Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

(11-16-2016, 07:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]mv "Trickle-in electionomics:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...rue#gid=19

Hillary leads Trump by about 1,200,000 and still counting."  /dev/null

DROP       all  --  1.4.4.0/24           anywhere            
DROP       all  --  1.4.5.0/24           anywhere            
DROP       all  --  1.4.6.0/23           anywhere            
DROP       all  --  1.4.8.0/21           anywhere            
DROP       all  --  1.4.16.0/20          anywhere            
DROP       all  --  1.4.32.0/19          anywhere            
DROP       all  --  1.4.64.0/18          anywhere            
DROP       all  --  1.8.0.0/16           anywhere            
DROP       all  --  1.10.0.0/21          anywhere            
DROP       all  --  1.10.8.0/23          anywhere            
DROP       all  --  1.10.11.0/24         anywhere            
DROP       all  --  1.10.12.0/22         anywhere            
DROP       all  --  1.10.16.0/20         anywhere            
DROP       all  --  1.10.32.0/19         anywhere            
DROP       all  --  1.10.64.0/18         anywhere            
DROP       all  --  1.12.0.0/14          anywhere            
DROP       all  --  1.24.0.0/13          anywhere            
DROP       all  --  1.45.0.0/16          anywhere            
DROP       all  --  1.48.0.0/15          anywhere            
DROP       all  --  1.50.0.0/16          anywhere            
DROP       all  --  1.51.0.0/16          anywhere            
DROP       all  --  1.56.0.0/13          anywhere            
DROP       all  --  1.68.0.0/14          anywhere

I would call this election the great outrage to democracy ever. And according to the article I linked to below, even Trump agrees!

from Rebecca Solnit
9 hrs ·
Undemocracy.

"Clinton has already won the popular vote by a dramatically larger number of ballots than anyone in history who did not go on to be inaugurated as president."

John Nichols writes, "Coverage of the 2016 election campaign confirmed the extent to which major media is more interested in personalities than facts on the ground. The television networks like to declare a “winner” and then get focused on the palace intrigues surround a transition of power. Those intrigues are worth covering. But perspective on the will of the people get lost."

He continues: "Trump will almost certainly stay above the 270 threshold, although he could still lose a state (such as Michigan, where he leads by less than 13,000 votes) or win one (such as New Hampshire, where Clinton is up by around 3,000 votes). The results in a number of battleground states were so close that a shift of around 55,000 votes in three states (Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) would align the national popular vote result with the Electoral College result for a Clinton win.

"What is important here is to recognize that there was no Trump mandate, in the popular vote (which he lost by a significant margin) or in the Electoral College (which he won narrowly, thanks to close results that tipped a handful of states in his favor). Notably, Trump’s total fell below 50 percent in the majority of states; he lost 20 states and the District of Columbia, and in at least seven additional states he leads but without a majority of the vote.

IS CLINTON’S POPULAR-VOTE VICTORY UNPRECEDENTED?

"Yes. Clinton has already won the popular vote by a dramatically larger number of ballots than anyone in history who did not go on to be inaugurated as president."


Hillary Clinton’s Popular-Vote Victory Is Unprecedented—and Still Growing
Her margin is now bigger than the winning margins for John Kennedy and Richard Nixon.
By John Nichols
https://www.thenation.com/article/hillar...l-growing/

 Hillary Clinton now leads the national popular vote for president by roughly one million votes, and her victory margin is expanding rapidly. That margin could easily double before the end of an arduous process of counting ballots, reviewing results, and reconciling numbers for an official total.

But one thing is certain: Clinton’s win is unprecedented in the modern history of American presidential politics. And the numbers should focus attention on the democratic dysfunction that has been exposed.

When a candidate who wins the popular vote does not take office, when a loser is instead installed in the White House, that is an issue. And it raises questions that must be addressed.

Eric's note: Note this little gem from the article:
 "The big distinction is between states that do most of their voting on Election Day and states that rely heavily on “absentee” ballots and mail voting. It happens that many of the bigger states that make it easier to vote (at the polls and by mail) are states that favored Clinton."

Sure, and that's one reason they favor Clinton. THEY MAKE IT EASIER TO VOTE. Deliberate attempts by the Republicans to make it harder for non-whites to vote are the reason that Trump is right: THIS ELECTION WAS RIGGED!

Mistrust in democracy fostered by the rigged elections of 2000, 2004 and 2016 do not bode well for respect for our system of democracy in this 4T.

