By ann summers
President Ham Sandwich defeats a highly qualified woman in the US 2016 POTUS election. Many voters decided that voting against something was so much more important than the possibilities of voting for something.
Now expect years and perhaps decades of reprisals, a cratered economy, civil rights rolled back, and climate change marches on.
“But mainly you used the grand jury to indict people,” Wolfe wrote, “and in the famous phrase of Sol Wachtler, chief judge of the State Court of Appeals, a grand jury would ‘indict a ham sandwich,’ if that’s what you wanted.”Nov 25, 2014
THIS CAMPAIGN REPRESENTS A FAILURE OF DATA AGGREGATION AND THE HUBRIS OF PARTY POLITICS IN THE FACE OF REACTIONARY APPEALS UNDER CRISIS … AND now has given us the path to an Apocalypse
Reaction to the prospect of a Trump presidency rippled across the globe, with financial markets abroad falling as American television networks raised the prospect that Mrs. Clinton might lose. Asian markets were trading sharply lower, down around two percentage points, and in the United States, Dow Jones futures were down as much as 600 points in after-hours trading.
Several hours after polls closed, the vote margins separating Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton remained razor thin in the states that will determine the outcome of the presidential contest, with voters clearly demonstrating the polarized nature of the American electorate.
This is being written as some states still have yet to be called but it appears that HRC will not overcome leads for Trump. HRC has conceded and the 1000 years of darkness begins.
Exurbs. The expression exurb (for “extra-urban”) was coined by Auguste Comte Spectorsky in his 1955 book The Exurbanites to describe the ring of prosperous communities beyond the suburbs that are commuter towns for an urban area.
The reality is that so many people are voting against their interests and defaulting to a myth of a white working class suggesting that nothing has changed since Reagan in terms of the superficiality of voter decision-making, and that some very visceral attitudes are at work now.
Also, was the Clinton campaign incompetent in underestimating certain areas much like other Democratic election failures. Alienating progressives certainly didn’t help, even as they assumed that they would ultimately return to the party.
And of course the reactionary voting of Trumpist ethno-nationalist appeals made this even more uncertain. OFA as a campaign organization apparently outperformed HFA. Would it have been that difficult to put more work into states like Wisconsin, perhaps even a campaign visit by HRC, once. Apparently resources were miscalculated or was it the usual party politics of porkbarreling campaign funds rather than actually measuring things.
During the early 1990s electoral contests with former Ku Klux Klan leader and Nazi sympathizer David Duke, many potential voters would not tell pollsters that they favored Duke (as they feared the ostracization that could result from being on record as being a Duke supporter), but would go on to vote for him anyway. The commentary at that time was that Duke “flies under the radar.”…
The causes of the polling errors are debated, but pollsters generally believe that perceived societal pressures have led some white voters to be less than forthcoming in their poll responses. These voters supposedly have harbored a concern that declaring their support for a white candidate over a non-white candidate will create a perception that the voter is racially prejudiced.
Other exurban outposts looking to establish themselves could learn from this “Santa Fe effect,” Garreau said. “You’ve got to give them a reason to stay.”
So we now have a French election where the fears and tension of the exurban/suburban areas makes the RWNJ even more emboldened so that the clock will go back — more bigotry, more greed, more violence, and as written elsewhere, a warlord culture emboldened with greater class/social division. One group imagining that their privilege had been marginalized prepared to be manipulated by a ruling class to oppress another marginalized population. And the 1% gets to keep its stuff.
But the feeling of alienation that characterizes the French countryside has also spread to many exurban areas (zones péri-urbaines),..
But even more important is a widespread feeling of alienation and neglect, a sentiment d?abandon as the French call it. Over the last few years, the austerity politics favored by the president led to a withdrawal of the state from areas like Cantal: schools with too few pupils have been closed, hospitals with too few patients were shut down, as were post offices and even local police gendarmeries. Not only do people in those areas feel despised, but many farmers say they chafe under the regulation and rules of European agricultural policy, which features a large number of controls and checks.
