You changed the subject and didn't acknowledge doing so. This colloquy started with your assertion that someone in a blue state voting for a third party contributed to Hillary's loss. That is absolutely not correct.
And liberal social theory just happens to be actually where the American public are.
When I first started having these SI discussions twenty years ago, something I quickly noticed was how often the debate came down to two parties with different world views claiming that theirs was, if not universal, not dominant. There has been a lot of discussion since then about how we live in cultural bubbles and, because everyone around us thinks a certain way, that everyone else must, too. But they don't. And if you push them too far, too fast, they push back. Back to that first rule of holes. Ya gotta quit thinking that you have more support than you do. Otherwise you overreach. IMO, overreach by folks who think that the American public is with you was a big factor in Hillary's loss. Wanting clean water, which I agree is a preference of the majority of voters, is not the same as wanting EPA to regulate the puddle near the BBQ grill in your back yard.
This election was a tribal election. It was simply the conservatives wanting to get back at the liberals. Trump was wooing them as his champion to beat up the liberals to put it quite plainly. That's why they say we won. They saw it like a competition or a football game.
That is not an abnormal reaction to overreach. Not saying that it was pretty, only that the overreachers forced the issue.
I will give you an example. I was stunned when Hillary went after the Hyde Amendment. That was a compromise that was holding a fragile semi-peace together. Going after it was a declaration of war. It was viewed as just as outrageous as pussy-grabbing. Regardless of the merits of the argument, you don't declare war without consequences.
|
