USA Politics

[bearfan]

The Comey letter hurt her .. no doubt, but she put herself in that situation to start with. She did not help herself with the aloofness by being aloof, her book tour was a total mess in that respect. She made many unforced errors

To add to it, she also was not helped by not handling Obama well, she did not really establish herself as anything but a 3rd term and did not mobilize the same vote. That hurts all people in her situation, certainly Gore can relate to that. Plus she was hurt a bit by being obviously tied to the Clinton Administration .. which suddenly was not so popular among the hard left.

HW Bush is the only one in recent memory to break the "3rd term" curse ... and he was helped massively by Dukakis

 

[LooseCannon]

The Comey letter hurt her .. no doubt, but she put herself in that situation to start with. She did not help herself with the aloofness by being aloof, her book tour was a total mess in that respect. She made many unforced errors

Which is why I listed that Hillary was just a horrible candidate. Just all around terrible.

 

[Cornfed Hick]

The media ran Trump because he got ratings, and they forgot to do their jobs and critically evaluate the Trump candidacy - until it was too late. The media forgetting they have a job to do certainly has nothing to do with some Americans having anti-establishment feelings.

I'm not sure which media you are referring to, but the major newspapers and talk shows pretty much uniformly blasted Trump nonstop. They had to cover him -- he was the Republican front-runner from the beginning -- so one can't complain about the media giving him a stage. But even Fox News was critical of Trump, at least until he got the nomination.

 

[bearfan]

For sure, there was never any kind of media lovefest around Trump .. he got tons of coverage, but little of it was good.

 

[Mosh]

Which helped his anti establishment image. Trump is the epitome of "any press is good press".

 

[The Flash]

The fact that the Rust Belt was motivated against the establishment certainly falls into this area, which is why I didn't mention it. What I specifically said was that 1. Hillary failed to notice this, a decidedly political error, and 2. Trump specifically noticed this, a political revelation. The fact that a political amateur was able to discover the fact that a trend existed while a career expert politician completely pretended it didn't are entirely political errors. If Hillary had noted the anti-establishment wave going on and addressed it fairly early on, she likely would have held onto the three states that became critical to her electoral chances, even with all the other things going on. Similarly, if Trump hadn't noticed, he couldn't have won. So while perhaps they are related to the anti-establishment attitudes of American whites, insofar as they couldn't have occurred if those attitudes didn't exist, they are not foregone conclusions drawn by the existence of the anti-establishment feelings in those regions.

Hillary failing to notice the anti-establishment sentiment in the Rust Belt area and Trump doing so means...The Rust Belt issue can't be put under the umbrella of anti-establishmentism? How does that even make sense? Your explanation gives the reason exactly why it's an anti-establishment issue. Addressing it alone made a huge difference.

Finally, there's Trump and the media. We have to appreciate that Trump is a master of modern soundbyte creation. This guy has figured out that it doesn't matter what you say, because the media will edit out your blather and your bullshit as long as you deliver a hell of a soundbyte. Sarah Palin was the original in this - she can talk for hours and hours and literally say nothing of substance. Even her books are completely devoid of content, pages and pages of windbag nonsense. But then she lands one solid line partway through - pal around with terrorists, or lipstick on a pig - and the media can't stop covering it. Trump's the same. He rambles on mindlessly and then lands on a solid line - build a wall, lock her up, etc. And that's what people take away from it. The media ran Trump because he got ratings, and they forgot to do their jobs and critically evaluate the Trump candidacy - until it was too late. The media forgetting they have a job to do certainly has nothing to do with some Americans having anti-establishment feelings.

Yeah, Trump was blasted in the media throughout the campaign. Sure, they cared about their ratings. But he got shit thrown at him throughout, not even just from news media, but all sorts of media in general. And that absolutely is a representation of the establishment. Even the Republican media blasted him repeatedly.

Your point regarding Hillary's history is valid, so I'll give you that. Anti-establishmentism, Hillary being disliked, Comey letter, Hillary's lack of an articulate economic plan and liberal alienation of conservatives. There you go, that's my Top 5. Could be convinced all the way down to #8 or so, but no lower than 10.

 

[bearfan]

Which helped his anti establishment image. Trump is the epitome of "any press is good press".

For sure, I think the negative went way overboard and might have helped in. I just wanted to be clear he got virtually no positive press in any mainstream outlets .. and even not so good in a lot of conservative press .. certainly in the primaries.

 

[LooseCannon]

Hillary failing to notice the anti-establishment sentiment in the Rust Belt area and Trump doing so means...The Rust Belt issue can't be put under the umbrella of anti-establishmentism? How does that even make sense? Your explanation gives the reason exactly why it's an anti-establishment issue. Addressing it alone made a huge difference.

Those are political decisions to ignore/exploit division in a specific demographic in a specific geographic area of the United States, a massive country filled with massively different demographics. I'm talking about the failing/success of the individual campaigns to pinpoint (or not pinpoint) the critical demographic in the election, not about the reasons why those demographics are the ones that were critical. It speaks to the inability of the Clinton campaign to understand where to win, whereas it talks about how Trump knew how to give himself the best possible chance. Those are comments about the organizations built by both sides, not about the reasons. It could have been...black people angry in St Louis and Maryland or it could have been disaffected liberals in Seattle. It wasn't, but it could have been. That's why it's nothing to do with the feelings of that demographic, because it could have been any demographic.

