Episode 151 - What The F**K Just Happened? Election Autopsy

[JulyDiaz 2797]

Donald Trump will be the 45th President of the United States of America. It's going to be okay. Sit down, have a cookie, breathe into this bag and put on your mandatory 'Make America Great Again' baseball cap. We'll survive this, right?

 

Despite the sun coming up in the morning and life seemingly going on like normal, the world might've been forever changed last night. So we needed to break the little glass box, pull the lever and record an emergency podcast. Jack O'Brien is joined by Jason Pargin (aka David Wong) to make sense of what happened at the polls last night, why we should've seen it coming from a mile away and what we can actively do to prevent this from happening again. As Jason says on the site today, "Do the opposite of Panic. Work through the problem." It'll all be okay.

 

And if we're still alive this weekend , make sure to catch the next LIVE taping of The Cracked Podcast, this Saturday, November 12th at 7pm at the UCB Sunset Theatre in Los Angeles, CA. Jack O'Brien, Daniel O'Brien and Michael Swaim will be joined by an expert in psychology to talk about some of the psychological myths everyone seems to believe: like Rorschach tests (sorry, they don't work), middle child syndrome (not real); and depression (totally real, but antidepressants might not actually work very well). Tickets are only $5 and they're available here: https://goo.gl/nSI343

 

Footnotes:

 

David Wong: Don't Panic: https://goo.gl/V02EGl

 

David Wong: How Half of America Lost Its F**king Mind: https://goo.gl/KBJs5W

 

Interactive 2016 County-by-County Election Map: https://goo.gl/6zWHIw

 

Allan Lichtman: Keys to the White House: https://goo.gl/IgMovr

 

Stephen Colbert's Election Night Sign-Off: https://goo.gl/4cxBrF

[wakefresh 689]

Can we stop with the made up narrative about the working class? The breakdown of Trump voters were older and wealthy. People who make under 50k broke heavy for Clinton. And Jason, this was not a rejection of establishment politicians. McConnell and Ryan both won their seats back as did most of the Republican politicians. If that was the case, then McConnell and Ryan would have been out on their ass.

 

What you are selling is not what reality is. The reality is that they wanted another white man in charge. That is what they meant when they said they were going to "take their country back."

[wakefresh 689]

Jesus, Jason this is such bullshit. This is not the media against Trump. They loved him. He is one of them and made them alot of money with his shows.

 

[wakefresh 689]

What is hell is this?! One minute he says the polls got it wrong about Trump because it underestimated rural Americans and now he says these same polls show that Americans support gun control and gay marriage? This is some mind bogginlgy stupid shit. Does he not realize that the people who oppose those very same things mean now control all three branches of government? Damn, what a dumbfuck.

[clever username 35]

Can we stop with the made up narrative about the working class? The breakdown of Trump voters were older and wealthy. People who make under 50k broke heavy for Clinton. And Jason, this was not a rejection of establishment politicians. McConnell and Ryan both won their seats back as did most of the Republican politicians. If that was the case, then McConnell and Ryan would have been out on their ass.

 

They did, but they did at a much lower margin than they did for Obama over either Romney or McCain.

 

You're making the same mistake liberals always do when looking at the working class: ignoring non-voters. When the Democrats lost white workers, it wasn't because most of them started voting Republican. It's because most of them stopped voting at all. Clinton just exacerbated this trend.

 

This is what Wong misses. This wasn't a wave of voters raising Trump into office. In fact, Trump got less votes than Romney did in 2012. This was Hillary Clinton running a tone deaf, negative campaign where she moved to the right to try and attract "moderate" Republicans who were never going to vote for her, where she refused to attack Republicans or talk about the Ryan budget was going to do to the poor, and where she ranted about Russian plots instead of telling people how she was going to improve their lives. And people stayed home. And she lost.

 

What you are selling is not what reality is. The reality is that they wanted another white man in charge. That is what they meant when they said they were going to "take their country back."

 

The counties in the Rust Belt that swung the election by voting for Trump went for Barack Obama twice. Obama is not, I don't think I have to remind you, a white man. Your explanation doesn't make sense.

[clever username 35]

Oh, and Tariq, no, McConnell did not "win back his seat." He won't be back up for reelection until 2020. The Democrats did not bother to contest Ryan's seat with any kind of real effort. Helps to know what you're talking about if you want to understand what happened.

