learning to read past what they see. Certainly those of us who live in the middle don’t look out from our windows and see a shining city on a hill. We see small towns and cities gutted by deindustrialization. So when the WSJ or the Times touts “the improving economy” month after month, people around here know enough to be able to say, “that’s so nice for you. You must be doing great.”

        The worst part is the talking heads really think that’s a compliment and not an insult.

        1. sgt_doom

          The US MSM, even just in my lifetime, has steadily lost all credibility. . .

          Hmmmm . . . . I recall lies from Dan Rather on CBS concerning the Zapruder film and what was on it about the JFK assassination, many years ago, and lies Jim Lehrer wrote in his Dallas newspaper about it.

          Seems to me they were well-rewarded for all the lies they told eons ago.

  45. BecauseTradition

    I was loathing getting up this morning and can hardly believe the good news. Yeah! Hillary and Bill lost!

    Trump I’m not so worried about. He’s a real person, at least, and a potential class traitor too while Bill and Hill are perpetual sellouts, it seems. And Presidents do seem to grow in the job, thank God.

    Just my 2 cents since I scarcely follow politics.

  46. Anne

    Random thoughts, in no particular order (though the Type-A part of me will attempt to organize my thoughts in a relatively cohesive way):

    1. Clinton was never a good candidate, not in 2008, and not in 2016. She learned nothing from her loss of the nomination in 2008: to use a sports analogy, she is like the head coach who draws up a game plan and sticks to it for the entire game, failing to make in-game adjustments in response to the opposing team’s strategy.

    2. An electorate that is already angry at being left behind and treated unfairly did not take kindly to obvious efforts to undermine and manipulate and connive to deny Bernie Sanders a fair chance at making his case to the people; for many people that was the last straw.

    3. When the powers that be decide in advance who the nominee will be, they lose the opportunity to fine-tune, adjust, reform and revolutionize the party and move it where the people are clearly and loudly telling them they want it to go: a place where positive change and much-needed progress can begin.

    4. While I never wanted Clinton to be president, I could not stomach the reality of a Trump presidency and administration: a Chris Christie as attorney general, a Rudy Giuliani as head of DHS, God-only-knows-what-white-robed-xenophobic-racist as head of ICE, Mike Pence leading the fight back to the Middle Ages for women? No, this is not going to help those who see Trump as their savior. With more Republican governors, continued GOP majority in the Congress, there will be continued erosion of voting rights and more and worse kinds of voter suppression, guaranteeing that those who most need a voice will not get it.

    5. I pray for the continued good health of Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Sotomayor and Kagan.

    6. Bernie did as he promised and supported Clinton; if he’s relegated to the back bench in the wake of her loss, I hope he can get people into the streets, because irrelevancy as a reward for loyalty is why Democrats abandoned her in the first place, proving the party – like Clinton – is hard-wired against change and itself needs to be relegated to irrelevancy by a new, better, party/organization.

    7. Sadly, before Sanders can return to being a lightning rod for change, he’s going to need to rebuild the trust he lost when he went over to the dark side. We’ll have to see what’s in store for Warren, who not only was Velcro-ed to Clinton’s hip, but taunted and hectored the man who is now the president-elect, and like Clinton, does not take kindly to that sort of thing.

    8. Just got an e-mail from someone I knew from TalkLeft: “Let’s start by thanking third party voters who insisted on purity.”

    9. My response to her: “Blaming third-party voters for Clinton’s loss is just proof that the party has and will learn nothing from this entire election process.

    She was a terrible candidate, who, even with the extraordinary help from the DNC, her friend Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a long list of pundits and media folk blatantly in the tank for her, could not climb out of holes her own terrible judgment put her in, could not read the mood and anger of the electorate, and manage to prevail against a loudmouth bully with no political experience and a terrible business record. She lost to the man whom every media outlet called a joke when he announced his candidacy.

    That’s not on third-party voters, it’s on her. It’s on the Democratic Party: thank them for this. The sooner you direct your anger there, and at Clinton herself, the sooner the party might be able to right itself. As it is, at the highest levels, it appears to be just one arm of a thoroughly corrupt structure in which Hillary Clinton and her family hold prominent roles.

    Blame them.

    10. A colleague brought in fresh Krispy Kreme doughnuts this morning to ease our general dread about what comes next – unless they are filled with Everclear or sprinkled with oxy, not sure just the sugar rush is going to help much. But what the hell…

    1. DJG

      Compliments, Anne. I was looking at state-by-state results. Check certain close states like Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and even a less-close state like Illinois. I realized that if I were a Democratic Party hack, the first thing that I would write would be: “We’ve got to snuff out the Greens.”

      Then that e-mail would be leaked, of course. As further evidence of Dem cluelessness.

      I like your ten points. Maybe because I agree.

      I would lay off the doughnuts if I were you. La lotta continua. The struggle continues. And I don’t see deep-fried carbs as helping.

    2. FluffytheObeseCat

      I have a real problem with #7.

      1) Sanders swore he would support Clinton if he lost the Dem primary, and he did what he said he would. People like him because that’s the kind of guy he is, and they can just plain smell it. It is why he might have won despite the “kooky old socialist” baggage that would have been trotted out in a general. Much more than the actual left, the neoliberals really had nowhere else to go. They were far more dependent on whoever ran under the Dem banner than we were dependent on Clinton.

      Nonetheless, Sanders did not ‘go over to the dark side’ in keeping his word.

      2) Warren had no choice but to fight like a wildcat when Trump dissed her the way he did in their Twitter war. He was never going to treat her with respect anyway; she has lost nothing by fighting back with a vengeance. Trump will find a zillion little ways to make her pay for it politically…. but then a sitting Senator can return that favor, can’t she.

      Like Douglass said, power concedes nothing without a demand.

      1. PlutoniumKun

        Yes, I think that ultimately Sanders is a big winner out of the election, although it would have been bigger if the dems held a few more Senate seats. He firewalled himself against getting blamed for HRC’s failure, he, and Warren, are the only Dems standing without a factory farm full of egg on their faces. He’s played it very astutely the past few months, and I have confidence he will continue to play a weak hand very well.

      2. Anne

        Fluffy, I don’t have a problem with Sanders keeping his word – it’s one of the things I admire about him – but I can’t tell you how many comments I read here from people who were Sanders supporters, who just said they were done with him for endorsing her. Period. The End. They pulled up their signs, pulled off their bumper stickers, got rid of their Sanders gear and vowed to vote for Trump.

        Those are the people he would have to win back.

        As for Warren, I don’t think she ever believed Trump would win, so never considered how she would deal with this man who has shown himself to fight dirty and payback with a vengeance if he did. Where I disagree with you is that Warren did not have to stoop to his level and play his game – she had the choice to “go high” when he went low, and she didn’t. I think he will make her pay for that.

        I guess we wait to see Sanders’ next move; I do so hope he takes up the challenge.

        1. mk

          People are angry over issues and I suspect people will support Sanders again because of his stance on the issues. If you want single payer, who else is out there to help build a movement to make it happen?

        2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          I believe one key argument of those ex-Sanders supporters was, given the rigging, he would be justified in not keeping his word.

          It’s like there was a mutual non-aggression pact, but one side broke it and started a war against you.

          I think you have to fight back and deem that pact null and void.

          1. Anne

            Justified, of course, no question; they got him to agree under false pretenses, really, so one could argue that the agreement was never valid to begin with. But, here’s the thing: they knew they had Sanders over a barrel, because if he didn’t keep up his end of the deal, they’d make sure he never got within 100 feet of a decent committee assignment ever again – and he knew that if he was going back to the Senate, his highest and best use there would be as the ranking member in a Dem-minority Senate, or a committee chair if Dems could take back the Senate.

            I have no doubt they screwed him six ways from Sunday, but given what else they had the potential to do if he reneged, I don’t blame him for keeping his word, even if they had no intention of keeping theirs.

            I think they thought it would effectively kill the Sanders Revolution; it would be a shame if we let them think they did.

      3. Avalon Sparks

        Exactly Fluffy – I didn’t like it but he kept his promise and did what he said he would. Integrity through and through. I wrote him in for President, and it was an honor to vote for him twice. The man lives and breathes honesty, and you could tell by the way he ‘supported’ her, his heart wasn’t in it. It’s very hard to fake passion. He went about it dutifully, and I love him all the more for it.

        Oh, and the way he held his head up with such dignity and grace all the well knowing they had screwed him six ways from Sunday. Again…. INTEGRITY and GRACE.
        What it took inside to stand so strong and keep his word in the face of that absurdity, only a few people in this world could pull off.

        My heart broke into a thousand pieces during the Dem Convention roll call. The loss of what could have been was so physically painful, it felt like someone literally shot me in the gut.

        And how this whole thing played out, if Bernie hadn’t opened so many minds during the primary – I think she would have been elected. Ultimately, he didn’t have to win the Presidency to defeat her.

    3. sgt_doom

      According to those leaked speeches given by HRC before the Wall Street bankers, she said the following:

      Told them to only believe what she said behind closed doors, her public utterances were fiction, the proceeded to . . .

      vow to destroy workers’ protections;

      vow to lower workers’ wages;

      vow to destroy social security!

      And, you said ” Sotomayor and Kagan” — you are aware that those two voted against allowing a security perimeter around Planned Parenthood Clinics during protests (which is how a number of murderers snuck into their clinics to kill)?

  47. Bottom Gun

    My suspicions were confirmed with Clinton when I shared knowledge with her people of a massive whistleblower case that would have humiliated one of her political enemies in the bargain. Anybody with two neurons to rub together would have pounced on it. In today’s world you need both integrity and political instincts to thrive in politics. But the Clinton people seemed to possess neither.

    So when they then had the chutzpah to send a canvasser to my home several weeks ago, I told her to get the hell off my lawn. If it were a Bernie canvasser, I would have asked if they take cash or checks.

  48. KurtisMayfield

    First of all I would like to thank Lambert for staying up and contributing his analysis during the long process. This year seemed like it was longer than normal, as if the media and the political machines had reservations about calling a spade a spade.

    Also I would like to thank Yves for her analysis this morning, and allowing us this space to contribute.

    Why I am posting is to say that this is still the most dangerous time for TPP passage. We do not have many lame duck Senators, but never underestimate what the political class will do to get this done while Obama is in office. This election can be “interpreted” as a rejection of HRC, not of Neoliberalism, and we are still not out of the woods on TPP passage until Obama is out.

    Please do what you can. I will be writing a letter to my congress critter and Senators today asking them not to pass it. Thank you.

  49. Dave

    Well, I guess I know how my neighbors up the hill voted….
    at Midnight they played “I Had Too Much to Dream Last Night…” by The Electric Prunes, full blast out their windows for the full length of the song.

    My personal sample of how people were going to vote was 90% for Trump….and I had to drag it out of a lot of them.

    This election demonstrated the “Bradley Effect” on maximum overdrive.
    Tom Bradley, black mayor of Los Angeles was running for governor, “Oh we’re going to vote for Tom Bradley” was what all the polls showed statewide. He lost, big time. People lied to pollsters rather than appear non P.C.

    Every time Hillary appears in public from now on she’s going to have to dodge the Big Sky Cat trying to bury her in kitty-litter.

    I will offer to buy a couple rounds for all the white, racist, misogynistic, hetero-normative, xenophobic, uneducated, irredeemables in our corner tavern tonight. Better go to the bank first.

  50. Phil King

    We actually do have a good idea as to what Trump will do, it’s on his website. Some choice selections :

    – right to carry in all 50 states
    – tax cuts which, with a little research, you’ll find overwhelmingly benefit the 1 and .1 %
    – increased military spending (so much for him taking on the MIC) – peace through
    strength in his words, a virtual neocon mantra
    – pedal to the metal with fossil fuel extraction, including on federal lands. Climate
    change, according to Trump’s campaign rhetoric, is a Chinese plot.
    – pedal to the metal with charter schools, a boondogle for the corporate and investment
    – massive deregulation of the business sector

    A couple of take-aways :
    – when the Reaganesque, trickle-down tax cuts kick in (if they happen), social spending
    will be gutted accordingly
    – all of Trump’s positions, with the exception of trade policy, fall well within the range
    of conservative orthodoxy. He’s no outsider, though that was his play. His campaign
    staff roster read like a who’s-who of establishment Repub political operatives.
    – infrastructure investment is via the private sector, spurred by tax cuts. Ha.

    I was a Sanders supporter who went with the lesser evil approach. My reasoning, whether right or wrong, was that the progressive base had been sufficiently emboldened so as to (maybe) effectively act as a countervailing power to the Dem establishment.

    The idea that Trump is some working class-hero, champion of the common man, is a joke.

    What he does champion is a right-wing counterculture (aka movement conservatism)
    that has come of age and now owns DC. It has a core set of values and aspirations that transcend any facile class analysis (eg that this was a revolt of the working class). Not in a million years would the right-wing base vote Democrat, no matter how populist their
    policies. Sure, there are some who I’d imagine voted Trump who aren’t right-wing, but they are not the right’s heart and soul.

    So to all of the gloaters at NC gleeful at the the defeat of the Dems, get ready to eat s*** for the next four years.

    1. pretzelattack

      i’m a sanders supporter who went with the lesser evil approach too. trump. clinton was an absolute disaster of a candidate. trump isn’t supported by his own party, it’s possible they will kneecap him as the democrats did mcgovern and carter, which opens up a space for 3d parties or, possibly, a reformed democratic party.

      1. Ché Pasa

        They have no intention of kneecapping him. They look forward to enacting as much of their long delayed program as they possibly can — and especially to packing the courts — before the Rabble wakes up to what’s happened. Trump is the King-Emperor they’ve yearned for.

        There will be no gridlock. No retreat. No surrender.

        1. pretzelattack

          if he were the king emperor they’ve longed for they wouldn’t have lined up behind clinton the way they did.

          1. Phil King

            Some Repubs did at first. Most came back home to the political tent from what I saw, once they got a better feel for him and for the sentiments of their respective bases. Again, with the exception of trade policy, Trump and his fellow Repubs are perfectly aligned. My bet is that he caves on trade, assuming he’s actually serious about what he’s proposing (eg renegotiating NAFTA). If he doesn’t cave, then yes, he’ll be at odds with the Repubs on trade.

            1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

              Didn’t Trump say something about a sovereign nation could never default on loans in its own currency?

              Does social spending need to be gutted to cut taxes?

      2. sgt_doom

        I performed an indepth lexical analysis of all the interviews, writing and speeches and talks by Donald Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

        Trump was the only one who consistently repeated, over the past thirty years, the phrase:

        “We must take care of our own people first!”

        Interesting, huh?

        1. Avalon Sparks

          He’s also the only one that brought up the Flint Water Crisis and his concerns about that a couple of times. The only Repub. He said it during a few debates, and it wasn’t even related to a question about it. I thought, at least that’s something. Also waving the rainbow flag… lol.

          And not for nothing, he did infiltrate the Pubs and blow their party up.

          Whether the pubs will march in line and support him is highly up for debate. There’s so many long time blow hards in the House and Senate that are happy to sit on their hands and vote for nothing at all, except for maybe the name of a Post Office or something. The Working Party People sent a message – the establishment took a blow and surely they are considering where we go from here, just as we all are. There jobs also depend on it, cause even all the money in the world for campaigning can’t guarentee the actual votes.

    2. Whine Country

      I forget. How’d Obama do on keeping his promises? So you see Trump as having told the truth? Yogi Berra said: “You can observe a lot by just watching”. I’m going to wait and just watch before I jump to any conclusions. And, if I’m wrong, at least we have a President who breaks a long standing tradition of promising things and then not doing them.

    3. Dave

      “The idea that Trump is some working class-hero, champion of the common man, is a joke.”

      Thanks for speaking for all those voters.
      Too bad you weren’t there to advise them when they lost their high paying Middle Class manufacturing jobs in the Rust Belt thanks to NAFTA and other Clinton trade deals. You weren’t there when they lost their house to mortgage fraud. Nor were you there when their marriages broke up for economic reasons. You weren’t there when they have to choose which crappy service job they had to take to eat; greeter at Walmart or hide from their former Middle Class friends in the back of a warehouse, until their knees give out. You weren’t there when their kids moved back into their former rooms. You weren’t there when they had to choose between gasoline or expensive chemotherapy.

      But here you are, the morning after, defining what they think and what their vote means to them.

      1. Phil King

        You missed my point completely. It’s about a successful right-wing counterculture being the center of gravity of what is now the Republican party, as versus the narrative of a working-class uprising with Trump as its champion. It’s not just about class, it’s also (if not primarily) about culture – values and worldview. Read his proposals; it’s same-old same-old conservative ideology with the exception of economic nationalism (and who knows how long that will last). That orthodoxy works as well for the working class (of which I’m a member) as the neoliberal mumbo-jumbo retailed by establishment Dems. And yes, I was there.

