« Reader Question | Main | OVF vs. EVF »

Wednesday, 09 November 2016


I disliked both candidates. Trumps for oh so obvious reasons (hint: slime & crime). Clinton for being so arrogant to think she was the automatic candidate despite no new ideas and baggage out the whazoo. Her problems became apparent when she barely beat Bernie for the nomination.

Trumps was foisted on us not for his abilities to be a decent president (ha!), but as a punishment for overlooking the many who've been left behind.

So we get to suck it up and take our medicine. Then try to get it right next time.

Until then we'll have to endure the Groper in Chief of the new DAWG* Party.


(*Dumb Ass White Guys)

It was no surprise that the citizens revolted against the status quo. But I doubt that this President is going to improve things. I see no evidence that he cares about US citizens or the country in general, I detect in him no vision for the future. I don't think that the purpose of a country is just to be a support system for buying and selling stuff to each other. That's a thin thread to hang a culture on.

The upside that I see is that he won't do any of the things he said he would. Take just two of them: deporting all illegal immigrants and building the Mexican wall. Each of those would require many years of sustained effort and investment of huge sums of money, spanning several administrations. There's no way that short-sighted current day politicians can embark on long-term projects like those. No one has the attention span anymore, not them, not their voters.

I hope what is left of real journalism will supply some adult supervision over the next few years.

Mike, I'm glad you posted this. I don't understand the complaints that politics have no place here as this is a photography site. A monumental event such as this deserves a response, and I actually came here expecting it. To me, the biggest shock is not the result, but the complacency of voters that stayed home and let Trump be elected by a number of votes on par with Romney's loss in 2012. Wasn't this suppose to be THE election?

I understand the Trump voters, in all their various colors and reasons. Roughly. I *get* it. I don't agree, but I get it.

The important variety is the one who recognized, correctly, that Hillary is one of the oligarchs who have ruined a lot of stuff, that she's not a standard issue machine politician, that she's kind of ethically sketchy (No, she's not a criminal, she's not especially terrible, that's all made up by the media and her enemies -- but she is Typical for our politicians, and Typical is fairly bad).

What I cannot grasp, fully, is why those voters then gave their vote to someone who is all the things they despise about Hillary except a professional politician. Oligarch? Check. Ethically sketchy? Check. Basically a pretty awful person? Check.

I hold out one slender ray of hope, and very slender it is. Thomas Becket was pretty awful too until he got a really important job.

It's your blog and I absolutely support your right to publish whatever you like. I don't always agree with you, but I keep reading.

(Because I am not a child to flounce off in a fury at the first spot of friction)

On November 1, I wrote: "If Hillary ends up losing to one of the most unqualified people ever to run for president it will not be because of her e-mails. There are three reasons. 1) She clearly does not believe that private citizens have a Constitutional right to own a firearm. This is why she does not support the Heller decision of the Supreme Court and supports an Austrailian type gun confiscation buy-back program. This position alone costs her millions of votes in blue collar and rural America. 2) Democrats seem to support unlimited immigration and while few support a wall or returning current illegals to their home countries, wide open immigration is not favored either. We have 322 million people in this country. It's enough. 3) A continued policy of one-sided free trade under which the benefits flow to the one percent and the losses in jobs to the 99%, and never ending trade imbalances result in the country's assets being purchased by foreigners with our own money has become intolerable. With President Obama continuing to push the flawed Transpacific Partnership, the Democrats' position on this issue is not clear. If she loses, Democrats are going to have to rethink their policy positions on these issues."
BTW, I voted for her.

There will b 25 democratic senate seats up in midterm in two years, one name mentioned here is already changing her tune Elizabeth Warren, as a north easterner she will never b any thing but a regional candidate. The instinct of self survival will take over and these 25 will not rock the boat, so I anticipate a lot of Trump agenda will pass . To me this election clears the decks of dynasties, Clinton Bush Obama and Romney. Keep draining the swamp!

Trump was just smarter. How about all those MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN hats they made and then sold to their supporters. Clinton decided to hang around with big name entertainers and Hollywood types. Trump's approach appealed to the middle class while Clinton's approach did not.

Thanks for posting this Mike. I was glad to see it. I think these are dangerous times, and I hope very much that everybody who thinks the same will stand up and show themselves.

As for those who wish Mike wouldn't publish this sort of thing: You're asking for someone other than Mike to run the blog! Plus, c'mon: one or two heartfelt posts, on a day of such yuuuge significance in post-war American (and possibly world) politics? We can all handle that, can't we?

We are ALL Griswolds, now............
And we've just elected Cousin Eddie to the White House.

Sorry to chime in so late. Let me begin with making clear that also to almost everyone I know in my country (The Netherlands, a nation of 17 million people on an area 1/16 the size of Texas), this is a very serious if not frightening turn of events.
But now over to photography and what may be the first casualty in this regime change: what is going to happen to Pete Souza? Has he been mentioned anywhere after November 8?