[hideousmonster 0]

I didn't vote for Trump, or Clinton, for that matter, and I appreciate cracked making an effort to urge people to be civil toward Trump supporters, and not to act like it's a worse disaster than 9-11. But still, I think Jack and Jason are coming across as a little too self-righteous. Jason gave me a little hope that he's starting to get it, when he said he looked the other way when Obama did a few things that may have been a little authoritaria. That was on the right track, but didn't quite get it. We always look the other way when a president of own party infringes on somebody's rights. Especially Democrats. Republicans cheer their presidents on, when they do it. Democrats just glaze over it, or insist on giving their president the benefit of the doubt. Liberals are like soft racists when it comes to crimes against humanity. They act like if they pretend their elected officials aren't doing it, it's the same thing as being against it. If President Trump and the republican congress wants to find a way to mandate that we all buy a product of his choice or else pay a hefty tax penalty, what's to stop them? The constitution? The Supreme Court already ruled that that's not a right we have (#thanksobama). What if the Trump administration wants to order some of us arrested in secret, and detained indefinitely without warrant, legal counsel, accusation of a crime, or even the chance to see a judge. Well we can thank the Obama administration for giving Mr. Trump that authority, and then securing it in federal court for him. Might Trump want to drone strike someone's wedding or funeral, or a hospital, and never justify it to the public? Obama did it. Maybe he wants to unilaterally commit acts of war against nations not hostile to us, without even consulting congress first. That's another precedent set by his immediate predecessor. Where were democrats when these things happened? Where was the outrage? Why were they not standing up for our rights? Why were they not criticizing Clinton for not taking a stance against these rights violations?

 

I guess my main criticism about this podcast episode, is that Jack and Jason still seem to have this "we need to educate our opposition" attitude. Well I think you need to hold your own representatives accountable. And you should be trying to demand improvement in their policies, and be honest enough to criticize them when they exercise too much authority and violate people's rights. Hold their feet to the fire, and don't let up, until they reverse their own crimes.

 

A lot of us out here have decided to avoid the ballot box, not caring if Trump gets elected or not, because from our perspective, Tyrants have been in the oval office for decades. We're used to it. What's one more to add to the list?

[wakefresh 689]

Oh, and Tariq, no, McConnell did not "win back his seat." He won't be back up for reelection until 2020. The Democrats did not bother to contest Ryan's seat with any kind of real effort. Helps to know what you're talking about if you want to understand what happened.

 

The name is Shariq, not Tariq.

 

And Ryan did not run unopposed. There were three other choices in that race. Cantor lost his seat in 2014 because you can credibliy make a point that Rethug voters wanted something different. In this case, Ryan won and so did Rand Paul -- the other Kentucky dipshit establishment senator that has been in there for long time.

 

During neither of their previous terms, did they pass a jobs bill, so don't tell me that there was huge economic factors at play.

[wakefresh 689]

They did, but they did at a much lower margin than they did for Obama over either Romney or McCain.

 

You're making the same mistake liberals always do when looking at the working class: ignoring non-voters. When the Democrats lost white workers, it wasn't because most of them started voting Republican. It's because most of them stopped voting at all. Clinton just exacerbated this trend.

 

This is what Wong misses. This wasn't a wave of voters raising Trump into office. In fact, Trump got less votes than Romney did in 2012. This was Hillary Clinton running a tone deaf, negative campaign where she moved to the right to try and attract "moderate" Republicans who were never going to vote for her, where she refused to attack Republicans or talk about the Ryan budget was going to do to the poor, and where she ranted about Russian plots instead of telling people how she was going to improve their lives. And people stayed home. And she lost.

 

 

 

The counties in the Rust Belt that swung the election by voting for Trump went for Barack Obama twice. Obama is not, I don't think I have to remind you, a white man. Your explanation doesn't make sense.

 

Trump won those counties by a wide margin. Wider than what Bush got in 2000. And those non-voters that sat out previous elections -- there is no reason to think that they would have voted for Obama at all. There is though very good evidence that stirring up pre-existing racial hatreds motivated them to get out. The biggest campaign promise that Trump is going to have to keep is kicking out all immigrants and building a wall on Mexico while Mexico pays for it.

[wakefresh 689]

I didn't vote for Trump, or Clinton, for that matter, and I appreciate cracked making an effort to urge people to be civil toward Trump supporters, and not to act like it's a worse disaster than 9-11.

