Who is measuring this support? The same people who called the election for Hillary 99%. I think a dose of skepticism is warranted after such a monumental failure to measure the temperature of the nation.
> Who is measuring this support? The same people who called the election for Hillary 99%
Wrong. You are confusing pollsters with an exaggeration of a subset of the set of analysts working with data from those pollsters (and the subset in question is whose approach was criticized by the most well-regarded in the broader set for the exact thing that led to overstating Clinton's likelihood of victory.)
This error though reflects exactly a frequent propaganda line from the Trump camp, and when it gets echoed here and in other forums its often corrected the, so at this point I have begun to doubt whether is ever an honest error rather than deliberate injection of "alternative facts" into the discussion as a distraction.
Sorry I dont really understand what you are saying, are you saying Trump calling the pre-election polls incredibly biased , which turned out to be true, propaganda?
It is also important to point out the overall vote is not important and never has been. It is a way for losers to complain be it republican or democrat, however when you get down to it is symbolic at best.
Mao may not think popular opinion matters, and maybe he could ignore it in his dictatorship, but it's wrong in the U.S. The President leads a democratic political system, the heart of which is the will of the voters. Those in government need to keep the voters happy or they will lose their jobs; that's the way it was designed and the way it works.
It shows the cynicism of the GOP that they would adopt a talking point from Putin, endorse something so undemocratic, and pretend to suddenly forget the unprecedented resistance the engaged in when Obama was President.
Also, my point was relevant to the comment I was responding to.
I think it is disingenuous to say popular vote matters in a country where voting is voluntary, to extrapolate the popular vote over the rest of the non voting population isnt fair. At best he lost the popular vote of the people who bothered to vote.
> extrapolate the popular vote over the rest of the non voting population isnt fair
I don't know what you mean by "fair", but the non-voting population has much less influence over politics than the ones who vote. Regardless, we have surveys showing the opinions of non-voters and Trump, at least a couple weeks ago, was at record levels of unpopularity among Presidents-elect.
But I don't see how it's relevant to the point, which is that elected officials are compelled to and do respect the opinions of voters.
>Regardless, we have surveys showing the opinions of non-voters and Trump, at least a couple weeks ago, was at record levels of unpopularity among Presidents-elect.
They should have voted then. They didn't vote, and when the guy they don't like get voted into office, they get all angry. Well, they should have voted.
>...elected officials are compelled to and do respect the opinions of voters.
Trump does. He's going to implement his policies, since the voters have voted him to do so.
They did. First, Trump was behind the leading better by an historic margin for a candidate that won the electoral vote. And, second, Trump's popularity has fallen since the election.
In any case, your implict idea that public-to-elected-official interaction is limited to elections is contrary to the founding principles of this country.
> Trump does. He's going to implement his policies, since the voters have voted him to do so.
All voters have influence, not just the ones who voted for you and not just for one Tuesday every four years. He's the President of all Americans, not just Trump supporters.
Honestly I am going to say its the end not the beginning, in four years, Trump will run again and maybe we will see another tantrum protest but at least for the next four years do not expect any great resistance or movement, the time for that is over.
That's a talking point of Trump supporters, but a moment's thought shows that it's not remotely true. It seems to assume that people only participate in democracy by voting and then politicians rule on their own recognizance during their terms, almost as if voters were electing kings/queens.
In a democracy, politicians are responsive to voters' desires 365 days/year; you can call them, write them, meet with them, protest them, and if you pay any attention to democratic politics, you know it has a serious effect (along with passively collected information such as survey results).
Second, protesting government is a major part of democracy. The March on Washington led by Martin Luther King had nothing to do with an election. The U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights protects it, saying "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I don't remember the Republicans having the same attitude at all about Obama; they resisted all the time in every way possible, setting records in Congress for obstructionism, buying guns, etc. Vladimir Putin seemed to start this talking point; perhaps it's true for him, but he knows little about democratic government.
I think this time, there's enough of a threat to general persons' livelihoods (repeal of ACA, threat of international embarrassment or incident, etc) that we will start to see organized resistance. But only time will tell...
A normal presidency would see these protests and exercise caution. This is not a normal presidency, so I feel as though we're going to see a continuous escalation in response.
> but at least for the next four years do not expect any great resistance or movement, the time for that is over.
Its certainly difficult to mobilize a mass political movement in the US without an imminent election and outside of the immediate aftermath of one, but the great and influential movements all were movements that managed to do that.
The time for a movement is not over. Whether it will hold together or not is, certainly, a thing about which there can be legitimate differences of opinion, but the signs I see suggest that there is something there.
I don't think it's the end. People were inspired yesterday, the crowds realized they have the numbers and the passion to fight back. People were taking action, finding their local organizations, learning how to inform their representatives, and even planning the next protests already.
We're going to see more and more of this.
We will also see more "Alternative Facts" and PR campaigns from the White House, closely following Dugin's handbook (dismiss, distract, distort, and dismay).
Time is the enemy of this movement, if Trump manages to bring any sort of economic change to the poorest parts of the country, this "movement" doesnt stand a chance.
That is a big, big if. Especially considering everything he's proposed is antiquated, disproven economics when it comes to having direct economic benefits for poor communities.
Unfortunately, in a lot of states in the US, there is a huge gap in minimum wages. $7.25 per hour for normal jobs, yet it is only $2.13 for tipped workers. For the lower end, this usually means that their paycheck goes mostly to taxes and their entire living money comes from tips.
Legally, the employer is supposed to ensure that the wages plus tips equal out to the $7.25 per hour. Legally, they are paying minimum wage. We need the laws changed to fix this issue, but the government doesn't seem primed to make these sorts of changes.
As far as why some jobs attract a tip and others don't, I think it has to do with a combination of custom and what sort of work one does: On top of this, some service sector employers prohibit employees from taking gifts or tips from customers (retail, for example, generally prohibits this and you can get fired for accepting). This obviously has an impact on the norms.
Presumably it A) benefits the worker, since they make extra if they provide good service, B) benefits the employer, because the worker is motivated to provide good service, and C) the service level is highly visible to the customer, who they interact closely with.
I tip my hair cutter, but not my car mechanic, mostly due to C, I guess.
> Presumably it A) benefits the worker, since they make extra if they provide good service, B) benefits the employer, because the worker is motivated to provide good service, and C) the service level is highly visible to the customer, who they interact closely with.
I tip my hair cutter, but not my car mechanic, mostly due to C, I guess.
Interesting you should mention. I've seen evidence where this was tested in a local consumer right program. Someone would disconnect their spark plug, and then act as if they're an innocent driver who's car is broken. Or a piece of rubber of < 5 EUR was removed. Some car technicians were honest (mostly those who were part of trade organisation BOVAG), don't get me wrong. But some also deceived/lied about the problem, and made the customer pay insane prices to fix a simple problem. They also tested if technicians would fix an additional, obvious problem. One even fixed the problem, but made something else worse. In short, I'm not going to assume anymore that car technicians are honestly going to fix all the problems my car has.
If they earn less than minimum wage, the restaurant has to actually compensate them up to the minimum wage. They only earn a lower nominal wage because it's expected they get more from tips.
In some states. Washington and a lot of the west coast states require all wages to be paid the same minimum. Not sure why the other states aren't pressured into doing the same.
