I don't think either explain Trump's election. For the most part, corporations didn't back Trump and gerrymandering with in states doesn't have any affect on the presidential election.
Trump won because of the electoral college, a weak Democratic candidate, and because Trump unlike most mainstream Republican Presidential candidates pandered to people's baser instincts.
Gerrymandering affects Senate and House races. Electoral votes for president are based on the entire state's population. How could gerrymandering affect the Presidential election?
Too many people do not like Hillary, and they stayed home instead of voting for her. That's the bottom line. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, she is not well liked enough to get elected.
The thing is, that was never a secret. It was obvious even before she got her ass kicked in the 2008 primaries. It was even more obvious afterwards.
So why did she run last year? For her own selfish reasons, that's why. She should have known she would lose. If she actually cared about things as much as she claims to, she would have stepped aside and let someone else, run instead. Then we wouldn't be where we are today. But because she couldn't put aside her own wants and do what was best for the nation, here we are.
(Even her campaign slogan spelled it out: "I'm with her". Clearly, it was all about her, and not about the country.)
Clinton whomped Sanders, by something like 10x the margin Obama beat Clinton by. I don't think you can reasonably draw a lesson about 2016 from the 2008 primary.
There's something tautological about saying someone "wasn't well-liked enough" to get elected. That's why everyone loses an otherwise fair election.
An equally compelling and even simpler narrative is that it's simply rare for the governing party to hold on to the White House for 3 consecutive terms. The opposition party gets to run a "change" election that the incumbent party can't. For a second term in office, where the incumbent party can run the same candidate, they can run a "continuity" election that more often than not beats "change". But they can't do it for a third term, and so the opposition simply tends to win that term.
This is a just-so story that requires us to believe that Clinton's influence over the party generated millions of extra votes for her. It's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence (emails from the DNC illustrating that they supported her after her victory became a literal foregone conclusion do not count as that), and one for which virtually no evidence is ever presented.
The party didn't nominate Clinton. Sixteen million individual American voters did. Clinton came within a hairs breadth of the number of votes Barack Obama, the most popular Democratic politician in modern memory, gained. Sanders missed that mark by four million votes.
Not enough progressive people voted and those negatively affected by the trends in automation and other populations catching up to US standards voted for a wildcard to change things up, even though their problems aren't fixable.
Of course, cognitive dissonance is to be expected for short term relief, hence here we are, in a situation where the people who most need the help of others vote for those who espouse "every man for himself" rhetoric.
US political system significantly overrepresent conservatives. If you take the most economically prosperous states or counties, they are overwhelmingly more progressive.
It's not as if those other nations don't have conservatives. There are still debates about tax rates and social services there, they just all agree on a higher level social contract (mandatory sick leave, that education and healthcare results in a more prosperous society etc).
The US always strikes me as a country dealing with the logical outcomes of decisions made decades ago - a health insurance not care system (I pay more in insurance premiums than the total taxation for a median family back in my birth country!), low investment in urban public transportation, and an overly complex government structure (I live in an urban area with 100+ "cities" that all have their own council, there is a regional government agency, then the country, State, and Federal government agencies. That's a lot of duplication). Every country has it's issues but it does seem that the US is determined to look inward for solutions instead of looking to what works elsewhere.
I'm an immigrant so accept that as the US way (and understand that Americans really value local control) but I do find it interesting/frustrating/admirable at times. I also often wonder what the US could achieve if we resolved some of these fundamental issues out - how many entrepreneurs can't make the jump because they need healthcare for their family or are paying vast sums of money for health insurance...
Sorry, but I don't think it helps to just blame everything on Trump and his supporters. You could just as easily turn it around and ask why nobody's done a good job explaining and convincing them that these things are important. Your post seems to imply that a big group of people are just too dumb to know what's best for themselves, and that doesn't help anything.
In any case, it's not a problem that just popped up overnight when Trump was elected.
But that would upset a portion of Trumps support base as well as his parties donors, which want to keep perpetuating the myth that climate change isn't real for as long as possible.
That cuts both ways. Signing it would have made a lot of people feel good without actually doing anything.
All the accords and agreements in the world will do nothing to help get us out of this mess. There is only one thing that will save us: technology. Clean energy sources, clean storage, more efficient use, etc. And it has to have a lower price across the board than what we already have, in order to ensure adoption. It also has to work just as well or better than what we already have, or no one will use it.
Nothing else will help, because no matter what pieces of paper are signed, people will not give up their lifestyles and they will not pay more for what they perceive as the same thing. They will continue to drive cars, fly, eat meat, and so on. And those around the world who are not already living that kind of lifestyle are working as hard as they possibly can to get there. The only thing that will be palatable is to give people things that they perceive as being just as good (or better), with the same or lower price tag. Nothing else will work.
Need an example? Just look at CFCs. Did the world stop using them because everyone cared about ozone? That's what everyone said at the time, but in reality the change only happened because there was an alternative that didn't come with a higher price tag and didn't have any significant disadvantages. We got lucky. If the alternative had cost even a tiny fraction of a penny more per unit, or not worked every bit as well as CFCs, industries across the world would have spent untold sums of money lobbying against it, calling ozone depletion a myth, and so on, just like we are seeing today with climate change.
If you truly care about climate change, you'll stop worrying about political agreements and start working on clean technology. Nothing else will work.
I agree with every point you made, but to put it simply is Trumps denial of climate change, withdrawal of the Paris accord, and now this going to help or hinder such efforts?
Not sure why the downvoting. This may come across as cynical but it's also realistic.
Climate change reminds me a lot of dieting. People say they want to do something about it, but in reality they don't truly want it because they can't tolerate the sacrifices required.
