Let me help you. It’s interesting and somewhat amusing to an American like myself who actually mixes socially with doctor’s wives and evangelicals that you would assume these groups are “tolerant”. People from other countries can be gullible that way when confronted with friendly, outgoing Americans who are glad to see you.
Once you get past the polite social veneers American white evangelicals and country club Republicans are not tolerant at all. They will not use the N word in public, but you can be damn sure that their baseline interior worldview has blacks (in general) situated as potentially dangerous, violent, not quite evolved sub-humans they can interact with but have to be wary of. There may be “good” blacks they will be overtly respectful to, but they have no problem whatsoever with Trump upsetting the progressive apple cart and will give him as much leash as he wants for now.
Also, progressives across the board in the US are still not up to speed on how the majority of the US feels about illegals and Muslim immigration. Trump and non-Trump voters alike they don’t like it. You can quote all the stats you want about how more people die from X than Muslim terrorism but they still don’t like it.
NY and CA are special in terms of popular vote because one candidate campaigned in them specifically to rack up more votes and the other didn’t in order to focus on winning the election. That’s not some weird ‘coastal elites so they don’t count’ idea, that’s just looking at the simple fact that the candidates campaigned in a way that one would expect to skew the popular vote totals… I can’t stop people from believing the fantasy that Trump has no support, because like the thread title points out ‘progressives are deluding themselves’. But progressives really are deluding themselves if they think completely ignore the fact that Trump had a major advantage in popular vote outside of those two states.
There are numerous studies showing that it is actually extremely common for people to be racist with a caveat that ‘all of the X that I know personally are good, it’s just those urban blacks/illegal Mexicans/etc. that are bad’.
I think one problem for foreigners trying to understand US immigration issues is that the US is stupidly, absurdly far-‘left’ on immigration by European (and most of the rest of the world’s) standards. The most foaming at the mouth right-wing immigration restrictions proposed by republicans are, as far as I can tell, much less restrictive than current immigration laws and practices in any European country (for people outside of Europe, obviously the EU makes intra-EU immigration fairly easy). The idea of not enforcing immigration laws and not deporting illegals is considered a normal part of the political landscape in the US, but is considered completely lunatic territory elsewhere.
There was barely any campaigning there. It was a strategic mistake, to be sure, to put even those tiny amount of resources into solid blue states rather than MI and WI, but some few resources going to blue states doesn’t mean that blue state totals get to be disregarded.
The fact that Trump might have a popular vote advantage outside of those two states is no more relevant to this or any issue than the fact that Hillary easily won the electoral college (and won an overwhelming popular majority) if not for TX and FL.
If Hillary Clinton had put the few resources she did into CA/NY into MI, PA, and WI instead, the popular vote total would be virtually the same (maybe a slightly smaller lead for her), and she might have won the electoral college as well. This isn’t what happened, and this possibility is no more interesting or relevant than any other if/then statement about the election, including your assertion that CA and NY somehow count less.
Similarly, lopsided support in two states that had lopsided campaigning doesn’t mean that totals for the other 48 states get to be regarded. Which you and a number of people on this thread seem to be doing, and which seems to be a common theme of Democrats in general. “Oh, we REALLY won, we are REALLY the choice of the people!” is not only grossly untrue, but also alienates anyone who isn’t already drinking the blue kool-aid.
“Barely” winning? According to the existing rules, Hillary lost, and Trump won.
Maybe you prefer one of those parliamentary systems of government where the Prime Minister is elected by the elected members of one political party, assuming that political party has managed to gain a majority of seats?
Currently, U.S. progressives are embarrassed that they allowed themselves to be duped by the claims of the news media outlets, the polls, and by views of the only people they thought worthy of being listened to - other progressives.
Now they want to share their whine with every one else.
That’s not surprising at all. Evangelicals are notoriously intolerant just like any other religious fanatics. That is to say, they are tolerant so long as you are just like them.
I’m not sure what you mean by “duped”. Regardless of what the polls say, most people who voted for Clinton did so because they support her policies (or at least oppose Trump). The fact that Clinton didn’t win doesn’t render those viewpoints invalid.
I’m afraid that it is the blue-collar and working class Trump voters who will find that they have been “duped” as they lose their health insurance, their jobs do not return and their air and water are polluted by industrial waste (such that there will actually be “industry” to actually produce waste).
It’s hard to treat the views of conservatives as “worth listening to” when they are filled with “alt-facts” (AKA “lies” or “bullshit”) that are so easily verifiable as false.
Trump actually spent the largest amount of his campaign dollars in the state of NY ( as did Clinton ). He also boasted over and over on how he was going to flip the state and at least in terms of dollars spent it seems he paid some real attention to that failed endeavor.
While Clinton certainly spent far more in CA than Trump, as a CA resident I can attest that she was hardly saturating the airwaves. It was more a matter of minimal campaigning vs. virtually none on Trump’s part. One of the blissful benefits of living in a very liberal ( or very conservative ) market is nobody bothers to campaign much in it - I saw no substantive change this year. She spent money on adds ( in a hugely expensive market ), but she certainly wasn’t omnipresent on the airwaves.
I really think this meme that Clinton’s popular vote wins in NY and CA are based on her scrounging heavily for votes in those two states is slightly exaggerated. No doubt that might account for some difference, but I suspect increasing regional polarization in the populace counts for rather more. Especially in the face of an unusually polarizing candidate.
Nothing different was said at all, no matter your strange political reaction.
the simple mathematical observation is that Trump barely won in the key states which put him into the lead on your electoral college system, and with only some small changes in the vote totals by tiny percentage would have made his defeat.
This is the mathematics.
thus their defeatism is extremely strange.
As is the hyper sensitive complaining by the Trump supporters about the reaction as it is perfectly evident with the move of a few hundred votes here and there, they would be doing the complaining and the ranting.
the idea either side is ‘better’ in its reactions is very laughable to the outside observer.
You must be a Democrat. If you want to tell Trump something, go ahead and tell him yourself. You seem to have mistaken me for whatever government agency is currently doing your bidding. Don’t ask me to do something you obviously can do for you. Sheesh! :rolleyes:
Just between you and me, I’m suspect that you’re never going to be satisfied by anything Trump does or says. :eek: Or by anything that any Republican President ever says or does. :eek: Trump just happens to be the current object of your disaffection because he won the GOP primary and then kicked Hillary’s ass.
Duped into not bothering to vote. Have you given any thought to the numbers of voters who did NOT vote for Hillary? Those would be the potential voters who assumed ol’ Hillary was a shoo-in for the Oval Office. Not the Bernie supporters. They hated the Democrats for screwing with Bernie’s campaign efforts.
Do they hand out trophies for barely winning contests in your part of the world? Or for winning contests? Maybe everyone gets a trophy just for participation.
The simplest mathematical observation is that after all the votes were counted, and according to the existing rules, Hillary lost. She came in 2nd. She didn’t finish 1st.
