Shocked, Stunned, Need Time To Absorb Before Detailed Analysis Over Coming Days!

This author and blogger is totally shocked and stunned, and needs time to absorb the victory of Donald Trump in the Presidential Election of 2016.

So over time, I will provide detailed analysis over what has happened.

But I can say that I weep for our nation, and the body blow of the Trump victory over the legacy of Barack Obama, and the danger presented to the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Great Society of Lyndon B. Johnson.

I also weep for the harm it does to our children of all races, and to girls and women, and to ethnic and racial minorities, and to our economy and international affairs.

This is truly a major turning point, and a likely constitutional crisis far greater than presented by Richard Nixon four decades ago.

That is all for now and for today.

I apologize for being so wrong in my prognostications, but share that with the overwhelming number of others who study and discuss and write about American politics!

Today, shed tears over what has happened, and then the struggle to do what can be done to lessen the impact of Donald Trump must begin tomorrow!

84 comments on “Shocked, Stunned, Need Time To Absorb Before Detailed Analysis Over Coming Days!

  1. Princess Leia November 9, 2016 12:14 pm

    I am feeling sick to my stomach over seeing this country which I love and I’ve called home for over 60 years just slit its own throat.

  2. Rational Lefty November 9, 2016 12:15 pm

    The idea that the same country that elected Barack Obama as president could turn around and eight years later elect Donald Trump is almost unfathomable.

  3. Paul Doyle November 9, 2016 9:05 pm

    We are all shocked with the results. What we failed to see or hear was the anger resonating with the rural, white poor or lower middle class and those stuck in old industrial cities in the rust belt or northeast states. We tend to denigrate many if them for lack of education. Yet, many of them are hard working individuals that feel they have no voice.

    We all empathize with the plight of poor blacks trapped in poverty, primarily out of guilt . However, we seem to make fun of those stuck in similar situations , but of different racial makeup.
    Trump is offering them false hope. However, the hurt and anger are still there and should have been recognized.

    This doesn’t sound very progressive, but it is mostly the reality of the reason why we all have long faces today.

    Did they have a valid reason for voting for him?

  4. Ronald November 9, 2016 9:30 pm

    I understand what you are saying, Paul, but the idea that a wealthy urban New Yorker, who cheats his workers and contractors, can have concern or empathy for lower and middle class white workers in the Rust Belt is laughable.

    They gave their support to a con artist, and many of them resent educated people, and do not encourage their kids to make better lives, as I see it!

  5. Paul Doyle November 9, 2016 9:57 pm

    My point exactly, Professor. I mentioned that Trump sold false hope. But, it goes deeper than that. 52 million voters all don,’t resent educated people,; not even close to a majority of them. The resentment may be more mutual as many educated people treat the uneducated as an underclass without getting to the root of the situation.

    Read “Hillbilly Elegy” for a poignant counterpoint to the argument that many do not encourage their kids to make better lives.

    If one made that same observation about the black underclass, it would rightly be called racist. And I don’t t want to turn this into a sociological discussion, but economic situations are sometimes little different with the white underclass and if we don’t try to understand both, we are doomed to widen the divide.

    Not saying I’m right, but trying to put myself into the shoes of what causes these deep divisions.. We can,,’ t continue to paint everyone with the same broad brush stereotypes.

    Educated people should try to be healers, not dividers. Do we get what we deserve? We shall find out come January 20th.

  6. Ronald November 9, 2016 10:20 pm

    What you say makes a lot of sense, and you are right that we cannot look down on the white underclass, who rightfully should be in the Democratic Party as they once were!

  7. Former Republican November 10, 2016 12:08 pm

    The same thing that has happened here has happened in Europe. There’s been a growth in support for far right parties, who are against globalization and immigration.

  8. D November 10, 2016 3:47 pm


  9. Ronald November 10, 2016 4:55 pm

    In agreement with last two entries!

  10. Paul Doyle November 10, 2016 9:00 pm

    Rational Lefty ,
    Incomes under $50,000 is a dubious range to drill down who voted for each candidate.
    I would like to see a further breakdown in that analysis to buy in that Clinton got more votes from the “downtrodden”.
    EIC eligible incomes vs. someone making $40,000 is a far different demographic. It’s s like that old maxim, “Figures don,’t lie, but liars figure,” or ” Lies, damn lies and statistics”.

  11. Southern Liberal November 10, 2016 9:55 pm

    Bernie has endorsed Keith Ellison for DNC chair.

  12. Princess Leia November 10, 2016 9:56 pm

    Democrats in Congress are going to try to fight Trump by using filibuster, etc.

  13. D November 11, 2016 2:58 pm

    Pragmatic Progressive writes,

    “Rustbelt Democrat, Former Republican, Princess Leia, Southern Liberal, Rational Lefty and I all share the perspective of Milt Shook’s blog:

    From Milt Shook is the following:

    “Once again, Democrats lost because the unicorn left basically echoed the far right’s criticisms of Hillary Clinton and Democrats in general.”

    I reject Milt Shook.

    This deliberately false narrative, and what it represents, is damaging to the Democratic Party.

    Do not trust Milt Shook!

  14. Former Republican November 11, 2016 5:09 pm

    It’s not a false narrative, nor damaging. You have to appeal to the center.

  15. Pragmatic Progressive November 11, 2016 5:11 pm

    D – A lot of the scandals about Hillary are lies made up by the Right throughout her career.

  16. Southern Liberal November 11, 2016 5:26 pm

    Quite right, Former Republican! As Mr. Shook says, Republicans held their noses and voted for him anyway. Our side needs to learn how to do that too, if we don’t like a particular Democratic candidate.

  17. D November 11, 2016 6:12 pm

    Pragmatic Professor and others,

    Please wake up!

  18. D November 11, 2016 6:12 pm

    I meant Pragmatic Progressive. (Sorry.)

  19. Rational Lefty November 11, 2016 6:18 pm

    I very much agree with what Howard Dean said. We need to go back to the “50-state strategy” that was very successful in 2006 and in 2008.

  20. Rustbelt Democrat November 11, 2016 7:54 pm

    We used to read at places like HuffPo, Daily Kos, FDL, and so on, but grew frustrated and quit because most of those sites have been taken over by liberals and progressives insisting on ideological purity.

  21. D November 11, 2016 8:41 pm

    Princess Leia,

    My response is not intended to be an insult to you. It is my response to ideas and feelings expressed. And, at the same time, I will not hold back.

    Being a “progressive” who is “pragmatic” means little to nothing. In politics, for one to understand messages, a person has to read between the lines—however many of them. (Donald Trump, for example, had a lot of them between his racist, sexist, xenophobic rhetoric.) Being pragmatic—and whether or not applies the word progressive as well—is a polite way of saying, “I am not on the left. I am not truly on the left. I am not comfortable with the left. I actually am the kind of self-identified Democratic Party voter, with this period of United States history, who used to—or that I would have—self-identify/self-identified with the Republican Party when it was still influenced by the likes of Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Nelson Rockefeller, Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush. But, the changes in that party’s social policies—on racial issues, on pro-choice—made me uncomfortable. I decamped to the Democratic side with Bill Clinton and his New Democrats in the 1990s. They made me feel it was okay to vote for the Democratic Party. They made me feel that the left would not yield the influence as to the policies and the direction of the party and the nation whenever empowered. They are more to my comfort. They are more to my liking.”

    I’m familiar with this tune.

    This Democratic Party has become a party that likes to say they are great at winning presidential elections. They have also become very good at losing midterm elections, including majority-control Republican U.S. House and/or U.S. Senate pickups with Year 2—that was, 1994 and 2010—of the two most recent Democratic Party presidents.

    This is also now a party which is marginalized with state houses in addition to their presence in Congress. And, of course, we now know the results of the 2016 United States presidential election.

    So, how are you feeling about President Elect Hillary Clinton now?

    Was nominating a low-approval Democatic presidential nominee, with a closet full of skeletons, and one who wasn’t even touch with the base of her party during the primaries (and had no vision), a “pragmatic” choice?

    I am rejecting The Clintons. I am rejecting Clintonism. I am rejecting their cultists. I am rejecting “centrists.” I am rejecting conservative Democrats. I am rejecting neoliberal Democrats for their globalism, their bad trade policies, their cozy relationships with Wall Street. I am rejecting the language of Democratic Party think tanks—like with what was existing from the now-defunct Democratic Leadership Council—which speak to anything about being “pragmatic” when, in reality, they have disavowed just everything that was great about the party when they were still influenced by Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal Democrats. And I reject Hillary Clinton; her sleazy primaries and general-election campaign and their people (like with Anita Hill smear merchant David “Correct the Record” Brock); the Democratic National Committee (most notoriously the possibly sociopathic Debbie Wasserman Schultz); the Democratic Party establishment; the Hillary Clinton surrogates and shills; the Clinton machine-influence of frauds who posed as either liberals or progressives in media or other form (like Paul Krugman, Joan Walsh, Jon Ralston, and so many more which also has ties with the likes of CNN and MSNBC).

    People have figured out that the Democratic Party is there more for Wall Street than Main Street. People have figured out that the Democratic Party establishment—from the primaries—was more in fear of the highly electable Bernie Sanders than Donald Trump. The 2016 Democratic Party establishment were always more comfortable with a President Donald Trump than a President Bernie Sanders. The Democratic Party establishment, and their corruption, including the corruption of their presidential nominee, became exposed here in 2016.

