« Arwa Damon is brave ... | Main | The Revolt of the Deplorables »

08 November 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Tyler

My podunk polling place had 70 people last election. It broke that record by 8am this morning.

Mark Gaughan

You all might find this of interest: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/follow_slate_and_votecastr_for_real_time_election_day_turnout_tracking.html?wpisrc=burger_bar

BillWade

Am glad I waited till election day to vote here in Florida, no line at all, they all voted Sunday apparently.

J

Colonel,

The dangerous game is how the Russians would read the moves of an HC quagmire, and how their reactions would be. Russia is in defense mode, counter-moving with each NATO errant. Russia is cranking out training after training that I've been observing by their Ministry of Defense. The kids are sharp, and getting sharper. HC's NEOCON/ZIOCON nitwits have no idea what real war is, and the Russians do as every generation since their fight against the Nazis to know and understand the devastation pain and suffering that war causes and the brave sacrifices of those of that generation who made their sacrifices so that the modern generation would even exist.

I burn every time I see the Hitler Nazi Swastika emblazoned on the Ukrainian nitwits helmets. Our fathers generation fought those Nazi bastards so we could exist today. And sadly that history isn't being taught to our young in today's U.S. education system. So today's young U.S. generations would understand that war is not a computer game, its a struggle of life and death, blood, carnage, pain, and suffering.

LeaNder

I didn't want to go into this:

I can make the counter-argument too, that she will quickly tire of the power that turns out empty once she has reached the apex.

Pretty rational, indeed. Isn't it? The apex of "power"? The Apex being the presidency? Well we saw how well that worked under Obama.

Some here tried to explain it with Obama's narcissism.

ex-PFC Chuck

re: "Her real challenge will be to turn to long-term domestic conditions crying for attention, that in doing so would do great service for the working class . . "

The DC branch of the Democratic Party has turned its back on the working class, and the Clinton's have led that change of direction. That's why many people of the party's former faithful have been attending Trump rallies and will be voting for him.

georgeg

Here in Kinnelon NJ, the turnout at 10:00 am seems higher than in previous Presidential elections. The "Trumpers" are vocal about their choice as they exited. I for one have never voted Republican, but am making an exception.....

ToivoS

Hillary is rational and smart? This was promoted by the Clinton machine in a big way going back to 2008. It is pure spin. Try reading her emails where she puts down her thoughts. Utterly pedestrian. Setting up those email servers? That was not rational. Hillary has some good political instincts but they are not driven by intelligence.

Jack

Sir

I agree that "This presidency will be marked by a continuation and intensification of an aggressive US foreign policy driven by neocon and Zionist interests..". This is why I voted for Trump. IMO, her attempts to "scare" the Russians to walk away from their Syrian investment is going to be an epic failure as that will put us on an escalation ladder. At some point on that ladder she'll have to back down or engage in a shooting match with the Russians. Her supporters don't believe this as reflected in ked's post. We can be certain that the Petraeus, Indyk, et al crowd of national security advisors will be whispering no consequences to belligerence to her. This will feed her natural hubris and warmongering. We know that her track record of decision making on national security matters is demonstrated poor judgment. Anyone expecting a change in her personality is deluded about human behavior.

The GOP will be at war within itself as those wanting the support of Les Deplorables take a harder stance. There will be a significant number in the House that will be pissed with Ryan and the party establishment for their betrayal of the tens of millions of voters that would have voted for Trump. They'll demand and get a war with the Borg Queen. While I think the House may impeach her I don't believe the Senate will convict. The vitriol will be amped up even beyond what we saw during the election campaign.

Abu Sinan

Sir,

The wife and I were at our polling station before 6.10am this morning. Early, thinking to best the crowds. We ended up having to wait 30 minutes to vote despite the line moving quickly. We are in Falls Church. Never have I been less excited about the choices as I was this election cycle.

A.Pols

Being "smart" doesn't necessarily mean one is also rational.
History is replete with examples.

kao_hsien_chih

In response to Ked, but also to everyone,

I think the trouble with HRC and wonkish thinking in general is that they are predicated on relying on "facts and figures" (or, "logic and data" if you will) to show that they are right, not to evaluate where they might be wrong. This worldview is exactly the antithesis of "science": it starts from the belief that your original worldview is the "correct" view, assembling data and interpreting them in a particular manner to fit that worldview, and dismissing data to the contrary as "irrational" dead-enders. "Science," on the other hand, starts with the premise that "theories" are right only as long as the data is consistent with it, and contrary data indicate the limits of the theory, beyond which you should start taking the theory with increasingly larger grains of salt.

We have been describing the wonkish thinking as "Kool Aid" already here on SST. I suspect this is a phenomenon spread far broader than just foreign policy. I've been defending "social sciences" against what I consider somewhat unfair characterizations thereof, but one widespread problem that I have to acknowledge is that a great deal of social science is indeed wonkism, rather than "science": many take their "theories" too seriously and are too dismissive of the contrary data. While many are very "smart," they are blinded by their preconceptions and are too narrow in their worldviews, a process furthered by their isolation from those who think differently from them, who have had different experiences. Policy wonks, liberals more often than conservatives but not always, of course, love social science theories and build their policy proposals around them, and exhibit the same attitude--worship the theory, love the data as long as they fit the theories, and treat data with contempt if they don't. And this is the world that the likes of HRC inhabit.