More from the article:
 What is important here is to recognize that there was no Trump mandate, in the popular vote (which he lost by a significant margin) or in the Electoral College (which he won narrowly, thanks to close results that tipped a handful of states in his favor). Notably, Trump’s total fell below 50 percent in the majority of states; he lost 20 states and the District of Columbia, and in at least seven additional states he leads, but without a majority of the vote.

NSA Chief: Nation-state made 'conscious effort' to sway US presidential election
Business Insider
PAUL SZOLDRA
Nov 16th 2016 2:21PM
http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/11/.../21607615/

The leader of the National Security Agency says there shouldn't be "any doubt in anybody's mind" that there was a conscious effort by a nation-state to sway the result of the 2016 presidential election.

Adm. Michael Rogers, who leads both the NSA and US Cyber Command, made the comments in response to a question about Wikileaks' release of nearly 20,000 internal DNC emails during a conference presented by The Wall Street Journal.

"There shouldn't be any doubt in anybody's minds," Rogers said. "This was not something that was done casually. This was not something that was done by chance. This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily. This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect."

Rogers did not specify the nation-state or the specific effect, though US intelligence officials suspect Russia provided the emails to Wikileaks, after hackers stole them from inside DNC servers and the personal email account of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta.

At least two different hacker groups associated with the Russian government were found inside the networks of the DNC over the past year, reading emails, chats, and downloading private documents. Many of those files were later released by Wikileaks.

The hack, which was investigated by the FBI and cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike, was linked to Russia through a lengthy technical analysis, which was detailed on the firm's blog. Former NSA research scientist Dave Aitel, who now leads a cybersecurity firm, called the analysis "pretty dead on."

The hack of Podesta's private Gmail address was traced back by cybersecurity researchers to hackers with Russia's foreign intelligence service, the GRU, since the group made a critical error during its campaign of "spear phishing" targets, tricking them into clicking on malicious links or give up their passwords. The firm, Dell SecureWorks, found the group had targeted more than 100 email addresses that were associated with the Clinton campaign, according to The New York Times.

The Obama administration publicly accused Russia of being behind the hacks in October.

(11-16-2016, 09:21 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Possibly yes. Yes I heard some Bernie supporters went and voted for Trump. I am just very suspicious of people being lumped into groups as i view it in the same light as negative labels. Kind of feeds lazy stereotyping.

Based on the demographics of the election results I suspect a lot of working class Bernie supporters stayed home on election day, this would explain why Trump's margins among working class whites was so high even though voter turnout was abysmal.

(11-17-2016, 01:11 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2016, 03:45 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]NSA Chief: Nation-state made 'conscious effort' to sway US presidential election
Business Insider
PAUL SZOLDRA
Nov 16th 2016 2:21PM
http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/11/.../21607615/

The leader of the National Security Agency says there shouldn't be "any doubt in anybody's mind" that there was a conscious effort by a nation-state to sway the result of the 2016 presidential election.

Adm. Michael Rogers, who leads both the NSA and US Cyber Command, made the comments in response to a question about Wikileaks' release of nearly 20,000 internal DNC emails during a conference presented by The Wall Street Journal.

"There shouldn't be any doubt in anybody's minds," Rogers said. "This was not something that was done casually. This was not something that was done by chance. This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily. This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect."

Rogers did not specify the nation-state or the specific effect, though US intelligence officials suspect Russia provided the emails to Wikileaks, after hackers stole them from inside DNC servers and the personal email account of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta.

At least two different hacker groups associated with the Russian government were found inside the networks of the DNC over the past year, reading emails, chats, and downloading private documents. Many of those files were later released by Wikileaks.

The hack, which was investigated by the FBI and cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike, was linked to Russia through a lengthy technical analysis, which was detailed on the firm's blog. Former NSA research scientist Dave Aitel, who now leads a cybersecurity firm, called the analysis "pretty dead on."

The hack of Podesta's private Gmail address was traced back by cybersecurity researchers to hackers with Russia's foreign intelligence service, the GRU, since the group made a critical error during its campaign of "spear phishing" targets, tricking them into clicking on malicious links or give up their passwords. The firm, Dell SecureWorks, found the group had targeted more than 100 email addresses that were associated with the Clinton campaign, according to The New York Times.

The Obama administration publicly accused Russia of being behind the hacks in October.