No such evolution characterizes large cities, where the Front National has lost between 4 and 5 percentage points since 2007. But the feeling of alienation that characterizes the French countryside has also spread to many exurban areas (zones péri-urbaines), where many blue-collar workers and lower-grade, white-collar public or private workers have settled because they have been priced out of the main cities.
For these voters, purchasing power and the economy are as important as questions of national identity and immigration, which le Pen has woven together in a broad rhetoric against globalization and capitalism.
In these areas, as in small towns hard hit by deindustrialization, where unemployment runs high, she has persuaded a large part of what she’s called ‘invisible France’ that Sarkozy and center-left Socialist candidate François Hollande do not differ much from one another, more or less openly agreeing on globalization, deregulated free trade, and acceptance of international capitalism’s domination of economic policies.
Was the Democratic party prepared for a population sufficiently reactionary and animated on the model of Nixon and Reagan.
“Mistakes were made”
Since the race has tightened, there’s been a bit of controversy over whether the Clinton campaign adequately protected her firewall, as Ron Brownstein writes.
Essentially, Clinton has tried to go on offense with her ad spending rather than on defense — for months, she’s been directing the vast bulk of her ad money (and her personal campaign travel) to states she doesn’t seem to actually “need” to win — states like Florida, North Carolina, Nevada, Ohio, and lately Arizona.
Obviously, an effort to win states she doesn’t truly “need” is a worthwhile endeavor, but given their demographics and the way the public polling has gone, it’s generally assumed that they’re unlikely to be the states that put her over 270 electoral votes. Furthermore, if the race were to tighten nationwide by several points, those states Clinton didn’t need could slide out of reach, and the contest could come down to whether she can protect her firewall.
Yet other than Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, the firewall states have gone undefended by ad spending for months, even though Clinton’s lead in public polling of these states really was not all that big (she’s been up by 7 points or so in Michigan and Virginia, around 6 in Wisconsin, and 5 in Colorado).
Indeed, when Trump started buying ads in those latter three states this fall, the Clinton campaign ignored him for weeks — letting him go up on the airwaves unopposed.
Now that the race appears to have gotten closer, Clinton is running ads in all six firewall states (as of this week), but nervous Democrats are wondering whether she should have invested in them more in the previous months, to better protect her flank from a surprise late surge by Trump.
James Carville opining on the loss: “They actually thought the temperament issue would win it out”
There will be greater possibility of police violence, global terrorism, environmental degradation, everyday racism, poverty, health crises, and greater unemployment accompanied by major economic crises. So much will be rolled back.
But America will be Great Again, like it’s always been for those in charge.
In his unexpected win, Trump mobilized enormous margins among rural and exurban voters, and crushing advantages among blue-collar whites. In several cases, he prevented Clinton from making as many gains among college-educated white voters as seemed possible. That allowed Trump to overcome Clinton’s strong performance among minority voters and college-educated white women.
Trump’s winning map underscored the risk Clinton faced pouring disproportionately so many more resources into her insurance states than in some of the core states in her campaign’s preferred path to 270 electoral college votes.
As I noted last week, Clinton invested about $180 million in television ads in Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio through the end of October—and yet, in the end, lost all three. By comparison, over that period she spent only around $16 million in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Colorado; the third seemed safely in her hands as the evening progressed, but Wisconsin slipped away and Michigan wobbled, and with them went her advantage in the Electoral College….
In some traditionally Democratic states, Clinton was able to overcome this surge with strong performances among minority voters and college-educated whites. The exit polls gave her 55 percent of college whites in New Jersey and Wisconsin, 54 percent in New Hampshire, and 51 percent in Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Compared to Obama, she improved the Democratic showing among college-educated whites in Arizona, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
But in other key battlegrounds like Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Ohio she only essentially matched his performance; in Florida she slipped slightly among the white-collar whites.
Overall, the national exit poll showed her improving among college-educated whites over Obama in 2012, but only by three percentage points, and losing them narrowly to Trump. (As a result, the record of no Democrat ever winning most college-educated whites remained intact.) Despite strong performances among minority voters, that left her with too narrow a coalition to withstand the Trump blue-collar surge.