This past year is rather emotionally exhausting. So much so that there were days I didn't even want to read news. Worse still, countries (not only US, but other countries like UK, China, Middle East) have taken an almost predictable, if undesirable, path. Income inequality and wealth gap continue to deteriorate. Nativism, and in some corners, fascism, are on the rise. Ruling classes do not take care of the people, and the people are redirected to blame something/someone else, be it immigrants, or border control. I've even heard some religious friends exclaiming that this would be how end of the world would look like.
I'm not feeling too good about it all. There's no comfort in rehashing 2016, perhaps it's better to just forget about 2016, and look ahead to 2017 instead.
Let's just move on. New job starting, new venture taking shape, it's certainly time to move on...
Saturday, December 31, 2016
On the Donald Trump presidency, Hillary Clinton's losing, et al...
I'm still too emotionally exhausted to talk about the 2016 presidential election.
I had expected Hillary Clinton to win, although I never really believe in the wide margin that so much of the main media had believed she would win. I thought she would win, but only by small margin, so that she would not and could not claim a clear mandate to rule in the next four years. And I had expected the House and Senate would go to GOP. That would have been the "usual" path, for the electorate's desire to split the White House and the Congress. I can feel it, even though I live in a solidly blue state in New England.
But, that was not meant to be.
HRC lost, and by such wide margin in electoral vote that her campaign didn't even bother to ask for a recount (even though that joke of a task went to Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate whose campaign did not even warrant a footnote to this election, except with its claim of wanting to launch recount lawsuit in multiple states, raising millions of dollars from people in the pursuit. Now that the court has shut down all her request, and all electoral voters had voted accordingly, I wonder what's going to happen to those millions of dollars that Stein raised but was never used?
In the parlance of electoral system, it matters not that HRC has won the popular votes. In the land of United States, popular votes never really count for much, even though HRC has won by the widest margin in popular vote historically.
One can only say, this was an election that Hillary Clinton lost, it's not an election that Donald Trump won. The HRC camp has since blamed her loss on the FBI debacle and its director, James Comey, in the back-and-forthing about the email server scandals that HRC has no one to blame but herself in the sloppy handling of sensitive government emails. She and Obama have also blamed in on the Russian meddling via cyberhacks that have likely led to the leaking of John Podesta's emails, among other things, to WikiLeaks and the press.
But no, those are just white noise. To the extent that these incidences have done, they only serve to reinforce what voters' belief, one way or the other. Even without all these leaks, Trump and GOP supporters have chanted Crooked Hillary, complete with bumper-stickers long before the Comey debacle and Russian meddling.
Hillary Clinton lost because she ran a lackluster campaign. What does We Are Stronger Together, the HRC slogan, really mean anyways? When people, particularly the struggling working class, have no food on the table or money in the bank, they want to talk about the economy, and they want to talk about jobs. Instead, HRC and Democrats want to talk about gay marriage and LGBTQ rights, they want to ensure protection to illegal migrants, they want to advance further the liberal agenda, but nary a mention of the bread-and-butter issue of the economy and jobs. Obama kept reminding voters how much US economy has come back, from the abyss in the depth of 2008. If the stock market is any indication, Obama could well be true. But it's universal knowledge (and acknowledgement) that the income inequality and wealth gap can render an "economic recovery" a totally different view for someone who is moving ahead, and those who lost their jobs, livelihood and were left behind. Belatedly, HRC came to acknowledge the devastating effects of NAFTA, the trade deal that her husband had championed and which she supported...until she's not. She and Obama are tone deaf enough to tell those struggling coal miners that she's going to close all the coal mines, and chanted "those [manufacturing] jobs are not coming back!" While that is likely to be reality, you won't win any votes by feeding voters tough medicine like that. Meantime, Obama and preceding governments kept reciting the same lines to younger generations that they need to get a college education in order to compete. So many young adults have heeded the call, borrowed heavily to go back to college (even if it's some literal arts bullshit degree with no job prospect in some for-profit no-name schools), just to realize that there's no job waiting for them upon graduation, all while they are saddled with huge student debts that will follow them for life.
Meanwhile, Trump's message was simple. He says he would bring the jobs back. How, he didn't say. Whether he can do it, most people have doubts. No matter, it's a message that insecure voters want to hear. Meantime, he says he'll build a wall along Mexico border to keep illegals out, and make Mexico pay for it. He says he'll ban Muslims coming to this country too. Whether he will do it, it's highly unlikely. No matter, it's something nervous voters feel good hearing it, even though they know very well that it's unrealistic. He says he'll drain the swamp, so to speak. How would he do it, he wouldn't say either. The list goes on and on and on.
