Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Democrats Have No One to Blame but Themselves for Trump

Poor candidate, poor arguments.

Though in many ways the 2016 presidential contest was an uprising against the establishment, let's face it; Republicans weren't punished. And that's not a new development. 2016 is the fourth consecutive election in which the GOP has won the Senate and House. Nearly every conventional conservative Senate candidate—the ones Donald Trump's fans supposedly hate—ran ahead of the GOP presidential nominee. This includes Republicans who were reticent supporters or outright critics of Trump's.

A melodramatic Van Jones is free to claim that Trump's victory is a "white-lash." But ever since Barack Obama's unprecedented passage of Obamacare, his party has lost more than 1,000 seats nationally in three wave elections. Since 2010, the electorate has demanded that Washington share power, but the president didn't listen, relying on executive power, bureaucracy and the judiciary to pass agenda items without consensus or compromise.

In all their vast coverage of agitated right-wingers, it may have escaped the attention of many in the media that over the past eight years, the Democratic Party has moved dramatically to the left on an array of issues. It's now a party of cultural imperialists and economic technocrats who want to rule through fiat. It is a party more comfortable coercing Americans who see the world differently than convincing them. It is a movement propelled by liberal pundits who have stopped debating and resorted to smearing millions they disagree with.

Obama might be capable of governing this way and remaining popular, but his political talents aren't transferable—not to House or Senate Democrats, who have been paying for his policies, and certainly not to Hillary Clinton. Democrats nominated a corrupt candidate with abysmal political instincts, a decades long habit of mendacity and a dearth of new ideas.

The Democratic Party establishment never entertained any other nominee seriously, and the liberal punditry never earnestly lamented Clinton's inadequacies. There was never any question that all the money, power and infrastructure of the left would mobilize behind Clinton.

Democrats nominated one of the least trusted people to ever run for the presidency. According to the final Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll, Americans trusted Clinton 6 points less than they did Trump, whose absurdities and outright fabrications probably came off as straight talk to millions of Americans sick of hearing manicured talking points. An Associated Press-GfK poll also found that 92 percent of Americans thought Clinton's email setup either broke the law or was in "poor judgment." Only 6 percent believed she did nothing wrong.

Trump may also have been the beneficiary of decades of vacuous liberal attacks on Republican candidates, all of whom have supposedly been racist and misogynist. Voters may be becoming increasingly immune to these histrionics. Yet as soon as it became apparent that Trump would win, liberal commentators began blaming bigotry again. The left has become so saturated in identity politics that it can't imagine that anything else might drive a voter.

Beltway types—and I include myself in this objectionable group—take everything politicians say seriously and literally, because we sort of have to. There is value in parsing policy, ideology and rhetoric, but it has limited significance in a nonpolitical world. Voters don't care if every utterance is fact-checkable when they have intuition and experience to guide them. They are far less horrified by every gaffe than the average reporter.

I recently visited my middle/working-class hometown in suburban New York. Not exactly Factoryville, Ohio, or rural Mississippi, it was still more typical of the average American life than many people realize. It's a place where families, though not destitute, often struggle with excessive property taxes, mortgage payments, subpar schools and rising health care bills.

None of the Trump voters who surrounded me—most of whom I'd consider moderate Republicans—argued that the GOP nominee is an exemplary person or that he was an optimal candidate for the presidency. Their support had nothing to do with white patriarchal supremacy or any of the ugly themes that preoccupy the progressive left (and now the entire Democratic Party).

Certainly, none of these voters cared for the reasons I was opposing a Trump presidency, either—which, broadly speaking, would be the preservation of constitutional processes and the expansion of free trade. The consensus solidified around one thought: Clinton was worse. A lot worse. She was a corrupt, power-hungry would-be dictator who needed to be kept out of the White House.

Because they were so convinced Trump was going to win, I sort of felt sorry when anticipating their disappointment—not only because I personally disliked many of Trump's positions and the thought of one-party rule but also because nothing I read or saw from the experts pointed to a GOP victory. The joke, of course, was on me.

COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM

Photo Credit: Dennis Brack/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Brian||

    I was shocked by the result, too.

    I gave the talking heads, the pollsters, and the politicians credit because this is their bread and butter.

    I expect them to say stupid things about economics, or science, or social issues, or foreign policy, but I expected them to understand and predict elections, at least roughly. That's really their only job.

    As far as the left goes: they're stuck in their own bubble. They found some racists who liked Trump, and they're too stupid to understand that "A implies B" doesn't mean "B implies A", so, as far as they know, they woke up to a country run by racists. And they'll stop believing that when they either A. learn logic, or B. Stop being assholes. Or, as we say, never.

    Lefties are the kind of people who will smug their way into Trump 2020, wondering why no one likes them.

  • mortiscrum||

    Lefties get all the flak for being in a bubble, but guess what: EVERYONE is in their own personal bubble. The leftist bubble gets talked about right now because the leftists just got their ass kicked, but that doesn't excuse everyone else.

    People across the entire nation are talking and living with people who think, act, and look like themselves. Why is partisanship so high? People from opposite sides talk right passed each other because they increasingly don't even agree on the same basic facts or definitions.

    Lefties are rightly criticized for turning every disagreement in to identity politics. But the answer is not to go full-bore in the other direction and just ignore racism, sexism, and the ways in which our culture is not built to give everyone a fair shake. That seems like a great answer for the people who DON'T get fucked by the system - to them, everything is fine! - , but for the disadvantaged? Not so great.

  • BigW||

    Here's the deal. As a libertarian you should know that even hate speech is free speech.

    The libs don't fucking believe that. And their belief that hate speech must be stopped (and not with compassion and forgiveness mind you but with MOAR hate) is toxic to the nation. Witness their protests. At least they haven't killed any Trump supporters "for their own good" yet.

  • mortiscrum||

    Liberal concern for the various -isms doesn't end at hate speech. Black people getting killed by police in disproportionate numbers? Unfair, racial tinged sentencing? Historic racist practices like red lining never being addressed or corrected? It's basically a derided SJW buzzword around here at this point, but rape culture is a real thing. This stuff doesn't fall under the 1st Amend.

    Like I said, lefties don't always handle or pursue these issues in a helpful way, but not talking about them at all and pretending they don't exist isn't an acceptable answer either.

  • Brian||

    You do realize that saying "you all live in bubbles" is a generalization, too, right?

    Is the idea that it's only fair when you do it?

  • mortiscrum||

    It's not really meant as a criticism, or to be fair or unfair. When I say that we all live in a bubble of our own creation, it's meant as a statement of reality that we should all be aware of. It's very easy to dismiss the plights of inner city minorities, implicitly or explicitly, if you live in a Midwest town that's 99% white. Similarly, it's easy to disparage gun owners if you live on the upper East side.

    My point is that we should all be a little more careful of not only what we think, but what we expose ourselves to. Walk a mile in their shoes, maybe.

  • See Double You||

    I don't live in a bubble. I've been exposed to leftwing ideology my entire life, and continue to be. That's the one of the only positives about being in the political minority: constantly tasked with reassessing your own beliefs in the face of relentless ideological opposition.

  • ThomasD||

    Agreed. I refuse to buy into the relativism that everyone lives in a bubble. Oh, to be sure I've lived enough places to recognize all sorts of people who do live in their own bubble. But I also know that for the vast, vast majority of them they have no one to blame but themselves for their narrow view and lack of experience.

    In that same time I've also encountered a surprising number of people who display a profound understanding of peoples and things well beyond anything they could have personally experienced.

  • mortiscrum||

    Fair enough. Perhaps I am speaking too broadly.

    At the same time though, it's not really arguable that intense partisanship has become a serious problem and even threat to the entire system. The root of this type of partisanship is people only allowing position-confirming information and rejecting wholesale everything else.

    The degree to which someone's position on a given topic can be predicted just by knowing who they vote for is scary, and that's what I'm trying to get at.