 

[bearfan]

Hillary and her campaign took a lot of votes for granted .. they assumed those who voted for Obama would vote for her in the same numbers ... they clearly did not. Her time in places like Arizona and Georgia was a total waste of her time they went for a massive blowout rather than make sure they win.

To further cement her as such a horrid candidates, she outspent Trump 2-1 (including affiliated PACs). If I were a big donor, I would be asking a lot of questions about WTF happened.

 

[The Flash]

Those are political decisions to ignore/exploit division in a specific demographic in a specific geographic area of the United States, a massive country filled with massively different demographics. I'm talking about the failing/success of the individual campaigns to pinpoint (or not pinpoint) the critical demographic in the election, not about the reasons why those demographics are the ones that were critical. It speaks to the inability of the Clinton campaign to understand where to win, whereas it talks about how Trump knew how to give himself the best possible chance. Those are comments about the organizations built by both sides, not about the reasons. It could have been...black people angry in St Louis and Maryland or it could have been disaffected liberals in Seattle. It wasn't, but it could have been. That's why it's nothing to do with the feelings of that demographic, because it could have been any demographic.

Gotcha.

Even still, I'd count "addressing the Rust Belt" as one reason, not two. (Actually, "inability of the Clinton campaign to understand where to win" is a better way of saying it) As I said, the alienation of conversatives by liberals certainly isn't the biggest reason, but I just think it can't be brushed off as "it falls far short of the Top 10". I'm still of the opinion that it's up there. A lot of people realized Trump really pissed off the elitist liberals and SJWs, and it strenghtened their support of him, probably even brought a lot of voters.

 

[bearfan]

In reading some of the exit polls/comments ... one voter said he thought Clinton seemed more concerned with what bathroom people would use than them having jobs. True or not ... I am guessing that was a common impression ... that they were pandering/preaching towards specific interest groups versus "the common worker" in the rust belt. She never connected with blue collar workers on any kind of meaningful level .. Bill was a master at that, Hillary clearly not.

 

[Mosh]

one voter said he thought Clinton seemed more concerned with what bathroom people would use than them having jobs.

This statement really neatly sums up why she lost and one of the many reasons why she was a bad candidate. I don't remember the bathroom bill issue ever coming up during her campaign and way down at the bottom of the list of people I'd consider an advocate for LGBT rights. Yet the connotation is still there. All she had to do was run on a clear, direct, and inclusive message. She decided not to do that because she thought she was entitled to the presidency and that not being Donald Trump was good enough. In fact, I said way back in October that it wasn't going to work:

Disagree. The "she is better than Donald Trump" tactic is not enough to keep undecideds from staying home.

 

[LooseCannon]

I am guessing that was a common impression ... that they were pandering/preaching towards specific interest groups versus "the common worker" in the rust belt.

They basically ignored this area when they did their strategic thinking. They just assumed it would vote Hillary. Incredible hubris. Incredible.

 

[bearfan]

Interesting ... my preference is really to lower the tax rates and eliminate most (if not all ) deductions .. which will not happen. Living in a non-income tax state (though we can deduct sales tax, which is a fairly small deduction) .. I just have to say ha ha!

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/3...-and-local-tax-deduction-would-be-devastating

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) met with President-elect Donald TrumpWednesday to discuss several issues affecting his state, including the deduction for state and local taxes.

It would be "devastating on the state of New York, California, et cetera, if you didn't allow the people of this state to deduct their state and local taxes," Cuomo told reporters after the meeting.

The House Republican tax-reform plan would eliminate the state and local tax deduction, and Trump's tax plan would cap itemized deductions for higher earners.

State and local governments have been working to preserve the deduction, and they argue that doing away with the preference would hurt states and localities' flexibility to make tax changes.

But the deduction is expensive for the federal government and is viewed as disproportionately benefiting wealthy people. It also tends to be used in areas that lean Democratic.

 

[LooseCannon]

That's really weird to me. In Canada, we can't deduct our provincial taxes from federal taxes. I have to pay both.

 

[bearfan]

You have to pay both here, but you can deduct what you pay in state taxes off your federal taxes. You have an option of deducting your state income tax or sales tax (which usually only makes sense if your state has no income tax or you made a major purchase -- like a car)

 

[LooseCannon]

You have to pay both here, but you can deduct what you pay in state taxes off your federal taxes. You have an option of deducting your state income tax or sales tax (which usually only makes sense if your state has no income tax or you made a major purchase -- like a car)

That seems silly.

 

[bearfan]

It is .. like most of the tax code .. back to my original comment .. lower the rates, eliminate deductions.

 

[LooseCannon]

Would you recommend offsetting the various rates by the same average amount that deductions would be worth? Would you recommend getting rid of all deductions?

 

[bearfan]

If not all, most all. But the problem when you say not all, you have every Congressman/Senator wanting to keep 'x' deduction because it benefits their state/some voting block and you end up back in the same mess.

One thing to consider is most people take the standard deduction, because the itemized deductions would not surpass that.

So, I would keep the standard deduction (which varies based on household size), charitable donations, health insurance, and the mortgage interest deduction .. that is all. Also, nuke the AMT.

For the richer folks a lower rate and few deductions would most likely end up with them paying more in taxes, though far less in tax preparation. But I would be fine if the rates worked out so it was revenue neutral.