openly calling those people deplorable racists might not have been a sick strategy eh?
also do you genuinely think HC, someone who literally said you need to have a personal and public opinion on issues in her Goldman Sachs speeches and has done nothing but flip flop since the 90s, would give a shit about Bernie's platform after she's elected?

if u would have told me donald trump would be the president in 4 years, i wouldnt have believed it all lmao

considering all the inflammatory shit that the right throws around its weird everyone is getting hung up on this but no, it wouldn't have mattered. Economic pressures forced people to the GOP, not hurt fee fees

considering universal healthcare, gay rights, and environmentalism were things Clinton supported in the 90s and wanted to work towards anyway yeah I think she'dve stuck. Just because she was more conservative and nuanced in her goals for her term didn't mean she wasn't progressive

https://youtu.be/-dY77j6uBHI?t=29s

0:27
lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I

Sanders would have had an important advantage over Clinton, he's an old white male. That demographic voted against Clinton in droves, and Sanders would also have been much more difficult to outflank on the "insider" theme. There is no doubt he would have had his own, probably fatal, electoral weaknesses, but he is a much better orator than Clinton and would probably have had a much easier time appearing genuine when campaigning.

Clinton being a better politician within the confines of her own party didn't do them any good on the road. The democrat process just didn't produce a good enough candidate and in the wake of defeat they might want to look at why. The Republican party has plenty of work to do to figure out what just happened to it as well.

oh no a senator said something on tv!?!?? most people in new york didn't want gay marriage. Representing your constituency is part of being a politician

she helped get DADT passed and wanted gays to openly serve. Her track record is better than most

The problem with Sanders is that he was too leftist for the DNC, couldn't reach far enough to the right to pull voters from the center, which is really what the democrats specialize in when looking at past elections. Clinton is far easier for the DNC to utilize because of her pragmatic approach to things. Clinton wasn't necessarily the better politician but her position made it more likely that she would take the nomination, which makes sense if the whole e-mail scandals with the possible rigging of the primaries for her benefit is true.

As for the issues with the GOP, they just need to take a closer look at how they run their primaries, which are designed specifically to iron out the best candidates. This also applies to the DNC.

People are upset about the state of things and Clinton very clearly painted herself as the candidate of the status quo - they even drug out some old unpopular Republicans to back her up - that, in combination with her campaign's very strange decision to run on *her* as a person and not on policies, brought us the Trumper's surprise victory lol.

For once in my life I find myself almost agreeing with Schweppes lol. A lot of this Trump vote wasn't people giving over to calls for Race and Nation - they were voting anti-establishment - because these same voters came out for Obama in 08'. It's actually a big opportunity for the *real* left in the US to make its move, because 2-4 years from now, anybody who voted Trump with the hopes of real change are going to be sorely disappointed lol. The power of the presidency is not pervasive enough to enact anything really far out there, and the Democrats retain enough seats in the senate to filibuster any legislation they deem to be too extreme.

"Both choices are worse" to quote Stalin sums up this election quite nicely.

Trump was worse because he openly gave himself over to very dark appeals to racist tendencies and flippant opportunist declarations of obviously dangerous policy proposals (defaulting on debt and so on).

Clinton was worse because she obviated any chance for *real* change, is a cold-warrior and a hawk.

this is the guy people voted to be in one of the most powerful positions in the world btw
http://www.teenvogue.com/story/mike-pence-record-reproductive-rights-lgbtq-refugees/amp

pulled an all-nighter
trump is still the POTUS
ANIME VIDEO CELEBRATION
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7WyJ8CQl9I

The thing is that during a period of clear sustained economic... well suffering might be too strong a word, but belts clearly being tightened, the left is supposed to be able to not only capitalise on that, but to have attractive arguments that appeal directly to people on those grounds, and to represent them.

It's an interesting pattern amongst the anti-establishment movements that are happening throughout the west that the successful ones are primarily right wing, that they rely primarily on ideas of identity while simultaneously pushing for the most part an even more right wing agenda that is very unlikely to benefit anyone who is voting for them.

It seems that the process that took place in the 1990s where left leaning parties became friends of globalisation and the markets has left them hopelessly exposed. New leftist movements now still appeal to left leaning well educated people, but they have no traction with their supposed base - unionised workers, low skilled workers, etc. There's no point pretending there was no swing vote - those people just came out for Trump in significant numbers, and they have abandoned Labour in the UK. The left as a whole needs to re-connect.