  • To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]||

    it's not really arguable that intense partisanship has become a serious problem

    From who's point of view? I think it's a great thing because it'll probably collapse the system within my lifetime and result in a bunch of smaller governing entities instead of one enormous 320M person nation.

  • mortiscrum||

    You are of course entitled to that opinion, but it's pretty hard to relate to someone who just wants the whole thing to burn down.

    A lot of people could be hurt by that, yah know? I balk at such a cavalier attitude towards that much suffering.

  • To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]||

    A lot of people could be hurt by that, yah know? I balk at such a cavalier attitude towards that much suffering.

    I happen to think that the suffering is inevitable, and the only question is whether the suffering will be smaller by the breakup happening sooner, or whether the suffering will be greater by delaying the breakup. However, go ahead and paint me as evil all you want.

  • ThomasD||

    "...result in a bunch of smaller governing entities instead of one enormous 320M person nation."

    vs.

    " someone who just wants the whole thing to burn down."

    Why don't you discuss what he actually said?

  • ThomasD||

    "The degree to which someone's position on a given topic can be predicted just by knowing who they vote for is scary, and that's what I'm trying to get at."

    Shouldn't be scary for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is almost never 100%. Might run as high as 80%, but even that is pushing the limits. Secondly, much depends on which issues you tend to focus on, because yes, people do tend to choose well established identities to base their own opinions around. All of which is probably well and good for social animals who tend to live in communities.

    I know people call you liberals, but real liberals tend to recognize, understand, and appreciate these things rather than call them 'scary.'

    http://tinyurl.com/j854mbm

    Conversely, while the left likes to think of themselves as the educated ones, this sort of blind spot is one of the reasons why the rest of us tend to view you as indoctrinated instead.

  • mortiscrum||

    Interesting point. This is why I'm here, to learn shit like this.

    When I used to the word "scary" I was referring to the decreased ability for people in various parts of the political spectrum to even talk to one another. Like, at a certain level we all live on Earth and need to figure out some way to get along. But when people increasingly think of political others as "evil" and "intent on the destruction of the country," our shared future becomes a little worrisome.

  • ThomasD||

    " we all live on Earth and need to figure out some way to get along."

    Were you alive in 1863 how willing would you have been to talk to a slave owner who never wanted to change his ways? How long would you have continued to address the issue solely via conversation?

    Stop dancing around. You and I both know that government is ultimately about force. Your idea of a 'shared future" revolves around your perpetually side having the monopoly of force.

    When you don't have that is the only time you want to talk about another arrangement. Or else we would have already had this conversation.

  • mortiscrum||

    Is that what would make you happy, me admitting I'm a statist who believe some form of structured government is both necessary and helpful to human flourishing? Guilty as charged, I definitely believe that and until someone shows me a system that works sans government control, I will continue to bang that drum.

  • ThomasD||

    And there you go reducing every alternative argument to a cartoon caricature. The idea of rolling anything back, or eliminating unproductive excess becomes "sans government." Your bad faith has already been noted multiple times, yet you persist as if you cannot even conceive of any alternative.

    And to reiterate the point you seek to ignore, we are having a shared future, now, for the next four years, and probably even longer than that. That it is not your desired future is really your only problem, and also the only thing preventing us from "getting along."

  • mortiscrum||

    See, I don't think our real positions are that far off, really.

    I think the government as an idea is incredibly important to offer infrastructure, consumer protections, employee protections, environmental protections, and to reign in the natural and extreme boom and bust cycle of capitalism.

    Our current government is too large, too inefficient, and with too much regulation and laws - particularly around housing policy, job certification, and non-violent crime.

    However, when you casually and continually refer to as government being the problem in virtually any and all cases, I can't understand that.

  • To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]||

    See, I don't think our real positions are that far off, really.

    I think the government as an idea is incredibly important to offer infrastructure, consumer protections, employee protections, environmental protections, and to reign in the natural and extreme boom and bust cycle of capitalism.

    Yeah, that's nothing like my real positions. I don't think that any of the things you wrote down are in the wheelhouse of the federal government.

  • ThomasD||

    " I don't think that any of the things you wrote down are in the wheelhouse of the federal government."

    Not remotely within federal purview, either in principle, or Constitutionally. And it not that government is "the problem." No, it's thinking that government is the solution that is the problem.

    But otherwise he nailed it.

  • mortiscrum||

    How do I do the quote thing? It's a lot easier to keep track of replies if the replied to comment is quoted....

    Haha. Oh well. That's good too I suppose. Someone to balance out my natural statist excesses...

  • Sevo||

    "...I've been exposed to leftwing ideology my entire life, and continue to be..."

    Your entire like and most all of your waking hours, which makes it amusing when a lefty shows up and starts on about "...how come you guys haven't thought about THIS, hunh?!"
    Well, yeah, have thought about it and it's NWS.

  • Radioactive||

    lefties will steal your shoes and give them to someone "worthy".

  • Sevo||

    And tell you it's for your own good.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    No they'll vote for someone who promises to steal your shoes.

  • To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]||


    Liberal concern for the various -isms doesn't end at hate speech.

    No, it ends when more government isn't the solution

    Black people getting killed by police in disproportionate numbers?

    Depending on how you look at the statistics, they're not being killed in disproportionate numbers.

    Unfair, racial tinged sentencing?

    Again, depending on how you look at the stats, they may not actually be racially tinged.

    It's basically a derided SJW buzzword around here at this point, but rape culture is a real thing.

    Prove it.

    Like I said, lefties don't always handle or pursue these issues in a helpful way, but not talking about them at all and pretending they don't exist isn't an acceptable answer either.

    No, it is perfectly acceptable. Until and unless you can provide evidence proving the existence of these phantom social ills and the culpability of society at large, you're not doing anything but parroting the SJWtarian line of "they're right about everything except for the solution."

  • MarkLastname||

    Pretending all black people's or women's problems are caused by white people/men doesn't help either. The primary reason blacks are disproportionately killed by police is because they disproportionately break the law, and women's life choices explain gender disparities far more often than sexism. Hell, I don't see feminist blaming misandry for men dying younger or killing themselves 4 times as often.

    Identity politics is poison, and erroneously blaming every problem afflicting a group on some hypothetical perpetrator group (usually the buck stops at straight white men) invites a Trump presidency.

  • GamerFromJump||

    At least they haven't killed any Trump supporters "for their own good" yet.

    Not yet, anyway.

  • Brian||

    Not really.

    As a libertarian, I can tell you I'm quite aware of the democrat "conversation" about how Trump followers must be racist, because we found some racists who follow Trump. Along with the "you're throwing your vote away" third party nonsense (as if, somehow, democrats didn't throw their vote away last Tuesday?)

    I'm aware that Hillary Clinton wanted more moonshot global warming initiatives, free college for everyone, and was for the TTP, before she was against it. Or something.

    Point is: can democrats tell me a single thing about libertarianism? Usually they just tell me how racist I must be, or how we're all Ayn Rand zombies who want to abandon our children out of selfishness maximization, or something else out of a horror novel describing someone they've never heard speak for themselves, and have no interest in hearing, anyway, because they can't see anything in it for them. Calling people racists is sel-richeous and fun!

  • mortiscrum||

    I'm a Democrat. And a liberal. I'm here, aren't I?

    What you've just done is a perfect and hilariously timed example of exactly what I'm talking about. You've made a broad and simplistic characterization of an entire field of thought and the people who ascribe to it. And it the very next sentence, you complain that "those people" do that very thing to you. This is what a bubble is.

    Guess what? Liberal thinkers are perfectly aware that not all Trump voters are just racist assholes. Vox, Slate, FiveThirtyEight; they've all posted multiple articles for months saying this.

  • Brian||

    I'm sorry, but I really can't help it that I judge democrats based on all the ones I've read.

    To tell you the truth, my judgement might be skewed because of how much Salon I read, in an attempt to understand democrats.

    I'm sure they're not all smug, condescending jerks, too generously self-righteous with themselves to see how they're giving themselves too much credit for avoiding social horrors from 50 years ago.

    Unfortunately, I've had this whole "media" experience that confirms my biases against them, while doing a very good job of showing me the smear campaign against people who think as I do.

    Forgive me.

    Anyway, if you want to demonstrate open-mindedness and goodwill, clean your own house first. Don't ask the 1% of libertarians to clean theirs. Trust me: you're only tolerating us to the extent you choose to acknowledge us. It's just, this election, you get to join us in the joy of powerless (for at least, a little while, until you forget). Grab a mug and take a booth. We have 2-4 years to point fingers.

  • mortiscrum||

    Ha, I'm glad a seat was kept warm. Do you have crackers? I fear we may be here for awhile.

    To your point about cleaning house though: Some months ago I decided (maybe realized) the degree to which I dislike ideologues - the real True Believers. In the right circumstance, a True Believer can do great things. But most of the time, they're just jerks who are incapable of thinking critically, especially when it comes to themselves. It's impossible to work with these people.

    There's way WAY too much ideology in politics. Whether it's Republicans refusing point-blank to consider raise taxes by any amount, no matter how many other things they get in return, or Democrats refusing to come to terms with gun ownership in America, ideology is just one giant monkey wrench that's fucking everything up.

    What we need are more Cynical Opportunists. These people can cut a deal. These people can be reasoned with. Yeah, maybe they flirt with outright corruption at times, but at least deals can be made. This is utterly essential. This is ultimately why I voted for Hillary - she's might be a lot of things, but ideological crusader she ain't.

  • To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]||

    There's way WAY too much ideology in politics. . . What we need are more Cynical Opportunists. These people can cut a deal.

    *blank stare*

    If you're all about "getting things done," you should love this election. With single party control of the fedgov and a vast majority of state legislatures being controlled by the same party, there will be tons of getting things done, and deals being made. Of course, your side will be left out of the deals, but that's what happens when you're a minority party in winner-take-all politics. I'm sure you won't be changing your mind now that the deals being made are ones that you don't agree with.

  • mortiscrum||

    Thanks for putting words in my comment box, but I'll type for myself, thankyouverymuch.

    My initially reaction to Hillary losing was of course exactly what you described: complete dismay and fear of what kind of damage that may be done.

    But now? I've come to terms, more or less. I'm sick of gridlock, I'm sick of Republicans doing nothing, I'm sick of ineffectual Democrats. I literally said not a few hours ago "Good, at least something will happen now. Good, bad, whatever, [politicians] do your fucking job."

    Cynical Opportunism all the way baby. At the end of the day, a cynical opportunist is a reasonable person who acts in rational ways. A true believer will ride the bomb down waving a cowboy hate. Fuck those guys.

  • To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]||

    a cynical opportunist is a reasonable person who acts in rational ways.

    LOL. I don't know what reality you live in, but I want to come there and meet the unicorns and leprechauns.

  • mortiscrum||

    Acting in predictable, transactional ways to achieve a probably hedonistic goal is basically the definition of a cynical opportunist.

    Do you want to negotiate with the moderately unprincipled guy who wants tangible things (a house, maybe. I don't know), or the zealot who only cares about his particular brand of crazy? The choice is easy for me.

    I don't see what's funny about this, honestly.

  • To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]||

    Do you want to negotiate with the moderately unprincipled guy who wants tangible things (a house, maybe. I don't know), or the zealot who only cares about his particular brand of crazy?

    So, why are you against laissez faire capitalism, then? It seems that if you want to negotiate with self-interested people, you'd be primed for free markets.

    Also, you're misrepresenting the governmental transaction. See, I'm not in a negotiation, I'm in the middle of a mugging. I'd much rather a principled mugger, but I'd prefer the principled guy who wants to stop the mugging even more.

  • mortiscrum||

    I'm not against laissez faire capitalism at all, I think it's an incredibly important component to the advancement of humanity. It is without doubt the greatest force for advancement in history.

    But, and this is where I think we differ, I don't think it's the answer to everything. My ideal system is one that harnesses the power of a free market but reigns in the pitfalls - the wild boom and bust cycles that leave financial ruin in its wake, and it's general propensity to create an enormous and harmful chasm of inequality. Some inequality is good, a lot of it, not so good.

    When it comes to healthcare specifically, I think free markets don't quite work. Healthcare by definition creates customers that are too desperate to have a proper and equal market, which leads to gross exploitation that I find intolerable.

  • To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]||

    I don't think it's the answer to everything

    You do realize that free market capitalism isn't a "system" as much as it's a label for the concept of "letting people do what they wish with the product of their labor," right?

    If you don't think that letting people own the product of their own labor is the answer to everything, then when and in what circumstances should they be enslaved to others?

  • mortiscrum||

    Well...yes and no. My issue is when free market capitalism is brought to such an extreme that it chokes out any possibility of any system being tacked on. In that regard, it essentially becomes the default structure/system simply because it doesn't allow anything else to exist.

    If your point though is that I'm not quite using the definition of the word, you're probably right.

  • Sir Chips Alot||

    Guess i missed that in their 24x7 posts about the evil Racist Trump.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I am shocked that a liberal Democrat is telling someone how wrong they are in their thinking. Shocked!

  • mortiscrum||

    That's really not what this is about.

    But if you want to just wordspar, I can do that too. Until I get bored by how unproductive it is.

    Whatever man.

  • Gimmit||

    Another pesky liberal here. That's really not what our problem is. I mean it is, but it's not a liberal specific problem. I think the real problem with liberals is that we've got this arrogant stranglehold on shitty rhetoric. A republican is just as likely to use some shitty rhetoric to tell you you're wrong. The difference is that the left has somehow managed to get some sort of cultural upper hand, and have gone mad with self righteousness. Like, to the point where I, as a liberal, can't and don't talk to other liberals because I'd have to use their shitty rhetoric, which I usually disagree with and find utterly useless to reason with. But you know, they are the cultural elite, you can't displease them.

    Both sides use shitty rhetoric. You libertarians don't understand because you haven't been taken over by some preachy sub-culture. You're just a niche group made up people actually concerned with the guts of your ideology. That's the only reason your discourse here is actually halfway healthy. A fact that I'll bet you mistake for some sort of enlightenment inherent to libertarians.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    I'm a Democrat. And a liberal. I'm here, aren't I?

    And you're one person against the myriads who live in the leftist echo chamber.

    I will admit that to some extent it's easier for non-leftists to get opinions that disagree with their ideology, since they are pummeled with leftism when they turn on the TV or read nearly any news article.

  • Johnny Hit n Run Paulene||

    You know who else lived with Bubbles?

  • AceDroman||

    Like a million cats?

  • lafe.long||

    Liberace?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Ricky, Julian, and sundry kittens?

  • lafe.long||

    Michael Jackson?

  • Johnny Hit n Run Paulene||

    Good one!

  • Johnny Hit n Run Paulene||

    Yes, the Trailer Park Boys and Lawrence Welk. Liberace? Hmmmm.

  • lafe.long||

    You're right, Welk was intended. I typed too fast.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Johnny Weeks?

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Blossum and Buttercup?

  • prolefeed||

    People across the entire nation are talking and living with people who think, act, and look like themselves.

    I'm certainly not. I'm living with a woman who doesn't look, think, or act like me, other than being a huge nerd. And as much as I get shit from people here for choosing to live with someone like that, it's nice not living in an echo chamber. It's ... interesting ... to wake up at 4 am on November 9th because your GF is literally hyperventilating in the kitchen because she is so shocked and scared that Trump won -- and would have been happy and satisfied if that statist fuck Clinton won, because she can see Trump so clearly and has an enormous blind spot about Clinton.

  • See Double You||

    I'm certainly not. I'm living with a woman who doesn't look, think, or act like me, other than being a huge nerd.

    Same here. My wife and her family are unrepentant Democrats.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "But the answer is not to go full-bore in the other direction and just ignore racism, sexism, and the ways in which our culture is not built to give everyone a fair shake."

    Just because they're violent, psychopathic statists and complete liars doesn't mean we shouldn't turn around and continue indulging their BS fantasies.

  • mortiscrum||

    I largely agree with the premise - Democrats, at least in the last 10 years, have been terrible about communication. They're terrible about creating a message, or making the positive case for why people should vote for them or support their positions. In that regard, the full-scale repudiation of the Democratic Party was a sort of inevitable reckoning. It was going to happen eventually, if they can't even make their own policies look good.

    But I can't lay the entire blame for the current situation on the Democrats. Republicans also played a large part. In what turned out to be a brilliant strategy, they have obstructed as much as they possibly could from the day Obama took office. Essentially, they made the government work as poorly possible, and combined with Democrats being unable to form a coherent sentence in their own defense, resulted in a whole lot of pissed off voters.

    I'm very curious to see what happens next. Republicans are now in almost complete power. Saying "no," their go-to and only strategy for 8 years, will no longer be a viable tactic. They will be forced to govern, and considering that many of their cornerstone positions aren't actually that popular, I wonder how this shakes out.

  • wearingit||

    Very much agree with you. I can't believe the obstructionist tactics worked but they did. Now they'll actually have to put something up though- can't just hide behind blaming the Democrats forever (or can they?)

  • Brian||

    I totally agree with you, and I find myself very condemned.

    Very, very concerned.

    It is concerning. Now, isn't it?

    Concern.

  • MarkLastname||

    And condemning, too, apparently.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    In what turned out to be a brilliant strategy, they have obstructed as much as they possibly could from the day Obama took office. Essentially, they made the government work as poorly possible,

    As a libertarian, I think less regulation and fewer new laws is a good thing and improves government.

    I'm very curious to see what happens next. Republicans are now in almost complete power. Saying "no," their go-to and only strategy for 8 years, will no longer be a viable tactic.

    As far as I'm concerned, saying "no" is an excellent tactic. If they want to pass something, they can pass repeals of some existing burdensome legislation, and confirm some SCOTUS justices that will also say "no".

  • mortiscrum||

    I can understand and even empathize with your sentiment, but I was hoping they'd be capable of a more nuanced position than "no, to anything and everything."

    New contentious and contested regulation? Fine, go ahead and say no. Playing chicken with the debt ceiling, threatening economic stability and our credit rating unnecessarily? Not so helpful. Offering zero alternatives to a clearly flawed healthcare bill that is attempting to fix a clearly broken healthcare system? Not so helpful.

  • prolefeed||

    Framing "not agreeing with bad policies and using the constitutional powers they have to check and balance the constitutional powers the president has" as obstructionism is arguing in bad faith.

    Why aren't you arguing that Obama was engaging in obstructionism when he kept pursuing his preferred policies when he lost both chambers of Congress?

  • mortiscrum||

    Yeah...it does get a bit dicey parsing these things, I'll admit.

    This is far from an overwhelming argument, but at a certain level Republicans ONLY said no. They've never offered an even semi-credible answer for healthcare reform. People have some serious rose-colored glasses on when it comes to healthcare pre-ACA, but it was really really bad, and was getting worse. Something needed to happen. I don't want to divert this discussion in to the merits of the ACA, but it has done some good things, despite its flaws.

    To me, just saying "no" is governing in bad faith.

    When Obama offered a stimulus package that was laughably kowtowed in favor of things Republicans say they want, but they reject it because of a tiny tax increase, that's governing in bad faith.

    I'll admit I'm kind of reading in to intention, but it seems obvious to me that every Republican action has been to deny Obama any legislative victory - even if it's a bill lifted basically straight from a Republican wishlist.

  • To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]||

    They've never offered an even semi-credible answer for healthcare reform.

    Deregulation as a solution as written by a neurologist
    Another argument for deregulation

    I'm sorry that you don't find deregulation credible, but it is a legitimate fix to the problem.

  • Jimbo||

    Dude, the only solutions that count are ones dems agree with. Get a clue!

  • Bra Ket||

    Playing chicken with the debt ceiling, threatening economic stability and our credit rating unnecessarily? Not so helpful.

    This was a principled position. Would you dismiss desegregation laws if they threatened economic stability?

  • mortiscrum||

    I wrote more about this above, but this is why I hate ideologues. I get it, the Republicans utterly hate the ACA (for some unfair reasons, I might add). But the ACA is Obama's signature piece of legislation. There shouldn't be a reasonable expectation that he's going to repeal it, and threatening the entire US economy over it becomes blackmail, not deal making.

  • To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]||

    this is why I hate ideologues

    Because you hate principles? I'm confused. If you operate solely on utilitarianism, that's fine, but you're gonna find yourself being stuck with all of the horrific consequences of utilitarianism.

    I get it, the Republicans utterly hate the ACA (for some unfair reasons, I might add).

    Unfair reasons like our principles?

    But the ACA is Obama's signature piece of legislation.

    So what? The Constitution was the Founders' signature piece of legislation, but that didn't keep the progressives from shitting all over it.

    There shouldn't be a reasonable expectation that he's going to repeal it, and threatening the entire US economy over it becomes blackmail, not deal making.

    The entire economy isn't at threat, you're just fearmongering. Also dealmaking is a worthless metric for goodness of a government. I'll not dive into the myriad examples, but they should be pretty self-evident throughout history.

  • Bra Ket||

    Perhaps democrats have embraced Burkean conservatism, and we should start referring to them as the right wing and republicans as the left.

  • mortiscrum||

    I don't hate principles, I hate people who care more about Part 3, Subsection D of their own personal agenda than making a compromise to get something done - even if it's not perfect.

    I know you probably don't mean this in this way so know I'm not intentionally strawmanning you, but since it's an easy example I'll use it: When you say you oppose the ACA because of your principles, that to me sounds like you don't care what the ACA does in practice, you just care about how it's doing it, and since it's doing it the "wrong way," the whole bill is bad and should be repelled.

    Alternatively, if you say the ACA is bad because of A, B, and C (maybe even D, E, and F) outcomes, which outweigh the positive things it does, that becomes a tangible position that can argued and ultimately compromised on. The former though? Can't work with that. And there's way too much of that in politics currently.

  • See Double You||

    "no, to anything and everything."

    That's not entirely true. Republicans crafted their own bills, including healthcare reform bills, only to be defeated in by Senate Democrats or vetoed by Obama.

    Perhaps the biggest media lie about Republicans is that they are the party of "no." Actually, the Democrats qualify for that title, too. Maybe more so than the Republicans.

    Besides, this all assumes that being the party of "no" is a bad thing. It all depends on what they are saying "no" to, doesn't it?

  • arrrrgh||

    Democrats have always been the party of "No" when it comes to proposals by Republicans. Republicans have in the past have compromised only to have Democrats demand more compromise. These past few years Republicans have passed lots of legislation only for Democrats to continue to say "No".

    I look forward to all the articles about Democrat obstructionists. Bernie has already been in the news stating that he looks forward to working with Republicans as long as they do stuff he agrees with, anything else will a fight.

  • Microaggressor||

    Offering zero alternatives to a clearly flawed healthcare bill that is attempting to fix a clearly broken healthcare system?

    Repeal and deregulation is the alternative. You should study economics if you want to know why. There was a time when health care was plentiful and affordable for the working class, and that was before government involvement and micromanagement. The only way to bring costs down is to return it to that state; a purely market-based industry instead of the current clusterfuck of technocratic price controls and supply restriction.

    Your lack of understanding of the solution doesn't mean there's no solution.

  • Sevo||

    "...Playing chicken with the debt ceiling, threatening economic stability and our credit rating unnecessarily? Not so helpful...."

    Spending more money to close parks than to leave them open? Oh, so helpful from that lying POS who still occupies the WH.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Offering zero alternatives to a clearly flawed healthcare bill that is attempting to fix a clearly broken healthcare system? Not so helpful."

    For the last time, just because YOU refuse to acknowledge any proposition that doesn't place a complete monopoly of the industry in government hands doesn't mean there aren't any.

    Out of curiousity, were you directing this "no alternative" line at Democrats back when they couldn't come up with any healthcare "alternatives" apart from kicking millions off their health insurance, sabotaging the industry, jacking up premiums and deductibles, and sticking those who couldn't afford them with a highly unconstitutional and immoral "penaltax"?

    No? Then fuck off, goosestepper.

  • Jerryskids||

    That's the line CNN keeps pushing, that before Trump or the GOP can repeal Obamacare they must first come up with their own alternative version of universal healthcare. I'd like to tell Chris Cuomo I'm going to smack him in the face with a baseball bat and if he objects he's required to come up with an alternative to the baseball bat for what he gets smacked in the face with. A softball bat? A 2x4? A bicycle chain? A pipe wrench? C'mon Chris, you gotta give me something to work with here, just whining that you'd rather not be smacked in the face at all isn't a serious policy proposal and you should be ashamed of yourself for not offering a legitimate alternative to the baseball bat.

  • lafe.long||

    +1 Wiffle fungo

  • Hari Seldon||

    Now, this is funny. I don't care who you are.

  • Baelzar||

    Thank you for this. I am stealing it.

  • mortiscrum||

    The Democrats did have other proposals, all of them rejected. The ACA was supposed to be the market-friendly way to get healthcare to everyone that would appeal to Republicans and BlueDogs.

    Honestly, this may come down to differing principles of healthcare. I personally put a huge amount of value on having a healthcare system that offers some level of reliable care to the most amount of people. I'm willing to pay more for something like that.

    You seem to have a different principle than that, one that's comfortable with some people going without basic healthcare if it means less government intrusion in the markets.

    It's hard to objectively argue in either direction, since each system has it's strengths and weaknesses, but if we're essentially arguing with two different goals in mind, it's unlikely we come to a consensus.

    I do enjoy debating it though.

  • To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]||

    It's hard to objectively argue in either direction, since each system has it's strengths and weaknesses, but if we're essentially arguing with two different goals in mind, it's unlikely we come to a consensus.

    Well, when you argue in bad faith, like below, you're right about it being hard to objectively argue. Of course, when people have an understanding of the economic effects of price controls, they realize that a society can provide reliable care to more people at a cheaper price by getting the government out of healthcare.

    You seem to have a different principle than that, one that's comfortable with some people going without basic healthcare if it means less government intrusion in the markets.
  • mortiscrum||

    I've been accused of arguing in bad faith before....what does it mean? Like, do people think I'm trolling? I promise, I legitimately hold the positions I'm saying, I'm arguing against the best understanding I can muster of other's positions, and I'm willing to change my mind. I've only been reading Reason for a few weeks and I've already shifted my position on several things.

    I mentioned it in another comment, but I am extremely skeptical of healthcare acting like a traditional market. The people who need the product are by definition sick, hurt, etc. - in other words, desperate. The inherent power difference between large entities and individuals is magnified, and I think this leads to harmful distortions - the Martin Shkreli fiasco is a recent example.

    Do you have an example of a free market healthcare system working well - i.e., getting healthcare to virtually all of the country's citizens?

  • DesigNate||

    You do realize that we have the exact same access to healthcare now as we did then right?

  • BoTardESQue||

    The ACA was supposed to be the market-friendly way to get healthcare to everyone that would appeal to Republicans and BlueDogs.

    And it was so appealing that no Republicans voted for it, the Blue Dogs had to literally be bribed to vote for it- and all lost their seats in 2010, and I as a 52 yr old single male now must buy a policy that includes maternity coverage and pediatric dental care, along with a guaranteed 15% insurance company mark-up for my pre-paid annual colonoscopy.

    Otherwise, I get to pay 2% of my income to the Feds for the "privilege" of not having health insurance, along with higher State taxes to cover the expansion of Medicaid.

    Market Friendly!!!!!!

  • DesigNate||

    Well one system eventually requires you to force someone to provide goods and services, so that one is objectively worse. You know, since medical care is not a right.

  • ThomasD||

    We can't kick out the British!

    Who would be our King????

  • Chip Your Pets||

    They're terrible about creating a message, or making the positive case for why people should vote for them or support their positions.

    Sorry, that is an enormous cop-out. Nearly the entire "creative class" and half of professional politicians are leftists, but you've gone decades without a positive message. You think all those people are incompetent at something that they make a living on?

    At some point you can't blame an inability to craft a positive message anymore, you have to look at the weakness of the ideas. Leftism is a tired old sterile ideology that has caused and continues to cause misery wherever it's tried. That's why the only message they can use is attacking the other side.

  • Bra Ket||

    Not only that, but people just plain don't want what they're selling. Doesn't matter how much they polish it up.

  • ThomasD||

    In the last eight years the Federal Register has not exactly shrunk in size. People know what they are receiving is industrial strength statism., yet this guy wants to pretend that the problem is a poor ad campaign and lousy three color packaging.

  • Microaggressor||

    they have obstructed as much as they possibly could from the day Obama took office.

    In a breathtaking display of your own ignorance, you failed to realize that this is the main reason those Republicans were voted into office.

    Not everyone agrees that Obama's way of "getting stuff done" is actually going to benefit the country. I'd say, most of it actively harms the country.

    It's nice of you to leave your echo chamber, but you still have some learning to do if you want to understand your opponents.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    But I can't lay the entire blame for the current situation on the Democrats. Republicans also played a large part. In what turned out to be a brilliant strategy, they have obstructed as much as they possibly could from the day Obama took office.

    What were they supposed to do? Roll over and die? Every Republican in Congress won elections too -- were the voters who put them in office not supposed to get any representation?

    The Democrats never, ever showed a willingness to compromise, "from the day Obama took office." Obstruction was the only option open to them.

  • ThomasD||

    " Essentially, they made the government work as poorly possible..."

    Um, you do know that you are posting on a libertarian site, right? That a basic principle of libertarianism is things are better when the government is limited to only the most basic and necessary functions, right?

    You think making the government work as poorly as possible somehow prevents things from getting better. While we tend to see it as proof why "more government" is usually the worse option. The most damning aspect being that all that "poor work" wasted a phenomenal amount of wealth and productivity.

    IOW, take your unspoken premise and shove it.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    When one group has shitty ideas the other opposing group is morally bound to say NO.

  • Citizen X||

    Democrats, at least in the last 10 years, have been terrible about communication. They're terrible about creating a message, or making the positive case for why people should vote for them or support their positions.

    Also, their positions are mostly terrible. You left out that part.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    No no, they've just been unable to communicate to the uneducated, backwards, racist, inbred, white, cis-hetero flyover country shitlords how great progressive ideas are. Obama told me so himself.

  • Jimbo||

    "Also, their positions are mostly terrible. You left out that part."

    Now your just quibbling!

  • Radioactive||

    that's why we have a government in 3 parts so that if one bit gets to big the other 2 can strangle it in the cradle

  • GamerFromJump||

    they have obstructed as much as they possibly could from the day Obama took office.

    Obstructing Democrats from getting everything they want is the only reason anyone elects Republicans.