[Every president picks his own White House photographer. Not all of them in the past have been official, even. Pete will most likely leave when President and Mrs. Obama leave. --Mike]

"It's clear that 51% of Americans are racist, xenophobic, ignorant, credulous fools."

Remember, Trump lost the popular vote, so 51% is probably an overstatement. I don't believe everyone who voted for Trump is a racist. Sadly misinformed, yes and they voted against their own interests. Hardcore racists probably make up less than 10% of the U.S. population.

There is, however, a huge swath of white, rural America that is in despair. Jobs are few. Drug use and alcoholism is rampant. Their death rate is higher now than in other groups. They feel neglected, left out and left behind. They think they've found a champion, but they'll be sadly disillusioned in short order. The jobs they use to have aren't coming back, no matter who is in the White House.

The really sad thing is, these people don't get that they have way more in common with inner city blacks than they do with Donald Trump and his ilk. This was pointed out in the recent SNL "Black Jeopardy" skit; featuring Tom Hanks as a rural Trump supporter playing against two black contestants; one of the most politically astute sketches Saturday Night Live has ever produced.

I am commenting late so I suspect my comment will not get read by many, but I actually know the solution for progressives. Do not nominate any politician. If the Democrats want to win, forget qualifications or experience completely.This is America after all. Education, knowledge and competence are all optional and perhaps they are a detriment. Democrats need to nominate someone who is already famous and well liked. A handsome or well groomed male actor or athlete perhaps. One that the ladies will like, but not so handsome that men will be too jealous. Someone who is an excellent public speaker and who is eminently likable. This position should be cast just like a part in a movie.

To sum this concept up, is there anyone who doesn't think that Tom Hanks would be unstoppable?

Whoever can fire up the bases.
Whoever who does not hate by others.
Whoever can get a message we can remember (change, get a bad again)
It is not a choice based on gender. There should not be an equal opportunity act for president.
I listen as outsider ... sanders and the orange boy can say thing that at least rang someone ring some bells; even some messages like free education (not a good idea as orange kid should not get free education even though lots should) which at least you can remember abd argue with.
I listen to two debates (record the 3rd but do not bother). What she said other than praising herself as a woman and experienced.
Sorry. Fire your base and message to remember.

long time listener, first time caller... i'll give you the benefit of the doubt for a second but please enlighten me on what the word "jewish" adds to what you are saying. seems slightly racist to me on first glance...

[Thinking only of general-election electability issues. Might even have been wrong about that, this time.

FWIW, my brother and I have a game we play every four years: who would you pick to be president if you could have anybody at all? My pick this go-round was Russ Feingold, and he's jewish. Or at least was born to a jewish family (I don't know how or what he practices, religion-wise). He's approximately the anti-Trump in more or less every way--highly principled, benevolent, altruistic, extremely intelligent and knowledgeable, independent-minded and not beholden to factions, and experienced. We should have been so lucky.

...Although, in the "we should be so lucky" vein, even "President Mitt Romney" sounds comparatively good right about now. You know what they say: Oh well. --Mike]

I kept hearing and reading that he had almost no chance. "Clinton has many paths to victory," they said, "Trump almost none. He'd need a miracle to win." Now, it's we who need the miracle. At the risk of stating the obvious, things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.

I commend you for using your blog to take a stand, Mike - especially since it's a stand I mostly agree with. But I take exception to your characterization of Sanders. He could have won, and almost certainly would have. I think it was Nancy Pelosi, if I'm not mistaken, who in a surprise statement late in the primaries advised the selection of Sanders, saying, "It takes a left wing populist to beat a right wing populist." You can say he didn't have a plan, but he certainly had more of one than Trump, hey? Not to mention a great deal more intelligence and experience in governing.

But it was not to be, alas, because the Clinton machine and the DNC were so intent on coronating Clinton. In fairness to them, though, maybe they felt this was a safe thing to do, because anybody, they must have reasoned, could beat Trump . . . .

We'll see what happens, I guess. The country has been lurching to the right since Nixon, at least, taking the political center, and the rest of the world, along with. No reason to think this rightward movement is going to stop anytime soon. Certainly not going by recent lights. On the other hand, though, history is nothing if not surprising. We just have to survive long enough to get through it.

Ghostbusters, obviously.

However if they are not available, change your message, at least.


Something that seems to be lost in all the histrionic hand wringing over the election result are the vote totals from this and the prior two elections.

In 2008, 2012, and now in 2016 the republican candidate received just about 60 million votes.

In 2008, Obama received 69 million. In 2012, 65 million. In 2016 only 60 million.

If she had managed to convince about 1% more of Obama's voters that she was worth getting off the couch about, she'd have won.

The result wasn't due to some big groundswell of support for the republican party, or from rednecks and racists coming out of the closet. No, it was from an apparently building disappointment with the current administration combined with the democrats' utter ineptitude at selecting a candidate and the execution of her campaign.

Viewed through this lens har har there's much less to be panicking about.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007