        1. Dave

          Politics is a zero sum game. You vote for one or the other, at least until we have proportional representation.

          I don’t know what Trump will do. Campaign literature is fiction. I do know what Clinton has done, and is likely to keep doing, were she elected.

          His projected bads which you quote:
          – tax cuts which, with a little research, you’ll find overwhelmingly benefit the 1 and .1 %
          – increased military spending (so much for him taking on the MIC) – peace through
          strength in his words, a virtual neocon mantra
          – pedal to the metal with fossil fuel extraction, including on federal lands.
          Clinton has supported these things and probably would continue to do so.

          “Climate change, according to Trump’s campaign rhetoric, is a Chinese plot.”
          Trump limiting Chinese imports would probably do more to limit carbon emission than any other policy.
          As a businessman, the investment potential and bottom line of American alternative energy would appeal to him. Clinton is pro-fracking.

          “– pedal to the metal with charter schools, a boondogle for the corporate and investment
          I agree.

          “– massive deregulation of the business sector”
          As long as it’s small business, real small business, what’s wrong with that? It’s a positive for the economy and job creation.

          Do you paint “counterculture” as a positive or a negative?
          “Except for economic nationalism?”
          By itself, that’s enough reason to vote for him.

          You also left out the little detail of not actively proclaiming you were going to do something which might trigger WWIII, as Clinton has done with Syrian No Fly Zones. That and her previous actions as an elected public official project more menace than Trump’s campaign literature.

          Thank you

          1. EndOfTheWorld

            Right on, Mr. Dave. War vs. Peace just absolutely, totally, eternally, and irrevocably eclipses all other issues. Donald Trump shows some signs of not being a warmonger. He’s a deal maker. He’s a lover, not a fighter. Give peace a chance.

        1. ChiGal in Carolina

          Effective rhetoric with its passion and use of repetition but really just an ad hominem attack. Neither lucid nor intelligent.

    4. Patricia

      “get ready to eat s*** for the next four years.”

      Well, yes. We’ve been offered shit-show1 or shit-show2. The people chose.

    5. Deloss Brown

      I’m with you, Phil King. Trump has stated his goals–like finding a Scalia clone to put onto the Supreme Court–and the others above. A dear friend of mine called during the chaos and said that while as a woman, she was going out to buy a chastity belt, she hoped that her health insurance premiums would go down. I did not laugh at her, although I disabused her.

      There is almost no limit to the damage Trump and a Republican Congress will do, and after they find a new Scalia, they will have all three branches of government. And those of you who imagine that you can use these four years to rebuild and regroup–“a space for third parties . . . a reformed Democratic party”– what makes, you think you’ll be allowed to organize? Trump, as you should know by now, is totally lawless. This is a disaster approximately equivalent to Herrman Göring’s being appointed Minister of the Interior for Prussia. Look it up. Trump will control the police and the army, and his allies and advisors, like Cory Lewandoski, are not gentlemen.

      Ms. Smith and I live on the high ground in Manhattan. That’s a good thing, because Trump doesn’t believe in global warming, and without some action, much of our island will go under water.

      His solution to improve Obamacare will be to repeal it. He has no plan to replace it. (He has no plans, period, except The Wall and a new Scalia.)

      What will happen to abortion and Planned Parenthood, I don’t like to think about.

      And the idiots who voted for him (or for Gary Johnson, or Jill Stern)? They will be surprised when the Republicans get their way and do away with Social Security and Medicare. “Gee, nobody told us he’d do that.”

      “So to all the gloaters–” well, you can read it above.

      1. jrs

        Well plenty of people told us Hillary was after Social Security, but it was all ever so indirect as it always is with those slippery neo-lib Dems, her support for Simpson Bowles, floating an mandatory employee retirement saving plan to invest in the casinos (that no one could prove was actually meant to eventually replace Social Security of course) etc..

        1. jrs

          truthfully it didn’t meet my burden of proof, but it didn’t exactly give me confidence that the woman would protect these programs either. It only she herself was capable of coming out championing these very popular programs in her campaign even. But no.

  51. mad as hell.

    Time will tell. Things are going to move quickly with all promises Trump made. Is he gonna build a wall? Is he gonna start deporting? Is Hillary going be tried? Who knows? We will find out shortly. Trump’s cabinet picks should be a tip off. Time will tell.

    The msm got it so wrong. Worse predictions than a local weatherman and like a weatherman very few if any will lose their jobs. That is the unfortunate thing. I quite watching cnn and their sister broadcasting partners awhile ago. However last night I did watch a few networks. I must say that I got a Game of Thrones revenge pleasure in seeing the likes of Tom Brokaw, Chuck Todd and all the other usual suspects ahhming and umming their way through their telecast. Now if someone would only fire the bastards for incompetence.

  52. Jim Haygood

    On Sunday I collected some headlines from the NYT as souvenirs:

    Election forecast: Hillary Clinton has an 84% chance of winning.

    Kristof: ‘I’m With Her’: The Strengths of Hillary Clinton

    Inside Donald J. Trump’s Last Stand: Behind the show of confidence orchestrated by Mr Trump’s staff are the neediness and vulnerability of a once-boastful candidate uncertain of victory.

    Clinton Aides May Bring Baggage to White House

    Roxane Gay: Voting For Hillary With My Head and Heart

    Lies. All lies.

    Drain the swamp: smash the MSM.

    p.s. shorting stocks would be painful. The summit of Bubble III lies directly ahead … followed by the recession of 2018.

  53. Ché Pasa

    The question now is whether Our Rulers will allow this result to stand.

    Trump is no Carter cum Berlusconi, not on a bet. He’s more like a reincarnation of Andrew Jackson, laden with bling but without the military trappings. How would the country today be different if the Elites of his time had prevented Jackson from ascending to the Presidency? They could have done it one way or another (elections were in some ways more easily and frequently manipulated then than they are now) but apparently they dared not. Were they too frightened of what a populist backlash would do to them?

    Is our current Ruling Clique equally frightened of raging white men? I dunno. I doubt it. But somehow these Masters of the Universe must come to grips with popular discontent and the rightist demagogues who’ve been elevated to deal with it. Not just here but in much of the so-called “free” world.

    Andrew Jackson’s Presidency changed the trajectory of the country from what it might have become to what it became — and to an extent what it’s continued to be: a hostile, imperial, bullying, exploitative, bloodthirsty hegemon. It’s baked in.

    Trump won’t change any of those factors, except perhaps to make them worse. And if allowed to, he will turn the courts into his private judicial enforcement operation.

    We the Rabble are in for a world of hurt.

    Will Our Rulers see this as a sufficient threat to them for them to act?

    We’ll see, won’t we?

    1. pretzelattack

      or, on the foreign policy front, he may not be as warlike as clinton. we’ll see. his cabinet appointments will reveal a lot.

    2. Dave

      “How would the country today be different if the Elites of his time had prevented Jackson from ascending to the Presidency?”
      ROTTOMH, (Right of the top of my head),
      America would stretch from around Denver to Maine and down about as far as The Mason Dixon line. Russia, Mexico and Canada would have common borders with us and we’d be shackled to something far more ancient and entrenched than the federal reserve. Various Indian nations would have formed a Quebec like confederation in the middle of the country and we would have no foreign colonies, nor Hawaii, nor Alaska.

      1. Ché Pasa

        I think a key is that the Imperial US either would not have come into being at all, or it would have been so delayed that it would be impossible for it to become the Global Hegemon.

        Absent that, the lives of most Americans would be much, much better — though perhaps not as suffused with stuff.

      2. NotTimothyGeithner

        I don’t know about the Southwest, but maps (geography) and population probably shaped the majority of the borders. The Indian tribes would assimilate or die. Disease outbreaks left them too weak to resist. Once you get a semi-industrial society on both sides of the Mississippi or maybe the Appalachians, the interior can’t be held. Grabbing Pacific ports would be a final step. If we didn’t take the Southwest, Vancouver would be the U.S.’.s second city.

        The British weren’t exactly kind to the French and First Nations in Canada despite not being Jacksonian.

    3. jrs

      Well I hope Trump might discredit the U.S. at least I the eyes of the rest of the world – really the U.S. empire has no clothes. But perhaps not.