As I've been writing, there is a game here that is way beyond polity. The Kremlin wanted four things from this election:
1) Initiate schism among the true Right.
2) Get one or more moles into the White House.
3) Get the mainstream Left to tilt at multiple windmills simultaneously while paying too little attention to the geopolitical chess match.
4) Make the US and its processes look bad, so that we would have less support in our various initiatives to promote greater human rights and democracy world wide.

The enemy is within the USA, not abroad.

(11-17-2016, 02:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The enemy is within the USA, not abroad.

There is nothing to say there is not more than one enemy.  True, "We have met the enemy and they are us."  Still, we can't focus entirely on internals.

To some degree we aren't fighting enemies, we are fighting a principle.  Nations tend not to get governments better than they deserve.

America First! Resist Trump and GOP first!

(11-17-2016, 03:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]America First! Resist Trump and GOP first!

So, what's the plan?  Keep him so busy sending 3 AM twitter complaints about protesters that he hasn't got time to run (ruin) the country?

Well, that would be an easy thing to accomplish. Protests may certainly accomplish that goal, although it wouldn't work so well on Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. As I pointed out before, people seem to forget we have 3 branches of government, all now empowered to do maximum harm and ruin of an equal and unprecedented degree between them.

But as Reich pointed out in the video I posted, there's lots of paths that the people can take. No doubt the best we can hope now for is a revival of a Democratic Party progressive wing that can prevail or do well in future elections. If we're smart, and I don't know if we are, we will organize now and begin the resistance now, by any workable and non-criminal means necessary.

I live in California, so I am lucky that I have a sane state government, and they can be pressured to take what action they can. I just wrote to my governor and state senator. Got to start somewhere. Where to go from there, I'm not sure at the moment.

(11-17-2016, 03:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]America First! Resist Trump and GOP first!

Illegal immigrants first! The future of the progressives and progressive politics first!

(11-17-2016, 04:48 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2016, 03:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]America First! Resist Trump and GOP first!

Illegal immigrants first! The future of the progressives and progressive politics first!

Mammoth deficits and debt first! Oligarchs first! Phoney race-baiting free-market ideologies first!

The Atlantic: How the Election Revealed the Divide Between City and Country

Quote:The earthquake that elected Donald Trump has left the United States approaching 2020 with a political landscape reminiscent of 1920.

Not since then has the cultural chasm between urban and non-urban America shaped the struggle over the country’s direction as much as today. Of all the overlapping generational, racial, and educational divides that explained Trump’s stunning upset over Hillary Clinton last week, none proved more powerful than the distance between the Democrats’ continued dominance of the largest metropolitan areas, and the stampede toward the GOP almost everywhere else.

Trump’s victory was an empire-strikes-back moment for all the places and voters that feel left behind in an increasingly diverse, post-industrial, and urbanized America. Squeezing bigger margins from smaller places, Trump overcame a tide of resistance in the largest metropolitan areas that allowed Clinton to carry the national popular vote, but not the decisive Electoral College.

This election thus carved a divide between cities and non-metropolitan areas as stark as American politics has produced since the years just before and after 1920. That year marked a turning point: It was the first time the Census recorded that more people lived in urban than non-urban areas. That tangible sense of shifting influence triggered a series of political and social conflicts between big cities teeming with immigrants, many of them Catholic, and small towns and rural communities that remained far more homogeneously, white, native-born, and Protestant.

In an extended tussle over the country’s direction, forces grounded outside of the largest cities overcame urban resistance to impose Prohibition in 1919 and severely limit new immigration in 1924. The same fear of “a chaotically pluralistic society,” as one historian put it, fueled a resurgence of religious fundamentalism and a revival of the Ku Klux Klan. Then, as now, the lines between city and country were not absolute: both Prohibition and immigration restriction drew meaningful support from within the urban professional and intellectual classes. But contemporaries like Walter Lippmann, the era’s preeminent newspaper columnist, recognized that at their core these disparate disputes represented “the older American village civilization making its last stand against what to it looks like an alien invasion,” as he wrote in The Atlantic in 1927.

Lippmann had no doubt about which side would ultimately prevail: “The evil” that rural America believed it was resisting, he wrote, “is simply the new urban civilization with its irresistible economic and scientific and mass power.” Before long, the polyglot “urban civilization” established unquestioned dominance over the nation’s direction in culture, the economy, and ultimately politics, when it emerged as the cornerstone of Franklin Roosevelt’s lasting New Deal coalition.

Echoes of this struggle to define the nation’s identity and direction are growing louder today. This campaign crystallized the long-developing separation between a Democratic Party centered in the urban areas at the forward edge of growing racial diversity, new family and sexual arrangements, and the transition to a globalized information economy; and a Republican Party consolidating a deepening hold on the non-metropolitan places where many view those changes with suspicion, if not hostility.

Bill Clinton was the last Democratic nominee to demonstrate wide appeal across that divide: In both 1992 and 1996, he carried nearly half of America’s 3,100 counties. But since then, Democrats have retreated into the nation’s urban centers. In 2000, Al Gore narrowly won the popular vote, but carried fewer than 700 counties. In 2012, President Obama squeezed even more advantage from the biggest places: He carried 86 of the nation’s 100 largest counties (including the District of Columbia), winning them by nearly 12 million votes combined. That allowed him to win comfortably, although he carried only about 600 of the remaining 3,000 counties, and lost them by nearly 7 million votes combined.

This year, Hillary Clinton pushed that model just past the breaking point. Pending final results, she now leads in 88 of the nation’s 100 largest counties (including D.C.). Suffering a slight decline in African American support, Clinton did not quite match Obama’s vote margins in some crucial metropolitan areas, particularly Detroit, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia.

But overall, she delivered a dominant performance in most urban centers and many affluent white-collar suburbs. She held Trump to less than one-fourth of the vote in such mega-counties as Manhattan, Cook (Chicago), and Los Angeles; expanded on Obama’s margins in growing Sunbelt cities such as Miami, Charlotte, and Houston; and utterly routed Trump in thriving new economy centers like Austin, Silicon Valley, and Seattle. At latest tally, Clinton won the nation’s 100 largest counties by fully 12.6 million votes—an historic lead certain to widen with many more West Coast ballots yet to count.

But Clinton suffered far greater losses than Obama outside of this vibrant urban core. Tom Bonier, the chief executive of the Democratic targeting firm TargetSmart, says that with final results still pending in some states, Clinton has won only about 420 counties total—far fewer than any popular vote winner over the past century. In the roughly 3000 counties beyond the 100 largest, Trump trounced Clinton by about 11.5 million votes. In the decisive states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the electoral map was a sea of Republican red interrupted only by lonely blue islands in big cities and college towns.  

Reeling from Clinton’s defeat, many Democrats have declared economic populism the key to restoring competitiveness beyond the party’s urban strongholds. But, as Bonier notes, the Democrats may have permanently reduced their ceiling of support in non-urban areas by unifying behind liberal positions on almost all social issues.

The converse is that several big city mayors are already promising to fight Trump’s plan to accelerate deportations of undocumented immigrants, while other collisions with urban attitudes loom over his pledges to loosen gun laws and tighten surveillance of Muslim communities. The chasm between town and country that this election exposed will only widen as the already tumultuous Trump presidency unfolds.

The main hope for Democrats in the future, is to have a candidate more appealing to the Obama coalition, and less-vulnerable to phony scandals, so they come out and vote; plus defeat, if possible, in the courts the Republican voter suppression of that coalition. Plus, to emphasize more the true populist message of taking wealth away from the tycoons and oligarchs and encouraging jobs to return and returning benefits to the people so the middle class can rise again, everywhere. And hope that at least a relatively few Trump voters respond to this message and return to the Democratic fold, or stay home; with all this just enough to swing the upper midwest and rust-belt states narrowly blue again.

And that the Republican candidate has less appeal to the rural folk, who were encouraged both by Trump's prejudices and his promises, depending on which among them they were, so they don't come out and vote as much as they did for Trump. This candidate could possibly be Trump himself in 2020, if he fails to deliver on either or both his prejudices and his promises.

"non-urban areas unifying behind (conservative) positions on almost all social issues." translation = prejudice; and authoritarian; pretty much!