But as one of The Atlantic reporters had it exactly right: Main media takes Trump literally, but not seriously. Voters [his supporters] take him seriously, but not literally.
Main media had their field day almost everyday chronicling Trump's supposed gaffe, which to other mere mortals, would have sunk a campaign long ago. But Trump trumps even the ultimate teflon kid (Bill Clinton), and nothing seems to stick. In fact, people have come to expect this kind of gaffe from Trump, to the point of entertainment. He bumps up TV ratings when he's on a show, he lit up Twitter, he generates tons of clicks.
Since the November defeat, Bill Clinton has come out publicly to lament that HRC campaign staffers ignored his plea that they needed to focus on economy issue, and that they should not write off the white working-class voters. Afterall this was one voting bloc that had voted for him not once, but twice. Joe Biden had lamented that Dems seem to have given up on the solid white working-class voters as has-beens, and chooses to chase the unicorn voting coalition of young voters, hispanics, blacks, educated classes, and a combination of voter blocs that Obama had garnered in 2008. Too bad that the young voters prefer Bernie Sanders, the blacks feel let down by the first black president, and the hispanics...well, they are just not that big a voting bloc afterall. Feminists from the 1960s looove HRC, women voters these days don't feel that kind of affinity to a candidate just because of her gender.
Looking back, perhaps the biggest mistake of Dems was that, in the rush to try to make history (from putting the first black president in office, to wanting to put the first female president in office too), they had simply believed that "it's time," "it's her turn." Although I have no doubt she would be a solid leader, she had failed in pushing for a compelling vision of where she wants to lead the country to. I'm sorry, but maintaining the status quo and legacy from Obama is not a "vision." Voters do not need just a caretaker in the White House, they need a true leader. It matters not that Trump is hardly one to claim that title, but he certainly promotes himself well, like a peacock.
As much as I hate to say it, I do believe that, had Joe Biden been on top of the ticket, he would have won. Biden has always been able to connect to working class voters in a way that HRC had never been able to do.
I don't know what's going to happen in the next four years. Judged from the way Trump has handled the transition of government, prognosis is not good. This is a guy who would dole out cabinet positions to his rich buddies like candies, openly criticizes an outgoing president of his policy, fragrantly ignores technocrats and diplomatic protocols in maintaining government policies and positions, and refuses to acknowledge the very many potential conflicts of interests. That list goes on and on and on as well.
Long story short, Trump is the manchurian candidate that everyone has so worried about. Given the full GOP control of the Congress, what would become of this country...
I had expected Hillary Clinton to win, although I never really believe in the wide margin that so much of the main media had believed she would win. I thought she would win, but only by small margin, so that she would not and could not claim a clear mandate to rule in the next four years. And I had expected the House and Senate would go to GOP. That would have been the "usual" path, for the electorate's desire to split the White House and the Congress. I can feel it, even though I live in a solidly blue state in New England.
But, that was not meant to be.
HRC lost, and by such wide margin in electoral vote that her campaign didn't even bother to ask for a recount (even though that joke of a task went to Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate whose campaign did not even warrant a footnote to this election, except with its claim of wanting to launch recount lawsuit in multiple states, raising millions of dollars from people in the pursuit. Now that the court has shut down all her request, and all electoral voters had voted accordingly, I wonder what's going to happen to those millions of dollars that Stein raised but was never used?
In the parlance of electoral system, it matters not that HRC has won the popular votes. In the land of United States, popular votes never really count for much, even though HRC has won by the widest margin in popular vote historically.
One can only say, this was an election that Hillary Clinton lost, it's not an election that Donald Trump won. The HRC camp has since blamed her loss on the FBI debacle and its director, James Comey, in the back-and-forthing about the email server scandals that HRC has no one to blame but herself in the sloppy handling of sensitive government emails. She and Obama have also blamed in on the Russian meddling via cyberhacks that have likely led to the leaking of John Podesta's emails, among other things, to WikiLeaks and the press.
But no, those are just white noise. To the extent that these incidences have done, they only serve to reinforce what voters' belief, one way or the other. Even without all these leaks, Trump and GOP supporters have chanted Crooked Hillary, complete with bumper-stickers long before the Comey debacle and Russian meddling.