    If this Democratic Party—with their current establishment careerists doing their best to not lose their behind-the-scenes power (along with their money and their connections)—does not bring an overdue end to the New Democrat-type leadership, ushered in with the 1992 election of Bill Clinton, first set in motion during the 1980s (then-California U.S. congressman Tony Coelho and the party deciding they would compete with Republicans for corporate campaign donations), it will become obsolete with meaningful power.

    People have been saying, since President Barack Obama’s 2008 election, that the Republicans are in trouble. The Democrats just had their Blue Firewall broken on Election Day. For the first time since 1984, when Ronald Reagan was re-elected with 49 states, Wisconsin carried Republican. For the first time since 1988, both Pennsylvania and Michigan carried Republican. They said not to Hillary Clinton, no to her baggage, and yes to Donald Trump. So, I recognize this Democratic Party is a disaster.

    If the current power being yielded in this Democratic Party continues to influence how the party operates—especially following the results of this 2016 United States presidential election—I will not support this party with my votes.

  22. D November 11, 2016 9:13 pm

    I reject Howard Dean for the next DNC chair person.

    (Oh, and Donna Brazil’s has to go!)

    I like the idea of Keith Ellison, the congress person from the 5th district of Minnesota.

  23. Rational Lefty November 11, 2016 10:07 pm

    I speak for the others when I say that being a pragmatic for me means that I will always go with “what works” over an impractical solution, or take what is achievable for now versus doing without anything in the vague hope that “the perfect” will somehow happen.   I recognize that “all or nothing” often means nothing, and that if nothing hurts a lot more people than something, I’ll take the something – every time.   I’m  someone who has bothered to read the party platform and what the candidates said when they were running.   Were any of them my “ideal?”  No, and I never expected them to be.  If I can agree on most of what they say, and another candidate only agrees with me on a little, then I’ll take the most, recognizing that what we disagree on is not a “deal breaker.”  I recognize that I will have disappointments, even serious disagreements on occasion with them.  I also realize that not everyone agrees with me, and that in the legislative process that will mean problems and obstructions.  I accordingly fix any “blame” where it belongs, not on a handy scapegoat.   I’ve had enough experience to know that sometimes priorities clash or change, that budgets can – and will – limit what you can do, and the world has a nasty habit of reshuffling those.  I’ve studied enough history to know that the great progressive advances of the past were agonizingly slow in coming, and seriously flawed when they were first passed.

  24. Rustbelt Democrat November 11, 2016 10:27 pm

    Pragmatic progressives are truly on the left as well. We care about issues such as climate change, income inequality, protecting a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, diplomacy as foreign policy, gun control measures such as background checks, protecting the social safety net, and so on. We are Democratic voters because, of the two party system, that’s the party that best expresses our beliefs.

  25. D November 11, 2016 10:27 pm

    Paul Doyle,

    Thank you for the link to that interesting article!

    For people who don’t understand enough why Donald Trump received such voting support…it can help.

    I will provide a link to a “Democracy Now” interview between host Amy Goodman and radio host Arnie Arnesen. This was the day following the New Hampshire presidential primaries. Date of the interview was Wednesday, February 9, 2016. Arnesen, the 1992 Democratic gubernatorial nominee from this state, has an astute understanding of why Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders won the primaries. Unfortunately, part of the interview was not uploaded to YouTube. Most of it was.

  26. Princess Leia November 11, 2016 10:37 pm

    Many of our Republican neighbors, relatives and friends who voted for Trump did so because they hated the idea of a black man in charge followed by a woman in charge. We’ve fallen out with many of them over the past 8 years because of their treatment of President Obama.

  27. Ronald November 11, 2016 10:38 pm

    Wow, Ladies and Gentlemen, what a debate going on in recent hours!

    I am torn on the direction that the Democratic Party needs to take.

    I am not, and never have been, all that thrilled with Bill Clinton, and had many reservations about Hillary Clinton.

    But I really wondered whether Bernie Sanders, with that Socialist label on him, would have any real opportunity to be elected, because he would have been destroyed by the Republicans, and called a Communist, a radical, a dangerous man, all untrue of course, but still a code word for many Americans.

    I thought, as you all know, that Joe Biden would have been the best choice, but his son’s death changed the course of history.

    But I look at who is talked about now for the Democratic Party, and one thing that stands out is how few white male Christian politicians there are who are in leadership positions.

    Think about it, Chuck Schumer is now the top Democrat, and he is a Jewish New Yorker.

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz was a Jewish woman from New York and living in South Florida. Her replacement was Donna Brazile, a black woman. Now talk of Keith Ellison, a great Congressman from Minnesota, but a black man who is Muslim.

    We hear talk of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren for 2020, but they are a New York Jewish guy who went to Vermont, and a woman professor who many see as a “loud mouth”. Men, such as Trump, Giuliani, Christie, and Gingrich can be “loud mouths” and get away with it but not a woman.