 

Trump supporters are anything but civil.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/trump-supporters-ram-sign-holding-war-veteran-with-truck-in-politically-motivated-hit-and-run/

 

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/go-back-to-your-country-this-is-trump-land-usps-driver-busted-for-harassing-hispanic-man/

 

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/alt-right-founder-trump-is-the-first-step-in-turning-america-into-a-vast-safe-space-for-whites/

 

I guess my main criticism about this podcast episode, is that Jack and Jason still seem to have this "we need to educate our opposition" attitude. Well I think you need to hold your own representatives accountable. And you should be trying to demand improvement in their policies, and be honest enough to criticize them when they exercise too much authority and violate people's rights. Hold their feet to the fire, and don't let up, until they reverse their own crimes.

 

A lot of us out here have decided to avoid the ballot box, not caring if Trump gets elected or not, because from our perspective, Tyrants have been in the oval office for decades. We're used to it. What's one more to add to the list?

 

You can't possibly believe any of what you said. How do reconcile holding elected officials feet to the fire, if you avoid the ballot box? So the "tyrants" are only in the White House, huh? Not in the Senate or the House that brings them the bills to sign? And if they are tyrants in the White House, what good would it be to lobby the Congress, since tyrants, by definition, do whatever the hell they want? This sort of stupidity is why Trump is in the White House.

[hideousmonster 0]

 

 

You can't possibly believe any of what you said. How do reconcile holding elected officials feet to the fire, if you avoid the ballot box? So the "tyrants" are only in the White House, huh? Not in the Senate or the House that brings them the bills to sign? And if they are tyrants in the White House, what good would it be to lobby the Congress, since tyrants, by definition, do whatever the hell they want? This sort of stupidity is why Trump is in the White House.

 

Maybe I wasn't clear. If there's every reason to assume that Clinton would abuse her power as much as Obama and Trump, without being held accountable by her own base, then why vote at all? A dystopian society is only a dystopian society to those who notice it as such. If my two choices are despot A vs. despot B, then why should I vote? People like me sound the alarm, and point out injustices as loudly as we can every time a president commits them, but time and time again, those complaints fall on deaf ears by the people who elected them. Every time I brought up Obama's authoritarian or militaristic abuses of power to Hillary supporters in this election cycle, it was as though they never even heard of them, or they would use chillingly Orwellian phrases like "he did what needed to be done," "he was forced to take executive action because congress was unwilling to act (follow his dictates, in other words)." How do you respond to such justification? Pretend their referring to Trump or Bush. With all of Trump's horrifyingly racist and chauvinistic remarks, the fact is, when it comes to his actions, he still has less blood on his hands than former senator and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Trump's weapons up until now have been "you're fired" and "I'll sue your ass." Take that and the fact that unlike Trump's, Clinton's campaign is largely funded by the same major financial interests who funded the presidential campaigns of Democrat and Republican candidates going back for generations, and you might get a glimpse of how little reason there is to believe Hillary would offer any positive change. So, to me, Clinton vs. Trump is like heads vs. tails. We get screwed either way, and the ones who support them will ignore or defend their abuses.

 

As a side note, I like how you immediately insult my intelligence with such colorful language. It really makes you sound reasonable and level-headed.

[clever username 35]

 

The name is Shariq, not Tariq.

 

And Ryan did not run unopposed. There were three other choices in that race. Cantor lost his seat in 2014 because you can credibliy make a point that Rethug voters wanted something different. In this case, Ryan won and so did Rand Paul -- the other Kentucky dipshit establishment senator that has been in there for long time.

 

During neither of their previous terms, did they pass a jobs bill, so don't tell me that there was huge economic factors at play.

 

I didn't say he ran unopposed, I said the Democrats didn't put any real effort into opposing him. His opponent was a no name with no backing by the party.

[clever username 35]

 

Trump won those counties by a wide margin. Wider than what Bush got in 2000. And those non-voters that sat out previous elections -- there is no reason to think that they would have voted for Obama at all. There is though very good evidence that stirring up pre-existing racial hatreds motivated them to get out. The biggest campaign promise that Trump is going to have to keep is kicking out all immigrants and building a wall on Mexico while Mexico pays for it.

 

He won those counties because turnout was depressed, and turnout was depressed because Clinton sucked. We know the people who stayed home voted for Obama: that's how he won those counties in 08 and 12.

 

And no, Trump's racism did not turn out more voters than Republicans usually do. Again, he got fewer votes than both McCain and Romney did.

[wakefresh 689]

I didn't say he ran unopposed, I said the Democrats didn't put any real effort into opposing him. His opponent was a no name with no backing by the party.