  54. aliteralmind

    The Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton lost because the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton care more about their donors than they do about the bottom 90% of the American people. People are so sick of being treated this way, they would rather vote for the Big Fuck You candidate over their clearly more “competent” and “experienced” one.

    And the media calling this “the biggest upset in history” shows that they are just as corrupt and uncaring as their chosen candidate. It’s only an upset compared to their she-is-inevitable narrative. If they acknowledged and reported on the anger and problems of the American people, if they reported on the enormous flaws of their pre-chosen candidate (not to mention how they all colluded to ignore and sabotage the one candidate that millions of those disaffected voters actually wanted…who had none of those flaws), it would have been obvious at just how close this race has always been. And don’t forget the BILLIONS of free air time they gave to Trump.

    If people want to survive the next four years, we better start respecting Trump and his supporters, and the anger and hopelessness that they, and all of us, feel.

    1. Dave

      “the media calling this “the biggest upset in history” shows that they are just as corrupt and uncaring as their chosen candidate….”
      All advertisers in the MSM should DEMAND HUGE AD RATE DISCOUNTS starting in their next billing period.
      Revenge is a dish best served bold.

  55. pretzelattack

    the guardian just compared trump’s election to the visigoths sacking rome, according to a comment. orange haired visigoths, i guess.

    1. Ché Pasa

      Yes, well. The same sort of hyperbole was employed when Reagan won the governorship of California in 1966. My god. 50 years ago. My how time flies… Seems like only yesterday.

    2. polecat

      Oh Man ! ….I’m going straight to my local Rite-Aid … to see if i can find some ‘orange hair dye’ .. ‘;]

  56. Susan Nelson

    Thank you Yves, for being here, especially this morning. You do so much to inform me, and I am grateful.

    Thank you Anne for that great comment. My Faceborg has a lot of people angry at Sanders supporters. I am (still) angry at the Democratic Party, for doing everything Thomas Frank has pointed out that they shouldn’t have.

    I shudder to think what Ryan and the rest of them will do to the safety net and the Supreme Court, which is why I spent yesterday helping with the election protection effort. Oh well.

  57. Abigail Caplovitz Field

    So, on the whys of the election:

    1) I think charges of racism as the driver are overblown; I think Obama could’ve won a 3rd term. I think sexism was huge and real but also not the whole story; a better woman–or Clinton with a better campaign–could have won.

    2) The libertarian vote decided a lot of swing states. I’ll be very interested to know who those voters were. Had Clinton won them, she would’ve had an electoral landslide. But I’ve no idea if they were ‘winnable’

    3) I think elections are largely emotional and only broadly policy based–visions matter, not plans–and this was an overwhelming anti-status quo moment (Obama could’ve won b/c he’s been seen as an R Congressional victim.) Clinton as a very definition of the status quo candidate, running for a 3rd term, had to run a great campaign and didn’t. I don’t think Trump most voters really voted for him on policy beyond demanding fundamental change. His policy pronouncements either changed constantly or sharply favored the wealthiest. I think the demand for true change comes from all the underlying reasons discussed above about how the Ds abandoned, sold out, actively harmed their former base, but that most voters didn’t think about it in those terms.

    4) I think the establishment Ds are likely to insist that this is all about racist sexist deplorables and will not learn otherwise voluntarily.

    As to what will The Donald do? Somethings are clear consequences of a Trump +R Congress:

    Scalia’s seat is a young conservative; as many of the aged four as die in Donald’s term become young conservatives

    tax cuts for the wealthy (unless Senate Ds go to war, please, Elizabeth & Bernie), ballooning deficit, entitlements attacked and perhaps gutted.

    Dodd Frank/CFPB is toast

    Obamacare is toast

    New overtime rules are toast

    Basically, the R Congress will set the agenda and Trump will sign it, unless it’s something contrary to his brand–e.g. he wouldn’t do immigration reform.

    TPP may die if lame duck doesn’t pass it

    All things foreign policy I can’t predict, but I think the organizing principle is Trump’s ego and perceived self-interest.

    I would like to be wrong about the consequences…

    1. allan

      The current occupant of 1600 has 2.5 months to issue as many executive orders as he can,
      or repeal existing ones, in order to thwart this.
      If he doesn’t, it will say more than all of his legacy-burnishing speeches and books put together.

      1. Abigail Caplovitz Field

        he can’t thwart the next Executive with Executive Orders, they can be counter-ordered by that next Executive

        1. allan

          As many others have already pointed out online, a place to start would be
          EO 12333, which is the basis for much of the surveillance state.
          If that were rescinded, along with the legal opinions that supported overly broad interpretations
          of statutes such as FISA, that would be at least a temporary stumbling block.

          1. Abigail Caplovitz Field

            Again, should he want to, Trump could just sign it back into law in three months. It’s not that it’s a bad idea to do it, it’s just that it doesn’t achieve much lasting unless Trump is on board with it.

    2. Waldenpond

      It could be that it turns out that not only is the country is not conservative as the Rs claimed for decades, it’s not ‘moderate’ like the Ds like to claim. The country is pretty left….. SS, MCR, infrastructure, jobs (not lazy like both parties like to pretend either) and not dumb.

      I don’t agree Obamacare is done. They will not get rid of that particular grift until the middle class is stripped of every remaining dollars. They wine and dine with insurance CEOs. You can’t expect the unemployable children of wealth to work for a living, they must rentier their way to a penthouse.

      Did you mean independents rather than libertarians? 89/90% of Ds and Rs supported their party (R turnout was normal with 1st numbers, was Ds?) but indies (individuals that have left both parties) went +6 for Trump.

      I think Obama’s legacy is toast. Especially if he pardons her… he’ll be admitting his administration is uniquely corrupt and depending on how he words it, he’s aware she was selling our govt for bribes from oppressive, murdering regimes. People are finally going to reflect on what he has created to hand over to Trump and will be judged harshly for it. Kind of makes it public that his wars/police state were for profit not safety.

      1. Abigail Caplovitz Field

        Well, the R congress and Trump have been insisting they will repeal Obamacare, so they only way it doesn’t happen is if they abandon those demands/efforts, which is unlikely.

        re votes, I don’t mean “Libertarians” in the sense of political self-identification, I mean the people who actually voted for Gary Johnson. He got more votes than the margin of Trump victory in NH, MI, FL, WI and perhaps other states too; I didn’t check them all.

        1. pretzelattack

          i’m not sure how unlikely it is, it’s like them claiming they will get abortion overturned. it’s just something to throw to the base; big insurers contribute to their campaign, and i don’t think they want it phased out. tweaked to be even more favorable to them, yes.

          1. Abigail Caplovitz Field

            Well, the next four years provide the perfect experimental opportunity:

            Do Rs want to overturn Roe v Wade?

            Nothing stops them, except a Sup Ct filibuster rule that can be toast anytime they want to make it so. In other words, nothing stops them except themselves

            Do Rs want to repeal Obamacare?

            Nothing stops them except themselves.

            So we have at least 4 years to find out…

            1. Abigail Caplovitz Field

              Self-Correction: To overturn Roe they need Scalia + one death. Maybe they won’t get the chance after all. If it’s two trump terms, though, the opportunity is unavoidable.

        2. Anne

          This is not Gary Johnson’s fault; the fault lies with Clinton herself, and with a Democratic Party organization that failed, in quite spectacular fashion to heed the loud, clear and sustained voices of the people.

          She and her pals at the DNC ignored those voices at their own peril, and thanks to Wikileaks, we got to see just how corrupt and conniving they were. And no doubt still are, as secure as ever in the belief that if something goes wrong, it is always someone else’s fault.

          1. Abigail Caplovitz Field

            I agree it’s not his fault. That’s not what I’m saying. I just want to know who those voters were, ideologically and demographically. Were those votes against Trump/Clinton, or for Johnson?

          2. Abigail Caplovitz Field

            I recognize it’s not Johnson’s fault. I’m not implying he shouldn’t have run, or should have done anything differently. I’m wondering who those voters are, ideologically and demographically. If Clinton were a better candidate, could she have won them? That is was the vote really *for* Johnson, or was it anti Trump/Clinton?

    1. Yves Smith Post author

      It took a big nosedive. Voters going for Trump says that many believed Obama left them worse off. This is blowback from millions of unnecessary foreclosures, student debt slavery, and the rise of McJobs and the gig economy.