    Also, other candidates mentioned for possible Presidential runs are black, Latino, or female.

    This is all wonderful, but how does the Democratic Party appeal to white Christian males, and how do they ever recover if their leaders all tend to be black, Latino, female, or Jewish?

    This is the challenge of the Democratic Party, and I plan to write on this more, but wanted to bring it up here.

    What is the solution short term and long term? That is the key issue in all this discussion about the future of the Democratic Party!

  28. Pragmatic Progressive November 11, 2016 10:39 pm

    D – None of us have ever voted Republicans in our lives. We’ve always been staunch Democrats.

  29. Rational Lefty November 11, 2016 10:41 pm

    I think Keith Ellison would be a good choice because he has shown that he can seamlessly move between both wings of the party.

  30. Rational Lefty November 11, 2016 10:43 pm

    I second what Leia said. When it comes to Trump supporters, some may be people of good character but not all of them are.

  31. Southern Liberal November 11, 2016 10:47 pm

    We voted for Hillary because she was going to build on Obama’s success. Her vision was one of hope and inclusion.

  32. Pragmatic Progressive November 11, 2016 10:57 pm

    Considering that Trump ran a campaign of hate, he would have vilified Bernie as an evil socialist Jew.

  33. Pragmatic Progressive November 11, 2016 11:01 pm

    The diverse protestors marching in the streets are representative of the future of the party.

  34. Paul Doyle November 11, 2016 11:15 pm

    A week ago, we were wondering if men dressed in white sheets would be out protesting the results of a Hilary Clinton election win.

    Instead, people with faces ashen and white as sheets are out protesting the election win of Donald Trump. Ironic.

  35. Ronald November 12, 2016 12:00 am

    Indeed, Paul, extremely ironic!

  36. Southern Liberal November 12, 2016 10:26 am

    Paul – In our neck of the woods, we’ve recently learned that the KKK will be having a victory parade. Ugh!

  37. Former Republican November 12, 2016 10:33 am

    Exactly as Pragmatic said. We’ve never voted Republican.

    When Rustbelt Democrat, Pragmatic, Princess Leia, and I came of voting age, our first vote was for JFK. When I voted for him, I split away from a family of staunch Republicans, hence my nick name.

    Rational Lefty and Southern Liberal are our offspring. Rational Lefty is Rustbelt and Pragmatic’s daughter. Southern Liberal is mine and Princess Leia’s daughter. They came of voting age in the 1990’s and their first vote was for Bill Clinton.

  38. Former Republican November 12, 2016 10:39 am

    The only time during the week we get a chance to tune in to MSNBC is at night. We watch their primetime shows – Chris Hayes at 8, Rachel Maddow at 9, and Lawrence O’Donnell at 10.

  39. Ronald November 12, 2016 10:41 am

    Thanks for that family information, Former Republican! LOL 🙂

  40. D November 12, 2016 12:06 pm

    Pragmatic Progressive writes,

    “Considering that [Donald] Trump ran a campaign of hate, he would have vilified Bernie as an evil socialist Jew.”

    You underestimated Bernie Sanders.

    And so be it.

    I mean, really, the campaigns for office are not expected to be soft and sweet and “let’s see it all plays out” charm.

    You also express fear.

    I do not vote with fear.

    I am 45 years old. There are numerous people here who are older than me. But, ever since my first presidential vote at age 21, in 1992, I have never voted with fear.

    The problem with thinking that Donald Trump would have vilified Bernie Sanders is that Donald Trump did not have any major advantage over Sanders. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Sanders was not damaged. And the big difference between Trump and Sanders is that Sanders was not deeply unpopular as was both Clinton and Trump. And also there is this: Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton with independent voters by +6 percentage points. (That is a lot for a popular-vote outcome thus far decided by less than a half-point.) Bernie, with his bread-and-butter issues, would have defeated Trump with independents nationwide.

    The Democratic Party establishment pushed Hillary Clinton. Her party insiders, like Missouri U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill having started in with red-baiting during Summer 2016, played roles in trying to sabotaging Sanders. (They frequently did this by appearing on cable-news networks like CNN and MSNBC.) The entire party basically was saying, “Our nominee is Hillary Clinton. The primaries are going to play out because we figure we are required to have them. We will give 2016 Democratic presidential primaries voters an illusion they have choice. But, we will make sure Hillary Clinton is nominated. It is her turn. We are going to do all we can.”

    The polls between how Clinton and Sanders, for whomever nominated, against Republicans, including Trump, had Sanders usually +5 or better than how Clinton would perform. Clinton often lost against Republicans like John Kasich and Marco Rubio. Sanders beat them all. In a presidential election in which the votes cast are between 125 to 130 million, as it were in 2004, 2008, and 2012, that is a difference of over as much as +6 or million raw votes with Advantage Bernie Sanders.