  • ModerateProgressive||

    The root of the democrat problem has nothing to do with policy or governing style. The key problem for Democrats is that Republicans, right wing media (including talk radio and FOXNews) -- and even better than them all: Donald Trump, has exceptional branding and marketing-message skills that do not seem to exist noticeably on the left. These marketing-messaging and branding skills are not so much about branding the conservative movement, but actually about branding their opposition. Donald, however, has added the ability to skillfully market and brand himself in addition -- which is probably what made the difference in the razor thin election. This skill of Donald's is also not transferable.

  • Johnny Hit n Run Paulene||

    ModerateProgressive|11.11.16 @ 8:57AM|#

    "The root of the democrat problem has nothing to do with policy or governing style."

    Correct the root of this problem for me is personality politics pushing a progressive authoritarian agenda.

  • thom||

    The left genuinely believes that their message sells itself. They've reached a point where they are so firmly stuck in their own echo chamber, they are unable to look at their own message with skepticism or doubt, and just assume that anybody who is exposed to it will immediately see the truthfullness of it.

  • Microaggressor||

    The hubris in assuming that "we can never be wrong about basic facts, it is them who are misinformed" will be their downfall. Calling people racist for disputing those basic facts isn't going to win them over. The heightened hysteria and denial of reality will only drive people away and into the arms of Trump, as we have observed this election.

  • lafe.long||

    The key problem for Democrats is that Republicans, right wing media (including talk radio and FOXNews) -- and even better than them all: Donald Trump, has exceptional branding and marketing-message skills that do not seem to exist noticeably on the left.

    LOL!

    Fox News vs ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, ad inifinitum.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Pushing the claim that their unpopularity is due to an inability to communicate how great their ideology is, is a great example of marketing-message skills on the left.

    Guess what, their unpopularity is due to their ideology being morally bankrupt.

  • ||

    Detroit disagrees

  • ThomasD||

    You are delusional about who has the messaging skillz. But since your delusions will continue to render you unable to accomplish your agenda by all means please continue in them.

    Were you interested in ending your delusions I might suggest you consider that no amount of mad branding and marketing-message skillz can overcome long established concepts and principles such as autonomy, self determination, and liberty, or any other basic truths about human nature.

  • 0x90||

    These marketing-messaging and branding skills are not so much about branding the conservative movement, but actually about branding their opposition.

    The left is not inexperienced in branding their opposition. They clearly know how to get results.

    Perhaps not the results they were after, but...

  • Citizen X||

    The root of the democrat problem has nothing to do with policy or governing style.

    Goddammit, MP, it's Veteran's Day, not Opposite Day.

  • DesigNate||

    It's a good thing the Democrats have every other news channel, newspaper, magazine, and practically the entirety of Hollywood to help them spread their propaganda message. Otherwise we'd be living in a theocratic hellhole.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    A melodramatic Van Jones is free to claim that Trump's victory is a "white-lash."

    And Van Jones is right: as it turns out, our black progressive activist for president has actually hurt race relations. And tolerating and encouraging illegal immigration has turned out not to be a good policy. That's why voters want different policies in those areas. Where Van Jones is wrong is interpreting this as "racist and xenophobic".

  • ThomasD||

    Illegal immigration is only a racial issue insofar as serves the needs of leftist agitprop.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Well, given that "race" is a meaningless concept, progressives have been filling it with whatever meaning they like. Currently, apparently, Mexicans are a "race", while Spanish are white Europeans, except when they move to the US via Mexico, or something.

  • ||

    because we sort of have to.

    Um, no you don't. And as one of those stupid deplorables that live in flyover country, when you do, it just makes you look dumb.

  • sgreffenius||

    Interesting comparison: Clinton and her people were 'normally corrupt', which is to say, about as corrupt as some of the people General Grant surrounded himself with when he was president after the Civil War. The difference is that Grant himself was not corrupt, and victorious parts of the nation were highly grateful to him. Clinton had nothing but her name to redeem her corruption, or her empty defense of a horrible status quo. As you suggest, after eight years of Obama, her name did not go far enough to win.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    The Dems have a real problem: they are unable to learn from their mistakes. How can you learn from a mistake if you can't conceive of making any?

    People consider themselves to be highly educated, intellectual, and informed on everything have no room for learning. Learning requires a degree of humility and the self-awareness. You may be a genius, but there will always be people who are smarter and more well-informed than you.

    I like Reason and its commenters partly because I'm always learning here -- including from the commentariat. We have people who are highly knowledgeable about power generation technology, statistical analysis of research results, linguistics, political philosophy and economic theory, data security, the history of supreme court rulings and the law in general, and many other subjects.

    Me, I work in technology, am trained in both the humanities and biology, I'm knowledgeable about history of scientific thought, speak a few languages and I'm STILL learning all the time from people here! More importantly, I was raised to think critically, question authority, apply logic, and weigh evidence for myself.

    Contrast that to someone who is convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that the political slogans and rhetoric from their team is the gospel truth and anyone who questions that truth is simply a heretic with dangerous ideas who must be silenced. How does that person learn?

  • Domestic Dissident||

    You nailed it on the head. The main reason for Obama's downfall is that he's an ignoranus who truly believes that he knows everything about everything.

    The man hasn't really listened to anyone besides his wife and Valerie fucking Jarrett for years and years.

  • ||

    Exactly. Conservatives think liberals have good intentions, just bad ideas.

    Liberals think conservatives are evil.

    Why listen to, or try to understand someone you consider evil?

  • Jerms||

    Im a dumb blue collar worker who barely graduated highschool--imagine how much Im learning!

  • Microaggressor||

    An Associated Press-GfK poll also found that 92 percent of Americans thought Clinton's email setup either broke the law or was in "poor judgment." Only 6 percent believed she did nothing wrong.

    The dwindling population of Yglesias's of the world: stupid, dishonest, or both?

  • Jimbo||

    Yes!

  • Nikkodemus||

    Did anyone else originally see this article had 80 something comments, and now has 20 for some reason? Are the squirrels just getting more bold?

  • SugarFree||

    It had more like 120 before the Matrix was reset.

  • The Other Kevin||

    For the first time in 3 days I was able to post comments, and now they're GONE! (sobs)

  • Crusty Juggler||

    HM kept saying that he wanted to use my body to fulfill his sick, sadistic, sexual desires, so I'm glad those comments have been deleted thanks.

  • Johnny Hit n Run Paulene||

    Go on . . .

  • Rational Exuberance||

    No you're not!

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Excuse me, I'm not some cheap piece of man beef itching to be split in two like a beautiful coconut just because Heroic Mulatto and Libertymike have some nervous energy to work off.

  • Johnny Hit n Run Paulene||

    Sez you!

  • Citizen X||

    Wait, libertymike came back? That dude is so crazy.

  • Radioactive||

    seems like a wish list...

  • MarkLastname||

    So, you're an expensive piece of man beef? What kind of, um, hourly rate are we talking about here? Asking for a friend. Well, several friends actually. Black ones, too.

  • Johnny Hit n Run Paulene||

    They reposted it with the complete article rather than the snippet in the original. Nuked the comments in the process. Caca pasa.

  • You ARE a Prog (MJG)||

    Those were comments to the blog's summary. These are comments for the actual article.

    I believe the others were flushed down some other internet tube.

  • Robert||

    They took the opp'ty to reformat the thing & wipe out my all-caps shouting about the HyR bloggers' TDS.

  • Jimbo||

    See??!! Trump's already restricting our First Amendment rights!

    Although I am glad he did so after reading Crusty's comment...ewww.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    What are the odds this comment will get through?

  • SugarFree||

    100%

  • Crusty Juggler||

    "I'm still taking the under."

    Ryan Grim.

  • ||

    The democrats lost WISCONSIN, which has been reliably blue since 1984.

    Hillary didn't even campaign there.

    My favorite in all this post-election analysis is the idea that Hillary lost for any other reason besides the fact that she was a TERRIBLE candidate. The finger pointing at the DNC is delicious because they were in deep deep denial about the state of flyover country and those living there stood up and were counted. The best part is they clearly aren't learning from this at all.