  58. Curious

    Yves , I believe you have forgotten a key point in Trumps agenda and that is try to be a dictator. Note that I am only saying try to become a dictator not that he will become one. But he sure do have all the characteristics of a wannabe dictator. As some of Trump’s supporter already knows that they have taken a risky chance in voting for Trump to improve things in their country. However, it is necessary to monitor Trump’s administration to ensure that Trump’s actions to become dictator are not as destructive that it destabilize the country.

    P.S.: I am not an American and neither an elite who is being benefitted of status quo, I am merely a curious person trying to study why world is sinking in to deep shit day by day as you mentioned in this very post.

    1. Yves Smith Post author

      Since when has he said anything consistent with wanting to be a dictator? Please provide evidence.

      The media has regularly said things that are verifiably false about Trump, such as flagrantly misrepresenting things he said in speeches, that anyone who took the effort and looked at the relevant section on YouTube, could debunk.

      I don’t like defending Trump, since a lot of what he has said is transgressive, reckless, and grandiose. But the media misrepresentations, when they had plenty of dirt on him to work with, were shameless.

      1. Curious

        Yves, Let me first disclose my basis of opinion before I get back to dictator point. The kind of dirty campaign you have seen both candidate using in this election , in my country( that is India by the way) that is the norm rather than exception. Yup , we see such madness at every election. However, Trump’s campaign was just too “Indian”. In India it is comman that candidates gives wild promises (like building wall), call a whole community as evil doers(like all terrorist are Muslim), adopting novel political strategies to capture votes of several minority community(see how trump has managed to take votes of several different minority including Indians) and despite being one of the benefactor of current corrupt system , claiming that he will abolish this corrupt system. The list still goes on but my point is that his campaign was not merely similar but identical to that of an Indian politicians. Due to this I do not think that Trump is stupid(like popular opinion) , on the contrary I think it was part of a well thought and strategic political campaign. And now after winning election , I dont think he is going to try to fulfill any promises as he himself knows that those promises cannot be fulfilled. On the contrary he will adopt the same course as Indian politicians do. Mainly he will put up a show of trying hard to improve things, while in reality he will be exploiting the system like he has done so many times. This I believe is his genuine agenda for running for presidency. However , I dont think he would be able to do this for long and he will know this too. And hence I believe that trying to be a dictator is one of his hidden agenda. It has nothing to do with any misinterpreted statement by media or a youtube videoas you suggested. And I apologize for my earlier comment , on rereading my earlier comment I realized that I have claimed thinga without giving my basis and hence in this comment I have disclosed the same. Now you may claim that what happens in India will not necessarily happen in U.S. as both countries are different. But I do believe that when a thief applies for job of security at a bank claiming that he will protect the bank then he actually wants to rob the bank. Please let me know what do you think.

  59. jfleni

    The “dim”ocrats and their plutocrat buddies messed up big time! Oh for the incredibly moderate Sanders proposals they insolently rejected so corruptly,
    they will moan.

    Really serves them right!

  60. Ted

    Yves, I think your analysis is dead on in terms of a sense one gets when you step out of the moneyed echo chamber and talk or listen to folks you wouldn’t normally talk to or even bother with. There were ample signs that a good chunk of the working classes were on the march in the lead up to this election. But, the urban and suburban professional classes have so bunkered themselves on the FB feeds and their propaganda as sneering comedy shows, that they have entirely lost touch with the body public.

    The professional urban and suburban classes have fallen prey to what must clearly be seen as an elite strategy to seperate identity from either political or economic interests. And this cost them the election last night (something I think Bernie Sanders understands). Here is a relevant data point from the CNN report of exit polls:

    Half of Michigan’s electorate feel trade takes away jobs, and these folks supported Trump by a 57% to 36% split. The 31% who think it creates jobs backed Clinton by a 65% to 31% margin.
    In Ohio, 47% of voters say trade hurts workers, and they lined up for Trump by a more than 2-to-1 margin. The 46% who say it creates jobs or has no effect strongly backed Clinton.

    This is very similar to the honest reporting that came out of the Brexit campaign in June (though I can’t get to the link at the moment).

    If anyone is interested in having a chance at political reform that might deliver a candidate for the rest of us in the future, race, ethnicity, gender, and class must be reconnected to both political and economic interest. It simply cannot be enough to make the argument that politics is about “respecting” women, blacks, latinos, muslims, LGBT individuals etc (but “white hetereosexual men” … not so much). The point of labor rights & civil rights movements, from union struggles, women’s sufferage, migrant citizenship, and racial and LGBT inclusion was not about having positive attitudes toward these groups. But about ensuring that they were not excluded from the body politic (that they have an equal voice in the public and its political process) and economic inclusion. Both of these forms of access to real POWER (not the fake kind the kind intelligentsia came to label “discourse” from the 1970s on) were what those great movements were about. The grand coalition that kept Roosevelt in power for four election cycles worked precisely because he addressed (primarily) the economic concerns of many of these constituencies (though clearly not the racial dimension, which would need to wait for LBJ to push civil rights through).

    The DEM establishment, and the well-heeled professional classes they have come to represent (who after all benefit tremendously from the status quo), have now completely severed the identity element (which will always trade in a white-male not white male binary), from the economic and political interest dimensions. And those politics lost them the rust belt last night.

    If the professional classes want to see some meaningful change in this country (they don’t but some of them, like the readers of NC do), they are going to have to allow coalitions around what matters to everyone: full political inclusion (e.g., political voice and equitable justice by the state) to all residents (as opposed to merely social inclusion, particularly in attitudinal terms) and full economic inclusion (in the sense of having a meaningful say in the distribution of surplus product under capitalism).

    If all we can hope for is more of the sort of insipid propaganda we get from the snickering sneering millionaires who despise the working and rural classes of all races, ethnicities, and genders in the moneyed media (whether in the forms of “funny” clowns like Maher, Noah, or Bee (to be inclusive after all) or “serious” readers of news TelePrompTer .. aka “TV Journalists”), then the future for candidates like Trump are bright indeed.

  61. DarkMatters

    “I seriously considered shorting the market first thing yesterday morning, and have the e-mail record to prove it.” Why not? Look at what Biddle did in 1837. Do you suppose something like this might happen if serious bank reform were in the works?

    Unlike many here, I’m not sure that Trump will be so great. I’m looking at it as a test of the proverb “The devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.” In this case, of course, I’m hoping the proverb fails.

    My hopefulness is tempered by memories of events following Obama’s inauguration. In particular, I’m waiting to see how Trump’s cabinet shapes up. That will tell a lot, and be a predictor of how well he’ll be able to stand up to behind-the-scenes pressure and act on his own, for good or ill.

    1. BecauseTradition

      Look at what Biddle did in 1837

      Let em try. Besides, really serious bank reform would not be deflationary since it would involve a Steve Keen “A Modern Jubilee”-like fiat distribution to all adult citizens. Nor need it be inflationary given that the proper abolition of government provided deposit insurance would be very deflationary by itself – so carefully combine the two for no net decrease or increase in purchasing power.

    2. pretzelattack

      yes, chances are he’s a bog standard republican. his cabinet choices are key, and i expect them to be disappointing.

  62. flora

    To the Acela corridor bubble-dwellers on both parties:

    “One of the moral diseases we communicate to one another in society comes from huddling together in the pale light of an insufficient answer to a question we are afraid to ask.”
    – Thomas Merton

  63. TheCatSaid

    Regardless of how anyone feels about the election results–happy, sad, indifferent–it is important to verify the results. This can be done by requesting the Ballot Images for your area. Instructions are at the link.

    Ballot Images are available in one or two different file formats, depending on the kind of technology (paperless voting machines or optical scan). The post above explains this and which is best to request, if you have a choice.

    EVERYWHERE these should be checked. They are the way to know whether reported results were correct for any race.

    John Brakey successfully got a court decision in Arizona some weeks ago setting precedent that these Ballot Images are indeed election records (thus must be retained like other election records for a minimum time period depending on the local laws).

    As voters it’s our individual and collective responsibility to verify results to safeguard democracy–not simply accept on trust what we have been told–regardless of our candidate preference.

  64. Benedict@Large

    I had never intended to vote for Clinton, even before Sanders announced. I figured a blank vote or a Stein vote, and that would be that. After Sanders was ousted and the whole manner in which that went down, after a more detailed examination of Clinton’s SofS record, after a number of things like that, I became increasingly hostile towards Clinton.

    In the end, I opted for a Stein vote with one caveat. As a Florida voter, if there was some way my vote might decide the state, taking it away from Clinton, I would vote for Trump. In the end, that is what I did.