(11-17-2016, 06:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The main hope for Democrats in the future,  .... rely on the past, man.

http://www.duffelblog.com/2016/10/early-...y-clinton/

duffleblog Wrote:WASHINGTON, D.C. — With over seven million votes cast so far in the U.S. presidential election, early voting data is pointing to a tight race in most key battleground states.
But there is one battleground upon which the Donald Trump campaign appears to be headed towards utter defeat: The fight for votes from World War I veterans.
With at least 25,000 World War I veterans casting their votes thus far, the party affiliation breakdown of submitted ballots is suggesting a hard break towards the Clinton camp among veterans who fought in the Great War from 1914-1918, sources say.
Some 98 percent of ballots cast from the demographic have been from veterans who are registered Democrats.
“This is tremendous news for the Hillary Clinton campaign and for the Democratic Party,” said Donna Brazile, interim chairperson of the Democratic National Committee. “We knew that if we could get a strong turnout among the doughboy demographic, we could win this election.”
Other Democratic Party operatives have been coordinating a strong grassroots campaign to register veterans to vote and ensure their ballots are submitted ahead of voting deadlines.
“I’ve been knocking on doors, searching public records to track people down, all sorts of things to identify vets and ensure their ballots make it to a mailbox,” said Andrew Spieles, a college student at James Madison University who is associated with Young Virginia Democrats. “I’m proud to say that I’ve personally registered sixteen World War I vets to vote in the last two weeks, and all of them have indicated their intention to vote for Hillary Clinton.”
Democratic lawmakers expressed their satisfaction with the success of the grassroots operations.
“Winning elections is not about your message as much as it is about voter turnout, so I’m proud of our efforts to get these veterans registered and their votes submitted early,” said Christina ‘Tita’ Ayala, a Connecticut state Representative elected to office on the Democratic ticket. “Vote early and vote often, I always like to say.”
Unfortunately, all World War I veterans we tried to contact declined to comment on the record.

http://theantimedia.org/spirit-cooking-w...sta-email/

There's nothing like channeling the dead to become undead and vote, Eric.

Despite Trump's urgent warnings, it looks like the ghost vote didn't turn out.

I have some hope for reincarnation. Perhaps Leon Russell, Gwen Ifill, even Jerry Garcia, and Paul Kantner, and Jim Morrison, and Prince, and Michael Jackson, and the Kennedys and MLK Jr., and Malcolm X, and Muhammed Ali, and John Lennon, and Mama Cass and Papa John, and Laura Nyro; and Patrick McGoohan and Peter Falk, James Garner, and Robert Vaughn, and Rod Serling, and Roddenberry and Leonard Nimoy, and Dr. Spock and George McGovern and Hubert Humphrey and Eugene McCarthy, and Theodore Roszak and Tim Leary and Alan Watts, and Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger; all these folks who have left us so early, if they could just return as new men and women, maybe we'd have a chance. You know, back in the real world, when things were sane; more people returning from those days, and voting and speaking out....

(11-17-2016, 03:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2016, 02:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The enemy is within the USA, not abroad.

There is nothing to say there is not more than one enemy.  True, "We have met the enemy and they are us."  Still, we can't focus entirely on internals.

To some degree we aren't fighting enemies, we are fighting a principle.  Nations tend not to get governments better than they deserve.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken"

----->  Galen's .sig


It's also 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting for what's for dinner.

Yes indeed. Hardly surprising that the wolves won.

Rural voters wanted to stick it to what they perceived as urban elites and found Donald Trump the clearest enemy of those elites. They voted for him so that the could hear those elites squeal. Now they get some delight.

Of course I expect President Trump to give the shaft to anyone not already rich once he becomes President. But in doing so he would have several classes hostile to him in 2020. He would take the Republican Party down with him in 2020 should there be a free and fair election.

I finally found it: the real election results:
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php

(11-17-2016, 11:51 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]I am just going to leave this right here.

You want to build bridges you have to cease identity politics and labeling.
It is about engagement and part of that is dropping stereotype at the door and listening. Then you know the person more and what the core issues are. THEN you can discuss.

Should be the top video. Sorry I found this interview on fb. If not it is the video that has "Its about engagement" at the top.

Its about engagement

But identity politics is nearly a surrogate for ideology in a country so polarized between center-left and Hard Right. It's who gets the goodies and who gets the shaft. For the next four years, the well-connected Right will get the rewards and everyone else will get taxed to support those rewards..

At the worst, consider (if without the serial mass murders of Saddam Hussein) Iraq under Saddam Hussein. If one was in the right side of the regime one could live up to standards characteristic of at least southern Europe. If not one was living under standards characteristic of India (except with great fear). Government worked for one or made life miserable in what proved an Apartheid system (Christians and non-Kurdish Sunni Muslims OK, Shiites and Kurds not OK).

It's patronage or punishment. It looks as if Donald Trump will be a big-government Republican, using the Treasury to reward those to whom he made the biggest promises but cutting off government services that he can get away with cutting off aid to everyone else. That happened on a smaller scale with the younger Bush.