For the Republicans their entire system has been totally undermined by a complete outsider who has publicly shown contempt for those who are now his leading officials. Several of them have openly mutinied and voted against him. A lot of party members feel the same way about Trump as people who just voted against him, there is a real feeling the party has been hijacked. It runs a lot deeper than adjusting their process.

I am glad he already failed without even starting.

http://i.imgur.com/11MF1hB.png

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/c7/a9/d3/c7a9d3136fcb2c41061f18fa164d9e5d.jpg

i dont want ilegal imigrant 2 reduce my chance of job

u r a racist

Won't be long before Mexico invades the US to try and install a democracy. Also i'd imagine people living a rock will be like "Since when did the Apprentice relocate their studio to the White House?" Alan Sugar for PM.

http://imgur.com/a/jP0sZ

At least the US and UK have something in common.

The left capitalizing on economic issues to gain control was really started with FDR, but during that time period the left also had complete control over the legislative and judiciary branches. Only in times of crisis does America tend to give complete power to a party that has an imminent solution to the issues, which makes this election particularly strange where the right only needs the judiciary to play their game in order for that to happen. So deriving power in that sense comes from communicating actual solutions, which neither candidate seems to show in this election, furthering the anomaly.

Anti-establishment movements usually gain ground not because of simply "the good old days" ideas but because of the general movement of the parties within the political spectrum. When the left reaches toward the center, the right responds by moving further right, dragging it's end along with it. Trump is essentially the epitome of this and is really the reason more people have swung right, there is a much larger political ecotone here making it far easier for undecided to travel right on their own without the right needing to make an active effort. Being informed usually counteracts this but with the state of the media it's extremely difficult to get a clear cut mindset without doing way too much homework on the topic. Americans = lazy with that sort of thing, no matter what background.

The left here is honestly stronger than ever in terms of differences in their ideals. Essentially every liberal has to identify even closer with each other due to the splintering of the GOP caused by Trump's rhetoric. Even though the republicans do have control of the executive and legislative, the polarity in the party is most likely going to show with not having to worry about the executive knocking back every decision made. The party hasn't really been hijacked, it's just split in how right-winged it wants to be, another effect of the right-moving-further-right-over-time effect.

i lost a £10 bet on the election with a ukip/trump nutjob at my uni

pretty humiliating

We did it.

How the fuck is the candidate that the establishment and all the elites wanted so desperately to lose, winning, an indicator that there isn't democracy in the US? I honestly believed they would steal it from him, like I did with Brexit. I guess that no matter how rich and powerful the globalists are, it's impossible to rig such a huge event with so many third-parties involved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKRQ4g2OArA

I'd probably agree with much of that AV5 but I think viewing the political spectrum as simply left and right in that sense doesn't get to the heart of what is happening. When people are feeling affluent, things are going well, their sense of identity is not as important to them. When they are marginalised identity becomes much more important - you can see this in marginal groups of all types (right, left, anarchist, criminal, whatever), that their sense of identity is what keeps them going in adversity.

When it's possible for a demagogue like Trump to make a largely privileged group feel like they are marginal, or even when a large section of society is objectively marginalised, then it opens up the way for that group identity to become a major political force that can be exploited. Trump stooped pretty low to tell people they're being shat on by Muslims, Mexicans, free trade itself and anyone else he felt he could get away with offending. Objectively many of those people from the rust belt, etc, could rightly feel aggrieved as well.

Failing to recognise this is the same complacency that has seen the left fail elsewhere. I'd say accusations that the left is dominated by metropolitan elites who don't actually care about the working class voters they were once supposed to champion have substance, they certainly aren't addressing these problems seriously and if they continue to ignore divisions like this democracy as a whole is weakened.

The left no longer really have the option of reaching for the center because much of their base has been cut away or simply co-opted to their rivals. In the UK for example there is now a vast swathe of the working class that voted for Brexit that the Tory party, which would never have dreamed of gaining these votes in such numbers, is clearly attempting to parlay into permanent support with tough rhetoric, solidifying their grip on Parliament for a generation.

I think there is something more serious at work at the moment than the normal ebb and flow of party politics.

Trump endorses legal marijuana though

http://www.maplematch.com/

Reading through this thread seeing all the Trump supporters trying to say it had nothing to do with race when the only major demographic trump did well with was white people.

The fact that Clinton was the establishment candidate and racism can both play a role. It doesn't just have to be one thing.

But Hillary is white too @_@

So like every republican ever?

.

hey im gettin back on twitter again