    I believed fully that the Clinton(Obama) Dynasty had to end. But look at what it will cost, I’ve since been told. Yes, but there was always going to be a price to pay, and that price was just getting higher. At some point, you just have to bight the bullet.

  65. landline

    The D’s will blame racism and Putin because they would crack the mirror if they look into it.

    There is room now for positive social change if common people organize for it. The professional liberal class will scoff, or even worse, obstruct our efforts.

    Uprising forced Nixon to gave us the EPA and detente with China. We can force Trump and the rotten elites to give us healthcare and cut out the fat from the bloated MIC. Mass action and independent political groupings are the tactics. It’s ours if we work together, accept the equality of all and educate each other to the crimes of the ruling elites and expose their propaganda. The emperor is not quite naked, but he’s down to his skivvies.

    The fallen D’s will try their best to foment hatred between white and non-white working class people. Don’t let them. Obama would have won easily last night. A minority woman espousing Sanders’ modest liberal reformist policies would have beaten Trump. Lots of white people who voted for Obama voted for Trump. Hardcore racists are few and diminishing, even if many disaffected white working class people who don’t usually vote put Trump into the White House.

    As usual, I voted only for independents, Greens and Peace & Freedom (California) and on ballot propositions. I bumped into a friend and told her how I left many blanks. She said, “You’re an anarchist and think no one can solve our problems.” I said, “No, we can solve them ourselves.” Sure, a little idealistic, but it is the only way.

    1. L

      Uprising may have forced the EPA, but Russia and opportunism forced China. China and Russia split for domestic reasons and Kissinger spotted an opportunity to crack the wall.

      As to your later point, almost anyone But Clinton could have beaten Trump if they took positions that people actually want. Even she could have she had done so convincingly.

    2. Arizona Slim

      Uprising also forced Nixon to give us the all-volunteer military, affirmative action, and OSHA. And, like landline, I think it can work again.

    3. Waldenpond

      ‘The D’s will blame racism’

      Nope. They are stating that racism is less bad than they thought, and sexism is much, much worse than they thought.

      1. landline

        They can say whatever they want. Without looking up the information, I’d guess that between one third to one half of women voters voted for Trump. So the D’s definition of “sexism” includes women can’t think for themselves if they don’t vote for us.

        My campaign analysis slogan: “The smart people are stupid, and everybody else hates them.”

    1. Jim Haygood

      1 hour late = no respect

      Minor staffers monkeying around on an empty stage: amateur to the bitter end.

      Farewell to a 42-year criminal career. It’s all over but the liquidation of the Clinton Foundation.

  66. flora

    This race wasn’t so much a traditional left/right Dem/GOP contest, as it was a Main St/Wall St race, imo. The voters were offered a choice between more of the neo-liberal same or something different. They chose something different. No idea how that will work out. Neo-liberism lost last night, though it may try to push through anti-democracy trade deals in the lame duck session.

    Many thanks to NC for great, all night coverage and commentary.

  67. YassirYouBetcha

    A while back we Minnesotans elected a professional wrestler (It’s a long story. You don’t want to know.) as governor. The serious people in authoritative billets assured us that he was b*****t and this was a sure sign of the eschaton. Funny thing happened on the way to the Day of the Lord, however. Said grappler proved to be a reasonably competent governor. Certainly far from the worst one we have had in the past four or five decades. Sometimes horse sense trumps (sorry, mea maxima culpa) a post-doc at Oxford.
    “Patience and tenacity of purpose are worth more than twice their weight in cleverness.” Thomas Henry Huxley

  68. L

    At the end of the day, the democrats nominated a centrist republican and she lost to Donald Trump, just like in the primaries.

  69. dejavuagain

    As long as US [Delaware] Corporation Law promotes the principle that the purpose of a corporation is to maximize the [short-term] returns [share-price] to the shareholders [insiders with cheap stock options.] US companies will continue to export any remaining jobs in the rust belt to overeas.

    How many Trump voters understand that Trump justified his tax creativity with this meme re responsbility to his family, investors etc.

  70. Jess

    As befitting someone who is retired, I usually stay up late and then sleep in to around 8:30 or 9:00. Not this morning. Woke up at 6:15, my mind racing, unable to get back to sleep. Surprised the hell out of my poor kitties who were stunned to see me up that early. Among the many things running through my head:

    – Even if Obummer pardons both Clintons, expect Trump to appoint Guilani as AG and he will mount a civil investigation of them and the Foundation. Much of the territory covered will actually be under the jurisdiction of the IRS but Rudy’s crew will lead the way and the IRS will follow along like the obedient poodle it is.

    – Isn’t there something in the Constitution about pardon’s not applying to treason? (I know it doesn’t apply to impeachment.) Wouldn’t charging Bill and Hillary for treason for foreign influence through the Foundation be amazing?

    – There could be gridlock for Republicans and Dems but not necessarily for Trump. He doesn’t like to be told “no” and I can see him exhorting his followers to stage massive protests outside the homes and district offices of Congresscritters who oppose certain proposals.

    – All Trump has to do is attempt to follow through on a few of his proposals. (IOW, do what Obama refused to do, try.). Look for an early one to be massive infrastructure spending. Very hard for anyone in Congress to oppose because, aside from just about everyone acknowledging that it is long overdue, it means jobs in home states and districts. Even liberal elites in blue states would welcome improvements to their roads, bridges, mass transit, etc.

    – Other key areas where all Trump has to do is propose legislation and then let his followers do the heavy lifting include restoring recently reduced veteran’s benefits and imposing a hefty tariff on outsourced goods like cars and appliances re-imported to the U.S.

    I’m sure I’ll think of other things but for now, this is a start.

  71. Jess

    BTW, does anybody have any info on how the trade traitors did? Any of them get the axe? Maybe Lambert will have something on this this afternoon?

  72. NotSoSure

    It’s not over yet until Hillary Clinton is in jail. Trump should do it within his first 100 days. His popularity will shoot up.

    1. flora

      There should be no hint of political retribution by the winning side against the losing side. (We aren’t *that* far gone into Banana Republic-land.) Above all, no zeal. If there are legal cases to be pursued against Clinton Foundation financial irregularities then let the law proceed in a disinterested, unhurried and deliberate pace.

      1. sunny129

        ‘law proceed in a disinterested, unhurried and deliberate pace’


        It is very vital to demonstrate that NO ONE IS ABOVE the LAW! It isn’t just her she is the center of cog supported by numerous VERMIN in MSM< Estanlishment ++!

        1. flora

          “It is very vital to demonstrate that NO ONE IS ABOVE the LAW!”
          I agree completely. But it’s important to use the law in a way that does not taint it.

          A rush to judgement before doing a thorough investigation to ferret out all the possible illegalities and connections would short-circuit justice.
          A rush to judgement would be seen by many as a political witch-hunt.
          Both of those outcomes need to be avoided.

          I think Trump’s DoJ or IRS should investigate the Clinton Foundation and the hints that Hillary used her SoS position for personal gain, pursue the investigations where ever they lead. If evidence to support charges are found then charges should be brought and trials held. Short circuiting the legal process by calling for Hillary in an orange jumpsuit within the first 100 days is a rush to judgement.

          1. flora

            adding: by “disinterested” I mean not predisposed towards one party or the other, not predisposed to let a politically desired outcome override facts and evidence. I think we’ve had enough of that.
            e.g. the DoJ refusing to prosecute Wall St. crimes.

  73. Scott

    This New Republic article has some pretty good analysis:

    I think this is the money quote:

    “Political parties go into a presidential election knowing the landscape. They know the challenges. Their goal is to win. And my feeling is the lesson for Democrats is ultimately clear enough: You cannot write off half the country, much less spend an election cycle deriding it, and expect success.”

  74. Tenar

    Anecdotal evidence from a friend in Wyoming who voted for Bernie in the primaries. She told me that she spoke with several Republicans and Independents at her polling station yesterday. They told her that they would have voted for Sanders over Trump. This makes me sad and angry (most angry) for what could have been, but hopeful for 2020.

  75. Brad

    Here’s another current fact: With 98% reporting:

    Trump 59,294,288
    Clinton 59,580,545

    Simple google search. Sources: AP, Learn More

    Trump will barely lose the popular vote. But thanks to the Electoral College, it doesn’t matter.