    The Democratic Party and too many of their primaries voters did not care. I was at discussion forums during the primaries. I noted the four voting-age groups with their Hillary-vs.-Bernie support. Bernie had the younger half: 17 to 29 (you can vote at 17 as long as you will be 18 on Election Day); 30 to 44; 45 to 64; and 65+. Hillary performed with the older half. (They older half voted for Donald Trump. In fact, in my home state Michigan, a Republican pickup for Trump, he won over 30 to 44 voters.) Nationally, 18 to 29 voters give Democrats their best support. When John Kerry lost in the popular vote, and the Electoral College, in 2004, the 18 to 29 voters were the only ones he carried nationally. Hillary Clinton won them by +18 percentage points. (Kerry won them by +11 and lost nationally by –2.46.) But in 2012, President Obama’s re-election saw him carry them by +23 points. (Obama won nationally by +3.86.) Bernie would have likely carried them similarly to Obama’s 2008 level: 66 percent of their support is a good +33 percentage points. (Obama won the popular vote in 2008 by +7.26.)

    I pointed out the fact that Sanders carried 17 to 29 voters nationally with at least 70 percent of their vote. That he hit 80 percent in the first three states on the primaries calendar—Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. That he did this in President Obama’s home and Hillary Clinton’s birth state Illinois. That he did this in the upper midwestern states which flipped to Donald Trump—Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. That he did it in Ohio. That he scored 95 percent from 17 to 29 voters in his home state Vermont, which he carried with 86 percent of the statewide vote. (And there were other states, not exit-polled, where Bernie likely hit 80 percent from 17 to 29 voters in which those states carried for him with at least 55 percent of their vote.) And that this meant that Hillary not getting quite 30 percent nationally from 17 to 29 voters would be a problem for the general election.

    People dismissed this.

    They were … with Her.

    I never lacked courage in voting the nomination to a “Democratic socialist”—and this helps to address a concern of Ronald’s—because it registered with people that the type of leadership Bernie and to offer and hopefully would have provided would have been more in the vein of Franklin Roosevelt, and those who followed his presidency a good 20 to 30 years later, on possibly transformative policies the nation needs.

    I look at the Democrats having gone with Hillary Clinton is an utter travesty.

  41. D November 12, 2016 12:10 pm

    Correction: I meant to write Summer 2015. It was more than a year ago that Missouri U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill did her dance against Bernie Sanders.

    Here, if I link it correctly, is some video:

  42. Paul Doyle November 12, 2016 12:24 pm

    Yikes, Southern Liberal! Getting an invite to hang around their victory parade has a far different connotation.
    There is some poetic justice in that they can now watch Trump get hung by his own petard!

  43. Pragmatic Progressive November 12, 2016 12:46 pm

    Southern Liberal nailed the ultimate reason why we chose to vote for Hillary in the primaries. She was going to build on Obama’s success.

  44. Rustbelt Democrat November 12, 2016 12:56 pm

    The various progressive blogs we read pointed out that Bernie was having trouble connecting with people of color.

  45. Rational Lefty November 12, 2016 1:48 pm

    The way I see it, the Democratic Party has shifted from a pre-60’s Dem party, which was really a rural-centric white populist party, to much more of a cosmopolitan, urban centric party, whose core voters are now people of color. Reason why: demographics in this country are changing.

  46. Former Republican November 12, 2016 1:51 pm

    Precisely, Rational Lefty! This election was about do you see the country as being 1950 or 2050? Apparently, a lot of whites want to go back to 1950.

  47. Rustbelt Democrat November 12, 2016 2:09 pm

    I just heard that 80% of evangelicals voted for Trump. My theory is that they voted more for Pence than Trump. They’re probably hoping something will happen to Trump and Pence can become President of a theocracy.

  48. D November 12, 2016 2:40 pm

    I have a long response to what Robert has written. It will be better expressed by me in separate posts.

    * * *

    Ronald writes,

    “I am torn on the direction that the Democratic Party needs to take.

    “I am not, and never have been, all that thrilled with Bill Clinton, and had many reservations about Hillary Clinton.”

    I can answer that immediately: The Democrats need to revert back to New Deal and not remain New Democrat. (You can get ahold of the writings by the likes of Thomas Frank and, more unforgiving, Chris Hedges for more on this subject.)

    We are in a period of economic problems, for the have-nots, like the period of the Gilded Age. I perceived the No. 1 issue for Election 2016 as “income inequality.” I prefer calling it “insufficient income”—like the reason a person’s credit-card application may be declined. However much of this is still accurate, I believe recalling that about one in two working people are making $30,000 or less per year in adjustable gross income. That is not at all good in the year 2016. And I felt this, prior to and arriving into 2016, this would be deciding the presidency. (Which major-party nominee was more convincing to the electorate with addressing this issue?)

    * * *

    “But I really wondered whether Bernie Sanders, with that Socialist label on him, would have any real opportunity to be elected, because he would have been destroyed by the Republicans, and called a Communist, a radical, a dangerous man, all untrue of course, but still a code word for many Americans.”

    Please consider the following: Many said Donald Trump is a ‘fascist.’ He did get elected. So, whether you believe Trump is a fascist, the country’s voters demonstrated being willing to elect a fascist to the presidency of the United States.

    You know a lot about history. That history includes presidential elections. And we have had a number of them in which, prior to their date of arrival, particular candidates were perceived as ones the country’s voters would never be willing to elect. Whether it was the individual, or something that described that person, made that candidate seem unelectable. “This country would never elect a/an…” has ended up, “I did not think this country would be willing to elect a/an….” Let’s consider ones since television was created. Catholic—John Kennedy (1960). [Former] actor—Ronald Reagan (1980, 1984). Black person—Barack Obama (2008, 2012).

    You know your history. You can look back at other firsts. And firsts will continue to keep coming as we are moving through time. (Of course, the lifespan of individuals is another matter. “Never” is often read as, “during my lifetime.”)

    (I am going to provide a video link in which attorney and journalist Glenn Greenwald, part of the team responsible in bring to the nation’s attention Edward Snowden, touches on this in an interview on “Democracy Now.”)

    * * *

    “I thought, as you all know, that Joe Biden would have been the best choice, but his son’s [Beau] death changed the course of history.”

    The problem with this is that it has no consideration of describing what is probable in playing out with a given, upcoming presidential election.

    People who didn’t think Barack Obama would win the 2008 presidential election, either when he was well on his way to reaping enough delegates for nomination or essentially had the nomination—prior to or at the convention; the summer months of 2008—were not considering the nature of what was playing out for Election 2008.

    That year of 2008 was one in which the Republican nominee was not going to be able to hold for his/her party the presidency of the United States. (The job-approval for incumbent Republican president George W. Bush was consistently below 40 percent; some times it was below 30 percent. Even the pernicious, incumbent vice president Dick Cheney obviously knew to not run.) Every Republican candidate, and obviously with eventual nominee John McCain, were all doing one thing: They were running for second place.

    The following focuses even more on my answer for saying no to Joe Biden. A big part of the reason why vice presidents don’t often win immediate promotion-like election to the presidency is because the incumbent president, who was elected to more than one term, is a lot to look at and live with for eight years. That eight years’ time can feel exhausting for people. (A lot happens to people personally over that period of time.) The vice president seeking immediately promotion-like election to the presidency is working against the odds that people don’t feel they want a break from the administration (and its connected people which include the vice president) and from the party holding power. I think this needs to be considered. Going on history, the Vice President Elect Mike Pence, who will be the 48th vice president of the United States, is highly unlikely to win immediate promotion-like election to become the 46th president of the United States.

    * * *

  49. D November 12, 2016 2:43 pm

    [Ronald writes,]

    “But I look at who is talked about now for the Democratic Party, and one thing that stands out is how few white male Christian politicians there are who are in leadership positions.

    “Think about it, Chuck Schumer is now the top Democrat, and he is a Jewish New Yorker.”

    I stop right here. (And I won’t quote the paragraphs which followed describing some other people.)

    I think there is a problem.

    There is an overthinking of racial demographics.

    People are not voting on racial demographics of a candidate anywhere like they vote on bread-and-butter issues or on urgent matters (like dealing with a war).

    Chuck Schumer unseated Alfonse D’Amato in the 1998 New York U.S. Senate race, a midterm year, for two reasons immediately springing to mind: Schumer had an apparently more appealing candidacy (including platform); and the Republican Party, for U.S. Senate from New York, was well on the way out. (D’Amato’s third- and final-term victory, in 1992, was decided by only one percentage point.) They can win the governorship, yes, but New York is one of numerous states that turned away, more than two decades ago, from the Republicans for elections to the U.S. Senate. Others including neighboring New Jersey (which has not elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate since Clifford Case, with his fourth and final term, in 1972. Case lost re-nomination in 1978 and died in 1982); Connecticut (since Lowell Weicker’s third and final term in 1982; he unseated by the rather ironically more conservative Democrat Joe Lieberman in 1988); and California (with Pete Wilson with his second term in 1988; he resigned to become governor; the seat flipped Democratic for Dianne Feinstein, while the state also did so at the presidential level, in 1992).

    * * *

    “This is all wonderful, but how does the Democratic Party appeal to white Christian males, and how do they ever recover if their leaders all tend to be black, Latino, female, or Jewish?

