2016 United States Election

[Lalaith]

I think the accusations against Bill Clinton came out after he was elected, but I could be wrong. (Certainly, though, it would have been known before his second term?)

And I doubt very much that Trump will step down. I think he is too arrogant and narcissistic to do that, honestly.

[Primula Baggins]

The affair with Lewinsky was in 1997, after his second term began. The whole investigation was in 1998, including the vote to impeach The trial began January 8, 1999, and ended in acquittal on February 12th. On the charge of perjury, the vote was 55 to acquit, 44 to convict (67 votes would have been required for conviction). The charge of obstruction of justice was defeated by a 50–50 vote.

So it never affected a presidential election, except that Al Gore didn't allow Clinton to campaign for him. Clinton was enormously popular at that point (seriously, yes—he was; I was there), so it's just possible the 2000 election would not have been close enough to steal (?) if Gore had used him. :|

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachme ... ll_Clinton

And no, Trump is not going to step down. He's going to do Samson in the temple.

[Túrin Turambar]

Its bloody mind blowing! I cannot honestly believe that many men would vote for an ignorant boor! Is that all men? Or just white males?

I suspect that, for a lot of people, voting for Trump represents a chance (maybe their only chance) to strike a blow at the system that they hate. The fact that he is boorish, and therefore considered unacceptable by the political elite and educated middle classes, could possibly count in his favour.

[Frelga]

So after 538's maps were published, # repealthe19th started trending on Twitter.

As one person pointed out, the only surprise is that Trump supporters know there were more than two amendments.

To be fair, many pro-Trump tweeps complained that the hashtag was a fake designed to make them look bad. I'm not sure how to break it to them...

[Alatar]

This should be endorsed by Hilary!

[Túrin Turambar]

Seeing as we're onto satire, from Huw Parkinson, the same video editor who created the Trump/Game of Thrones mashup:

[Dave_LF]

Cracked wisdom (with cracked language, of course):
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-t ... lks-about/

(the other article of his that he links to in the final paragraph is really good too, but on another topic)

[yovargas]

Wow. Just wow. That article was easily one of the best ones I've read about this campaign. Possibly any campaign in my adult life. Lots I hadn't given much thought to there. Lots to chew on. Good stuff.

[Inanna]

I said I believed the majority of men think and talk amongst themselves about women in the vulgar, sexist way that Trump did. I did not say that I think the majority of men have sexually assaulted women, or were sexual predators. The two things are not the same.

You are correct, Cerin, and I apologize for my confusion.

[Inanna]

Wow. Just wow. That article was easily one of the best ones I've read about this campaign. Possibly any campaign in my adult life. Lots I hadn't given much thought to there. Lots to chew on. Good stuff.

Yes. Thanks, Dave.

I could relate a lot of it too things I see in India - the middle-class India, which I belong(ed) to. I need to type up all those parallels, and try and get to an understanding. Of the Trumps. And my people.

[Primula Baggins]

I third everyone. Thanks, Dave. Very good article. I hope I can go back and read some of his other stuff when there's time.

[Lalaith]

That is really an excellent article and articulates a lot of the experiences I have had personally.

[yovargas]

I find it worth noting, though, that the article ultimately doesn't say that this type of Trump supporting believes that Trump will really make their lives better. It's explaining the anger and fear that's led to a destructive impulse, but it's still a destructive impulse. City-dwelling elitists like myself could likely do a much better job of understanding and empathizing with that anger and fear but still, I'll keep resolutely believing that the kind of "destroy the system" mentality that it's led to will not make their lives any better. At least not without any sort of cogent idea of something good to create in its place.

[axordil]

The Cracked article is accurate in a sort of blinkered way, but doesn't go into the larger historical context. The country way of life Wong describes is based on an agrarian model of society that has been in decline since the late 1800s (and beyond that, on land stolen from the people living on it, and south of the Ohio, slavery, but we'll push those aside for now). It used to take a huge number of people to farm and to provide local material support to the farmers. Compare: in premodern Europe it took about 20 farmers to cultivate and care for a square mile of land, and the crops produced would feed perhaps 100 people. Currently that same square mile can feed almost 4000 people and on the big farms, takes less than one person to cultivate.

That's an 800 fold difference in productivity per person. There are only ten times as many people now as in 1600. That means we need about 1/80 the number of farmers as we did in pre-industrial times... and that proportion is still dropping. Extraction industries such as mining and foresting have seen similar trends.

However--the proportion of rural population has not dropped by 97%.

The bottom line is that our civilization does not need as many people living in the country as actually live there, but cultural imperatives have yet to catch up with that reality. And if you want to see bitterness, look at farm families where someone gets a professional degree and moves to town: full-blown crab pot mode kicks in. The family genealogy put together by one of Mrs. Ax's cousins refers to her grandfather who left the family farm as "eccentric." That would be the grandfather who became an ophthalmologist and kept the farm afloat by buying some non-arable land from his father to build a weekend cabin on. "Eccentric."

[axordil]

And BTW, Dave_LF's suggestion to look at that other Cracked article? Do it. The two together make a very different impression than either separate.

[Dave_LF]

ax, I think you're right about all that, but I don't think exploring the larger historical context was what Wong was after--he just wanted to explain why he thinks people stuck in that situation, however it came to be, feel and vote the way they do. But putting both together sounds like a great idea for someone's doctoral thesis!

ETA: And yes, reading the second article immediately after the first was an interesting experience.

[Cerin]

The affair with Lewinsky was in 1997, after his second term began.

Thanks for that review, Prim, but I wasn't thinking of Lewinsky (nor Paula Jones). I've googled Clinton sex scandals, and several articles list four women who accused Clinton of assaulting them in the years previous to the Presidential campaign, but I haven't been able to find anything that tells when the accusations were made public. Since the accusations are similar to the ones being made about Trump, I'm interested in whether they were made in the course of the Presidential campaign, how the Clinton campaign dealt with them, and any insights into why they didn't derail his campaign (if they were public knowledge at the time).

[Frelga]

What they said. That long post I was going to write just got a lot shorter.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The only accusation of impropriety that had made against Bill Clinton during his first campaign for president was that he had had a consensual affair with Gennifer Flowers. Paula Jones sued him for sexual harassment in 1994, but I don't recall it being a major issue in the 1996 campaign. The other women who have accused him of sexual assault all made those accusations public after his second campaign for president was over (all of them came out in the course of Jones' suit).

[Cerin]

Thanks, Voronwë!