  • kinnath||

    Hillary lost Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The entire fucking rust belt went to a Republican.

  • kinnath||

    The last numbers I saw said that Trump got 1.2 million fewer votes than Romney, and Clinton got 6.5 million fewer votes than Obama.

    Ten fucking percent of Obama's voters in 2012 either stayed home or voted for someone else in 2016.

  • MarkLastname||

    Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are the big ones. Those were practically considered shoo-ins for her before the election. I believe all went for Obama in both 2008 and 2012. So much for the theory that it was racism that lost her the election.

  • ThomasD||

    Hillary was a terrible candidate this time because that's what she is - a rotten candidate. When has she ever displayed any ability at being a good candidate? She was shoehorned into her Senate seat, Obama wiped the table with her back in 08, and the DNC made sure she had no real primary opposition this time around.

  • Radioactive||

    but...BERNIE!!! hahahahahahahahaha

  • ThomasD||

    I don't think Bernie would have won, even without any DNC shenanigans, but that is pure speculation on my part and there is no real way to know. But I am also more confidant that many of the people who crossed over to vote for Trump would not have done so with Biden or Webb on the top of the D ticket.

  • ThomasD||

    And let me add, if someone sat down tomorrow with Biden and got him talking I'll bet he'd say

    1. He thought he could have beaten Hillary in the primary
    2. He also thought that meant he'd become POTUS
    3. But, being a Dem who won, he then didn't want to be forever known as the guy who blocked the first female President.

  • MarkLastname||

    Yeah, they really should've run Warren, maybe Biden too, in the primaries.

    Ironically, the Dem primary was every bit as much a failure as the GOP one, only for the opposite reasons, and both failures suggest they be reformed so as to either have runoff primaries or have voters rank their top 3 candidates or something. For the GOP it was too many candidates competing with each other for the same votes so as to allow a relatively modest plurality behind Trump to run away with it as more and more dropped out. For the Dems, it was viable candidates refusing to run because they didn't want to take votes away from their favorite other candidates (I'm thinking mainly Warren and Biden refusing to run for fear of spoiling Hillary in favor of Bernie).

    I suspect that Elizabeth Warren would've steam-rolled over Trump, if she hadn't gotten out of the way because it was Hillary's turn. I bet she regrets it now.

  • Sevo||

    Well, here's the terminally smug Keillor for those who missed it:

    "The Trumpers had a whale of a good time, waving their signs, jeering at the media, beating up protesters, chanting "Lock her up" -- we elitists just stood and clapped."
    http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/.....604062.php

    Yeah, clapped, ripped down Trump signs, burned his offices, attacked his supporters. What a morally-superior bunch of assholes.

  • Radioactive||

    I thought he died...or maybe that was just wishful thinking

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Liberal thinkers are perfectly aware that not all Trump voters are just racist assholes.

    That's hilarious. Go read the NYT, and the comments appended to the articles. You'd thgink alien space ships had landed and the enslavement of humanity had begun. I see my hope that Tim Egan washed a couple dozen Xanax down with a bottle of absinthe and then jumped overboard from the Staten Island Ferry has been cruelly dashed. Instead, he's preparing to man the barricades.

    As for the "bubble", people tend for the most part to see what they want to see, but you can't pretend it's not amusing as shit to see the same people who were fretting about the terrifying consequences of a Trump loss out there in the street, tossing trash cans through shop windows.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    You'd thgink alien space ships had landed and the enslavement of humanity had begun.

    Mars needs women after all.

  • The Other Kevin||

    Facebook is still awash in derp and butt hurt. Most recently I read a post that boiled down to, "People are not unfriending others because they voted for Trump, they are doing so because by voting for Trump, they showed us that they were racist assholes this whole time, and we didn't notice it until now". Again, no mention that this was an election between two horrible candidates, and the one who was just a little less horrible won.

  • See Double You||

    Yeah, the people who go on and on about tolerance, understanding, love, respect, and nuance engage in the opposite.

  • MarkLastname||

    My theory is that, for a lot of leftists, politics is a substitute for morality. They think that holding the 'right' opinions is a substitute for being a decent person. They don't have to donate to charities or volunteer at the homeless shelter, they do their share by voting D. What's more, they don't have to be nice to people in general. They can be assholes, because they are 'nice to everyone' in the voting booth by voting D. So many of them think of themselves as like Dr. House: yeah they're jerks in real life (particularly to all those deplorables who don't vote right), but they're good where it really matters: in the booth (or on their blog) where voting or sanctimoniously pillorying their ideological opponents is, really, if you think about it, kinda like saving lives.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    100%

    That's just... like... your opinion, man.

  • See Double You||

    OT: From the comedic genius Seth McFarlane:

    When the President-elect of the United States tweets that a protest is "unfair," that's dangerous rhetoric. And it shows yet again exactly who Donald Trump puts first: Donald Trump. Despite the fact that these people were and are exercising their First Amendment rights, he felt they spoiled his big night, and he got petulant. That is not the reaction of a President. That is the reaction of King Joffrey.

    Yeah, because blocking traffic, threating Trump voters with violence, and trashing private property are just an exercise of Free Speech.

    Trump calling that "unfair" is a horrible affront. Meanwhile, Obama commenting that Trayvon Martin could have been him before Zimmerman even had his day in court was just peachy.

  • Sevo||

    And I gotta point out the fact that the protesters are protesting the form of government; they're griping about democracy.
    The man was elected; no shenanigans. Elected by the number of voters required to win. Period.
    Now they're screaming simply because X number of people didn't like *THEIR* candidate; the proggies didn't get the outcome they wanted from the process they (nominally) support.
    Tough
    .
    .
    .
    .
    shit.

  • 0x90||

    That's okay, the night before, he made clear that he fully supports Melania in her 2020 bid. His mother won't be able to die happy unless that happens, I understand.

  • ArbutusJoe||

    More than just threatening it appears: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/.....?li=AA4ZnC

  • Mickey Rat||

    How dangerous is the candidate who wanted to limit freedom of the press because a documentary criticized her?

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    The anti-free trade trope is also hyperbole. I believe that Trump will negotiate as many favorable trade deals as he can.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Or the isolationist trope:

    [Olaf Boehnke:] If Trump follows on a campaign pledge to reduce his country's financial commitment to NATO, Berlin would have to up its defence spending every year, a highly unpopular political decision among the German electorate

    Oh the horror of it! Europeans might have to pay for their own defense!

  • Microaggressor||

    We just need to export Krugman to Germany so he can progsplain to them why defense spending will be so wonderful for their economy.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Germany is governed by Christian democrats: no gay marriage, no gay adoption, private health insurance, government-financed Christian churches, balanced budget, and abortion only with counseling+3 day waiting period only during the first trimester. It's like a Republican wish list.

    The sons of Bismarck and Hitler may be authoritarian, but they aren't Krugman-style stupid, in particular when it comes to money.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    My favorite in all this post-election analysis is the idea that Hillary lost for any other reason besides the fact that she was a TERRIBLE candidate. The finger pointing at the DNC is delicious because they were in deep deep denial about the state of flyover country and those living there stood up and were counted.

    The other thing they are in total denial about is this: They don't have anybody else. They have no bench. There's nobody on deck. Bernie Sanders should have lasted as long as a tatooed sideshow geek in that campaign, but lots and lots of Democrats were so fucking desperate for an alternative they followed him around as if he's some sort of guru of enlightenment.

  • ||

    I spoke with some of my liberal buddies who were all convinced that Bernie would've trounced Trump and the DNC got what it deserved by cheating him out of the nomination.

    I tried to explain that having a guy who has been living off the government teat for 40 years as the embodiment of the anti-establishment vote doesn't make much sense but they don't seem to want to understand that. It's easier to pretend that you're in a Rage Against The Machine music video than actually examine the facts.