    “This is the challenge of the Democratic Party, and I plan to write on this more, but wanted to bring it up here.

    “What is the solution short term and long term? That is the key issue in all this discussion about the future of the Democratic Party!”

    Neither the Republican or Democratic parties can win over a demographic constituency, on a regular basis, typically identifying with the other side. We would have to have a realigning of both parties for this manifest on a regular basis. A landslide winner, in the popular vote, can win them over with a margin significantly lower that one’s party’s usual base of support. (That’s typically a voting pattern.)

    The answer is being real on bread-and-butter issues. Domestic issues. All have-nots have in common issues on income and benefits. A fairly good or even better life is what unites us all.

    That demands the Democratic Party to organize as a cohesive block of fielded candidates who actually represent that as a reflection of what this party represents. By doing that, in that it bares out in presidential elections won by the party, they will no longer have to settle on carrying between 26 to 32 states (as was the case with a 2012 Barack Obama and a 1992 Bill Clinton), the high marks post-1980s, but can actually win over 35 and even 40 states. It’s across-the-nation representation. And, along with this, this crosses all demographics people like to refer to when they are researching and reading materials such as elections’ exit-poll numbers.

    The Democratic Party needs to become an ideologically driven—the Republican Party is certainly ideologically driven—left wing United States political party not just on social but on economic issues. They need to do that because, currently, the “center” of the country is strongly right wing. And this Democratic Party isn’t moving it notably more to the left. (This “Big Tent” nonsense needs to die out. It is really a lie to the party, and their people, that the Democrats can be everything to everyone. That’s not reality.) They have to become this way also on military. They have to be distinguishable from Republicans. The way the Democrats are now, they just appear differently than the Republicans on social-policy matters. (Hence, the love of looking at and talking up the changing America. Well, some things—like having to live a life, having to work, having to eventually die—do not change. They impact everyone.) And when it comes to that…these two major parties merely look like their consumer brands—as if they’re cola beverages, Coca-Cola (Team Red) vs. Pepsi-Cola (Team Blue)—and the divide-and-conquer among the masses is mainly which choosing between those brands. (Side note: On the side example, I’m with Team Red.)

    Part of the reason why the Republicans scored points off Barack Obama during his presidency—by flipping the U.S. House in 2010; reducing Obama’s re-election numbers (down by –3.40 in the popular vote; down to 332 electoral votes) in 2012; by flipping the U.S. Senate in 2014—is because this Democratic Party president continued his Republican predecessor’s policies, to large extent, on military, war, and national security. And also part of it was with dealing with Wall Street crashing the economy in 2008 with having Erik Holder be U.S. attorney general and offering up no prosecutions. This reaped no excitement from the Democratic Party’s 2008 coalition, which elected Obama the nation’s 44th president, to give him even larger support for re-election in 2012. (Incumbents winning re-election typically do so with a stronger popular-vote margin and a higher electoral-vote score.) And they were not there for him in the midterms. (His corporatist Affordable Care Act bill had no single payer or public option. That resulted in people, who assured his first-term election, not coming out for the Democrats in 2010.)

    If the Democratic Party continues with the status quo—that the establishment wins out with maintaining the status quo in how they operate; and, when empowered, that they continue to govern with a leadership which is just transactional (when transformational is needed)—we will get more of the same voter patterns which have played out these three consecutive decades of the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s. The 2000s and 2010s have been madness. For a Democratic Party unwilling to change…that would give us more the same in the 2020s. More madness. And, come to think, it could change the political landscape to a point in which the Democrats—still marganalized in numbers at state and local levels—look like the regional of the two parties.

  50. Former Republican November 12, 2016 3:40 pm

    Southern Liberal – They are following a cult leader, essentially, cult of personality…issues don’t matter.

  51. Ronald November 12, 2016 3:44 pm

    D, you are very perceptive, as always.

    The Democratic Party needs to be much more aggressive in planning the future, or else it will decline and die. That is the clear message, that the Clinton era is over, and maybe Elizabeth Warren IS the future in 2020!

    In any case, the work must begin promptly to win over the allegiance of voters in 2020, and the first issue is to gain seats in the midterm election in Congress and in the governorships and state legislatures, a lot of work ahead to accomplish this!

  52. Pragmatic Progressive November 12, 2016 3:58 pm

    The truly pathetic thing is that the people who most voted for Trump are the ones who are going to get the worst of it. No, manufacturing jobs aren’t coming back, no matter what he says. Quite simply, modern manufacturing doesn’t require manpower that’s poorly educated and possessing only a strong back and a tolerance for repetition. Coal is no longer cost-competitive, most of the jobs were replaced by machines, and even absent regulations, there’s not much left in the ground in most of the “coal states.” There’s a long list, and I think many of these people are going to be in for some very rude lessons, and it won’t be pretty.