 

Donald Trump ran a terrible campaign where he was accused of sexually assulting 12 women and still won. If the voters want something, they are going to vote for it regardless. The voters want Ryan -- former VP pick -- back in Washington. The facts don't mesh with your narrative.

[wakefresh 689]

He won those counties because turnout was depressed, and turnout was depressed because Clinton sucked. We know the people who stayed home voted for Obama: that's how he won those counties in 08 and 12.

 

And no, Trump's racism did not turn out more voters than Republicans usually do. Again, he got fewer votes than both McCain and Romney did.

 

Really? We know that how? People being registered to one particular party doesn't make them beholden to vote for that party's candidate in the general election. Turnout was lower but margins by which Trump won those counties point to new people deciding to vote Rethug. Turnout was lower because you had new restrictive voting laws passed. Turnout was lower because, yeah, maybe people were not so enthused by Clinton. But make no mistake that people who voted for Obama in 2012, suddenly went Trump. Obama was never a choice for these people in 2008 or 2012.

[omondieu 7]

As difficult and anxiety-inducing as engaging peacefully with a Trump supporter is, it can be done. Bear with me.

 

I inadvertently got into a rather long conversation with a Trumpkin on Twitter last night. I was fuming over accounts of hate crimes and reports of racist graffiti found at schools across the U.S. when a particular image caught my eye, in which something about "n-words not allowed" was written on a poster in the school hallway. It was posted by a black high school student, and I left a supportive comment on it. Beneath it was a comment from a guy saying that Trump was just making "freedom of speech" okay again. Which is an inane comment, but anyway. I assumed the guy was an older gentleman harassing the kid. His profile pic looked a little vague. So I asked him why he was leaving a dismissive comment on a photo posted by a kid who clearly disturbed by it, and why he was following the kid's account.

The guy responded with, "Because he goes to my school?"

 

So I realized, "Oh, this is a child..."

 

So I could have just stopped there, but I was in a chatty mood, and rather than saying something snarky, I said that it was unfortunate that he was being dismissive of his peer's feelings. I went on to say that as an adult living in Canada, my heart was breaking to see how scared and worried so many people, especially kids, are in America following the election. I then said I didn't want to attack him, but that I was genuinely curious as to what about the guy appeals to him as a young kid. I was careful not to say black and white statements (i.e. "he's a racist", but rather, "he's said a lot of troubling things about people of different races"). He said his main concerns were illegal immigrants (which I said was indeed a fair point - acknowledging that I was accepting of something that mattered to him) and the loss of trade and labour jobs to immigrants. I directed him to an article about why the narrative about "immigrants taking jobs" isn't true, but he dismissed it as liberal propaganda. So I didn't push it any further. I dropped that, and I said that I was really appreciative that he was being respectful towards me, and that he was engaging me in conversation, and that I really did want to try to understand where he was coming from. Some of his answers were imbued with a little arrogance - not towards me or liberalism, but that brand of teenage arrogance that comes with thinking you know everything, such as when he said "terrorists target the U.S. because we're better than their countries". Again, I let that slide and didn't push it. There were a couple instances when I stumped him, but didn't gloat about it. At the very least I made him aware of a couple things he completely didn't know about, such as that Hillary's bud Byrd, while he was a member of the KKK (when I told him that Trump's endorsement by the KKK was really disturbing, and he said that Hillary has connections to the group as well), left the group in the early '50s, was apologetic about his association with the group until his death, and was acknowledged and awarded for his help in the civil rights movement by the NAACP. All the kid knew was "Hillary was kissing a KKK member in that one photo, so Trump's ties with the group don't matter".

 

We chatted for a good half hour. I tossed in some jokes, some smiley faces. I left saying that if Trump isn't able to unite the country, that at least he (the kid) has a responsibility to stand up for those who can't do it for themselves. I said that even though I don't 100% get his beliefs, I could tell he was a well-meaning young man. And that hopefully my willingness to speak to him gently and to try to understand his viewpoints would encourage him to allow others that right in the future, and see that not all liberals are "eeevil demon feminazis". He replied with "maybe ". I said at the end of the day, everyone just wants to be heard. My closing statements were re-tweeted by another girl. So while I didn't convert him, I would hope that at the very least the respect I showed him (speaking to him like he was an adult) is something he can carry with him as he grows up, and that rather than act defensive should he be engaged in a political conversation someday, he can find a way to listen and try to understand other people's opinions.