  • 0x90||

    Just ask them how that would be different than republicans claiming, after their 2008 or 2012 losses, that they would've won, had they only nominated Ron Paul.

  • BigT||

    Hillary also lived off the govt teat for 40 years. Just saying.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    "The other thing they are in total denial about is this: They don't have anybody else. They have no bench. There's nobody on deck."

    True, but I've actually been hearing rank-and-file progs touting how Michelle Obama or Chelsea Clinton should run the next time around, and maybe one of the Obama daughters further down the line!

    It's high-time we had a woman, they reason, and ignore the fact that the only reason everyone even knows these names is not from their own achievements but because of a famous husband or parents. (So much for feminism.)

    It also makes me wonder about their perverse fascination with monarchies. They think it's fitting that "special" families like the Clintons, Obama's, and Kennedy's should be the American version of the Windsors, Tudors, or Hapsburgs.

    It's pretty damn weird.

  • ||

    Chelsea Clinton being groomed to run for Congress

    Glad to see they are getting out of their liberal bubble!

  • I can't even||

    She'll be lucky to avoid jail time with the Fall of the House of Clinton.

  • Jerryskids||

    Chelsea Clinton being groomed to run for Congress.

    I'm gonna be very disappointed if I click that link and it ain't a picture of Secretariat.

  • Mickey Rat||

    We are seeing ostensibly communist regimes in Cuba and N Korea become heredity monarchies in all but name.

  • MarkLastname||

    They actually do have a bench. They have Warren, they have senators like Gillibrand and the other one McCaskill, who, though I detest, are much more dynamic, charismatic, and less baggage-afflicted (not to mention less associated with an ancient, nepotistic, rotten political establishment) than Hillary, and all have the right gender.

    What happened is the bench refused to play because they didn't want to cast any shade on Hillary, because damn it it was her turn to be in the sun.

  • 0x90||

    People can be faulted for the result, but not for failing to see it coming:

    the left: closed themselves off in an unimpregnable echo bunker.
    the right: nominated an unelectable, truth-proof outsider buffoon.
    everyone else: cynically, and reasonably, assumed it was a lock.

  • Jerryskids||

    FUCK YOU SQRLS!!!! I hate spending half-an-hour slaving over a hot keyboard pecking out a comment just to see the squirrels wolf it down in a single bite, showing no appreciation whatsoever for the time and trouble it took me to prepare their fine repast. They could at least let out a little sigh of delight, a murmur of contentment, a belch of satiety - something, anything, to let me know they enjoyed the meal.

  • 0x90||

    CTRL+C
    CTRL+V
    notepad.exe

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Look for the "Lazarus Form Recovery" extension for Chrome.

  • Johnny Hit n Run Paulene||

    Wow. Angry much?

  • See Double You||

    I learned to copy my post before submitting, and pasting it in a new comment should the old one be swallowed.

  • I can't even||

    They swallowed my timely link to the Mulshine column explaining how none of the DC / NYC crowd (including Reason) seemed to notice Trump poaching all of the Democrats voters.

    www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2.....ght_o.html

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Despite the fact that these people were and are exercising their First Amendment rights, he felt they spoiled his big night, and he got petulant. That is not the reaction of a President.

    Somebody needs to send McFarlane a youtube clip of that fucking bitchfaced crybaby in the Rose Garden after his pet gun control proposal went down in flames.

    Also, See- at the very end (too late) Gianforte ran an ad countering the tribalist "He's a carpetbagger from New Jersey!" bullshit Bullock's campaign was spewing. I only saw it once, a day or so before the election. Probably during a football game (since that's the only local broadcast programming I watch).

    I thought it was pretty effective. I think the tagline was, "But I'm here, now." He should have been running that in August.

  • See Double You||

    Somebody needs to send McFarlane a youtube clip of that fucking bitchfaced crybaby in the Rose Garden after his pet gun control proposal went down in flames.

    Well, Obama had the right ideas, so his behavior is always presidential. Duh.

    Also, See- at the very end (too late) Gianforte ran an ad countering the tribalist "He's a carpetbagger from New Jersey!" bullshit Bullock's campaign was spewing. I only saw it once, a day or so before the election. Probably during a football game (since that's the only local broadcast programming I watch).

    I thought it was pretty effective. I think the tagline was, "But I'm here, now." He should have been running that in August.

    Bullock won by a very slim margin. Missoula lefties, Butte union families, Helena public employees, and the Indian reservations gave him the edge.

  • ||

    Harry Reid, still an asshole.

  • Johnny Hit n Run Paulene||

    Trump lost the popular vote Harry? Who cares. It is the electoral vote that matters, idiot. Buh-bye.

  • BigT||

    Harry flunked6th grade. What can you expect.

  • 0x90||

    It's disingenuous, because of all people, Harry is the one who could explain how everything that's not voluntary, really is.

  • Radioactive||

    direct result of the hole he was birthed from...

  • I can't even||

    Hopefully his brother beats the shit out him again during the holidays.

  • Rockabilly||

    I fess up. I, a Gary Johnson voter, am to blame for Trump becoming president because I did not hold my nose and vote for Clinton who policies I oppose. I must say, those democrats are very nasty with potty mouths that make me blush.

    Libertarians to America: Don't Blame Us for Trump

    As Trump's numbers began to come in Tuesday night, Clinton supporter Seth MacFarlane tweeted, "How is that Gary Johnson protest vote treating you?" When the votes were counted the next day, Vanity Fair declared, "Gary Johnson and Jill Stein Handed the Presidency to Donald Trump." Jezebel went a little further: "Fuck Gary Johnson," they wrote, "And fuck Jill Stein, too."

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a.....trump.html

  • Johnny Hit n Run Paulene||

    I like Seth's work (as I do with a lot of musicians, artists and actors who are lefties). I try not to pay attention to their politics and just enjoy their work which is sometimes difficult, but whatever. That said, Seth, like many other proggies, has truly gone full-retard, no?

  • MarkLastname||

    I can't watch his show anymore. He, like Schumer, Silverman, Maher, and so many others have all but forgotten that they are comedians, and now view comedy as a vehicle to shove their idiotic politics down everyone's throat.

    South Park is about all that's left. I'lll even watch Tosh.0 before I'll watch Family Guy these days.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    This is a fantastic article, nice work David.

  • Jerryskids||

    Here's where the blame comes in on the Hillary loss: Just like Al Gore before her, Hillary was just too smart for her own good. See, when you have an IQ in the high 200's, when you are verifiably the Smartest Person On The Planet, you sometimes forget that not everybody else is operating on the same level as you and they really can't grasp the genius of your brilliant plans. Sure, since Democrats have a median IQ of 132 and always analyze things in a clinically dispassionate evidence-based manner they're fairly easy to reach but Republicans with their median 87 IQs react on a more primitive emotional animal level so you really have to learn to talk down to them to reach them. This is why Chimpy McBushitler - scientifically analyzed and verified IQ 81 - beat out Gore and Trump - a man who only speaks extemporaneously rather than from notes or a teleprompter in a vain attempt to hide the fact that he's functionally illiterate - beat out Hillary.

  • Jerryskids||

    Hillary's problem is that she just has too high an opinion of the American people and gets bogged down in attempting to explain the details of her brilliant policy analyses as if she thinks us shit-eating dogs are capable of understanding such things. The sad fact is that Hillary is just too good and refuses to talk down to us, refuses to condescend to us even though it's in everybody's best interest that she do so.

    And if you're laughing at this it's only because I haven't been beaten to the punch and nobody has yet seriously proffered this explanation - but I can guaran-fucking-tee you they will. They will, believe me. You're going to seriously hear this as an explanation for why Hillary lost, because we're just too stupid to grasp how smart she is and she's too nice to notice how pathetically stupid we are.

  • ThomasD||

    I was told there would be no math.

    Do you smell toast?

  • BigT||

    She was too good for me!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online