  53. Ronald November 12, 2016 4:08 pm

    I totally agree, Pragmatic Progressive!

  54. Princess Leia November 12, 2016 4:31 pm

    I was watching the PBS Newshour last night as they talked about the transition team and the possible shape of the Trump presidency. Christy had been demoted and Pence was named as the new head of the transition team. As I took in that plus some of the other names being mentioned, a little red light came on in the back of my head:  This could very well turn into another Cheney Administration, where Pence actually runs the government in the background while Trump soaks up all the attention playing Mister President for the cameras. The parallels are frightening.

  55. Ronald November 12, 2016 4:39 pm

    The same thought crossed my mind, Princess Leia!

  56. Southern Liberal November 12, 2016 6:20 pm

    I would like to see some younger leadership. This year was like watching a showing for a retirement condo with Bernie (74), Trump (70) and Hillary (69).

  57. Rational Lefty November 12, 2016 9:43 pm

    I would like to see some younger Dems run for office as well. People like Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, for example.

    My concern about Ellison is that he is a sitting senator. I think that a DNC chairman should be able to commit to working at this full time. It’s going to be a big job. Does Ellison have the time for it?

  58. D November 12, 2016 11:06 pm

    Rational Left writes,

    “I would like to see some younger Dems run for office as well. People like Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, for example.

    “My concern about [Keith] Ellison is that he is a sitting senator. I think that a DNC chairman should be able to commit to working at this full time. It’s going to be a big job. Does Ellison have the time for it?”

    Keith Ellison is the congressman for the 5th district in Minnesota. So, he is in the U.S. House of Representatives. (That area is partly Minneapolis.)

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is disgraced, is the U.S. Rep. from the 23rd Congressional District from Florida, was obviously DNC chair while still in office. (By no stretch of the imagination should Schultz still be present as an active, recently re-elected official from the Democratic Party. Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama and Joe Biden and others did all they could to get her re-nominated, over actual progressive Tim Canova, and that is unforgivable.)

    As for the mentions of Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker, Harris was just elected to become the new junior United States senator from California. (She will replace the retiring Barbara Boxer. I wish Boxer would take Dianne Feinstein with her. And I don’t have an opinion on her right now.)

    I am not impressed with Cory Booker. He is a corporatist. Yes, he has a wonderful smile. Yes, he is charming. But, if he remains a corporatist,, then I don’t want him having higher power than his U.S. Senate seat from New Jersey. In fact, in a state that hasn’t elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate since 1972, the state’s voters deserve to be represented by a real progressive. (I will include a video on Cory Booker.)

    I am not confident, right now, to weigh in with an opinion on former San Antonio, Texas mayor Julian Castro. He was being promoted as a possible vice-presidential running mate for Hillary Clinton. (That doesn’t seem encouraging to me.) You know—it’s the star-quality politician the Democrats like to promote, as if that’s all that is required to motivate people’s voting, yet what people really need to do is really follow these people’s politics and their voting.

    Bringing this back to Keith Ellison—he is someone I would trust, well above most others (especially the sad, sellout Howard Dean), to be a force in directing the Democratic Party where it needs to go.

    * * *

  59. Princess Leia November 13, 2016 12:16 pm

    Black progressive pundits are reporting that voter suppression played a role in this election. This wasn’t just an economic revolt, as the white progressive pundits are saying. The GOP cheated.

  60. Pragmatic Progressive November 13, 2016 12:22 pm

    With the GOP in charge of the Supreme Court, social issues are going to be a top priority. Women’s rights, civil rights, LGBT rights are all in major danger.

  61. Southern Liberal November 13, 2016 5:54 pm

    Just got done watching MSNBC . . . where they were talking about the protesters (of the impending Trump Presidency) Equating the loss in the electoral college v the popular vote, to a baseball game where one team got more more home runs 5 to 2, the 5 being single rum homers and the 2 were three run.
    But they didn’t factor in the gerrymandering and voter Id laws that were equivalent to moving the pitcher’s mound back five feet, thus allowing the one team to get more base runners.
    This is the what and why the protesters and the media should be elaborating on.

  62. Former Republican November 13, 2016 5:56 pm

    The fact that the Republican-“led” Congress didn’t reauthorize the VRA is a disgrace, and the fact that this wasn’t a huge story in the corporate media is a scathing indictment of the corporate media.

  63. Princess Leia November 15, 2016 12:16 pm

    On Lawrence O’Donnell’s show last night, there was a discussion about manufacturing jobs. It’s a more complex issue than Bernie and Trump yelled at their crowds.

    Also, in the discussion, it was brought up that Hillary is being incorrectly blamed for NAFTA. George H.W. Bush is the one who is responsible for NAFTA.

  64. Ronald November 15, 2016 4:21 pm

    You are correct, Princess Leia!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.