  76. Nakatomi Plaza

    I would like to say thank you very much to NC and Yves for the political coverage. I’m not a hardcore news junkie, but I regularly follow maybe 4-5 other sites for news, and if it weren’t for NC I’d probably be lost right now. Almost NOBODY out there is talking honestly about what happened yesterday. The left is still, inconceivably, wallowing in their self-righteousness and will apparently never have the fortitude to acknowledge the depth of their self-deceit. They still don’t get it, and perhaps they never will.

    Thanks NC.

  77. Starveling

    As an Ohioan, for once I see the value of the electoral college. Without it, the votes of regional interests such as the vengeful rust belt wouldn’t matter one wit and we’d be even more ignored.

    This sort of result allows us to demand some recompense.

  78. Pespi

    Your point about the stealth Trump voter is spot on. I drive through places that are heavily red, republicans run unopposed for local office and they vote republican for everything else, and there were barely any Trump signs. Part of that is Trump deciding not to waste money on typical campaign expenses that might not matter, but another part has to be people not wanting to start confrontations by advertising for the guy who’s being demonized in the media 24 hours a day.

  79. Jess

    Badge of honor for me: I wrote a comment on the Guardian site about their request for donations to fund their work. Told them that they’d have a better chance if they got rid of the staff who had so relentlessly vilified, ignored, and undermined Bernie. Pointed out that if the establishment won’t keep them in business, then maybe appealing to anti-establishment types was the wise thing to do.

    Predictably, my comment was deleted for violating their community standards.

    Like I said, a badge of honor.

  80. homeroid

    thank you all. NC I hope will be all it can be as we go further. And yes i know where the donate tab is :)

  81. fogspider

    This is an excellent analysis.

    I voted for Stein- I wanted the Green Party on the ballot- and could not would not vote for Trump. And no amount of bullying could get me to go for Clinton.

    I admit to feeling frightened today (jesus, Trump, president?!) but I’ve been frightened for the past how many years?

    Obama’s hope and change turned into hopelessness and fear with the growth of the security state, the continuing militarization of our police (and no hesitancy to use them against small and invisible people), the entrenchment of the insurance industry and other profiteering here and overseas off the misery of so many… with virtually zero push-back by the media & supposed progressives (this was a big issue to me. I felt at least there’d be more push-back on odious policies coming from Trump).
    Clinton was, to me, a further entrenching of the same extremely harmful upwardly-redistributive policies.

    My hope at this point is a real shakeup of the Democratic party/elite establishment (as Michael Moore so perfectly put, voters threw a human Molotov cocktail and said the biggest ‘fuck you’ ever recorded in human history).
    Just as an example, so Trump won due to the backing of white uneducated voters? Well, let’s educate them! The democratic party should see it as a necessity to push for free college! One example. Not holding my breath.

    Not holding my breath for Trump really, either, but hoping he’ll follow through with promises re TPP, regime-change/ war-mongering, SS, infrastructure (though I think Trump is likely to push for “public-private partnerships” just like Clinton, meaning further privatization). Anyway on these issues where, to me, Clinton was a known, he can’t be worse.
    And a rather petty aside: I do take some pleasure in knowing the Clinton dynasty has been stopped, at least for now. Of course in some sense they have the last laugh as they can live in splendor off the millions made through their own personal public-private partnerships.

    1. Ray Phenicie

      I concur with the summary of the Obama tenure @ 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. I believe he and HRC have much in common in their willingness to inhabit a bubble world where those closest to the inner circle, the inner presidium, do not really have access to that person sitting behind the desk simply because He/She does not want to hear certain trains of thought that contradict the received wisdom held dearly inside that inner sanctum of sanctums. Gaining access to that inside circle, inhabited by the one, is impossible and so the holy one blunders on, thinking they have all the best advice when what is really presented are carefully tailored wish lists of the almighty. We saw this with the ditching of a real reform in health care, and again with the housing bubble and mortgage fraud. He who rules believed the bankers lot and their ilk knew and still know best on how the country needs to be run and whose interests are first. Property rights be damned-let the fraudsters steal the homes. After all if we feed the monster enough won’t it stop asking for more?

  82. Elizabeth

    Yves, thank you for your excellent summary of why the Dems lost. Hillary was a terrible candidate and she and the party are entirely to blame for her loss. I live in coastal Calif. where the Dem elite rule – and today I’m gloating that in spite of all the media, the pundits, her moneyed backers and the Dem nomenklatura who know what’s best for us all, to get their butts kicked hard. I don’t know if the party will wake up to reality or not, but if they want to win elections in the future, some deep soul searching is in order. I was really amazed last night when John Podesta appeared at Hillary’s Javits arena and told everyone to go home, we’ll have more to say tomorrow. I thought that was pretty classless.

    My only surprise this a.m. is the stock market isn’t crashing.

  83. sunny129

    Looks like ( may be I am wrong) not too many appreciating the critical role of Wikileaks (assange) in Trump’s shocker win, this morning!

    Thank you Wikileaks!

  84. The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit

    “Even if Clinton manages to come out with a lead in the popular vote when California’s results are added to the evening’s totals1, the results are a stunning repudiation to pollsters, the punditocracy, the mainstream media, professionals in both major parties, and most important, to Hillary Clinton herself.”

    And yet all too many of The People will continue to listen to and rely on all of the above, rather than coming here for the Right (so to speak) Stuff.

    If NC is a favorite stop for a libertarian ammosexual like myself, a place where I *know* I’m going to get serious thoughts and analysis (even if I occasionally disagree), there is simply no excuse for most anyone with a couple of working brain cells to not be here (and toss money in the hat) as well.

  85. amousie

    Trump is likely to spend his first year, and conceivably his entire Presidency, with all of the Democratic party and enough of the Republican party against him to stymie him, fighting for the right to govern.

    I respectfully disagree.

    The Republicans and the New Democrats already have their agendas set for them. The dismantling of the social safety net and the looting of the world with continue. All we have to do is look at the states of Wisconsin and Michigan to know how quickly that agenda will move forward despite popular opposition and even the objections of some of the credentialed class.

    We will have to count on Trump to stop them and I wouldn’t count on that if it’s something he believes in or the public with the major support of the credential class and the gatekeepers makes a huge fuss. Unfortunately, at this point if the corridor makes fuss, you have to wonder what their angle is and how much worse their solution is.

    Such is the trust I have in any of them now.

    Which I suppose was entirely the point.

    1. amousie

      PS. I would also add that I don’t think voter repudiation of the Republicans in 2008 as well as worldwide economic collapse had any real impact on the elites. Well, except that they got bolder and more in your face about their power and their sacred place in humanity.

      Trump himself as opposed to voter repudiation could impact elites but again somehow I doubt it unless it’s something very personal to him or his image of himself. I think it will be his image of himself that will have the most pull.

  86. Oregoncharles

    And maybe, some day, those millennials will learn that if you want a political left, you have to SUPPORT it – by more than 1%.

    Their elders seem to be beyond learning that.

  87. JTFaraday

    “Showing that American’s escalation in the Middle East, which Obama tried with mixed success to temper, was due in part, and perhaps almost entirely, to the personal corruption of the Secretary of State…”

    No, that would be to take a scapegoat. Hillary put herself in bad company, that’s for sure. But let’s not forget the company. One doesn’t root out cancer by becoming cancer’s useful idiot.

    What stringing Hillary up would do, is get the vast right wing conspiracy baying for her blood. But if he stops there– mission accomplished!– he didn’t accomplish much.

  88. Waking Up

    I would like to comment on those who tried to bully women into voting for Hillary simply because she is a female… especially the sad case of Gloria Steinem. Did Gloria and others who agreed with her forget one of the most important aspects of “feminists”? That women should be able to think for themselves instead of automatically going along with the opinion of their father, husband, boyfriend or anyone else for that matter.

    Millions of women looked at Hillary and saw a level of corruption and condescending behavior (especially towards the poor) which goes back decades and said “no thank you”. Maybe now we can still look forward to the “first woman President” being someone of integrity and compassion.

  89. Ray Phenicie

    You don’t win voters by trying to get them to believe you’ll suddenly behave differently and take positions contrary to the ones you’ve held for decades to extract cash from the the richest and most powerful

    Of interest to NC readers was HRC’s analysis of the term ‘liar’s loans.’ There’s a video on YouTube of her patiently explaining that it meant the borrowers during the housing bubble were not being honest in reporting income and job situations. This poignant example, as pathetic as it is, shows a woman who really was inside a bubble. Perhaps she knew the real facts behind the liar’s loan terminology but I rather doubt that she did. Either way she represented the individuals who were harmed in the housing bubble with all the skill of an outsider (like a shepherd at the end of the season who sells the flock off to the slaughterhouse) who really cared little for those who voted her into office.