Hillary Clinton lost because she ran a lackluster campaign. What does We Are Stronger Together, the HRC slogan, really mean anyways? When people, particularly the struggling working class, have no food on the table or money in the bank, they want to talk about the economy, and they want to talk about jobs. Instead, HRC and Democrats want to talk about gay marriage and LGBTQ rights, they want to ensure protection to illegal migrants, they want to advance further the liberal agenda, but nary a mention of the bread-and-butter issue of the economy and jobs. Obama kept reminding voters how much US economy has come back, from the abyss in the depth of 2008. If the stock market is any indication, Obama could well be true. But it's universal knowledge (and acknowledgement) that the income inequality and wealth gap can render an "economic recovery" a totally different view for someone who is moving ahead, and those who lost their jobs, livelihood and were left behind. Belatedly, HRC came to acknowledge the devastating effects of NAFTA, the trade deal that her husband had championed and which she supported...until she's not. She and Obama are tone deaf enough to tell those struggling coal miners that she's going to close all the coal mines, and chanted "those [manufacturing] jobs are not coming back!" While that is likely to be reality, you won't win any votes by feeding voters tough medicine like that. Meantime, Obama and preceding governments kept reciting the same lines to younger generations that they need to get a college education in order to compete. So many young adults have heeded the call, borrowed heavily to go back to college (even if it's some literal arts bullshit degree with no job prospect in some for-profit no-name schools), just to realize that there's no job waiting for them upon graduation, all while they are saddled with huge student debts that will follow them for life.
Meanwhile, Trump's message was simple. He says he would bring the jobs back. How, he didn't say. Whether he can do it, most people have doubts. No matter, it's a message that insecure voters want to hear. Meantime, he says he'll build a wall along Mexico border to keep illegals out, and make Mexico pay for it. He says he'll ban Muslims coming to this country too. Whether he will do it, it's highly unlikely. No matter, it's something nervous voters feel good hearing it, even though they know very well that it's unrealistic. He says he'll drain the swamp, so to speak. How would he do it, he wouldn't say either. The list goes on and on and on.
But as one of The Atlantic reporters had it exactly right: Main media takes Trump literally, but not seriously. Voters [his supporters] take him seriously, but not literally.
Main media had their field day almost everyday chronicling Trump's supposed gaffe, which to other mere mortals, would have sunk a campaign long ago. But Trump trumps even the ultimate teflon kid (Bill Clinton), and nothing seems to stick. In fact, people have come to expect this kind of gaffe from Trump, to the point of entertainment. He bumps up TV ratings when he's on a show, he lit up Twitter, he generates tons of clicks.
Since the November defeat, Bill Clinton has come out publicly to lament that HRC campaign staffers ignored his plea that they needed to focus on economy issue, and that they should not write off the white working-class voters. Afterall this was one voting bloc that had voted for him not once, but twice. Joe Biden had lamented that Dems seem to have given up on the solid white working-class voters as has-beens, and chooses to chase the unicorn voting coalition of young voters, hispanics, blacks, educated classes, and a combination of voter blocs that Obama had garnered in 2008. Too bad that the young voters prefer Bernie Sanders, the blacks feel let down by the first black president, and the hispanics...well, they are just not that big a voting bloc afterall. Feminists from the 1960s looove HRC, women voters these days don't feel that kind of affinity to a candidate just because of her gender.
Looking back, perhaps the biggest mistake of Dems was that, in the rush to try to make history (from putting the first black president in office, to wanting to put the first female president in office too), they had simply believed that "it's time," "it's her turn." Although I have no doubt she would be a solid leader, she had failed in pushing for a compelling vision of where she wants to lead the country to. I'm sorry, but maintaining the status quo and legacy from Obama is not a "vision." Voters do not need just a caretaker in the White House, they need a true leader. It matters not that Trump is hardly one to claim that title, but he certainly promotes himself well, like a peacock.
As much as I hate to say it, I do believe that, had Joe Biden been on top of the ticket, he would have won. Biden has always been able to connect to working class voters in a way that HRC had never been able to do.
I don't know what's going to happen in the next four years. Judged from the way Trump has handled the transition of government, prognosis is not good. This is a guy who would dole out cabinet positions to his rich buddies like candies, openly criticizes an outgoing president of his policy, fragrantly ignores technocrats and diplomatic protocols in maintaining government policies and positions, and refuses to acknowledge the very many potential conflicts of interests. That list goes on and on and on as well.
Long story short, Trump is the manchurian candidate that everyone has so worried about. Given the full GOP control of the Congress, what would become of this country...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)