Not “AIDS,” that’s for sure.
Jobs, jobs, and more jobs. “Hillary wants to close your coal mine! I’m going to help you keep your jobs! Detroit is making cars in Mexico and closing American factories due to NAFTA. I’m going to bring those jobs back to our country and make America great again!”
That was the pep talk that hooked the working class. It’s all my (retired autoworker) father-in-law talked about. “Trump is going to bring jobs back!” My father-in-law wasn’t concerned about national security or religious matters, he just wants jobs back in the US.
It ain’t over until the electors vote? Could electors be recruited to vote against their state’s mandate, based on Clinton’s win in the popular vote? Or just bribed?
Trying desperately to think out of the box.
Anybody else in S.F. want to get a drink later? I think I need a drink later.
I’m not sure that undermining democracy is the right call here.
I fantasize that we’ll find out that Clinton won by 10% and all the voting machines were actually hacked but. . . the people chose. Everybody’s gotta live with it
As good of an idea as this sounds to me right now, this is all I hear:
(While I realize this is a Bee Gees cover, it perfectly encapsulates the bleakness I’m feeling right now.)
ETA: this, too…
Neolibral centrist "new democrats’ have sunk the party, they let a moldy pumpkin pie fully and finally take the mantle of populist and working class from them by pretending middle American jobs didn’t matter.
Are they, though? After this election, and the inevitable fallout that’s likely to follow?
Time will tell, I guess.
Maybe.
How about this?
About the only hope I have right now is for some of the repubs in Congress to flip sides.
I don’t actually think that’s true. It’s not like Clinton didn’t have a jobs plan - she just wasn’t willing to make the kind of divorced-from-reality promises that Trump was.
There’s a limit to the ability to bring the “the good old days” via trade isolationism
Agree, but the whole electoral college system, in which the person who got less votes will be named president, already undermines democracy. In a vacuum, I could get behind subverting it, but the violent backlash that would ensue would not be worth actually doing it.
Good point.
I’m in the Bay Area, if you’re willing to meet outside of the city.
I can barely cope with being at work right now, let alone trying to deal with Bart.
If only there had been a Michelle Obama write in campaign this time around.
Over here in the UK, our current leader got a resounding mandate from 23% of the available vote.
If you want to campaign against the Electoral College - that would be a productive use of energy. Direct election of the president + ranked choice voting would go a long way towards fixing some of the current electoral problems. People could cast votes for the candidates they really want without being accused of helping the worst candidates get elected. Votes in deeply blue or deeply red states would still matter.
Yoikes!
She didn’t even get that.
Her forerunner did.
Her mandate is from 47.8% of the available vote from the good people of Maidenhead.
Let me try to summarize for you
-
Disbelief
-
Dismay
-
Horror
-
Anger
-
Dread
-
Hopelessness
and lastly, but probably most dangerous
- Resentment of anyone who isn’t going to suffer as much behind this as I am.