  90. RBHoughton

    I agree with YS – we would have President Bernie today if the ABC movement had formed more clearly.

  91. Brett

    Trump will sign 90% of what the Republican Congress and Pence put in front of him. The guy is a policy dilettante – about the only thing he’s consistently kept interest in was immigration restriction.

    1. Yves Smith Post author

      Please stop presenting the bogus idea that Pence will have influence over Trump. Pence was there to make Trump look like a more traditional Republican (he’d been talking pro-life before he won the nomination, for instance) and to try to capture the evangelical vote, which was put off by Trump’s divorces and affairs.

      Trump is very sensitive to insubordination and every time Pence said anything that contradicted a Trump position, Trump slapped him down. I get the impression that Trump does not like Pence much, which is often true of VPs, particularly ones chosen as impeachment insurance (Spiro Agnew).

      1. TheCatSaid

        Thank you for spelling this out. Last night on TRNN Paul Jay kept repeating this meme, and I myself believed it, too. There was the story about Trump telling his first VP pick that he’d delegate all the power to him. But in the 3rd debate Trump really smacked down the questioner when asked about something Pence had said, with which Trump disagreed.

        I hope Trump will be his own man to some extent when it comes to really tough political/policy decisions. I worry he might be a pushover for experienced political advisors and more experienced politicians like Pence, just because Trump is not the best informed person and that can make one overly reliant on others who have their own agenda.

  92. freedomny

    The reactions have been so interesting. Most of the folks at my office/very private bank, have been – meh – and we had a lot of Bernie supporters. There were definitely “silent” Trump voters. I think people wanted to send an emphatic message to Establishment/Washington/Media and so they are less concerned about a President Trump as the Establishment/Washington/Media is. Outside the bank – the women who voted for Hillz are hysterical…anticipating a Roe v Wade reversal. I can’t believe that will happen – Trump was playing for the conservatives – I don’t think he actually believes it and the protests would be “crazy”. I saw a Bernie Sanders tweet that said he couldn’t say anything polite. Then this on his website:

    Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media. People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids – all while the very rich become much richer.

    “To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.”

    You know – even though I loathe Trump….I am actually hopeful. Americans are engaged. And I am hopeful that they stay that way.

    1. anti-social scientist

      tapped into the anger of a declining middle class

      Make that the anger of a declining WHITE middle class that actually isn’t declining (see makeup of DT voters).

  93. JSM

    Just a 10,000 foot observer here but if rank and file/progressive Dems think corruption is a problem, the time may yet come to help make some noise about it. Like everything else he says, it’s hard to know how seriously Trump takes cleaning up the corruption in Washington but #DrainTheSwamp certainly caught on with his followers. Something to follow at any rate, perhaps closely.

    1. Dpfaef

      #DrainTheSwamp – Donald Trump is bringing back all the SWAMP Creatures, Newt, Rudi, Scott, Christie, Carson – Donald will not be able to drain the swamp, only we can drain the swamp when we start kicking members of congress out of office after two terms. Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, in my state Cathy McMorris and Patti Murray re-elected. Nothing is going to change.

  94. Gaylord

    What a bunch of suckers and a load of hot air. This election won’t change a damn thing. The only thing that will make stupid humans wake up is the eruption of chaos as a result of extreme climate disruption, which is on its way.

  95. Fiver

    Obviously agree with key points of another really well-written piece.

    Disagree re Trump going further with Clinton. I think there could be some minor noise from surrogates, but to my mind, the election outcome could as easily be the result of a deal. When Trump said when asked if he would accept the outcome of a loss, he offered up, roughly, ‘Let’s just wait and see’. Given the state of play in politics in the US in 2016, it would not surprise one bit if the dealer dealt himself in when he repeated it right up to Election Day, i.e., a ‘credible threat’ that the matter would not be dropped if Clinton won. As I have no reason to trust any of these Washington or WS operators, I can easily imagine Clinton et al opting to fold now, and stay in business, rather than risk the real prospect of an indictment re the Foundation investigation and/or a horribly damaged Presidency. Trump had the real Ace and played it. Both parties have enough votes under their control to make a difference in a tight race.

    But irrespective of the route taken, I’ll bet you see one or both of the Clintons at the White House within a year and Trump from now on be perfectly ‘nice’ in all of his dealings with Hillary and Bill. More than anything else Trump wants to be seen as an authentic winner by the people he always thought of as seeing themselves to be ‘too good for him’.

  96. Jeremy Grimm

    My daughter was very upset by Trump’s victory. I tried to comfort her and sent her the link to this post suggesting (again) that she should read NakedCapitalism from time to time.

    I’m amazed to see how many comments accumulated here — WOW!

    1. aab

      My daughter’s entire dorm cried all night. She had almost voted for him, she was so mad. She only went to the polls for Teachout. Ended up voting for Stein. Would never, ever, ever have voted for Clinton. Wouldn’t have registered to vote if not for Bernie. (She managed to completely ignore her parents’ political discussions until Bernie hit the scene.) So she did not want Clinton to win, but her rich, terrified friends wailing for almost 24 hours straight got to her. She said people were crying all over campus still this morning.

      And of course, our debased corporate media continues to lie to these kids. They honestly think the election was between nice, hardworking women and KKKers who want to rape them. I’ve read reports that parts of the Midwest look like Fallujah. Certainly would be nice if the beneficiaries of the First Amendment took their cameras a little further than Fifth Avenue and Miracle Mile, so we could start having an honest conversation about what neoliberal hegemony and Clintonian democracy did to this nation. Oh, well.

      1. M

        I have family roots in Steubenville, OH and Wheeling, WV, as depressed as any Rust Belt towns, and places that swung strongly for Trump. While they are depressed areas with a number of boarded up storefronts and such, I would say it’s a bit trivializing the effects of the Iraq War to pretend that they’re anything like Fallujah.

        I also have spent many years in NC, where the KKK is planning a parade to celebrate Trump’s victory. Or, you know… be flippant about the KKK’s enthusiasm. It’s not like the people targeted by the KKK were a weak spot for Bernie in the primaries.

        1. Lambert Strether

          > weak spot

          That demographic was quite different generationally, as I’m sure you know. In fact, Black youth were the only demographic Sanders won in the vaunted South Carolina firewall (which isn’t looking so good these days, is it?)

          1. M

            Oh, will all the black people over 35 be dead in 4 years? I guess you don’t need to worry about winning them over then.

            (And you’re wrong about the demographics in the SC primary anyway.)

  97. moby

    ” Their preening self regard repelled hard-working Americans who’d done the right thing, as in gotten an education, and if they were older, launched a career, bought a house and started a family, only to struggle harder and harder while seeing any vestige of security and hope of improved living standards erode.”

    Thank you for this. One would think it is fairly obvious. But I work at Apple so I see so many smug people who think they’re the shit and are so so blind.

    God damn give me some real people, even if they vote for Trump.

    1. relstprof

      We’re getting real people. This much is true. But we’re also getting a president-elect who shows no awareness of the deleterious effects of Citizens United. Or tax breaks for the wealthy, corporations, and tax havens.

      So it’s a mixed bag. We’re getting real people who believe that their comfortable reality is normal. And the RNC won’t puncture their delusion as they begin to rule. Don’t forget that this delusion is on par with the Clinton’s version of fantasy island.

      The lower and middle classes aren’t going to prosper if policies go as promulgated by Trump. He’s surrounded by Republican flunkies for the status quo.

      This is also a challenge.

  98. anti-social scientist

    If accurate, headline would read “Electoral College Repudiates Clinton” since she won popular vote (as of this counting).

  99. Elizabeth

    Wow. Talk about missing the obvious. Two elephants remain standing in the room: The Clinton Foundation criminal activity (not “e-mails,” but what’s in them), and the fact that Bernie Sanders most likely beat Clinton in the primaries, if they had been honest.

    I look forward to lawsuits and prosecution on both these points. And if you think that’s unrealistic, the U.S. government as it stands would never do that to its favorite little former first lady, well, you forgot about all the states and foreign governments and international donors. She is toast, no matter what side she gets roasted on.

    I hope never to read any more finer-points articles about the election. It was blatant illegality. We won’t stand for that.

Comments are closed.