So we speak in aspirational tones: "I really should lose some weight", "I should eat better", "I should exercise more", and then we turn around and go back to doing the same things as before.
Only with climate change we're fighting that at the societal level.
The only solution is to correct incentives. Ideally that would mean: tax bad
behaviour, subsidize good behaviour, and eliminate barriers to change.
But of those, only the last is possible, because the first two require government action that no one actually wants to take because, again, people aspire to thwart climate change but don't actually want to make the necessary sacrifices to do anything about it.
And that last option, eliminating barriers, comes down to technology by making it cheaper and easier to not dump CO2 into the atmosphere.
As a US citizen I find this incredibly bleak, but I hope the rest of the world pushes forward. I imagine at some point the US will try to get back on board.
32 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 81.5 ms ] threadTrump won because of the electoral college, a weak Democratic candidate, and because Trump unlike most mainstream Republican Presidential candidates pandered to people's baser instincts.
Too many people do not like Hillary, and they stayed home instead of voting for her. That's the bottom line. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, she is not well liked enough to get elected.
The thing is, that was never a secret. It was obvious even before she got her ass kicked in the 2008 primaries. It was even more obvious afterwards.
So why did she run last year? For her own selfish reasons, that's why. She should have known she would lose. If she actually cared about things as much as she claims to, she would have stepped aside and let someone else, run instead. Then we wouldn't be where we are today. But because she couldn't put aside her own wants and do what was best for the nation, here we are.
(Even her campaign slogan spelled it out: "I'm with her". Clearly, it was all about her, and not about the country.)
There's something tautological about saying someone "wasn't well-liked enough" to get elected. That's why everyone loses an otherwise fair election.
An equally compelling and even simpler narrative is that it's simply rare for the governing party to hold on to the White House for 3 consecutive terms. The opposition party gets to run a "change" election that the incumbent party can't. For a second term in office, where the incumbent party can run the same candidate, they can run a "continuity" election that more often than not beats "change". But they can't do it for a third term, and so the opposition simply tends to win that term.
Clinton's campaign was 100% continuity and that is what her opposition focused on
The party didn't nominate Clinton. Sixteen million individual American voters did. Clinton came within a hairs breadth of the number of votes Barack Obama, the most popular Democratic politician in modern memory, gained. Sanders missed that mark by four million votes.
Of course, cognitive dissonance is to be expected for short term relief, hence here we are, in a situation where the people who most need the help of others vote for those who espouse "every man for himself" rhetoric.
The US always strikes me as a country dealing with the logical outcomes of decisions made decades ago - a health insurance not care system (I pay more in insurance premiums than the total taxation for a median family back in my birth country!), low investment in urban public transportation, and an overly complex government structure (I live in an urban area with 100+ "cities" that all have their own council, there is a regional government agency, then the country, State, and Federal government agencies. That's a lot of duplication). Every country has it's issues but it does seem that the US is determined to look inward for solutions instead of looking to what works elsewhere.
I'm an immigrant so accept that as the US way (and understand that Americans really value local control) but I do find it interesting/frustrating/admirable at times. I also often wonder what the US could achieve if we resolved some of these fundamental issues out - how many entrepreneurs can't make the jump because they need healthcare for their family or are paying vast sums of money for health insurance...
American exceptionalism at its worst.
In any case, it's not a problem that just popped up overnight when Trump was elected.
Of the countries who signed it, which or what percentage followed through and met their commitments?
Also, this is a completely non-binding, symbolic accord. Pure politics, only important for signaling value.
But that would upset a portion of Trumps support base as well as his parties donors, which want to keep perpetuating the myth that climate change isn't real for as long as possible.
All the accords and agreements in the world will do nothing to help get us out of this mess. There is only one thing that will save us: technology. Clean energy sources, clean storage, more efficient use, etc. And it has to have a lower price across the board than what we already have, in order to ensure adoption. It also has to work just as well or better than what we already have, or no one will use it.
Nothing else will help, because no matter what pieces of paper are signed, people will not give up their lifestyles and they will not pay more for what they perceive as the same thing. They will continue to drive cars, fly, eat meat, and so on. And those around the world who are not already living that kind of lifestyle are working as hard as they possibly can to get there. The only thing that will be palatable is to give people things that they perceive as being just as good (or better), with the same or lower price tag. Nothing else will work.
Need an example? Just look at CFCs. Did the world stop using them because everyone cared about ozone? That's what everyone said at the time, but in reality the change only happened because there was an alternative that didn't come with a higher price tag and didn't have any significant disadvantages. We got lucky. If the alternative had cost even a tiny fraction of a penny more per unit, or not worked every bit as well as CFCs, industries across the world would have spent untold sums of money lobbying against it, calling ozone depletion a myth, and so on, just like we are seeing today with climate change.
If you truly care about climate change, you'll stop worrying about political agreements and start working on clean technology. Nothing else will work.
Climate change reminds me a lot of dieting. People say they want to do something about it, but in reality they don't truly want it because they can't tolerate the sacrifices required.
So we speak in aspirational tones: "I really should lose some weight", "I should eat better", "I should exercise more", and then we turn around and go back to doing the same things as before.
Only with climate change we're fighting that at the societal level.
The only solution is to correct incentives. Ideally that would mean: tax bad behaviour, subsidize good behaviour, and eliminate barriers to change.
But of those, only the last is possible, because the first two require government action that no one actually wants to take because, again, people aspire to thwart climate change but don't actually want to make the necessary sacrifices to do anything about it.
And that last option, eliminating barriers, comes down to technology by making it cheaper and easier to not dump CO2 into the atmosphere.
I find it equally irrelevant whether Obama signs non binding accords or Trump doesnt.
EDIT: Add second phrase.