My inclination is that this trend should be best combatted with better "science," rather than dismissing "science." "Facts and figures," carefully examined, show plenty of holes in the wonkish thinking. We who dissent need to be better at it, instead of conceding that the phoneys the claim to "science."

LeaNder

how can we be surprised, considering the election will be rigged anyway?

David Lentini

Wasn't that Fabianism?

Stephanie

We made it, but we still haven't recovered. It will take some time before the detritus is fully cleared away. Eight years wasn't nearly enough. At least Trump got rid of the Bushes - for now.

The Beaver

For those who want to track during the day:
http://www.slate.com/votecastr_election_day_turnout_tracker.html

David Lentini

The "Deep State" is about ideology; these people are intellectual legends in their minds only. Their power derives from greed and corruption, from enlisting the financial support of those who want to own the world but not run it; it has nothing to do with rationality.

Contrary to the Colonel, I'm still hoping Trump will pull this out to an extent that it can't be stolen. I base my hope on the alternative reporting, as the MSM is completely in the Clinton camp. Granted that may be a thin reed, but I don't see how anyone can take the "official" polling seriously. And if Trump wins, that's only a chance to start to break the stranglehold of the oligarchs; it would only be the earliest beginning of the end, and will likely be very tense times. But Hillary will be a cataclysm.

Dave Schuler

"They will want her blood and she would be lucky in that circumstance to reach the end of her term."

If the Republicans retain control of both House and Senate she'll be lucky to reach the beginning of her term.

ked

Got it. If the wonky kool-aid thinkers don't get with the program (that which Bernie represented pretty well) it will merely speed the demise of the Dem party as constituted. So... no downside (other than the pain of making & surviving the shift... nothing worthwhile comes without at least some pain).
I think part of the antidote to our current challenge is to reduce focus upon personality & celebrity in leadership, drop/kick ideology from our debates, and get into pragmatic solutions (uniquely American, like the blues). Kinda like we'll have to anyway, when we reach the shape we're headed.

Dubhaltach

In reply to ked 08 November 2016 at 09:33 AM

"Hilliary is rational and smart."

She is rational in pursuit of her goals many of which are neither rational nor smart.

"She will not excercise warfare as the main FP & Nat Sec policy tool"

Given her record as an active and enthusiastic warmonger I can give that statement no credence whatsoever.


robt willmann

It seems that as of today, WikiLeaks has released 58,375 e-mails from Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta. From what I can tell, not one e-mail is in there from Hillary to Podesta or vice versa using the private e-mail address she had while secretary of state, hdr22@clintonemail.com. Using an e-mail address she used (probably among others) after she left the sec. of state's office, hrod17@clintonemail.com, there are only 138 e-mails in the Podesta bunch of 58,375 that involve that e-mail address.

Was Podesta not communicating with her by e-mail when she was secretary of state? Did he switch e-mail accounts and/or user names after she left the state dept. on 1 February 2013?

Old Microbiologist

I don't know. The markets are a somewhat valid predictor and it is all over the place. Peso daon then up and I suspect it will go this way all day and rise/fall with each revolution of voter trends by our "oh so honest" news. Personally, we went 100% cash yesterday in case Trump wins taking some hits doing so but after 2008 I have learned caution.

I would prefer Trump to her and I had thought all along she had a lock on either by hook or by cook. But, the hackers seems to be working on both sides so maybe the cheating will average out. This is clearly the nuttiest election for a very long time. For Americans like us who live overseas and all our pensions are from the US government, she is clearly the better choice as she will keep the dollar high through applied force to our allies. She will also keep the printing presses running to keep the sick, lame, and lazy fed. The military will have a definite increased OPTEMPO and possibly fighting on three continents, and possibly 4.

Personally, I am hoping Trum wins just so I can determine if the Clintons and Obamas cut and run to Qatar. I think flight to the Middle East will be full for weeks if he wins. Alternatively, anyone critical of Clinton will be on a hit list should she win.

 jld

Nah! Don't be so pessimistic ( :-D )
https://twitter.com/spiderbeam/status/794897911524036609/photo/1

Jay

I voted Trump. However my crystal ball says, Clinton , Senate 50/50 House Dems up by 8. I hope I am dead wrong..

Ken Macaulay

What is smart & rational for Hillary Clinton?
My take of a few of the most basic level smart & rational choices for her:

To continue to increase the massive information gathering networks on every citizen & to aggressively pursue potential leakers, investigators, & dissidents with all the powers at her command. Hillary has an enormous number of skeletons in the closet and has alienated atleast half the country, stating quite openly that she doesn't regard them as human.

To continue to intensify the politicization of all investigatory & legal bodies - she needs to avoid impeachment & criminal prosecution.

To continue to intensify the support of wall street & the bankers at the expense of all else. While they ended up supporting Obama over her in her last attempt, this time they are firmly in her corner and wield the most weight over how power is organised in the US (as in much of the rest of the world, but that is unlikely to matter to Hillary).

To continue to increase aggressive military action. Her aggressive military rhetoric & support for the most extreme positions have made her the star among the billionaire think tanks that run so much of US policy these days.

There are no consequences to these actions in her world - as consequences for the elite these days only happen to those who lose the power struggle against other elite factions. She must ensure this does not happen at all costs.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

July 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad