Trumping the elites

by Judith Curry

A key message of this election is that the power of elites to persuade us has evaporated.

Two days ago, the Washington Examiner had a provocative article Death of Elitism:

The public no longer has faith in big banks or big companies or big government. And the governing class has failed us miserably. . . And voters are sick and tired of the elite. Why? Because the social contract has been broken.

In politics, people often joke that the “golden rule” means that “the one with the gold rules.” But this idea has infected our whole society. The new rule is that there are no rules, at least not if you are powerful.

The elites can only run things with the American people’s permission. Trump is the people’s way of withdrawing their permission. Wolfe’s novel was titled “the Bonfire of the Vanities.” The Vanities or sins of the elite in the early 21st Century is to think that they are ultimately in control.

I think this general theme captures what happened in the U.S. election.  With regards to the anti-elite sentiment, we are not just talking about the so-called ‘deplorables’, but also Bernie Sanders voters, many of whom seem to have voted for Trump particularly in Wisconsin and Michigan.

In the coming weeks, we will have a better understanding of why people voted for Trump:

  1. they liked Trump
  2. they hated Hillary Clinton
  3. they are voting against the Washington elites

Elements of all of the above, but I suspect that #3 was a big one.

The new normal

Apart from the obvious political/policy implications of the election, there are massive social implications:

•  a triumph for U.S. democracy, in spite of those that have tried to break it (this is a really provocative article from The Age)

•  a triumph for social media versus the mainstream media.  Remember all of those big endorsements for Clinton from the major newspapers?  People want a lot of information, they want to decide what is important and believable, and the want to make up their own minds. Social media enables this.

•  a massive ‘egg on face’ moment for nearly all of the pollsters who predicted a Clinton win.  Clearly, the polling methodologies need rethinking in this age of the internet.

•  President Obama, who remains personally very popular, was not able to persuade voters to support Clinton.  Coat tails don’t seem to matter very much.

•  a realization that Presidents don’t need to come from the political class; this changes the mindset so that people from diverse backgrounds (outside politics) will consider running.

• a realization that a successful Presidential run does not need to cost $Billions, and that traditional data and get out the vote operations aren’t necessarily effective.

•  a triumph for broader U.S. culture; the Hollywood and rock star icons who came out en masse for Clinton apparently didn’t sway many voters

•  an opportunity for a more rational energy and climate policy (I will be writing more about this in the coming weeks)

•  impetus for the objectives and values of heterodox academy.org, challenging the overwhelming Democratic orientation of university faculty members

The Trump Administration

From the Death of Elitism article:

Of course, bonfires are dangerous. They can easily burn out of control.

Well, the challenge for the Trump administration is to keep the bonfire under control.  For those that are uneasy about Trump’s proposed policies, again I encourage you to read the Position Statements on his website.  These are for the most part quite middle-of-the-road.

A new President has the opportunity to make thousands of high level appointments.  There are many Democrats hanging out in think tanks that were waiting for a call from the Clinton administration (not to mention people in the Obama administration).

Apparently Trump’s transition team has been quite active, but there have only been a few clues as to who he would appoint (p.s. I have not been contacted by the Trump administration).  It will certainly be interesting to watch this play out.

The pundits haven’t gotten too much analysis out there yet; here is the current lead from Huffington Post:

MOURNING IN AMERICA

NIGHTMARE: Prez Trump . . . America Elected a Man Who Said “Grab Them By The Pu**y: Over The First Female President

Democrats need to get over it and figure out a productive way to respond and move forward.

JC message to President Trump:  Congratulations!  Take a deep breath and put on your suit of armor.  I hope that you can make this work for all Americans.

 

 

 

 

1,500 responses to “Trumping the elites

  1. Judith–

    You have my vote for Trump’s Science Advisor

  2. I hope you may have the opportunity to play an important role in climate/energy policy. Maybe we will finally see some balanced and truly science based policies.

    • +1
      But there are disturbing signs in this item in Donald Trump’s energy policy:
      “Encourage the use of natural gas and other American energy resources that will both reduce emissions but also reduce the price of energy and increase our economic output.”
      Even here there is the mandatory reference to “reducing emissions”. How is this possible from someone who understands that mainstream climate science is junk. And note the subservience to green manipulation of language, where “emissions” means only emissions of CO2. It’s going to be a long hard haul back from the brink.
      PS. Fortunately, actual policy is more important than grammar. :)

      • Yes Mike. That’s all the more reason he needs good climate/energy advice from experts like Judith.

      • David Springer

        “reduce emissions”

        Someone who governs from the middle fighting for all Americans would be compelled to include that as a concern. Left unsaid is which gets priority a) reducing emissions or b) economic growth. I believe Trump is going to promote clean coal bigly. This makes sense given the YUGE coal reserves in the US. The war on coal is over. Long live anthracite!

  3. +1000 Well said Dr. Curry

  4. A great year. Brexit now this. Maybe the times they ARE a-changing…

    • Maybe the times they ARE a-changing…

      So come all you scientists and follow your own rules
      Keep your eyes on the data and check out your tools
      Your orgs and your models are making you fools
      When they tell you the earth will be burnin’
      For that which is warm will be later to cool
      For the Wurm it is a turnin’

  5. Perfect! The electorate is tired of the incessant lectures on how they should think and if they don’t they are (fill in the blank) deplorables.

  6. I’m sure a good number of the suburban women who greatly helped Trump have college degrees.

    Also, many are married and have an intimate understanding of the masculine gender. They know men can be a bit crude at times. They also that getting grabbed by a certain part of the female anatomy isn’t necessarily a bad thing ;)

  7. …a massive ‘egg on face’ moment for nearly all of the pollsters who predicted a Clinton win. Clearly, the polling methodologies need rethinking in this age of the internet.

    Nonsense. Throughout these election cycles (to which we manifestly include the U.K. “Brexit” vote), the “polling methodologies” had been devised to spin propaganda. Their operations had not been focused on diagnostic accuracy – objective information – rather than blatant “messaging.”

    • Unlikely they were trying to spin intentionally. But in their hearts they favored Hildog and could not help themselves by setting up the questions to her favor. Trump was so reviled by the media many voters were not comfortable expressing support for him. Hence they might not answer frankly to pollsters.

    • That’s my understanding…the polls were ‘rigged’ in the sense that they seemed to consistently oversample Democrats but not publish what the +number was. But that lulled the Left into a stupor, which wasn’t a bad thing. The Left needs a reformation of their ugly ideology, based as it is on authoritarian collectivism. It is no more compatible with Western Civilization and values than is Islam. Marx was a 3rd rate hack and he needs to be buried but he will arise over and over until we deal with the underlying infantile impulses that give cover to his simplistic and wrong-headed interpretations.

      • “Marx was a 3rd rate hack and he needs to be buried but he will arise over and over until we deal with the underlying infantile impulses that give cover to his simplistic and wrong-headed interpretations.”

        I have long suspected the left clings to Marx so consistently not because they think his ideology is workable but because it can so easily appeal to ignorant masses who love to be told they will be taken care of. When in a situation where the able are expected to work and the needy are expected to profit from that work then ability becomes a liability and incompetence an asset. Apparently it never occurred to the left they were counting the incompetent as assets.

      • + a whole bunch! But I do think there is a third group between the ‘left’ (i.e., left elite) and the ignorant masses. That is the ‘true believers’, the mostly kids under thirty that have been indoctrinated throughout their many years of education/brainwashing.

      • Joe Crawford: “That is the ‘true believers’, the mostly kids under thirty that have been indoctrinated throughout their many years of education/brainwashing.”

        And, just like their corresponding cohort at this side of the Pond, the majority of them hadn’t even bothered to vote…

  8. You have my vote, Judith. The US needs someone who knows their climate science.

    • You have my vote, Judith. The US needs someone who will provide the president and the American people with an honest assessment of current science and engineering limits. knows their climate science.
      my $0.02.

  9. Trump’s upset victory proves that enough voters learned again what all of our parents knew so well: politicians are not trustworthy.

  10. Trumping the wealthy elites …

    Clinton Defeated Despite Outspending Trump
    According to the FEC filings, Clinton’s campaign committee has spent $450 million this campaign, almost twice as much as the $239 million Donald Trump’s campaign committee spent. After including the amount raised by super PACs and other party and jointfundraising [sic] committees, the divide in spending gets even wider. The Washington Post estimates that more than $1 billion had been raised to support Clinton, versus $795 million to support Trump. Funds raised by Clinton-backers in outside groups totaled $189 million, while Trump PACs and super PACs raised only $59 million.

    http://www.investopedia.com/news/clinton-defeated-despite-outspending-trump/

    • Yes, but this does NOT mean money doesn’t matter. But after a certain point one reaches the law of diminishing returns. How many times does one need to see those awful TV ads to get the message? And Trump was a unique case due to his TV notoriety.

      • It might mean the message is more important than the money. Trump connected to what mattered to people while Clinton reused every tired bromide and platitude in the Progressive Puke inventory. Disconnected to the nth degree. “We’re going to kill jobs in coal country!” And then, “We’re going to invest in you for new brighter jobs in green energy.” Dangle the shiny object and they can’t resist. Maybe if her opponent had been just another political shill that would have worked. Clinton could never figure out how to counter Trump. It could not have been lost on her or her campaign that there was a huge enthusiasm gap. What a euphemism to bury the reality of one candidate resonating with what the people cared about, what was important to them, while the other candidate resonated with her own lust for power. ‘You may ask why I’m not 50 points ahead.’ After all, I deserve the Presidency and if you all weren’t so deplorable and unredeemable, you’d know that and I wouldn’t have to do anything but be coronated. It takes a lot of money to overcome that. More than she had and I’d like to think more than she could have had. People aren’t as stupid as the coastal elites think they are.

    • The rich and famous invested a fortune in Clinton, but the Schadenfreude is priceless.

  11. While I rejoice when the arrogant are slapped in the face, I don’t think either Trump or Brexit should be primarily seen that way. These seem votes for the bad old times, when white men were in charge and could do to non-whites and women as they liked.

    While Brexit is falling apart and may go into the history books as a silly episode, history may not look kindly on President Trump.

    • That judgement is a bit premature, don’t you think? Wait … are you a pollster by any chance???

    • You’re responding to the caricature created in the media.

      • James Carville was right during the Bill Clinton campaign of 1992: “It’s the economy, stupid.” It’s always about the economy; Richard Tol race based explanation isn’t valid. No amount of smoke up skirts can hide the fact of record low workforce participation, anemic growth, the shrinking of the middle class, etc.

    • What is you expect Trump to do to non-whites and women that might cause history to look unkindly on him, Prof. Tol? I will help you. Go to the huffingtonpost and do some copy/pasting.

      • Richard Tol has some of it right. It’s always cause for rejoicing when the oh so crooked, oh so arrogant elites get theirs. But likely a lifetime of exposure to liberal ideas has skewed his ability to see the world for what it is..

        The truth is racism is not very much of a problem anymore in this country, certainly not in an institutional sense, except that Obama and Hillary et al keep fanning the flames in order to keep the votes coming. Obamas attack on the police in this country has been nothing less than disgraceful. Unbelievably incendiary for a man who got elected on the basis of his promise to be a uniter.

        I admit I didn’t think it possible for Trump to win. For the first time in many years I feel I can breathe again.

        pokerguy

      • Welcome back Don. I figured you’d be back after the election.

        I guess you had it right. I still don’t like the man, but am ever so thankful to have to deal with that problem rather than more of the BS we’ve had for the past 8 years.

      • The racist rants are tiring, Trump has worked to help blacks in the inner city for over 30 years; here’s some of his ideas back then:
        https://youtu.be/gXZ-ydyUAXY

    • #1 rule of history, the victor gets to write it. Even if it’s on clay tablets.

    • Richard, have you read this piece?

      “In an article in The European Economic Review, German economists look at the effect of financial crises on politics, reviewing 800 elections over 140 years across 20 advanced economies. They found that, after a financial crisis, nationalistic, populist parties and politicians, using language that often attributes blame to minorities and foreigners, typically increase their vote share by about 30 percent. There is no such effect after ordinary recessions.”

    • “when white men were in charge and could do to non-whites and women as they liked”

      The days of Marxism and identity politics are numbered.
      The west is returning to its roots and rejecting these ideologies.

      But this will be the most important war that continues after this election.
      The financial war has more obvious implications, but if the people do not raise their intellects out of the Marxist gutter they will fall again to the blindness and the elites will return.

    • Richard
      Hold of on the theorotical conclusions till we have some observerble actions to evaluate. Like with climate projections, stick to factual observations first.
      Scott

    • Richard
      That sort of attitude is exactly what we voted against in the UK:. How arrogant you sound
      Tere is an elite both in Europe and the UK who live in a bubble and think they know best and that they can behave how they want Well you do not know best.

      It was not a silly episode that you can bat away but the largest democratic mandate ever handed to a uk govt by a people who wanted to take back control from an elite that always think they know best and do not listen to those outside their bubble

      your vote is not better than mine. Brexit will happen no matter how much you might like to pretend it never happened Step aside and let Democracy take its course.

      Perhaps the EU will split apart before Britain has completed its withdrawal in which case I am sure we will be pleased to remain part of a democratically accountable and cooperative free trade area

      The American people obviously felt the same. Good luck to them.
      Tonyb

      • “your vote is not better than mine. Brexit will happen no matter how much you might like to pretend it never happened Step aside and let Democracy take its course.”

        This is nicely put. Progressives nearly always have absolute certainty that they’re right on any given issue….plus morally and intellectually superior in the bargain.

        Progressive are also arrogant enough to believe they’re on the “right side of history.” They thus make the mistake of thinking that history is somehow self-guided and purposeful. The other mistake is presuming to know what that purpose is. The end result is a kind of blind arrogance that makes them virtually unreachable.

        pokerguy

      • And good luck to you guys. If Parliament doesn’t cooperate – get toss out the rotten bits and be on your way.

    • RichardTol: . These seem votes for the bad old times, when white men were in charge and could do to non-whites and women as they liked.

      If we are going to mention race, we should mention that (a) Clinton had less support among Democrats this year than Obama had in 2008 and 2012; and (b) this difference in support was especially strong among African-American voters, who voted in reduced numbers this year and showed a less-pronounced Democratic preference (right now, I think that is especially true in the states that “flipped” from 2012 to 2016.

      It could be Black on White racism at work favoring Obama in his two races, but I think that Clinton was not nearly as positive and likable a candidate as Obama.

      • ==> It could be Black on White racism at work favoring Obama in his two races ==>

        It wasn’t only Black Democrats who voted for Clinton in lower numbers than for Obama.

        And interestingly, it seems that Trump got about the same level of support among Latinos as Romney did.

    • It is too early to judge President Trump, but Candidate Trump would have us fondly remember the Great Depression and World War II.

      For Brexit, we have 14 weeks of observations. The brexiteers are losing control and they’re losing the argument.

      • The Brexiteers won the referendum, and only undemocrats like Richard wish to overturn the result.

      • @roger
        I would like to overturn Brexit but I do not need to because it will collapse onto itself.

      • I don’t think you know the British psyche as well as you think you do.

      • Curious George

        The Brussels is such a nice place, filled with nice people. They will abandon the English language even before the UK triggers Article 50. Anything to be helpful…

      • “I do not need to because it will collapse onto itself.”

        Bollocks.

      • I don’t understand how so many Europeans think it’s a good idea to hand over vital policy decisions to a bunch of out of touch, boneheaded bureaucrats…Can someone explain to me how that can be a good thing?

        Here in the U.S we have the right to throw the bums out every 4 years. My faith in Democracy has been restored.

        pg

      • Switzerland is doing quite well w/out that top down rule
        from afar by faceless bureaucrats. Britain once did the
        same and may do so again free of ever expanding
        regulation and of maintaining the draining costs of
        that high-cost- bureaucratic-hive in Belgium. Some
        info here on what the Euro has wrought.

        https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/07-08/machine-hell-euro-wrought/

      • In the European Union, hubris followed by nemesis …
        bail-outs galore.

        “In 2008 Joaquín Almunia, the EU Commissioner for
        Economic and Monetary Affairs, mocked the “Cassandras”
        who had doubted the euro: “The economic advantages
        of EMU are overwhelming for all its members.” All?

        Hubris was followed by nemesis and it debuted in a
        culturally appropriate place. In October 2009, Greece’s
        newly-elected Prime Minister, George Papandreou,
        confessed that his country’s budget deficit would be more
        than double the bad enough 6 per cent of GDP projected
        by his predecessors. The books had been cooked and
        now they were on fire. With markets battered by the
        financial crisis that had erupted in the USA, Papandreou’s
        admission (which itself was to prove optimistic: the deficit
        ended up at over 15 per cent) spooked jittery investors.
        They began to recognise just how badly Eurozone risk had
        been mispriced. Germany was not Greece. Reality was
        back. The emperor was discovered to have pawned his
        clothes. The Eurozone crisis was on.

        Investors were right to fret. Greece’s borrowing would have
        been bad enough under any circumstances, but monetary
        union made it even more threatening. With no currency to
        call its own, all Greece’s debt was “foreign”. Greece could
        not, it was assumed, print money to fill the gap, or turn to
        its Eurozone partners for help (no bailouts, remember).
        To borrow, it would have to pay more, much more. Investors,
        both foreign and domestic, could buy euro-denominated
        assets elsewhere, so why choose Greece, or for that matter,
        stay there to face what could be some very discordant
        music? There was an obvious danger that the money would
        flee Greece, to be replaced by what exactly? Adding to the
        nightmare, the spectre of a run on Greece’s vulnerable
        banks (filled with belatedly suspect “assets”) loomed.

        Greek interest rates surged. Ahead lay a clear risk of
        default and, possibly, exit from the Eurozone, triggering
        fears, so fashionable after the Lehman bankruptcy, of
        “contagion”. Investors rapidly realised that if Greece
        collapsed, there were plenty more dominoes to tumble,
        starting with Ireland, where real estate boom had already
        turned to bust, and a panicked Dublin government had
        guaranteed Ireland’s six main banks, a guarantee
        equivalent to nearly 250 per cent of GDP.

        There isn’t the space here to detail the rescue packages,
        financing vehicles and open-ended promises that have,
        so far (as I write, the Greek melodrama has heated up again),
        kept the Eurozone intact, but if there has been one guiding
        principle it was the one recounted by France’s finance
        minister, Christine Lagarde, in 2010: “We violated all the
        rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue
        the Eurozone.”

      • Thanks dear Beth. I love “The euro is a machine from hell we can’t turn off.”

        Being the naive, babe in the woods type 65 year old that I still am, I was amazed at the anger from the left…including in the U.S…. after the brexit vote. The contempt for the brits’ “stupidity” was stupefying (seem drawn to words starting in s-t-u-p today. To me it went a long way to exposing the progressive dream of a one world government made up of appointed bureaucrats. Democracy was nice enough it seems, but too messy and inefficient for those who know better than the rest of us.

        No wonder Trump won. The serfs are rising up Beth. It’s a good time to be alive…

        pg

      • Richard, my post in which I called you an A s s was removed. Too bad. I’ve read a lot of your tweets and that conclusion has been inexorable and here you are saying you would remain in the EU which justifies my thinking that you are a statist. Another way to spell statist is A S S. Is that harsh? Not nearly as harsh as wanting a people to remain in bondage to an unelected bureaucracy of Leftist/Marxist goons. There is the real nastiness but I live in a world that ignores political realities and hyperventilates over a word. That considers language manners more important than political realities. Treating people like objects of your vision to be moved about by coercion is the moral rot. There was above this notion that the elites think they know better. Yes, they do. But beyond that is the idea that ‘knowing’ gives you the right to decide for another. Even if you could prove you were right it doesn’t trump another human’s right to decide, for themselves, the direction of their own life. So knowing is irrelevant in this instance. The techno-elites would like to think their ‘knowledge’ gives them some special privilege in deciding these things. It doesn’t. It’s just an assumption that the mentally lazy don’t check.

      • Congratulations dear pokerguy on yer country takin’
        the bold leap in the dark. Better than remainin’ with
        the dark certainty of more pay fer play
        bts.

        https://mishgea.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/geographic-landslide1.png
        h/t G Combs @ the chiefio.
        Voting by county. Say many of these ‘racists’ voted fer Obama.

    • Richard, when Dr. Curry wrote this:

      “Democrats need to get over it and figure out a productive way to respond and move forward.”

      She was talking to you. You know what calling every white man a bigot, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. does? Or, and white women as well. It causes them to vote. And vote we did. For change. To hell with the arrogant prigs who want to tell us how to act and what to say. We had parents for that and for the most part we’re doing pretty well thanks to them. Society has a way of correcting boorish behaviors. We don’t need a bunch of nannies trying to legislate us to behave the way they think we should behave.

      The best thing to come out of this election so far, IMHO, is how clueless the Dems are about what just happened. Trying the same thing – basically name-calling – in four years isn’t going to work. But I’m glad y’all are still thinking that way.

      • The Dems, who are clueless, as you say, about what just happened are salivating over running Michelle Obama in 2020. Can you believe that? How dense can these people be? The jig is up. Even if Trump had lost he would have done Western Civilization a great service by breaking the back of the statists to hurl epithets like racist or sexist and have them have any power. They seem to think they just need a better face and all will be theirs. That’s really sad but totally understandable as the will spend the next year in denial before they come to grips with reality. Richard is still in the Progressive Bubble where Marxist stupidities have currency. Time heals all wounds, perhaps ideological tumors as well.

    • This from the white man who determines the (very high) social cost of carbon.

    • Richard –

      Mitt Romney was and is one of the most decent men ever to be involved in US politics. He never uttered an unkind word about any ethnic group or even about any individual. That did not stop VP Joe Biden from addressing a black crowd and saying that if they voted for Romney he would “put y’all back in chains”. Racial pandering is a Democratic tactic and Trump’s over-the-top rhetoric was a kind of “two can play that game” approach. It should not be taken seriously.

    • This whole “when white men were in charge” nonsense parroted so often by the main stream media and leftist academics is yet another nail in the coffin of elitism.

      Of course, elitists also obsess over how history will view their own age which is so richly ironic given their proclivity to denigrate history as being a “white guy thing”.

      Not just the nation, but the entire world is sharply divided and neither side understands the other side any longer. People retreat into their echo chambers so they may convince themselves of the correctness of their ideologies. They would rather demonize their opponents than engage and the last thing most people want to do anymore is to advance intellectualism. Instead they would rather make “old white guy slaveholder” remarks.

      • Don’t point out to the clowns how badly the racism meme has failed them. We want them to keep using it.

    • Richard, I think your off base here re. what happened last night in the US. While I am not a Trump fan, the waxing given to the Progressive Left was richly deserved and the possibilities for real change are exciting.

      On Brexit, I’ll leave it to Tonyb to debate.

    • “While Brexit is falling apart”

      It isn’t, not even close.

      It is the EU that is falling apart, as will become apparent when Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders – both of whom are dedicated to removing their nations from the EU – are elected next year – events that have become much more likely as a result of Trump’s victory.

    • Dr Tol, I take offense at that. I am neither uneducated, racist or misogynist. While some who voted Trump might fit one or more of those categories, the majority don’t. And when it comes down to it, it is far easier to shame and ignore the small minority who are, than it is to do the same to those who push a PC philosophy from a position of self assumed superiority.

      • Liberals brook no opinion other than their own.

      • > And when it comes down to it, it is far easier to shame and ignore the small minority who are [uneducated, racist, or mysogynist], than it is to do the same to those who push a PC philosophy from a position of self assumed superiority.

        Yet all you need to shame and ignore Richie’s point is an acronym like “PC” and a moralistic meme like “self assumed superiority.”

      • @timg56

        While some who voted Trump might fit one or more of those categories, the majority don’t.

        Sadly, the same cannot be said for the other side. Most are at least one or more of those, and only a few are not any.

      • Who is Richie, numbnuts?

        And you should know that intelligent folk don’t pay attention to you it takes a village types. Unless we see you hanging around the school playground.

      • Richie’s the guy to whom you responded, TimG.

        An educated Denizen such as yourself should be able to recognize that asserting not being racist or mysogynist doesn’t counter Richie’s point about the “votes for the bad old times” and the fact that the American people just elected someone who led an openly racist and sexist campaign.

      • Well Willard, I won’t presume to call Dr Toll by some diminutive form of his name unless I know that’s how people regularly addressed him. And my comment does counter his statement. Dr Toll apparently took at face value many of the articles and posts painting Trump as sexist and racist. It was a straw man they created (granted with Trump supply some of the straw) so they could then attack it. By Dr Toll’s reasoning, almost half of the voters in the US are racist and sexist. And apparently uneducated. Which must explain the statistic I heard on CNN while watching coverage in Korea that said the spread between women with college degrees between Trump and Clinton was 6%. That figure, along with my comment, are simply datum points that undermine Dr Toll’s statement.

        BTW – anyone remember how the media and the Clinton campaign played up the storyline of Trump refusing to acknowledge he’d concede the election if it went against him? What was it? That he was threatening the possibility of riots and violence. Guess all those people rioting in Oregon and Chicago are closet Trump supporters.

      • > By Dr Toll’s reasoning, almost half of the voters in the US are racist and sexist.

        That’s not Richie’s reasoning, TimG.

        Richie’s reasoning is that almost half of the voters in the US voted for a candidate who had a “good bad days” campaign against non-whites and non-men.

        That’s why he said “I am puzzled that they at the same time admit to having voted for someone who is openly racist and sexist.”

        If you want to get honorific on Richie, try “Dr. Tol.”

    • I am glad that so many people protest at being called a racist and a sexist.

      I am puzzled that they at the same time admit to having voted for someone who is openly racist and sexist.

      That suggest that, while you do not consider yourself racist or sexist, you do not oppose racism and sexism either.

      (And don’t give me crap about Trump’s other virtues. They are non-existent. He is a buffoon who inherited a lot of money.)

      • Teleurstellende reactie van je Richard! Had ik niet verwacht! The “bad racist whiteman” reaction is beneath you. What makes you so sure Trump is a racist? Do you have evidence? Links?
        And the sexist accusation is even more ridicilous. The man employed several women in high level positions in his campaign. You would rather have chosen a woman who for years enabled her husband to rape women?
        Please explain and support your comment. Because it sure looks like bad loser behaviour from where I am sitting.

      • Richard Tol: That suggest that, while you do not consider yourself racist or sexist, you do not oppose racism and sexism either.

        Was Clinton free of racism and sexism? Was she guilty of criminal negligence? Was she selling influence while Secretary of State? Do you really not know any racist, sexist etc political liberals?

      • Richard: “at the same time admit to having voted for someone who is openly racist and sexist.”

        Maybe they thought Trumps policies on cutting business tax and stimulating job growth were a better bet than Hilary’s policies on increasing Tax and wasting billions on the Paris Climate Treaty (soon to be nixed).

        Perhaps they thought these macroeconomic issues were a teensy but more important than than the Trump hate whipped up by the media which conveniently ignored Hillary’s own race-gaffes and her husband’s appalling sexual etiquette that she covered for.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Trump isn’t a racist or a sexist. That what the MSM claims about everyone they want to lose an election in our country.

      • I am puzzled that they at the same time admit to having voted for someone who is openly racist and sexist.

        Trump is neither. It may be that, during the ’70’s, he responded to the feelings of customers who had racist tendencies, but most of society was racist in the ’70’s, and smart businessmen cared more about their money than the demands of radical activists.

        What I find astounding is that somebody purporting to be a “scientist” (you do consider “economics” a “science” don’t you?) could allow himself to become so hypnotized by such propaganda. But I guess your wishful thinking about Brexit is a strong tell.

        I think most of those who voted for Trump, and perhaps a number who voted for Clinton, were smart enough to see through the propaganda and understand that Trump is just a regular person in that regard. Maybe a very successful persuader as a businessman, but more like the large mass of voters than the ideal proposed by the Clinton campaign.

        An ideal that their own fail to live up to. CF Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, etc.

      • Maybe a very successful persuader as a businessman, but more like the large mass of voters

        I’ve spent a lot of my adult life working with these kinds of guys, salesman, deal makers. And the successful ones are impressive, I voted for Ross, same sort of thing, not enough charisma, same with Romney, though he had more charisma, he lack the fight.
        So the Playboy businessman from NYC stepped up to the plate, back in the day, he was a both a bit too flashy and over the top with his branding for me. But he was successful over the long term, and it’s been some tough years in real estate, and then the Apprentice came out, and if you cut it all away except when his two surrogates and he decided who to fire, that guy was a decent person, then throw in all the charity.
        So, when he came down the escalator he went to the top of my short list.
        I’m not that guy, and I’m a bit embarrassed when guys talk like that, but I also see him as a 80’s millionaire Playboy that has been a big player in NYC for 30 years, how many naked women have just shown up looking for their shot, He hung out at Studio 54 in it’s heyday, different time, different life. So, even if he never actually acted like the guy on the bus, he would be expected to have those stories. Again, the kissing, and groping, while obviously it was never sent to the police, the one woman when she rebuffed him, he just went on with the planned dinner, now that’s not very hostile. Plus, it would be a way to figure out if the women showing up was interested in his money or wanted to do business, and then it seems acted accordingly. This makes me cringe, but it doesn’t come close to the corruption and carelessness of Hillary.

      • Richard Tol, I have no idea who you are, but you are beclowning yourself. You may be a brilliant physicist or something but you should steer clear of the voting booth because you demonstrate an animal’s understanding in that realm. I trained my dog to say “I love you.” I could just as easily have trained her to say “racism” and “sexism” as some one has trained you to say those words. My pug understands the words she barks as well as you do the ones that you bark.

      • Richard Tol, I have no idea who you are, […]

        You could always check out his Wiki page. He comments here fairly often, and some of his publications have been subjects of top posts.

      • I am puzzled that they at the same time admit to having voted for someone who is openly racist and sexist.

        Right. Trump is so sexist that he hired to the most important job in his campaign, campaign manager, a woman who did, by most accounts, a brilliant job.

        I didn’t vote for Trump ( left president vote blank ).

        But I did so because voting is an irrational business and I like to pretend I’m rational. Candidates win by appealing to the lowest common denominator – they have to. As much as you’d like to believe you’re rational, the candidates are manipulating your reptile brain, regardless of your candidate.

      • Richard Tol, I have no idea who you are, but you are beclowning yourself. You may be a brilliant physicist

        Oooh, that’s harsh ;-)

      • –snip–

        Low-income rural white voters in Pa. voted for Obama in 2008 and then Trump in 2016, and your explanation is white supremacy?

        –snip–

        Is there evidence that the same white rural voters who voted for Obama then voted for Trump? Or is it possible that some of those who voted for Trump didn’t vote in 2008, whereas some of those who voted for Obama in 2008 didn’t vote in 2016?

        Just because she got fewer white rural votes than Obama doesn’t necessariy mean that individual voters switched from Obama to Trump.

        Not sure how plausible that suggested voting pattern is – especially since Trump got fewer votes than Romney….but…just I we should have the information before drawing conclusions.

        And of course, there was likely some combined dynamic.

      • It is possible that unicorns exist and create pretty rainbows. Good luck finding them.

        And while doing it, try to remember science 101.

      • “I am puzzled that they at the same time admit to having voted for someone who is openly racist and sexist.”

        Identity and race politics are tools of the cultural Marxists. Try to split every group into arbitrary and many distinctions. Play them against each other. Bring them to war.
        Meanwhile, while they are fighting, exploit them.

        Its an old game. It was used against Rome, Germany, Russia and every other civilization throughout history.

        It is an old trick of the master of the dark.

        America must turn to the light. In the light we are all Americans. We are all workers who need decent jobs with a viable salary. We need housing that isn’t artificially unaffordable due to uncontrolled speculation. We need school that teach our children good virtues and do not pollute them with foul ideas that make them into discontents and freaks. We need peace with the other nations on the earth and the end to the CIA’s covert war every nation of the world.

        Identity politics are OVER.

        Turn to the light.

      • I hope you do your research on climate better than you do your research on politics. Sorry Dick, Trump only “became” racist and sexist when he decided to challenge Hillary. Why else would the NAACP give him a life time achievement award in 1999? Why else would virtually everyone who he has worked with who is a woman (the notable exception being the fat porn star) praise him and testify to how he treated them?

        The only evidence (and it is the only evidence) of your allegations is a locker room tape where he actually was talking about the beauty of a woman in a crass way. Not even denigrating her. And unlike your hero, Bill, he never acted upon those words. Simply put – big talk, but no walk.

        I can see the problem with the global warming crowd. There is no research and very sloppy science. You have demonstrated it very well. I guess it would surprise you to know (since your research is less than adequate) that it is indeed the Democrats that are racists as demonstrated by the hacked emails. And they were using racism not with the general American public, but on their own supporters!

        Even a modicum of research would have told you that, before you made a fool of yourself. Why did you have to demonstrate your incompetence and ignorance instead of showing some professionalism and doing your homework?

      • You should stick to economics Dr.

        It has already been posted here, but bears repeating. Liberal progressives took what Trump said literally, while not taking him seriously. The people who voted for him took him seriously, while not literally. Doesn’t say much for you elite types, does it.

      • Phil –

        ==>> Why else would the NAACP give him a life time achievement award in 1999? ==>

        do you have a link for that?

      • > Is there evidence that the same white rural voters who voted for Obama then voted for Trump?

        That would be illegal to have that information. That information is irrelevant to see that alt-right allegiance may not explain what happened in the Rust Belt.

        We can thank Bernie Bros for four years of lulz, and Don Don for having saved America.

        ***

        > Identity and race politics are tools of the cultural Marxists.

        Self-awareness strikes out again.

      • willard –

        One reason that the polls underestimated Trump’s support from rural white voters may be that the “likely voter: screens filtered them out – because they didn’t vote in 2008 or 2012. Hidden white voters, as it were.

        I think it is weak to assume that the the reason for Clinton’s fewer votes in that demographic is explained by voters switching from Obama to Trump – and the polling error would be consistent with that explanation.

        Your retweet seems to me to be much more confident than what can be justified by the evidence.

      • I love Climate Etc.

        PhikJourdan on Trump:

        Why else would the NAACP give him a life time achievement award in 1999?

        Then Phil on his interlocutor:

        Even a modicum of research would have told you that, before you made a fool of yourself. Why did you have to demonstrate your incompetence and ignorance instead of showing some professionalism and doing your homework?

        So, did Trump ever get an award from the NAACP? It would appear not.

        According to the HuffPo, the award Trump got was from an organisation whose founder received $500k from Trump. Further,

        a Justice Department civil rights investigation that found the Trumps discriminated against prospective tenants who were black.

        Interestingly, the same guy who got $500k from Trump was later pardoned by Bill Clinton. And Trump is against Washington elites. Natch.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-naacp_us_580ac881e4b000d0b156e6e2

        Professionalism, homework etc.

      • > Your retweet seems to me to be much more confident than what can be justified by the evidence.

        Of course it is. It doesn’t diminish its point, though – the alt-right card is less important than the other right-wing populism cards laid out by Rusted Donald.

      • willard –

        I assume we agree that racism neither explains Trump’s support among white voters, nor is it irrelevant.

      • The exit polls were BS. If they had been accurate, no one would have been surprised by President The Donald’s humiliating defeat of little ole granny. .

        I spent the last 3 months working with the colored folks mostly in Michigan and Ohio, with some time spent in W. Va and PA. Granny lost because black voters (especially the brothers) don’t like the old white thang. I guess that makes them racist and sexist.

        I know that Trump got more than the alleged 8% of the black vote. And I am guessing that he got more of the hispanic vote than was indicated by the exit polls. People who might get a beatdown for voting wrong don’t blab about it to some stranger in the street.

      • > I know that [teh Donald] got more than the alleged 8% of the black vote.

        We could also say that Donald scored worse than Mitt among white voters.

        It’s hard for polls to detect omertàs before they happen.

      • Richard, we reject your premise: “I am puzzled that they at the same time admit to having voted for someone who is openly racist and sexist.” No one called Trump a racist- he was a fixture in the NYC business-political-social scene for decades- until this campaign.

      • The possible relevance to my comment of your last escapes me, willito. And I am not curious to find out what it might be, in your little mind. You are still deteriorating.

        Just in from my sources in the old white granny’s camp: Post-election contributions to the Clinton Foundation amount to three dollars and sixty-two cents.

      • “I am puzzled that they at the same time admit to having voted for someone who is openly racist and sexist.

        That suggest that, while you do not consider yourself racist or sexist, you do not oppose racism and sexism either.”

        I am certainly one who protested your knee jerk accusations but I am not one who voted for Trump, so puzzle some more puzzle boy. What you think has been suggested is merely you inferring.

        In regards to your claim about Trump being a buffoon,, this is amusingly a kettle calling pots black.

      • Related and interesting:

        –snip–

        But perhaps no demographic variable reflects Trump’s electoral success better than education does. In counties where less than 20 percent of the population has a bachelor’s degree or higher, Trump exceeded Romney’s margins by 14 percentage points. And, conversely, counties with more than 40 percent of the population having completed higher education, Trump did 6 percentage points worse than Romney.

        –snip–

        http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-trump-got-his-edge/

      • But perhaps no demographic variable reflects Trump’s electoral success better than education does. In counties where less than 20 percent of the population has a bachelor’s degree or higher, Trump exceeded Romney’s margins by 14 percentage points. And, conversely, counties with more than 40 percent of the population having completed higher education, Trump did 6 percentage points worse than Romney.

        Just goes to show College does’t make you any smarter.

      • Typical of the left. When they cannot debate the merits (most of the time), they resort to insults. Go ahead and call them whatever name you want. A vote is a vote.

        Guess they are the ones you “care” about and that is why you insult them?

      • > The possible relevance to my comment of your last escapes me

        That’s par for the course, Don Don. Since you’re so busy saving America, your mind might be elsewhere.

        The irrelevance of your comment did not escape me.

    • Richard,

      The US and the world has got him now. I suggest, from now on we should focus on trying to educate and advocate to improve policy – to increase the proportion of economically beneficial policy and reduce the proportion of economically damaging policy. My focus would be on educating people (including policy advisors) to advocate for policies that increase world economic growth rates, sustainably, and reduce the proportion of intervention in people lives: such as political correctness, telling them what they should and shouldn’t eat, drink, think, say and do.

    • While Brexit is falling apart and may go into the history books as a silly episode, history may not look kindly on President Trump.

      This sounds like denial.

      EU -> common currency without common debt?

      The EU will go into the books as a silly idea whose ultimate demise was predicted and is unfolding. Unfortunately, it may come in form of political instability from the very interdependence that the
      union fostered.

    • Brexit is falling apart? Not my impression at all. Aside from a court decision against them which may be set aside and may be irrelevant because plenty of the parliament seems to feel they have to vote for it now anyhow.
      I do see a lot of Brexit Denial. But not in the betting markets, not since the referendum.
      And white men didn’t elect Trump. Minorities did. See the NYT exit poll (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0); more of them voted for Trump than for Romney or McCain. And _far_ more of them just didn’t show up or voted for neither; presumably they saw Trump failings (as do we all) but (unlike you) also understood that a vote for Clinton was a vote for a system that was never going to give them a chance. I assume that Clinton outstanding GOTV got to them but couldn’t convince them.
      Trump got less votes than Romney. But Clinton got way less votes.

    • Richard, I have been reading your tweets and it’s really hard not to conclude that you are nothing more than a left wing ASS with all this blathering about sexism, racism, and other forms of oversimplified Marxist categories. Really!

  12. It’s a good day for at least social justice.
    Any bet’s on when she decides to take up residence in a non-US extradition country?

    • I expect Obama to give her a Pardon.

      I’ve got mixed feelings about this.

      On the one hand people are in jail for doing far less than she has done (just in managing classified documents)

      On the other hand, it’s a hallmark of third world countries to throw the looser of an election in jail.

      The Clintons have done a lot that’s illegal, but avoiding even the appearance of using the government to attack your political opponents is worth a lot.

      • In the third world they throw their opponents into jail JUST because they were opponents. This is not the case. It is a real conundrum. After the revolutionary war they colonialist didn’t go on a revenge campaign. After WWII we held trials for war crimes. Do you give a criminal a pass cause they were a political candidate? Do you give someone who committed treason [gun running in Benghazi] a pass cause it might look bad if you prosecuted them. The way around this might be that nothing happens in the next 70 days with the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation where they have a solid RICO case. Then, when Trump is in the WH he and his AG and a cleaned out FBI can bring that case to a grand jury and let the chips fall where they may. But how does Obama pardon her for crimes in the future or for things where there is yet to be a charge? Just letting the Clintons go is just another example of the power elites taking care of one another and not a good way to start a Trump Presidency.

  13. I know in my case it was #3. And I suspect as you do. But the Elites are still clueless on it.

  14. Do you have no regrets for your part in this?

  15. ” I hope that you can make this work for all Americans.”

    Hear, hear!

  16. My number one reason for voting Trump: climate and climate related issues. This, of course, meant I was voting because of #3, the elitism in Washington and other power centers. There are other related themes: over-regulation in general, the out-of-control EPA, the lack of accountability to the voters. Well, in the last three major elections, our state has gone from mostly Democrat representation in Washington to all Republican. We held the incumbents accountable — and prevailed.

    • The election poll models have many similarities with climate models, esp. with regard to “confirmation bias” … modelers and the groups the work with are tainted by their own predetermined mindsets and groupthink. I expect from what he has said the new President’s plans in the environmental area will be quite significant. Normally a lame duck president for the most part stops working on their agenda but I hesitate to assume such trust in the present case.

  17. We can hope finally for a return to a rational energy policy and putting the brakes on the headlong rush to implement climate change policies before GCMs and databases are adequate to guide the policies.

    • +100. A rational approach to the climate change/AGW debate needs to be implemented. There simply isn’t enough data available for policy makers and the rest of us to make any predictions about the future course of our climate.

    • A fundamental problem with simply waiting is that even with difficulties in attribution of current observations, e.g., natural and human factors, time is a key variable in considering climate evolution and any potential impacts. Because of the role of time, a policy of waiting is NOT delaying the decision but instead is only one several strategic alternative. Even though waiting for studies is not a pure ‘no action’ alternative–we are doing something–it is ‘no action’ with respect to engineering activities the effects of which have a dependence on time. Of course the climate will continue to do its thing–whatever that is–in the interim.

      This is a comment on the role of time and of delay in setting policy and not on the UN initiatives.

    • Waiting is the best policy. People seem to have blinders on when it comes to action. They think only the government can act, but that isn’t the way the country has worked in the past. Individuals and businesses can act without government. They can move to higher ground. They can prepare for the worst-case if they believe it is coming. Some won’t. But we have to live with that. We need to get back to where individuals take responsibility, benefits, and consequences for their actions. Let some of these do-gooder bazillionaires step up to the plate and help those who need it.

      • Jim2 to arrive at the ‘best’ alternative you have not evaluated all of the alternatives being considered. You have not done that. You have just stated you preference and given your rationale which is steeped in your ideology. Here I do not care about ideologies–yours or the UN’s. I am not particularly getting on your case, Jim, or even dismissing your preference as non-viable but am just trying to focus on the legitimate and important role of time.

        mwg

      • That is all of the alternatives being considered in a hypothetical rationale decision process. (Yes that implys that I do not view that what what has unfolded to the present constitutes a rational decision process.)

      • Or it may be that I have a higher risk tolerance than you.

        Or it may be you do not have that much at risk.

      • Waiting is the best policy.

        Nonsense.

        People seem to have blinders on when it comes to action.

        Yeah. Such as assuming there has to be only one action, or that different actions might justify different “wait” policies.

        We know there’s a risk. We don’t know how much. We can be pretty sure we won’t know how much for a while, probably at least a decade.

        So break the actions down into those that appear “low-regrets” that we don’t have to wait for, and those that appear costly or otherwise “high-regrets” that probably shouldn’t be done without better evidence they’re needed.

      • I think you missed the point, AK, and that’s probably my fault. I’m saying from my point of view, waiting is the best policy for the Federal Government. That in no way implies others have to wait. Private entities can do as they please and I encourage them to evaluate the situation and act accordingly.

        This may mean they get solar panels or move to higher ground or whatever else they want to do. A thousand points of decision/action.

      • If the people of NYC think sea level will rise, for any reason really, they can implement mitigation plans now. Raise money, plan the project, and get a head start on building infrastructure. Just leave the Fed out of it.

      • IMO right on target AK. My preference is for such an adaptive approach. In light of the great uncertainties involved suspect that between waiting, adaption, and mitigation adaptation is the lowest risk.

        I also like:

        Yeah. Such as assuming there has to be only one action, or that different actions might justify different “wait” policies.

        True…over and over and over!

        And:

        We know there’s a risk. We don’t know how much.

        I think that many people do not understand that solutions, i.e., actions, may generally reduce risks but do not eliminate them. Also waiting longer does not assure that a better technology will come along or that a specific attribution scheme will be verified. Hence, there still are risks involved. Risks mean we should have rational policy now.

      • Well, I think there are policy options that could be done right away. Low-cost ways of nurturing such important technologies as ambient CO2 capture, and power→gas/liquid fuel.

        These technologies are already available, but currently too expensive. Options that could create a small, high-value market at a low cost could leverage Wright’s “Law” to gain experience and bring the price down.

        Because it’s highly unlikely that the price will come down until we’re making much more of it.

        Even if “climate” turns out not to be a risk (very unlikely) there are ecological risks that don’t involve climate.

        There’s no reason to insist that no government policies be involved, any more than when Churchill decided to switch Britain’s warships from coal to oil.

        As long as it doesn’t cost that much.

      • AK: “Low-cost ways of nurturing such important technologies as ambient CO2 capture,”

        By no stretch of imagination can ambient CO2 capture be described as low cost, the cost of the technology and the massive amount of energy consumption, not to mention the problem of finding somewhere safe to sequester the gigatons of CO that will have to be captured and disposed of.

        In fact, CO2 capture and sequestration – apart from being technologically unproven – is likely to be the most expensive technology of the lot.

      • By no stretch of imagination can ambient CO2 capture be described as low cost, […]

        There speaks abysmal ign0rance.

        […] the massive amount of energy consumption, […]

        More ign0rance. Energy consumption is around an order of magnitude less than the energy yielded from combustion.

        Not to mention that the actual value of a commodity depends on where and when it is. This applies to energy as well as money.

        […] not to mention the problem of finding somewhere safe to sequester the gigatons of CO that will have to be captured and disposed of.

        Easy peasy. And cheap.

        In fact, CO2 capture and sequestration […] is likely to be the most expensive technology of the lot.

        Nope.

        Anyway, there’s no need to start with sequestration, the CO2 could be captured and combined with hydrogen from solar-powered electrolysis to produce methane or liquid fuel. This would be fossil-carbon-neutral as well as fairly cheap once the cost of solar PV comes down another order of magnitude or so.

      • AK: “More ign0rance. Energy consumption is around an order of magnitude less than the energy yielded from combustion.”

        Utter drivel.

      • Utter drivel.

        What’s “Utter drivel” is the idea that you have the faintest idea what you’re talking about.

        The Enthalpy of combustion of methane is about −882.0 kJ/mol.

        The free energy required for separating CO2 from air at ambient temperature and for providing an output stream at 1 atm is therefore 20 kJ/mole. That reference goes on:

        This is the theoretical minimum energy expenditure that does not depend on the specific choice of the separating scheme. Any practical implementation will require more energy, possibly substantially more energy. The minimum energy expenditure is only 5% of the energy released in the combustion of carbon. Thus compared to the energy gained in the combustion process the penalty is quite small. One should keep in mind though that inefficiencies in power generation and in the extraction could rapidly add up.

        You don’t get something for nothing.

        There is currently working technology in the pilot stage that claims “242 kJ per mole of CO2.” Optimistic estimates based on alkalai capture from air fall into the same area. Thus, existing technologies work at around 1/3-1/4 of the energy yielded by combustion, within shouting distance of an order of magnitude.

        What this does to the energy cost depends on where the ambient CO2 capture is placed in the entire cycle. In front, using a solar power→gas fuel approach, it would be around 20% with current technology, likely able to be brought down to 10% with learning curve.

        Obviously, if you place it at the back end, as capture and sequestration using energy diverted from burning fossil fuel, the number goes up to around 50%. However, that calculation does not represent the technological use involved, and invoking it just creates a straw man.

      • AK” “The Enthalpy of combustion of methane is about −882.0 kJ/mol.”

        Teaching your grandmother to suck eggs, AK?

        You totally ignore inter aliathe energy required to pump and compress vast masses of gas in order to extract tiny amounts of CO2 and the energy required to compress it in order to sequestrate it in subterranean reservoirs.

        But there again, you’re not an engineer, are you?

      • Jim2

        You make a cery good point with your clarification. There is no reason that national policy alternatives incorporating local and state initiatives should be excluded from consideration at this stage. Thank you for those additional comments. I think that they complement quiet well with AK’s last paragraph.

      • mwg – I would be less uneasy with individual States funding some of these alternatives. States are more accountable to the citizens, and if that’s what most citizens want, the go for it.

      • Jim2,

        I think that the idea has a lot of merit and I really do appreciate the comments.

  18. I love this country. ~Donald Trump (acceptance speech)

    The current Democrat leadership does not.

    • 1. Dr. Curry would make an excellent science advisor.
      2. Trump’s concession… er victory speech was gracious, and emphasized unity and improving America.

      • PA,
        Why didn’t he emphasize ‘unity’ all along?

      • Trump is a moderate who is going to, as promised, take action on some issues that have been frustrating the majority of Americans, but will work in the interests of all Americans.

        The lying by the left about what the American people want is over. The American people have spoken and they do not agree with the elites..

      • Danny,

        Instead of asking d*mbass questions, try learning about the subject matter. As in what succeeds in election campaigns. Negative adds have been around almost as long as tv. There is a reason. Then there is the fact that Trump was able to recognize something about a significant segment of the voting public – that they were fed up with the current model. You don’t run on unity when you want to upend the existing system.

      • TimG56,
        “You don’t run on unity when you want to upend the existing system.” Fine expression of an opinion. But it’s just that in case you’re unaware.

        Clinton didn’t run on ‘unity’. She obviously left out inclusion of those who felt excluded.

        What I see is Trump is touted as a ‘change agent’. Actually creating ‘unity’ would would be counter to ‘negative ads’ which have been around almost as long as tv. So as a ‘change agent’ why not ‘change things’?

        You suggest I learn about subject matter. You only want me to learn it from your view. Why not ‘change’ and see it from mine? Forgive the ‘dumb*ss’ question. I’ll bet you won’t even consider the value of it. Division seems to be your preference.

      • As usual Danny long on words, and short on substance. Who said you had to learn from me? Instead of playing your little argument game, stay on point. Kind of hard to be the change agent if you don’t win. And besides, wasn’t it Clinton who spent millions on negative ads?

      • “And besides, wasn’t it Clinton who spent millions on negative ads?” Well how about that Timmy? Oh, by the way, did she win?

        Had she run on ‘unity’ and had she been inclusive……….who knows?

        (Few enough words for ya?)

    • Spot on.

    • The current Democrat leadership does not.

      Les Deplorables tend to fiercely love America, a viewpoint that the Democratic leadership doesn’t appear to understand or condone.

  19. Another point.
    The polls, and their misreading. They were misread, as the guy from realpolitics said, they even had the numbers within about 2% and they still got it wrong.
    When I supported Simulation users, about half my calls where that the simulator (or timing verifier, or any of about 5 others simulators) wasn’t working, it wasn’t giving the right results. But after working with them for a while, it was usually one of three things.
    1) Initialization, simulators don’t have billions of clocks to come to some defined states, they start from nothing, you have to make sure you reset anything that matters to some know state. Fortunately, you need to do the same with real circuits for test systems.
    2) They asked the wrong question. Sometimes it’s an initialization problem, and sometimes, with the timing verifier for example, this was a big issue, wasn’t a simulator, it didn’t pass 1 or 0’s it passed changing or stable, but you had to set the stage for both data and control paths.
    3)Lastly, and like the polls, you don’t really understand the answer it gave you, a lot of times it’s because of the 1 and 2 above, other times if you really are defining the question properly, you have a design issue, and of course since you have access to all nodes, it is much easier to troubleshoot, but you still need to understand the signal. BTW this is where GCM’s are failing, I really don’t think they have any validation of the signals the models produce as compared to real world measurements. Are the dynamic’s even right? I’m not sure they are.

    Poll’s and simulators, still relies on the operator to know what they are doing, and your biases will seduce you, what you think it is telling you is really what it means.

    Just don’t mean you really are.

  20. Well, let’s hope for a more rational energy policy now that the phone and pen are in the hands of someone other than any liberal, especially Obama and Clinton.

    • Fortunately the bar has been set so low (current energy policy is irrational) that improvement is inevitable.

      Any change would be an improvement.

  21. As a Brit that has just experienced Brexit (another anti-elites vote), this election is fascinating for the parallels being drawn. A few early observations based on contested and competing information:

    Turnout – both Trump and Clinton lost millions of votes compared with 2012. Trump lost approximately 2 million votes and Clinton 7 million votes. So this is a contraction of participation as well as some increased activity generated by Trump in non-metropolitan areas to compensate for that contraction. The Brexit referendum on the other hand was a bigger democratic exercise than recent British general elections. It was won on the non-metropolitan vote though.

    Spatial voting patterns – certainly the Rustbelt wins for Trump have parallels with how Northern cities in England voted for Brexit. As does non-metropolitan Britain with its counterpart in the US. Both our countries are experiencing complex responses to the current social and economic liberal order that bloomed in the 80s which was willing to tolerate more losers in order to gain growth. If you’re living in metropolitan university areas enjoying the benefits of social and economic liberalism then you vote for the status quo.

    Luvvies – its a good British word for actors who are socially concerned but is used to include musicians as well. Our luvvies were generally for Remain as yours were for Clinton. It didn’t make much difference in June either.

    These responses can also be seen on the mainland European continent as well. This isn’t American exceptionalism but a Western phenomenon albeit on different scales and contexts. The last thirty years has run out of intellectual steam and we’re all economic zombies from the consequences of 2008. Change is needed but its easy to change things for the worse, its much harder to make positive changes.

    What I fear in a Trump administration is a spread of protectionism that will slow down the rising living standards of the poorer parts of the world which has been a genuine success of globalisation. America as the great consumer has driven that process even if it hasn’t help your debt levels.

    But this is the challenge we’re all facing. How to generate and share more prosperity within our nations building communities up whilst continuing to develop and benefit from free trade and movement that lifts the world up.

    What I hope from both Brexit and this Trump victory is new intellectual energy and ideas because whether you support these events or not, they set a challenge for everyone. Especially the ‘elites’.

  22. Hopefully, this pause in the “The Permanent Campaign” can help change education for the better help make Climatology something better than a politically-motivated car-chase science.

  23. Donald Trump’s winning of the presidency hopefully will help crack the glass ceiling of global warming alarmism.

  24. http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/mary-matalin-donald-trump-chance-win/2016/09/08/id/747393/

    Someone who nailed it Sep 9 2016. Called PA when the others saw PA going Clinton 80 to 90% chance of winning PA.

  25. Pingback: Bits and Pieces – 20161109, Wednesday | thePOOG

  26. All great points.

    The triumph of the internet is beyond cool. Totally circumvented the old stuffy media. Kind of like Microsoft end running stuffy IBM back in the day.

    I expect international finance to now wage war on Trump with America as hostage. Unless he can make his deals….

    “The battle for Helm’s deep is over. The battle for Middle Earth has just begun!”

  27. Obit anus , abit onus.

    Latin for US election result.

  28. Well, related to Climate Etc. I applaud Trump’s position to disavow the Paris treaty agreement.

    But on broader issues, I find him revolting.

    His blame of illegal immigrants ( which are net negative now ) for economic woes and blame of Muslims for for security woes are wrong and appeal to the base instincts of the uneducated disaffected.

    His instincts for infrastructure spending are one of big government, not smaller.

    His instincts for protectionism are not what they taught a Wharton.

    His espoused position is to increase deficit spending and ignore entitlement reform ( though no others would touch these either ).

    Populism ( both from Sanders class warfare on the wealthy and from Trump blaming foreigners ) is dangerous and we are all on watch now to separate rhetoric from actual Un-American policy.

  29. Pollsters: discredited
    Both Republican and Democrat leadership: destroyed
    Mainstream media: destroyed
    Brexit effect: real
    Americans pissed off over a bad economy: real
    Hollywood glitterati: irrelevant
    Technorati: irrelevant
    the list goes on and on and on and on.
    I was in a bar last night – Clinton supporters’ brains are literally melting.
    I don’t say Trump will be great or even good, but the punch to the nose (and the nuts) of all of the above is a wonderful thing.

    • Wonderful. And you’ll have to live with President Trump in return.

      • Far better than living with President Hillary. Stick to what you know, and what you know is not politics.

      • Steven Mosher

        cretin or criminal. wasnt a hard choice

      • What has occurred in the US election is
        a leap – in – the – dark, kinda’ like Disraeli’s
        1867 Electoral Act admitting the people to
        a larger share of political power…Given
        Hilary (and Bill et Al’s) oligarchy rule, say,
        what could a serf do but — leap?

      • Dr. Tol
        There is a lot of difference what people say during campaign and what they do or can do when in the office. One thing advantage Trump has is that he is not indebted to any political lobby, any corporate sponsorship and not even to the Republican party, senators or congressmen for support during the election.
        My view is that in the affairs of state the man who didn’t clime up the greasy poll, doesn’t consume alcohol and has large family can make ‘sober’ decisions for benefit of the people.

      • Indeed, all Americans do.
        Although the Liberati/Technorati seem to think that elections only mean something if their candidate wins.
        Are you one of them?

  30. One other aspect is of (un)predictability.

    Pollsters with lots of data, tweaked by ‘adjustments’, forged a ‘consensus’ that still couldn’t predict the future.

    Sound familiar?

    Of course, Scott Adams and the LA Times did predict Trumps election, so there are some.

    • TE
      USC LaTimes poll
      Investors Business DAily IBD poll
      Rasmussen Ppoll

      Were all close or correct.

      The rest were thumb on the scale models llike climate projections.

      We shall have to see trump observerble actions.
      Scott

  31. ‘ a massive ‘egg on face’ moment for nearly all of the pollsters who predicted a Clinton win. Clearly, the polling methodologies need rethinking in this age of the internet.’
    For anyone who likes lefty tears, go to the 538 site and read the live election blog comments from oldest to newest. They go from confident joy, to despair and ultimately to recrimination at Nate Silver for leading them on and getting it wrong.

  32. If the election of Trump accomplishes nothing else, it should end the political/influence-peddling career of the Clinton crime family. Amen and good riddance.

    I voted for Trump because: 1) I agreed with most of his policy proposals — especially on climate — and disagreed with all of Clinton’s positions; 2) he is a successful businessman, not a politician; 3) he was willing to stand up to the media and democrat attacks; and 4) there is a chance he’ll shake up the GOP establishment and show them how to win.

  33. Trump either barely won a majority of votes or barely lost the majority. The electorate was evenly divided pre-Trump electoral victory and is evenly divided after. Perhaps you should wait a bit before declaring a sea change in so many aspects of journalism society?

    • Jos6a
      So, was I right about the 4percent Brexit effect?

      I sincerely hope it works out well for both our countries.

      On a personal basis I can not begin to imagine how Hillary is feeling at this time:. She must be devastated
      Tonyb

      • Tony

        I would need more information on what you mean by 4% brexit effect to answer.

        It is completely unknown as of now what explains the polling error (which was pretty close to fitting into the stated margin of error nationally, pending the final tally).

        The largest magnitude of errors were at the state levels and not uniform. Assessing the causality is complex, IMO.

      • And Tony –

        I’m not particularly concerned about Clinton… her welfare is well down on my list of concerns regarding the outcome of this election, but I imagine she’ll be just fine (assuming she stays out of jail despite the clamor to put her there) .

      • Both Billary and Obummer have given very gracious speeches and encouraged everyone to honor the election and come together. I agree. But there are many leftists who are full of vitriol. It will be a rocky road to redemption.

      • tony –

        One more thing. I’ve read (but haven’t verified) that this was the lowest presidential voter turnout in 16 years.

        In an excellent comment above, John Lish points out that Trump received 2 million fewer votes than Romney in 2012:

        https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/09/trumping-the-elites/#comment-822226

        Would that reflect a large “hidden vote?”

        I suggest staying away from drawing broad and sweeping conclusions form this election, such as that it represents a sea change in the role of the media, or w/r/t campaign spending, or w/r/t a rejection of “experts,” blah, blah.

        We have often seen that the definition of who is and isn’t an “expert” is highly subjective.

      • Tony –

        Check this out:

        http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Nov10.html#item-

        For the “shy voter” phenomenon to be explanatory, it would mean that the reader the state is, the more “shy” the voters were (for both Clinton and Trump supporters, actually) . How plausible do you think it is that as the more voters were surrounded by people who supported their views, the more pressure they felt to conform to “sociability bias” and hide their true opinion. Imo, that is pretty implausible.

        More likely, IMO, add our combination of, (1} people who were not regular voters falling through the “likely voter” screens, {2} late-breaking voters not caught be polling fast enough, (3) the impact of the Comey announcements which had a lot of early voters voting more towards Trump AFTER the announcement that the investigation had been reopened, and BEFORE the final polls which reflected sentiment after Comey announced that they didn’t find anything in the emails. If you look at the polling when the early voting was taking place, the results were closer to the final outcome than the final polls.

        Anyway, I highly doubt that there was only one explanatory factor that could be easily generalized to different contexts.

      • Er… Should read… “the redder a state is…” . and “… social desirability bias….”

      • tony –

        There’s this too…which is interesting when you look at similar factors in the Brexit vote:

        –snip–

        Earlier analyses, based on pre-election polls, suggested that Trump’s backers were wealthier on average than Clinton’s. Actual election results show no correlation between counties’ September 2016 unemployment rates and their level of support for Trump — places with higher unemployment rates were no more likely to vote for Trump than those with lower rates.

        Unemployment, however, is a crude measure of a local economy. The government’s official definition of unemployment ignores people who have stopped looking for work or who have moved away altogether, and it doesn’t distinguish between a full-time job at a factory and a part-time job at a fast-food restaurant. Measures that do account for these factors generally suggest a stronger relationship between the economy and Trump’s support.

        –snip–

        http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-was-stronger-where-the-economy-is-weaker/

        But while there maybe wasn’t a direct association with unemployment, is seems there may have been with voting in areas where incomes was relatively low (among whites). So in both cases, it appears that the votes reflect the opinions of those who blame their poorer economic status on immigrants, even if the connection between immigration and their economic status doesn’t necessarily reveal an obvious causality.

      • Tony – I’m reading Britain just passed a massive spying law. So instead of getting rid of terrorists, now your government is spying on everything you do. We in the West have to figure out how to reverse this nasty turn of events.

    • Agree with that, wait and see the observations.
      Scott

    • True. He has inherited an extremely fractured society. Just as hrc would have had she won.

    • Trump was openly attacked both by his own party and by his opponent’s.
      Republican apparatchiks were even less likely to vote for Trump than Democrat ones.
      Trump was outspent, out media’d, out-debated, out-everything except for the one thing that matters: electoral votes.
      Please apply sponge to melted brain coming out of your nose.

      • Clinton was constantly attacked way over the media. What can we determine from that?

        Plenty of Republican apparatchiks supported Trump, even if others didn’t.

        In past elections, there hasn’t always been a direct correlation between $ spent and the winner. Trump supporters did not think, in the least, that he was “out-debated.”

        The point is that generalizing from a specific example is problematic if you haven’t taken time to make sure that the sample was representative.

        Clinton was a historically bad candidate at a lot of levels. Before the election, there was plenty of reason to believe that the popular vote would be very close and that the EV count could easily swing on the basis of close votes in a number of swing states.

        Is this election more of a game-changer, in some lasting and deep-rooted sense than Obama’s in 2008?

        In some ways, Trump’s victory is a clear indication of a shift in the party affiliation of white working class and of higher-educated Republicans – but those trends are somewhat long-standing.

      • Wrong again! Clinton was not “attacked”, the Media was! For shirking their responsibility. And it was well deserved and merited.

        Stop excusing the fact you lost. And not by a squeaker. You lost big time.

      • @Joshua
        Let’s see: every single major newspaper endorsed Clinton.
        Trump? a literal handful.
        Your cognitive bias is showing.
        “Plenty” of Republican apparatchiks supported Trump – perhaps you might put forward some evidence since you’re directly contradicting what was documented in my original comment.
        Your ability to persuade is on par with the Democratic Party’s understanding of reality.

      • http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/09/the-cataclysm-notes-on-election-day-and-the-politics-of-exhaustion/
        Quote 1: “The press, like the rest of the establishment, was all behind Clinton. HRC got 57 editorial endorsements from major papers, Gary Johnson got 4 and Trump only 2. So much for the influence of the press.”
        Quote 2: “Trump couldn’t even win the backing of his own party elites. For example, 73 percent of Democratic state legislators endorsed Clinton, while 5 percent of Republican state legislators endorsed Trump. It didn’t matter. To be endorsed by an elite was to have a target on your back”

    • Joshua, back before when, they allowed pollsters to predict who was going to win on election day. Each back then, it was about what the scientific polls based on demographics, said. The problem with all the polls, is the basis of the determining factors. What has been shown by most is that the likelihood of voting quotients were way off for those who determined the outcome this time around. In the US for many election cycles, it has been the swing vote, and get out the vote of under voting sectors. This did not change. What changed was that it was the swing vote rather than the get out the vote. Obama benefited from the get out the vote. Trump benefited from the swing vote.

      • JFP –

        ==> What has been shown by most is that the likelihood of voting quotients were way off for those who determined the outcome this time around. ==>

        How do you define way off? The RCP average was between 2 and 3 points for Clinton.

        Obviously, there were larger problems at the state levels, but even there, while they were off I’m not sure that they were way off. The State polls in the swing states were pretty close. Trump was leading in Florida very recently, for example.

      • And JFP –

        ===> What changed … ==>

        Preliminary, it seems to me that the biggest change was the amount of support that Trump got from white, working-class, voters, and perhaps particularly white, working-class, rural voters.

      • There was no change in white, black, brown or yellow support for Trump. That is because he has never run for public office before. Now if what you MEANT to say is the change from Romney, then that would be wrong. As the percentages were better than Romney, but not by a great amount among any race category.

        What changed is that many who voted for Obama could not stomach voting for a criminal and so sat it out.

      • ===> What changed … ==>

        Perhaps numbers of Hispanics and blacks who voted for Trump, but never told any of the polls they did, or intended to.

        Why? To avoid trouble with pollsters and other Hillbullies. One of the advantages of a secret ballot.

      • Way off in terms of the Electorial College. The polls consistently showed Hillary at 270+ most 290+. Some of these such as PA were +6% not the 2 to 3%. That is why the pollsters were off. Not in the general, but in the specific. The reason was that if you look at the advantage they gave Hillary and added 2 to 3 Trump, it had to be consistently Trump in the swing states to get close.

        Yes, the exit polls show that typically white, high school educated voted in large numbers for Trump. So the question if one says they won it for Trump, why wasn’t it picked up. They are definitely a large minority of US voters. It is the consistent bias especially in the swing states that the polls except one missed. Why? I don’t know. I see a lot of explaining. The one I see that got it right well before the catch up by Trump I linked to above. If you find a better explanation, please post it. But I note that at 20:00 EST the polls I saw except one showed PA definitely Clinton past the 2% range.

        I was surprised by the outcome, but had been repeatedly told by Trump supporters that the polls were off. The closest EC numbers I saw before I went to sleep last night gave Hillary about 283. The others gave her up to 317. I expected to wake with Hillary president. I thought my wife had misread the result when she told me by 02:00 Trump had won it.

      • Way off in terms of the Electorial College. The polls consistently showed Hillary at 270+ most 290+. Some of these such as PA were +6% not the 2 to 3%. That is why the pollsters were off. Not in the general, but in the specific. The reason was that if you look at the advantage they gave Hillary and added 2 to 3 Trump, it had to be consistently Trump in the swing states to get close.

        Another perfect example of how averaging hides what’s going on.
        GCM’s do it by averaging nonsense together into a somewhat normal average like these polls did, and the temperature series do it by being based on mean temp, it’s easy to hide inconvenient min temp trends in min/max averages.

      • JFP –

        ==> Way off in terms of the Electorial College. ==>

        Not in terms of #’s of votes, however. And the EV error amounts to a relatively few states that were by amounts not that far outside the MOE.

        What is particularly interesting is that they were off in the same direction – that there was a correlation in the error.

        ==> Yes, the exit polls show that typically white, high school educated voted in large numbers for Trump. So the question if one says they won it for Trump, why wasn’t it picked up. ==>

        Dunno. I suspect because probably a lot of the hadn’t voted much in recent elections and were filtered out by “likely voters” screens.

        ==> It is the consistent bias especially in the swing states that the polls except one missed. Why? I don’t know. I see a lot of explaining. ==>

        What’s particularly interesting is whether it is generalizable. It it because Clinton was such a bad candidate? Is it because of Trump’s dog-whistles? Is it a one-time event, or does it represent a larger demographic shift that was largely missed: white, working-class voters leaving their Democratic affiliation in a way that (at least for now) more than offsets the increase in minority voters. Notice, also, that there were projections that the Latino vote would be greater for Clinton than there was for Obama, but that largely didn’t materialize. Why?

        ==> I was surprised by the outcome, but had been repeatedly told by Trump supporters that the polls were off. The closest EC numbers I saw before I went to sleep last night gave Hillary about 283. The others gave her up to 317. I expected to wake with Hillary president. I thought my wife had misread the result when she told me by 02:00 Trump had won it. ==>

        Well, it has to be said that Silver had Trump as about a 33% chance, even higher just a few days previously, and he frequently stated that there was a decent possibility of Trump winning the EV and losing the popular vote. Obviously, a lot of other people missed the boat on the EV vote count. But even still, the error was largely within the margin of error in a relatively few states. Again, what was missed by most was the likelihood of that error being correlated across states (something that Silver pointed out repeatedly as a likelihood).

      • And JFP –

        ==> Some of these such as PA were +6% not the 2 to 3%. ==>

        Compare the final margins with the RCP averaged estimates prior to the votes being cast. I think that they were less far apart than you seem to think.

      • Wisconsin probably being the biggest (something like 7.4 points off?)

      • I did look at RCP. Since yesterday, lots of light blue states went tossup and a lot of pink states went red, and a lot of dark blue went light blue.

        In particular, at the time I was looking at RCP they had Hillary at 280+. PA was +6%. They were the one I was reading since part of the discussion was about the one outlier pole and why it was wrong. Yet in the end it was closet on the EC. I did not survey or pay attention to the popular vote. I only compared and was interested, as in every presidential election, with the predicted EC. They due to their methodology were in the middle. Most polls had Hillary 290+ going into the election.

      • It don’t mean a thing,
        if you ain’t got that swing,
        do-ah do-ah, do-ah do-ah,
        do-ah do-ah!
        https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=it+don%27t+mean+a+thing+if+it+ain%27t+got+that+swing

    • Civics 101 – The president is NOT elected by popular vote. Trump is winning about 60% of the EC votes. And that is what counts.

      • Thanks for the civics lesson. What does it have to do with my comment?

        The fact of the matter is that before pronouncing some broad-scale societal changes on the basis of this election, you should consider the context pretty carefully.

        Obama won by a wider EV margin in 2008. Did that justify a complete re-evaluation of vast aspects of society in the manner that we seen in this post and comments?

        The similarity between this election and many of the preceding ones is that the margin in terms of the popular vote is astoundingly small.

      • Apparently Civics is not the only class you failed in school. Reading is another. I said nothing about “broad scale” anything. I did say that is how the president is elected. No ifs, ands or buts.

        As far as history, at least you learned (or lived that). But here is a math lesson for you. 2008 is NOT 2016 (nor is it 2000). Until you understand the differences in numbers, you will be forever clueless.

      • ==> I did say that is how the president is elected. No ifs, ands or buts. ==>

        Thanks for that profound insight. Of course, I never disputed that it even suggested otherwise, but don’t let that stop you to repeatedly civicsplaining it to me. Lol.

      • You whined about it, so i explained it for you. But then given what you did not learn in school, I see no reason for you to change at this stage in life.

      • Josh,
        If that’s your point, why not state it clearly instead of trying to show how bright you are arguing minutiae.

    • Trump won Pennsylvania and Michigan. Consoling yourself that it was close is like saying the New York Yankees played really well when they lost a baseball game to Ms. Havercamp’s third grade PE class.

      • Jeebus. This has nothing to do with “consoling” myself. It doesn’t make me feel any BETTER about the outcome that she may have won the popular vote. Republicans still have control in all branches. But if you’re going to draw vast reaching conclusions about the saegchange in broad societal phenomena, you should consider that very little about the balance of public opinion has changed by the evidence we have to compare pre- to post-election. Just as in previous years, the country is very divided, and evenly so. Is you think that the consistency of that characteristic of our society indicates change on a massive scale, have at it.

        It is also relevant because it MAY impact the “mandate” aspect of Trump’s agenda. More extreme policy initiatives are likely to be met by strong resistance from close to 1/2 the population. If you think that isn’t relevant, so be it. I happen to think there’s a big difference between the current situation and what the situation would have been had he won with a large majority of popular vote, let alone even a small majority.

      • Josh, you are the one arguing vast societal changes, you putz.

        I haven’t a clue how this election will change the status quo. Entrenched interests tend to remain in place unless over thrown by force. The same ass hats own or work in media. How they spin won’t change. What might change is their relevance. When all the pundits, columnists and talking heads got it wrong, who will be listening next time.

        The only thing I have any sort of confidence in is that Hillary won’t be appointing SC justices. That’s good enough for me.

      • Josh, Obama carried Michigan by 9 points in 2012- after Obamacare became hated. It takes an extra-ordinarily bad candidate and supremely awful policy proposals to get Michigan to turn 10 points red.
        Their failure to elect a white woman, but to support a black man makes me suspect racism isn’t the answer.
        The fact that Hillary was a crook certainly hurt, but this is Michigan. The fact is the Democrats went hard-left, Hillary couldn’t break out of that without alienating half her base. The party has some real soul searching to do and the first step is going to be to figure out how to marginalize the Bernie-ites. They did it after Mondale, they could do it again. Fortunately (I’m a Republican) they won’t- I suspect they’ll nominate Elizabeth Warren in 2020, run (again) on a “screw people with jobs” platform and add a few more states to the list that switched red.

    • Whine…whine…whine…

      Johshie, YOU LOT LOST.

      Live with it.

  34. The Clinton money train has been sidelined. Let’s hope — for the good of the country — that the Democrat party can do better in the future.

  35. Judith. Make sure you watch both of his hands when you meet him.

  36. Congratulations, and cheers!

  37. I wonder if the cabinet secretary meetings will be broadcast like the apprentice? Toe the line or you are fired. DOC secretary will be an interesting choice.

  38. As I write, Trump’s margin of victory over a seriously flawed candidate is 0.1% (47.6% to 47.5%), but the percentages still change hourly (indeed, different pages within the NYT do not always agree with each other at any particular time), and Trump may not have been the winner of the popular vote. The House and Senate hardly changed. Lots of the Republicans on the Hill don’t like the guy.

    I would not read any interpretation into this result.

    As to polling, the last polls had the race too close to call: RealClearPolitics had 14 “toss-up” states. Clinton took a dive in the last 2 weeks. The results are well within the reported margins of error.

    • I heard that Redimowits did well down ballot. Paul Ryan was almost smiling when he discussed the outcome! I have a feeling some of the NeverTrump Redimowits will change their tune. Some of them are up for re-election in two years. They won’t want to hear Trump’s footsteps around that time.

      • jim2: did well down ballot.

        Republicans lost 2 Senators and 6 House seats. That’s no practical change at all.

        Republicans gained 3 or 4 Governorships.

        Republicans gained 30 state senators, and lost 5 state members of the lower houses.

        If ever there was an election that made hardly any difference, this was it. But on the whole it was a slight move away from Obama’s extreme (for the US) leftism.

  39. The best outcome of Trump’s election is that the media and progressives will re-discover the desire to rein in the Executive branch. I only hope that the conservatives will go along after reversing a few of the Obama disasters. The Presidency has grown like the Blob ever since Teddy Roosevelt, and it needs to be cut down to size.

    The Presidency should not be as meaningful/powerful as it has become.

    • Actually it should be abolished. It is an archaic system that needs an update. The President should be easier to remove and cheaper to elect.

      • The reason the Presidential elections cost so much is because THEY ARE WORTH IT. Not to us, but to the many vested interests (corporations, unions, govt workers, etc) who give money to get the goodies the Prez can influence.

        If you want to reduce the money in politics, reduce the amount of influence those politicians have over money. It’s that simple.

    • bigterguy: progressives will re-discover the desire to rein in the Executive branch.

      Filibusters will regain some of their lost popularity, and we’ll be reading more about “checks and balances” and less about “obstructionism”.

  40. Dow Jones up 170+ WUWT? :)

    • You are looking at the wrong indicator. There are trillions leaving the US bond market today. Lets play a game and guess how long it takes to 10yr bond to hit 7%. My guess is May 2017.

      • Bond yields are up, prices down. This indicates the bond markets anticipate lower risk. People aren’t running to Treasuries out of fear.

        US 3-MO 0.436

        UNCH
        US 2-YR 0.898 0.036
        US 5-YR 1.474 0.143
        US 10-YR 2.064 0.202
        US 30-YR 2.861 0.234

      • jim2, “This indicates the bond markets anticipate lower risk. People aren’t running to Treasuries out of fear. ”
        -OR-
        The world stopped lending us money on Nov. 8, 2016 because they think they might not get paid back. We will have to wait a few weeks to see where the fund flows came from.
        TBT – short bond fund up almost 8%, 5X normal volume.

      • If they were going to stop loaning money it probably would have been a few years ago when Obama ran the debt up over $16T

      • No schist, said the Geologist.

      • Good grief. Yields are rising because the expectation is that the fed will be more aggressive with interest rates, and Trump will stimulate banks to lend some of the 2.5 Trillion in excess reserves held on their balance sheets. The yield curve is steepening that is generally a good sign for the economy.

      • Doug nails it. Jack shows how blinded you can be when the center of the universe is viewed to be in the White House. We’ve had a 35 year bull market in bonds, ever since the Federal Funds rate started dropping from 21%. The Federal Reserve rules and will continue to do so for years. We should all hope for higher rates since that will be an indicator of a healthier economy with real GDP growth rates closer to 20th century averages.

      • Given the 16+ trillion (as of 2015) nominal federal debt will cost over 800 BILLION a year just to pay the interest at 5%, just interest, no principle. For comparison that’s more than we spend on defense.

        Last month the IMF estimated there is now 152 Trillion in total debt or 225% of global GDP, with the private sector responsible for two-thirds of the total.

        Actual quote from Pres. elect Trump:
        “I understand debt better than probably anybody. I know how to deal with debt very well. I love debt — but you know, debt is tricky and it’s dangerous, and you have to be careful and you have to know what you’re doing,”

      • Jack

        I heard the statement when he made it. That is Trumpbluster. Get used to it. He will have advisors all around him to whisper in his ear what reality is. Everyone who is in the markets understand what moves interest rates and they are not concerned about the Trump comments. But they are concerned about future action by the Fed. An old saying on Wall Street is “Don’t fight the Fed”.

        When Nixon was run out of town, we were all reminded that America is a nation of laws not people. Just as a general comment everyone should chill out and relax about the end of the world coming from Trump’s election. The republic will do just fine, thank you.

        Regarding your numbers lets go through the actual debt statistics. As of yesterday the total Federal debt was $19.8 Trillion and the Debt Held by the Public was $14.3 Trillion. That $5.5 Trillion difference is made up of intra-governmental holdings such as Social Security bonds etc, where specific programs are owed by the General Fund and will have to be paid out over the next few decades.

        The more immediate problem is the $14.3 Trillion that is held outside of government by private and governmental entities, including foreign sovereign wealth funds. The debt service is actually paid to holders of the bonds and notes and creates an expenditures just like all other government spending. When Obama took office that number was $6.3 Trillion, so he was responsible for the $8 Trillion increase. But why pick on my Liberal friends.

        While the Federal Reserve sets a psychological tone for interest rates through the Federal Funds rate and other actions, the market will determine the rates at the longer end of the curve. And it ultimately will be the market that affects the annual interest costs on that $14.3 Trillion. You are correct to be concerned about those costs when interest rates go up. I am glad you pointed out that military costs are less than the potential debt service costs, because it is true. But then it is a little late to start worrying about the long term effect of spending decisions that have been going on for decades.

        We should keep in mind that Japan spends 40% of its tax revenue on debt service. It has been trying to juice up the economy with low interest rates and deficit spending (with the help of Keynesian economist extraordinaire Paul Krugman) for the last 25 years. They now have fewer employees than in 1990 and the hole keeps getting larger. Something to think about.

      • cerescokid,
        So Trumpbluster is sort of like Truthiness.
        Just point me to where he defines transparency so I can learn how to speak Trumpese.

      • Jack,
        Your comments about public and private sector debt are spot on IMO. I am also concerned that unleashing the 2.5 trillion in excess reserves will result in significant inflation pressures. Remember, within the fractional banking system that 2.5 could become 25 trillion or more of new debt formation.

  41. Maybe the pollsters should stop pre-selecting voters based on their political affiliation.

    Take a random sample. If more people belong to one of the parties, the random sample will, on average, reflect that. They can still ask party affiliation, but a truly random sample just might give them better results.

  42. About a month ago, I posted a comment about my impromptu survey of presidential yard signs in three counties in Upstate New York — up along the Hudson River. My wife and I had been looking for a summer home in the area — we did not intend to do any kind of survey — but we noticed that there were lots of Trump/Pence signs in peoples yards and few Hillary Clinton signs. After the first few days, we kept a rough count — about 9 Trump signs for every one Hillary sign. I mentioned in my comment that this seemed odd as New York is primarily a Democratic state in Presidential elections.

    I pondered what this might portend for the election — and now we know. The support for Trump, or at least against Hillary, was out there — despite the Hollywood stars, the mega-bucks business leaders, and the solidly “progressive” academia.

    We live in exciting times — I hope things work out for us.

    • Curious George

      Numbers for NY as of now: Clinton 59%, Trump 37%. Polling is a difficult job.

      • Curious ==> The point is that there existed a huge groundswell of Trump supporters where they weren’t expected — this is what seems to have been revealed in the Battle of the Lawn Signs in the mid-Hudson Valley of NY. A month later, we see an elections upset.

    • Kip –

      Do you realize that the Republicans control the New York Senate? New York City supported Clinton by a 4 to 1 margin. However it’s not unusual 4 upstate to a 4 to 1 margin. But Upstate Republicans enjoyed majority support

      • Joshua ==> I am not politically savvy enough to contend about it. NY is, and has been, a Blue State for about 20 years…. Dems carried NY in Presidential elections in 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016.

        Yet, under the covers, there in NY State, and much of the country, the undercurrent of Trump support was strong enough to deliver an upset.

        It is actually my opinion that Trump ran almost as a third-party candidate — certainly not really supported by the Republicans.

        Very surprising result … will lead to an interesting 4 years.

      • Kip –

        The area around where you were traveling is certainly not heavily Democratic. Think about it… The Senate is controlled by Republicans with a HUGE portion of the state’s population concentrated in heavily Democratic NYC. What should that tell you about the areas where you were doing your sampling?

  43. The biggest change may be seen looking at the money spent and who was doing the spending: the Democrats went down throwing millions of dollars at us without leaving a trace– just like we saw with the Obama economy.

  44. Hoo-boy, did I get that one wrong! Oh, well, I survived 8 years of Ronald Reagan…

    • If you are like the rest of the country you did far better than just “survive” the Reagan years.

    • Scott Adams got it right, and explains (hint: shy Trump Supporters):
      https://www.periscope.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1mnGejmrXLRJX?t=1

      • David Springer

        @AK Scott Adams blinked about a month ago. He let himself be fooled by polls showing Clinton with ridiculous leads that just didn’t make sense from any rational angle. He fell for his own kind-of goofy belief that people are not rational. On the other hand I didn’t blink and stuck with the polls that made sense to me and the electoral college route that looked most likely – winning the rust belt. Obama/Clinton trade, energy, anti-business, and health care policies devastated the rust belt. It was an easy call that you could parlay that into a win. One of the big keys to that was no significant Mexican-American population. He had to reach out to blacks instead. That made Florida and North Carolina easier for the same reason – a dearth of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans.

        So now we have a guy that just demonstrated to us how quickly, easily, and cost effectively he could accomplish miracles. He made an enemy of the Republicans, the Democrats, banks, media, Hollywood, pretty much every institution except police, military, veterans, NRA, and churches. And he won. Accept that. Embrace it. It’s a good thing.

      • Adams on why Trump flew in under the radar:

        1. The social bullying coming from Clinton’s supporters guaranteed that lots of Trump supporters were in hiding. That created the potential for a surprise result, so long as the race was close.

        2. Trump’s powers of persuasion are better than I have ever seen from a living human. That made it likely that the election would be close. And people generally vote for their party’s candidate, so that too promised a close election.

        3. The mainstream media backed Clinton. That created a situation in which she was likely to be ahead at some point near the end of the election cycle.

        4. The business model of the news industry guarantees lots of “scandals” on a regular schedule. Small things get inflated to big things, and I assumed there would be plenty of them. Trump has the skill to overcome medium-sized scandals and bumps in the road. That’s all you need for an entertaining Second Act.

      • @David Springer…

        @AK Scott Adams blinked about a month ago. He let himself be fooled by polls showing Clinton with ridiculous leads that just didn’t make sense from any rational angle.

        They made perfect sense in terms of the “Access Hollywood” recording. That doesn’t mean he was right.

        I gotta admit I was really upset by the general MSM reaction to that tape. Equating women letting him “grab their p*ssy” with “sexual assault” is in the same class with Zarna Joshi:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ImSupXt3g

        But Scott Adams was trying to predict the reactions of general voters, and he may have assumed they would be more influenced by SJW scum than they were. That doesn’t mean he didn’t make very good predictions around that unexpected incident.

        Sort of like a climate model that doesn’t properly the reaction to a big volcanic eruption.

      • David
        As well as being racist, sexist, homophobic, stupid and Ill informed don’t forget that trump supporters are also evil and have unthinkingly caused financial Armageddon and the next world war as naturally you are also fascist.

        the left display their usual hatred of anyone with a different viewpoint to them and the hysteria will be familiar to anyone involved in the climate debate over the years.

        for possible purchasers of remote shacks in the mountains ideally with nuclear fall out shelters I recommend a visit to the blogs of Greg laden and sou where heads are exploding.

        I am not keen on trump but the alternative was worse and under hillary the swamp was unlikely to be drained.

        we are all brexiteers now. Have we collectively jumped off a cliff? I don’t think so
        tonyb

      • tonyb
        Have to wait and see with Trump. Just like observations in temperature changes vs projections. He has an opportunity to realign US politics as the Brexit votes did in the UK.

        At least we may save some of uour industrial infrastructure with an energy policy of all of hte above and movement back to nuclear power as green carbon emissions reductions. we will continue improving solar and wind to bring them into a more competetive position with other sources.

        Then we can move on real environmental problems like sewage tertiary treatment, desalination for water supplies, restoration of river water flows, coal slag pond cleanups.

        It could be an exciting time with real improvements rather than phony distractions. The election was like a distraction by the dems to “look over there, a squirrel”

        scott

  45. “And voters are sick and tired of the elite. ”

    Yeah!… right!… because Donald is the son of a miner and was flipping burgers at a McDonald’s with minimum wage.
    C’mon!

    P.S.: I am not a discontented Hillary supporter, but let’s be serious, folks!… Donald Trump IS the elite.
    Anyway, time will tell… let’s just wait a few months and see the first move he makes, not to mention how the markets will react to his election… even before his inauguration.

    • POLITICAL Elite. And no he is not. This is his first elected office. When we speak of the “elite”, we speak of those who make the laws – but do not follow them. In the US, there are actually classes (not poor, middle and upper as in other countries). The “Ruling” elite, and everyone else.

      • I would add the media moguls and talking heads, policy makers/thinktankers, and university pinheads to that definition of elite.

      • I call them the ladies in waiting to the Elite.

      • “I call them the ladies in waiting to the Elite.”

        ‘Apparatchiks’ is the correct title, I believe.

        Or ‘Useful Idiots’, of course.

      • “When we speak of the “elite”, we speak of those who make the laws – but do not follow them.”

        OK. Since yesterday Donald Trump has become “elite” himself.
        We’ll see how it fares in terms of making the laws and following or not following them, OK?
        Cheers, and good luck to us all.

    • Robertok06,
      One of the other ironies IMO is folks voted counter to their own pocketbooks w/r/t Obamacare.

      For folks of a family of 4, minimum $24,300 to maximum of $97,200.

      Folks don’t ‘save’ now and proposal to repeal and replace with HSA’s as mainstay is intriguing: https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/health/finding-health-insurance/maximum-income-obamcare-premium-assistance/

      This will be a big hurdle to overcome for some 20 million people. Pre-existing is a 2nd concern.

    • They’re tired of an elite that jets around preening and telling them how they have to sacrifice for the planet. They want their piece.

    • David Springer

      Elite is looking down at everyone else. Trump is famous for treating working class people with respect. His father taught him and it’s pretty evident he in turn taught it to his children. I’ve said all along it wasn’t him that convinced me. It was his three oldest children, his work ethic, never taking a drink, unbounded energy level, and not afraid to take on the impossible.

      Donald Jr. a few days ago in a tweet that I liked wrote “The easiest way to get my dad to do something is to tell him it can’t be done.” That does appear to be a major theme in The Donald’s life. Evidently someone told him he couldn’t be president of the United States.

  46. Dr. Curry would make a great science advisor. She takes a fair and balanced approach to science. She is appropriately skeptical and can admit what she doesn’t know. She has the best weather prediction model :) She has tested her science in the real world market place.

    I would also add she has been very open to free speech on this blog. We have been able to express diverse points of view and all have been welcomed. That is such a huge plus and speaks to her core values.

    All-in-all, she’s the kind of person I would be comfortable with in government.

  47. Thoughts on the Presidential election outcome:

    More deplorable uneducated white men voted than pantsuit wearing Wellesly College graduates. NOT

    MSNBC African American commentators view this election outcome as the last stand for white American racists given the browning of America in general.

    Coastal Elites, from which our mainstream media lurk, took Trump literally and not seriously. Midwest and Southern folk took Trump seriously and not literally.

    The failure of polling lies in pollsters trying to divine future voting behaviors from past voting behavior. Does this sound like our climate modelers?

    Journalism and the schools that produce journalists, have fallen victim to valuing multiculturalism and inclusiveness as opposed to stressing the values of digging into stories, valuing integrity above all else, and demanding that journalists become grounded in their art form before becoming visible. Of course these failures are evident in the recent Rolling Stones debacle on this front and the New York Times failure, taking at face value stories of racial prejudice when the entire story was made of whole cloth.

    The Trump Presidency will require yet another type of Trump than the one on the recent campaign trail. Actors and media stars are good at adapting to new roles to play to large audiences.

    • I tried paraphrasing the quote, and mangled it badly while the coffee pot was still perking.

      “The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.” Salena Zito, Atlantic Monthly, September 2016

  48. While Trump ran as a “Change” candidate, the only thing that changed was Obama for Trump. The senate, house and supreme court remain much the same as the last six years.

    • stevenreincarnated

      The supreme court is at a crossroads now, though. It sounds like we will get justices that have read the constitution instead of justices that make it up as they go.

  49. In 2009, when Obama was elected president, James Carville predicted 40 years of rule by the Democrat Party.

    Democrats controlled the House 2009-2011 while republicans controlled the House 2011-2017. Democrats controlled the Senate 2009-2015 while Republicans controlled the senate 2015-2017. Whoever is president gets most of the credit or blame, it is, however, worth noting that Republicans have controlled the House for the last 6 years and the Senate for the last 2 years. If this election represents the people vs. the elite, it is not about Democrat or Republican and most of the elite are still in seats of power. That includes Democrat and Republican legislators as well as pundits and media personalities.

    In a closed system, power that can “evaporate” when passions run hot can also condense when passions cool. In 1817, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” first appeared in print. Almost 200 years later it is still true.

  50. Reblogged this on Wolsten and commented:
    Judith Curry for special advisor on climate policy – now that would be good news!

  51. +1 Dr. Curry. Agree that #3 is the answer. What is amazing to me is the inability of either party to realize this in time to put up a more reasonable candidate.

    • Curious George

      Rules. Damn rules. A democracy is based on a respect for rules. The rule in the U.S. is that if you feel like a Democrat you register as a Democrat (like Donald J. Trump), and, if you later feel like a Republican you register as a Republican (like Donald J. Trump). You are free to offer yourself as a candidate. The party can not expel you.

      It may not be a good set of rules, and it may need more work, but that’s where we are.

  52. I predict a downturn in contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

    The data is in my visceral computer.
    Sorry, it’s proprietary.

  53. Looking from the other side of the pond, the most offensive thing I found in this and other US elections is to keep doing break downs by race. Your Americans start behaving as if your one people whatever your skin colour.

    • You may have also noted that it’s so-called liberals who are first to talk about someone’s race or gender. They are collectivists – and are mirrored by the American media.

    • The liberal establishment wants to make sure the white guilt thing never gets diminished. Without that where is the leverage? The rest of society would like to make progress. Not so liberals.

  54. BREAKING: Dow surges 300 points, tracking for record close after Trump election win

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/us-markets.html

  55. From the article:

    A sell-off in bonds sent prices tumbling, driving the yield on the 10-year Treasury note up to 2.04 percent from 1.86 percent late Tuesday, a large move. That’s the highest the rate has been since January. That rate is a benchmark used to set interest rates on many kinds of loans including home mortgages.

    Traders are selling bonds to hedge against the possibility that interest rates, which have been ultra-low for years, could rise steadily again under a Trump administration, said Tom di Galoma, managing director of trading at Seaport Global Securities.

    “People are starting to believe that Donald Trump is good for the economy, which makes him not so good for the bond market,” di Galoma said. “You’ve also had the stock market come back overnight. People are starting to realize that a Trump presidency is not the end of the world.”

    Though uncertainty remains over Trump’s trade, immigration and geopolitical policies and what his victory means for the future of globalization, investors appeared somewhat calmed by his victory speech, in which he praised Clinton and urged Americans to “come together as one united people” after a divisive campaign.

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/09/us-stocks-gain-following-trump-victory-bond-prices-tumble/http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/09/us-stocks-gain-following-trump-victory-bond-prices-tumble/

    • Rising interest rates are bad for existing bonds just as falling interest rates are good for existing bonds. In the former case existing bonds loss value and in the latter they gain it. New corporate borrowing would be good if the corporations expand and use what they borrowed to make even more money. A more stagnant environment mean less demand for bonds and a lower interest rate. I’d say a bond market fall while stocks rise is normal. However a potentially huge down side is new issues of government T-notes and T-bonds. They would have to have higher interest rates.

  56. It struck me as strange that it hasn’t been widely mentioned that the Democratic Party lost as well. The cunning and secretive behavior of Hillary was not the only issue in this election. What with all the bantering about why the press missed the election call, the pollsters missed, pundits missed one would have thought the issues revolved around Hillary and her feminism.

    Notice, the Democratic Party was left in the dust in mass. Why? maybe the progressive agenda of the last decade or so has failed to deliver jobs? improved social wellbeing? spending/borrowing more has just racked up more debt leaving behind a much larger legacy for a heterogeneous population to address.

    Taking stock of what just happened electorally, will be the most important agenda for America to consider. Once one knows what happened, then another agenda can be formulated. It is this last issue, formulating an agenda roadmap that inclusiveness is necessary to bring a united action plan.

    • RIHO08,
      “It struck me as strange that it hasn’t been widely mentioned that the Democratic Party lost as well.”

      Strikes me as less of an indicator of ‘change’ than what is professed considering the make up of congress since first 2 years of Obama’s term. But it will be an interesting experiment to see if the additional layer of checks and balances ‘we the people’ have been recently responsible for for installing and which is now missing will lead to a ‘do something’ change.

      “It is this last issue, formulating an agenda roadmap that inclusiveness is necessary to bring a united action plan.” Specifically oriented towards the climate discussion this is an area which demands great attention. And it’s not solely about climate of course.

    • I have to disagree that all Trump has to offer is nationalism. If he helps the energy industry by decreasing regulations, that will be a real improvement. The cheap natural gas is good for the US chemical industry.

      Of course, HuffPuffians won’t give Trump a chance. But, time will tell if he can deliver an improved economy for the US.

    • Each side creates a caricature of what they believe the other side “is” and then publically attack that caricature. This article is an example of that behavior.

    • “Ground-breaking coalition-building between working class whites and people of color is the only path forward.”

      And what pray tell will such coalitions look like for now? bring to the working class? look like at some future time?

      This article speaks as does Trump, in platitudes. What does a high school graduate in East Liverpool Ohio, on the banks of the Olde Ohio do after graduation? Particularly when there is nothing but minimum wage jobs, even if they bump up the wage a bit.

      The national job market is for programers, coders, and engineers. These jobs require math skills of a high calibre. Not quite the usual forum for talking about fast cars, fast women, drinking beer and otherwise hanging out.

  57. America tells The Donald: “You’re hired”

    I hope Dear Donald appoints good, rational, highly experienced, competent advisers (Obama’s failure to do that is to a large extent why he failed so badly). I hope Trump’s advisers can persuade him not to pursue policies that will reduce global economic growth rates, reduce global security, and raise tensions. I hope he can be persuaded to drive progress towards removing international barriers to global free trade.

    I hope this change in dirrection will send a clear message to the US and the rich world the majority are absolutely fed up with:
    – PC correctness
    – CAGW scam
    – climate change agenda
    – advocacy for carbon pricing and other mitigation policies
    – The EPA’s agenda to reduce reliability and increase cost of energy
    – UN regressive policy agendas (I suggest Trump should specify what the US’s contributions to the UN can and cannot be used for).

    But I also hope he will recognise the importance of reducing barriers to trade; otherwise he will exacerbate the global trend to slowing growth and stalled standard of living.

  58. Judith keeps her head in the sand despite the last 5 years being the hottest on record. How soon before she acknowledges that physics trumps politics. Or is that asking too much of a scientifically trained person?

    • “How soon before she acknowledges that physics trumps politics.”

      I’m having a hard time finding the “physics trumps politics” clause in the constitution. Could you cite the article and clause? I’d like to get a better reading on that. Were the several states guaranteed a technocratic form of government?

    • despite the last 5 years being the hottest on record.
      Ah, the liberal of turn a fact into an accusation.

      Is it warmer? Sure, it started warming about 150 years ago and since it takes about 128 year for the ocean to readjust it will warm for a while.

      If it is warming out of a little ice age is annual “warm” global records by whatever mythological method you care to apply unusual? No.

      Is the warming bad? Not to this point and probably not to that point either.

      Lets take the 0.26°C that GISS adds to modern temperatures, subtract it (so we are back to normal) then readd it to the 30s and 40s. See, no problem. Current temperatures really aren’t that unusual.

    • “Or is that asking too much of a scientifically trained person?”

      Yawn…

      As you are only too obviously anything but a scientifically trained person, you are utterly unqualified to question the likes of Professor Curry’s scientific understanding of anything at all.

    • Harry Twinotter

      Global Warming and Climate Change are going to continue, regardless of Dr Curry’s preference in politics, that’s for sure. If the US does not want to be a play so be it, other countries will continue the scientific work.

      • “Global Warming and Climate Change are going to continue, regardless of Dr Curry’s preference in politics, that’s for sure. If the US does not want to be a play so be it, other countries will continue the scientific work.”

        The scientific work as science – if that is what it is – is fine. “Scientific work” as policy, on the other hand, is entirely different matter. Science cannot tell people what to do and can only act as a guide post. Any notions of science “trumping” politics suggest a misunderstanding of both fields.

      • Harry Twinotter

        Jean Paul Zodeaux.

        That is my point, the science cannot be twisted or ignored. If the US embarks on a “shoot the messenger” campaign which some have hinted, there are other countries to continue the work.

      • That is my point, the science cannot be twisted or ignored.

        Dream on.

      • “That is my point, the science cannot be twisted or ignored.”

        Anything can be twisted and ignored including science.

        “The most prominent twisting of science by government is the ban on federally funded embryonic stem cell research…we can find many examples of modern government twisting science in various domains, including nutrition, environmental pollution, health care, support for antievolutionism, twisting of the facts concerning human cloning and so on.”

        ~Dan Agin – Junk Science: How Politicians, Corporations and other Hucksters Betray Us – Page 282~

        “At least since the time of Popper, scientists have understood that science provides falsification, but not “proof.” In the world of environmental and technological controversies, however, many observers continue to call precisely for “proof,” often under the guise of “scientific certainty.” Closer examination of real-world disputes suggests that such calls may reflect not just a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of science, but a clever and surprisingly effective political-economic tactic—“Scientific Certainty” Argumentation Methods, or SCAMs. Given that most scientific findings are inherently probabilistic and ambiguous, if agencies can be prevented from imposing any regulations until they are unambiguously “justified,” most regulations can be defeated or postponed, often for decades, allowing profitable but potentially risky activities to continue unabated. An exploratory examination of previously documented controversies suggests that SCAMs are more widespread than has been recognized in the past, and that they deserve greater attention in the future.”

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2008.00219.x/full

        For my third example of twisted science I will simply point to Lysenko.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        As an Aussie looking on, I had predicted Trump comfortable win from 6 months back and never wavered.
        From my chosen Internet reading, it was apparent early on that America needed mending. From an interpretation from sites like CE, I saw that many people had concluded not only that, but also that the repair mechanism was clear and available and timely.
        It was a probability conclusion, that there were enough Trump voters waiting there. In no way was there credible statistical support for my conclusion so it was at best, a mildly informed guess.
        However, if I had been reading a selection of poor quality blogs, I would easily have gone Dem.
        It is obvious that large numbers of people were swayed by blogs, more than in earlier years. It is less obvious that the quality of the blog matters.
        Thank you for this blog, Dr Curry.

      • Harry Twinotter

        Geoff Sherrington.

        “As an Aussie looking on, I had predicted Trump comfortable win from 6 months back and never wavered.”

        Strangely enough, I am an Aussie too. The US Presidential Election is not even my business as I am not a US citizen, but I did have endure many months of saturation media coverage (you would think the Australian ABC have better things to report).

        Last time I looked Senator Clinton won the popular vote by a small amount, so I don’t think President-elect Trump got a strong mandate from the US people.

        My opinion: let the US people enjoy their protest vote for now. They have elected a TV personality/salesman as their head of state.

      • Wrong – they have elected a citizen. And that is what America is all about. No classes, just citizens.

      • Harry Twinotter

        Jean Paul Zodeaux.

        You are a faux-intellectual who likes to cut and paste cherry-picked paragraphs from books?

        If you are trying to make a point, try saying it in your own words. At least it will be quicker to read.

      • Harry Twinotter

        philjourdan.

        “Wrong – they have elected a citizen. And that is what America is all about. No classes, just citizens.”

        Sure sure they just elected some average Jane Schmo off the street.

      • @Harry

        Joe – you have a problem with gender identification. Your slight and ignorance is duly noted.

      • Harry,

        Your assertion of my “faux” intellectualism is pretty rich given your complaint is that I made you read other sources than my own opinion. I have long argued the left hijacked the word intellectualism and now people think being an intellectual includes wearing T-Shirts with Alberto Korda’s rendition of Che and Birkenstock’s while living in a brownstone apartment with exposed brick as an aesthetic to compliment the found coffee table that sports a copy of the Communist Manifesto (of which they’ve never read) next to Madonna’s ‘Sex’ (because a coffee table book with pictures is easier to read).

        You’re just more than a little confused on what an intellectual actually is, Harry. You could clear up that confusion by spending a little more time reading, but that would probably be too hard for ya, no?

      • How leftist intellect-u-alls go about intellect-u all –
        persuasion. Saul Alinski Rules for Radicals and
        ACORN ends justify yer means.
        http://townhall.com/columnists/matthewvadum/2009/09/10/acorn_exposed_stealing_democracy

      • “…ends justify yer means.”

        Yep. It doesn’t take an intellectual to understand that whatever your end, ya got there by your means. It doesn’t take an intellectual to understand that when someone is selling ends to justify means this means there is no end in sight. It does, however, take a faux intellectual to dismiss such simple understanding capable by even the rural residents and hillbillies as being….well, too simple. It takes a faux intellectual to argue that it was more likely racism that motivated votes.

      • Harry Twinotter

        philjourdan.

        “Joe – you have a problem with gender identification. Your slight and ignorance is duly noted.”

        Sorry – I should have put a trigger warning on it for you.

      • You just have a reading problem. Joe =/= Harry.

        Not everything is about you.

      • That is my point, the science cannot be twisted or ignored.

        Sure it can. Scientific study results on a topic fall in a bell curve. Warmunist disincentives confined climate change results to the far right 20-30% of the bell curve.

        Are the studies wrong? No (well, mostly no., Some of the Mannian type studies are works of fiction).
        Is the average result of the studies right? No.

        Until the grant/peer review problem is straightened out so we get an unbiased group of studies there is no reason to take action.

        Cannot be twisted and ignored?
        In this case the answer is yes and because of that yes.

  59. “Watt the hell happened?” was the question being asked by many dim bulbs in the media and politics after lightning struck last night. Many of these low wattage bulbs were shocked that so many electrical volts ending up flowing to Trump. The chances that the electrical college will switch from fossils to renewables is now almost nil.

    • Well, we know lefty greenies have no clue how the grid works. I can see why they are so confused :)

  60. Open Letter To President Trump
    by Richard A. Epstein

    http://www.hoover.org/research/open-letter-president-trump

    Also …
    The Blue State Model Has Failed
    http://www.hoover.org/research/blue-state-model-has-failed

  61. Clearly, this election was a huge game-changer for numerous climate science issues. Things are looking much healthier today than they were 24 hours ago. I just hope that there are enough skeptics left to restore the science to a better place.

    • Steven Mosher

      huh?

      1. There is no team skeptic to speak of. zero.
      2. If there were a team skeptic, they would have to refuse to take government funding.
      3. The best you can hope for is a re aligning of budgets or cutting budgets
      in other words… do no science.

      There isnt some fantastic team of skeptics who will come forward to “improve” climate science. They have zero experience improving climate science or science for that matter.

      So the best you can hope for is just to cut funding..

      once science goes post normal there is no return.. just more politics.

      • One who isn’t skeptical also isn’t a scientist.

      • The English major lectures us on science. Give it a rest.

      • It’s always fun when people state opinion as fact. Cheers!

      • “The English major lectures us on science. Give it a rest.”

        err no.

        I said nothing about science.

        1. I talked about the lack of team skeptic..
        2..I repeated as an option what many of you have demanded– defunding

        Not a lick about science.. Mr anonymous coward.

      • “It’s always fun when people state opinion as fact. Cheers!”

        simple. we’ve been through this 100 times.

        there is no list of qualified willing skeptics who will step up and actually do science…. EVEN IF THEY ARE PAID

        second, as many of you have argued… defund is the only option

        I love when I repeat skeptic positions… you guys disavow them

      • Steven Mosher,

        If you and your ilk had been doing relevant science, instead of irrelevant science, for the past 30 years, we could now have a valid damage function. However, as you have shown by your avoidance when asked for the evidence to support the damage function, the relevant science has not been done.

      • @Steven Mosher…

        1. There is no team skeptic to speak of. zero.

        There are plenty of real scientists who have demonstrated skepticism of parts of the current AGW paradigm.

        2. If there were a team skeptic, they would have to refuse to take government funding.

        Once plentiful funding becomes available for alternative research, they just need to crowd to the front of the line for it. (For a value of “crowd” that includes good research proposals that meet skeptical needs.)

        3. The best you can hope for is a re aligning of budgets or cutting budgets
        in other words… do no science.

        Nope.

        Another approach is to change your proposal acceptance criteria. Put a much stronger screen in front of proposals that just involve running GCM’s.*

        There isnt some fantastic team of skeptics who will come forward to “improve” climate science. They have zero experience improving climate science or science for that matter.

        I’m sure there are plenty of recent PhD.’s willing to sign on for such projects, once the funding is available. As well as at least a handful (that I know about, I’m sure Prof. Curry could name more) who could step up to guide them.

        As for “coming forward”, I guess you’ve learned nothing from the failure of polls in the recent election: when SJW bullies are actively suppressing opinions they don’t like, there’s always a class of people who hold such opinions but don’t tell/yell about them. Get rid of the bullying, as in secret ballots, and watch how the numbers change.

        So the best you can hope for is just to cut funding.

        Nope.

        The best we could hope for is to re-direct the existing huge budgets into real climate science.

        once science goes post normal there is no return.. just more politics.

        Perhaps. That’s just an opinion, and I’m highly skeptical of it myself. But I will say that the “politics” around out-of-paradigm research will probably always be different than that for in-paradigm research.

        IMO any attempt to improve government funding to science needs to start with Kuhn, or more recent work based on his.

        * For instance, suppose Prof’s Anastasios Tsonis and Judith Curry were put in charge of redesigning the process of evaluating and approving climate-related research proposals?

      • nice strawman job mosh

      • There isnt some fantastic team of skeptics who will come forward to “improve” climate science. They have zero experience improving climate science or science for that matter.

        I’m going to assume you are simply ignorant instead of actively dishonest.

        Go read through the NSF and EPA RFPs (requests for proposal)..

        The RFPs for climate contain language that “assumes” AGW is runaway and solicit bad news.

        There was an EPA RFP that was especially egregious.

        An RFP for study of a topic should not be loaded with hints about what outcome you want.

        http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne
        Indeed, experts in the research community say that it is much more difficult for some of the top climate scientists — Soon, Roger Pielke Jr., the CATO Institute’s Patrick Michaels, MIT’s now-retired Richard Lindzen — to get funding for their work because they do not embrace the global-warming fearmongering favored by the government-funded climate establishment.

        Further, it is alleged the grant boards are biased against skeptics. Given that Trump is president it is pretty easy to audit the records of the NSF and EPA and if there is a pattern of discrimination against skeptics, or lack of viewpoint neutrality in the RFPs.

        Once the audit is done job actions can be taken against members of the grant selection panels and the RFP writing staffs based on the evidence.

      • Steven: “There is no list of qualified willing skeptics who will step up and actually do science”

        You use references of “science teams” (no skeptic science team). This is political analysis, not science. If it’s real science then there’s no such thing as a blue team or red team (I’m referring to political persuasions, not blind studies analysis). There’s a purple team who is interested in empirical data only (meaning they’re agnostic to political persuasion).

        There IS a blue team whether you acknowledge it or not, this necessitates a vocal de facto “purple team” (who indeed are the minority), who uses the blue team data and insists we, “do MORE science”. You somehow believe opposing views require a separate body of scientists doing “skeptical science”. Not at all, whoever is doing the science simply needs to empirically PROVE IT.

      • Mosh, your concept of how science and skepticism work borders on the pathetic. Happily I suspect you have no influence. In any case there is much to do and I previously posted two realistic ways to move forward (but I am working on others):
        https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/29/refocusing-the-usgcrp/
        https://judithcurry.com/2016/09/28/how-to-constrain-the-abuse-of-science-by-federal-agencies/

        Given four to eight years we can get much done, including (finally) doing lots of good science, not just polishing and protecting the outdated AGW paradigm.

      • “There are plenty of real scientists who have demonstrated skepticism of parts of the current AGW paradigm.”

        UNICORNS!!!!!

        You guys are HILARIOUS.

        First you complain that the entire field is full of group thinkers

        NOW you imagine that there is some hidden cadre of people who will
        come out and find that AGW is not the case

        THERE ARE NO UNICORNS

        ya got maybe Spencer and Christy.. and a couple others

        You could change EVERY RFP you wanted to and you would have enough competent skeptics to actually do the work..

        You keep thinking there is some hidden team of bright people who are going to go out and find that AGW is not the case..

        there is no such team.. no team no bench no stars no rookies no minor league teams… at best you have some pony league players and not a full team at that.

        Let me be clear. I am not talking about science.
        I am not talking about politics.

        I am TALKING about the SIMPLE PRAGMATIC FACTS. body count.

        climate skepticism has no players who could take the money and actually do anything worth while.

        You want some advice?

        I knew you did.

        Focus on observations.. you MIGHT be able to work on programs to collect better data.

      • First you complain that the entire field is full of group thinkers

        Yes it is. Perhaps at least 80%.

        NOW you imagine that there is some hidden cadre of people who will […]

        Not inconsistent with the above. (Except that “cadre” probably isn’t the correct word.)

        […] come out and find that AGW is not the case

        For an “English major” who’s studied semantics you seem to have a trouble noticing precise wording.

        Do you do your “science” this loosely?

        I am TALKING about the SIMPLE PRAGMATIC FACTS. body count.

        Nope.

        You’re ranting about figments of your imagination. How many times have people from the “consensus” paradigm told us about how every grad student dreams about overthrowing the paradigm?

        Mostly they’re wrong (IMO), but they’re probably right 5-10% of the time.

        climate skepticism has no players who could take the money and actually do anything worth while.

        I wonder if Prof. Curry would agree. All it would take would be 5-10% to do a bang-up paradigm challenge. The right 5-10% of course.

        You want some advice?

        Not from you.

      • ‘Given four to eight years we can get much done, including (finally) doing lots of good science, not just polishing and protecting the outdated AGW paradigm.”

        there is no WE

        like I said there are maybe 2 or 3 guys.. who MAYBE would have
        2-3 grad students a piece..

        lets be generous and say 20 competant people actually WILLING to do science.

      • Which is more than on the alarmist side. So still a win!

      • AK

        there is no 5-10%

        there is no angle to bust the paradigm.

        There is no science you can fund to show that c02 is not a GHG

        There is no science to fund that humans dont have a role in climate change

        The only angle on the paradigm, as our good hostess has shown is this

        You can argue about the amount of human causation

        And how to you make those arguments better?

        Ask yourself

        1. With better Modelling ( team skeptic has no experience )
        2. With better Paleo ( team skeptic has no players willing to
        work)
        3. With better observations.. The GWPF tried to get folks
        to review observations and they could not do the job.

        basically.. you cant name the folks who would and could do the work.

        But there is a trap here so be careful.. because some science will be funded… and it will be branded.. trump science…

        double edged sword..

        defund everything and you are anti knowledge
        fund some things… and its officially trump science…

        you’d be smart to think ahead

      • there is no 5-10%

        In your fantasies.

        there is no angle to bust the paradigm.

        There’s at least one that I know of, and quite possibly more.

        There is no science you can fund to show that c02 is not a GHG

        Irrelevant.

        There is no science to fund that humans dont have a role in climate change

        Irrelevant.

        The only angle on the paradigm, as our good hostess has shown is this

        You can argue about the amount of human causation

        Wrong.

        We don’t know how the climate works. We know that the current paradigm is wrong, and its dependence on GCM’s means it’ll probably never get better.

        We need a new paradigm that explains how climate works in new terms. Terms that relate to GCM cells the way oxygen relates to phlogiston. Perhaps. Perhaps different in another way.

        basically.. you cant name the folks who would and could do the work.

        I can name a few who are already doing the work, and I’m sure they can name more. And screen recent PhD’s for those who are qualified to help.

        But there is a trap here so be careful.. because some science will be funded… and it will be branded.. trump science…

        I’m not on the transition team, but if I were my advice would be to change the focus from running GCM’s to see what happens to developing a new, workable paradigm that explains how climate works. (Then use GCM’s to explore the parameters of that paradigm.)

        defund everything and you are anti knowledge
        fund some things… and its officially trump science…

        Well, yes. And paradigm challenges tend to be unpopular. But if out-of-paradigm research is what’s being funded, there’ll be plenty of recent (and not-so-recent) PhD’s lining up with research proposals.

        I’d guess at least 5-10% of those people would be qualified for such research, but I’m not close enough to the field to say for sure.

      • Steven Mosher: “There is no science you can fund to show that c02 is not a GHG”

        Still flogging that dead horse, Mosher? Don’t you ever get bored of making a laughing-stock of yourself?

        How many times do you need telling that very few sceptics deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Slow learner, are you? Or – more likely – just another has-been – there seem to be quite a few in the “profession” of climate “science” – who gets off on trying to be irritating?

        The debate is about the possibility of it causing dangerous climate change, as you are damn well aware, and it is very likely that there can be plenty of science to demonstrate that man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 is incapable of causing significant climate change.

        So stop making stuff up, why don’t you?

      • David Springer

        Funny stuff. Mosher was right about “Team Skeptic” not having a bunch of stuff. He left of the thing that Team Skeptic does have – control of the purse strings.

        You’re fired.

    • I voted for the one that did not say the Syrian war was caused by climate change.
      It was caused by elves.

  62. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Great post JC

  63. Could this mean that the elitist consensus of self anointed climatologists that CO2 has miraculous planet heating properties might actually be untrue?

    I find myself unable to resist –

    Facts trump fantasy, eventually!

    Cheers.

  64. This just in: Clinton Foundation to be renamed Clinton Legal Fund.

    • David Springer

      I want to see the pay-for-play Clinton affairs investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

      As far as the Clinton bathroom server and cavalier attitude towards network security I think justice was served through Wikileaks so we can let that go.

      • As far as the Clinton bathroom server and cavalier attitude towards network security […]

        Well, evidently she wasn’t guilty because she didn’t have the smarts to understand how it impacted National Security.

        Is that someone our country needs as a president? AFAIK the Trump campaign didn’t make a big deal about it, but I wonder how many voters thought of it for themselves.

      • Steven Mosher

        err no.. You want to investigate… build a big file with lots of names… and leverage it .

      • My guess is legal action against Hillary will not happen, unless she tries to meddle. The Clintons, it seems, are done influencing American politics. Chelsea doesn’t seem to have it, and Hillary as president will now never happen, so there is no reason to play ball anymore.

        It will be interesting to watch what happens to donations to the clinton global foundation over the next year. If contributions drop by a lot, then you can bet the contributions were there for reasons other than humanitarian ones.

      • David Springer

        Clinton’s going to get prosecuted. That doesn’t mean she’ll be found guilty and punished. But she won’t be allowed to just walk away from this without due process being served first. No one is above the law and that must be made clear lest anyone else contemplate doing this in the future.

      • Clinton’s going to get prosecuted. That doesn’t mean she’ll be found guilty and punished. But she won’t be allowed to just walk away from this without due process being served first. No one is above the law and that must be made clear lest anyone else contemplate doing this in the future.

        Consider prosecution set on “warp drive.” All of Hitlery’s transgressions, including all of her violations of Title 18 regulations pertaining to her flagrant e-mail breaches of national security damned near rising to the level of treason, all of the fraudulence, all of the peculations, all of the “Lolita express” statutory and violent rapes, all of the “Arkancide” murders, everything, with excruciating specifications detailing of all victims, all the crimes Hitlery and Bubba and Chelsea and everybody culpable in the decades-long history of the Clinton crime family have perpetrated.

        Then the humongous indictment is adjudicated, all of the defendants pleading “guilty” as charged, meaning that “due process” will be served.

        Whereupon Obozo will issue presidential pardons for all of ’em, all right-and-tight, before Hitlery feels more than a moment’s discomfort from the handcuffs. .

        Won’t that be peachy-keen?

  65. Harry Twinotter

    And how is Trump getting elected related to Climate Science? Unless you are referring to his policy promise to restrict EPA regulations (or something like that).

    I am always reminded of the saying: It does not matter who you vote for in an election, a politician always gets elected.

  66. Trump should fire Gavin Schmidt and return NASA GISS to the purpose it was intended for: “to perform basic research in space sciences in support of GSFC programs.” It was not created to study climate change.

  67. David Springer

    Two Questions [my guesses in brackets]

    Q1. If the press and establishment Republicans had not been aligned against Trump how much more (or less?) would his margin of victory have been?

    A1. [10%]

    Q2. Does the electoral vote and popular vote split mean anything?

    A2. [maybe]

    Each electoral vote represents about 500,000 voters. So 500,000 popular votes delta is rounding error. Another confounding factor is winner-take-all award of electoral votes combined with third party candidates able to get votes without effecting the electoral award. One more confounding factor is that each states gets 2 free electoral votes so states with smaller populations have more representation per voter. Interesting data here:

    https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/fairvote/pages/199/attachments/original/1450119297/2008votersperelector.pdf?1450119297

    There is however a darker possibility: cheating. Two recent elections have the Democrats winning on popular votes but losing the electoral votes; 2000 and 2006. There are no recent cases of Republicans winning the popular and losing the electoral. Democrats are usually the ones accused of ballot stuffing and we know at least a small amount of cheating occurs. Is that a factor? Maybe but with electoral precision at 500,000 votes if the marginal difference is less than that then rounding error can explain it all.

    • I think you meant 2000 and 2016 (not 2006).

      But to answer the allegation, and also correct a mistake, EC votes represent the total representation of each State (note the capital) in the government. Each State is awarded 2 senators regardless of population. That goes back to the founding when the small colonies were afraid of being overwhelmed by the larger colonies, so fought for and got the Senate – the higher body that represented the States (again note the capital). The “people’s” chamber, the House, was to be apportioned by population, and thus larger states would have more influence there. And the House does have some powers the upper chamber (the Senate) does not such as impeachment and origination of all spending and revenue bills.

      What you are missing is that the “USA” is actually the United STATES of America (again note the capitals). It was something akin to the EU, except with more democratic representation, and a common language. Most Europeans (and even Americans) forget that we are not a “Nation State”, but rather a “nation of States”. That is why when it comes to the leader of the “Nation of States” every State gets at least 3 votes.

      Here is also some more information,. The “election” of EC Voters is not mandated by the Constitution. It is up to each state to decide how they do it. In the early days, most States had their legislature chose their EC Voters! The population at large did not vote for the president. There is no law or rule that says “We the People” have to vote for president, only that the States vote for the president. So throw away any notion of popular vote, and tell California to be glad they have more votes than Wyoming (It could have easily gone the other way with each state getting equal representation).

      Finally, the 2 recent elections are hardly unprecedented as it has occurred half a dozen times in history where the popular vote winner lost the election. And it is NOT surprising it is the Republicans doing the winning. If you look at a map of the US and how it voted, you would see a sea of red (Republican) and a border of blue (democrats). Republicans, even when losing elections, usually win more states (unless it is a LBJ landslide). Those States have less population, so they have to win more of them. Trump won 30 to Clinton’s 20. 60%, which is the margin for a landslide.

      Finally, as for “ballot stuffing”, we have the video evidence. But alas, what I have just told you is not common knowledge among the low information folks that do the ballot stuffing (democrats), so they stuffed ballots in states Clinton was going to win in any event (that is usually where the most graft and dishonesty is in any event – democrat states). So while the vote was supposedly close, Clinton did not call for any recounts. And one wonders why? Maybe because they did not want their ballot stuffing to be found out. They were too stupid to realize the popular vote means nothing. The EC is what wins or loses.

      • It was something akin to the EU, except with more democratic representation, and a common language. Most Europeans (and even Americans) forget that we are not a “Nation State”, but rather a “nation of States”.

        The US was certainly a “nation of States” after 1776. But with the ratification of the present Constitution, it began (IMO, of course) a long evolution towards becoming a single nation-state. By the time of Lincoln the differing views of Federal vs. State “sovereignty” reached open war.

        After that, what had been a gentle drift turned into a gallop, and by WWII it was much more like a nation-state (in the post-Westphalian sense) than a federation of states. (Note the distinct definitions of “state”, US sub-polity vs. the value in “city-state”.)

        So while the vote was supposedly close, Clinton did not call for any recounts. And one wonders why? Maybe because they did not want their ballot stuffing to be found out.

        That was my speculation as well. I was surprised.

        It’s possible that some sort of vote-rigging took place in one or more of the critical states, and right after Podesta went out and told everybody she was going to hang on to the end somebody got to her and clued her in.

      • AK, I agree we have been marching towards a nation-state. The only impediment to it, is the Constitution, which, at least for now, has prevented a total subversion of the concept of this nation into such an animal. ANd of course vestiges remain of the Nation of States – such as the Electoral College.

      • David Springer

        That was pretty incoherent. Try describing the point you’re trying to make in fewer words at the outset.

      • Actually it is as succinct as you are going to get it. 30 second sound bytes are why there is so much ignorance about the Electoral College system.

        You can either re-read it, or better yet, research the founding of America.

  68. Hi Judith, you said, “A key message of this election is that the power of elites to persuade us has evaporated.”
    I wholeheartedly disagree, approximately 50% of the electorate cast a vote for Hillary Clinton. Look at the crazy things Hillary supporters are saying and which they apparently believe. It proves to me that the propaganda machine is alive, well and working. It just didn’t work quite well enough for them this go round. My point is that we must always be on guard when it comes to the “elites.” Thanks for providing the forum and for your thoughtful website.
    Brian Murphy
    Santa Fe, NM

    • You need to enjoy the moment.

      I went to bed discouraged and disgusted that my fellow Americans had such lousy judgment that they would elect someone who …. well let’s just say she was an ethical, honesty, and integrity disappointment. Someone who would continue Obama’s mismanagement of the economy and foreign policy.

      I woke up in the morning and pulled up the DrudgeReport webpage. My initial reaction:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BY7ecBlZaA

      Trump loves America, I love America, and apparently God does too..

  69. Geoff Sherrington

    As an Aussie looking on, I had predicted Trump comfortable win from 6 months back and never wavered.
    From my chosen Internet reading, it was apparent early on that America needed mending. From an interpretation from sites like CE, I saw that many people had concluded not only that, but also that the repair mechanism was clear and available and timely.
    It was a probability conclusion, that there were enough Trump voters waiting there. In no way was there credible statistical support for my conclusion so it was at best, a mildly informed guess.
    However, if I had been reading a selection of poor quality blogs, I would easily have gone Dem.
    It is obvious that large numbers of people were swayed by blogs, more than in earlier years. It is less obvious that the quality of the blog matters.
    Thank you for this blog, Dr Curry.

  70. I have to wonder if all these “protesters” got got off the couch or stopped smoking weed long enough to vote. I don’t see protesting laid out in the Constitution, so I’m not sure what role they believe themselves to be playing.

    • jim2: I don’t see protesting laid out in the Constitution,

      It’s the right to assemble peaceably. Clinton did quite well in the cities, and lost almost everywhere else. The county scale red/blue maps show Oregon, Illinois and MO, among others, as almost solid red with tiny blue dots.

      Like you, I do not know what the protesters hope to gain.

      • OK, you are correct. But that doesn’t include beating people to within an inch of their life, shooting cops, or burning property.

      • There will be more protests. As Michael Moore says, the United States is a country where a majority of the citizens say they believe in climate change, think women should be paid the same as men, want debt-free college education, want to raise the minimum wage, want a single-payer universal health care system and do not want to invade other countries, and they now have a President who is opposite to them on all of these views, so expect protests when this divide becomes clearer.

      • LOL! You are not taking directions from a clown who has no understanding of economics or politics. Congratulations. So why did you repeat the lies?

        Trump does indeed believe in equal pay (check the walk, not the talk. Trump did the walk, Hillary did not). Trump does indeed believe we should not invade other countries (war is bad for business).

        The country does not believe in a higher minimum wage (which was created to keep blacks out of work – see the history of Davis/Bacon – so no, a majority of the US is not racist like you believe).

        A majority of the country does not believe in Universal health care (as every poll has shown). And a majority of the country does not believe in debt free college (the only things worth keeping are those you worked for).

        So now we have a president that agrees with a majority of Americans, but NOT Mickey Moore and you.

        So I ask again, why did you lie?

      • Most people would like Medicare for all and a minimum wage. Poles away from Trump’s thinking that Americans are paid enough already, and don’t even want subsidized health care.

      • No poll shows that. Indeed, the minimum wage was created as a racist mechanism to disenfranchise blacks. And it still works that way (see the unemployment rate for black teens). Medicare is an EARNED benefit. You pay for it every day you work. So yes, those who EARN it, want it. They paid for it.

        Perhaps you meant “Medicaid”? That is a welfare program. And no, most polls do not show a majority wanting that either. They saw the VA.

      • Medicare for all would be paid for by the payroll tax. This is the way universal healthcare works in Europe. It works whether you are old, or a child or don’t have jobs for other reasons, or whether you do have a job. Healthcare is a fundamental right provided like education, police and fire services.

      • Wrong again. ALL government expenditures are paid for by taxes. Medicaid is paid by taxes. However, Medicare is a (supposed) trust fund (like Social Security) where those who pay INTO it are those that receive the benefits. In other words, it is a government savings plan (an oxymoron, but nevertheless the concept used to create it).

      • Yes, the idea is taxes, not insurance should pay for all health services. This is the bottom line. Insurance can be used to supplement a basic level, everyone should have a basic level as a right.

      • AH! YOu want the VA treatment! Yea, that works. They cover less than 10% of the population, and kill more than any private quacks.

        Yea, that would work real well. If you are going to die anyway.

      • Jim D: “This is the way universal healthcare works in Europe.”

        Wrong again, Jimbo. It works – of a fashion – in the UK. Other states have widely different systems.

        How European nations run national health services

        Belgium, France, Germany and Sweden run publicly funded health services similar in scope to the UK’s NHS – but in very different ways

        https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2011/may/11/european-healthcare-services-belgium-france-germany-sweden

      • Now you are just talking about healthcare systems that work for everyone, in contrast with the US one. There are many ways of doing it.

      • “work [sic] for everyone”???

        Is that why Danny Williams came to the US for his heart surgery?

      • OK. For the last 8 years half the people think the current President sucks. It goes both ways.

      • Obama’s approval rating is over 50% and a lot of the rest don’t disapprove that much.

      • And how do you know this? Perchance by some polls? The same polls that predicted a Hillary landslide victory?

        We already know the MSM is in the tank for the democrats. They admitted it.

      • Yes, who would say they approve of Obama (or Trump) when they didn’t. That would be ridiculous. What possible motive would there be for that?

      • The same reason they lied about Hillary’s lead. Apparently you never played connect the dots as a child. You do not seem to be too sharp at it.

      • If you want to get the votes out for your candidate you don’t say they will win easily. That would not be a good tactic.

      • You seem to be under the impression that I assign some sort of intelligence to the democrats or the media. I did no such thing.

        I merely told you what they did. Why they did it is up to speculation. And apparently in this case, whatever the reason was not intelligent.

      • Right. They approve that he’s on the way out.

      • Trump says the protesters were incited by the media in his reborn Twitter account.

      • They were incited by the media.

      • He also says paid by the media in one new conspiracy theory.

      • I’m not going to believe that without a link.

        And even if he says it, I doubt it’s the media paying. More likely paid by ACORN or Moveon.org.

      • AK, you would be disappointed if the link was to a Trump tweet. He calls them professional protesters. Someone has a lot of money judging by the numbers.

      • Jim D: “Someone has a lot of money judging by the numbers.”

        Rumour has it he’s called George Soros…

      • What’s the going rate, 50 cents?

      • AK, you would be disappointed if the link was to a Trump tweet.

        Not if it was to prove Trump said something.

        Anyway, there’s a big difference between “professional protesters” and saying the money was coming from the media.

        The MSM (and lefty’s like Beasty) are doing the inciting. Probably ACORN is providing the buses, and perhaps paying, or perhaps Moveon.org.

        This is the standard process the left has been using for years, and I’m sure the moment Trump won all the players got ready to play without having to coordinate in advance.

      • AK, you can have your conspiracy theories, but maybe these people just don’t like the hate and fear that Trump’s campaign was built on. It’s not looking good for American rights and values in their minds, and I can certainly see that point of view.

      • A “Conspiracy theory” is an allegation without proof. We have the proof. It is not a “conspiracy theory”. It is indeed a fact.

      • …that the crowds are paid and not just unhappy with Trump. Interesting view there.

      • Geez. Why all the complaining about ‘job creation’?

      • Reading apparently is not your strong suit. The crowds were real. The violent agitators were paid Hillary stooges.

      • You think they were paid? This is Breitbart level conspiracy ideation. It begins.

      • This is Breitbart level conspiracy ideation.

        But not as bad as your “Exxon knew” claptrap.

      • Really?

        Yup.

        Everybody does it. Only leftist types yap about their enemies doing it.

        Personally, when I see somebody yapping about “conspiracy ideation” I assume they’re trying to distract attention: “Look! A squirrel!

      • AK,

        ‘Only leftist types yap about their enemies doing it.’

        IMO, the greater benefit would be for each ‘tribe’ to call out their own.

      • IMO, the greater benefit would be for each ‘tribe’ to call out their own.

        Everybody needs to call out anybody who yaps about “conspiracy ideation”.

        “Conspiracies” are everywhere. From global geopolitics all the way down to somebody’s significant other and “best friend” cheating and keeping it secret.

        If somebody wants to claim a conspiracy, they should be challenged to show proof (or at least good reason for suspicion), and then it should be judged on its merits.

        People who try to distract the discussion by yapping about “conspiracy ideation” are probably just trying to distract attention from a real conspiracy, or at least one they think is real.

      • AK,
        “Everybody needs to call out anybody who yaps about “conspiracy ideation”.

        Hard to disagree except that when ‘the other side’ does it, it’s just argumentation. When one’s own side does, it’s housekeeping. That’s all I’m suggesting.

      • Exxon have the papers to show they knew. What is the question on that one?

      • There’s nothing in those papers to support any kind of “conspiracy” theory. It’s just the same thing everybody else knew at the time, with just the same uncertainties.

      • How can anyone know something that is not a fact?

        Perhaps you think they may have some papers that indicate they believed?

        And how many conditional words are in that single statement?

      • Their papers were saying that they expected emission reductions would be necessary and they were initially planning for that eventuality.

      • […] and they were initially planning for that eventuality.

        You mean like setting up solar PV R&D, and investing in fracking for oil and gas (to replace coal)?

      • Necessary for what? Link to the papers? Even the RICO AGs could not find anything. As there is nothing there. They were trying to PROVE that Exxon KNEW something that does not exist. It is hypothesized to exist. There is evidence it exists. There is no PROOF it exists. So those who say it does not exist are no more wrong than those that say it does exist.

        And the last I checked, opinions were still free speech. Slander and Libel can only be proven when it can be shown that the issuer KNOWS the statement to be false and that they are indeed FALSE. Which neither of those conditions can be met.

        And libel and slander are civil not criminal. All you have done is prove that Exxon is innocent of anything accused of. And that the RICO clowns are guilty of the crime they sought to persecute on.

      • It is conspiracy theorists that got us into the Iraq War. Trump associates with these people. Alex Jones is another close associate. Alex Jones has shown he can go toe to toe with Monckton in trading these theories. Troubling stuff. If you listen to his radio shows, you will hear that he is full-on nuts.
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-alex-jones_us_5829eb21e4b0c4b63b0d9249

      • It is conspiracy theorists that got us into the Iraq War.

        I very much doubt it.

        The “conspiracies” were manufactured to cover some other reason. Maybe oil, Maybe assassination plots. Maybe something else.

      • WMD was a conspiracy theory that proved unfounded.

      • WMD was a conspiracy theory that proved unfounded.

        Totally OT.

        First place, the Bush government was strongly challenged to provide proof.

        Second, the CIA provided proof. I personally dug into the “proof” offered by the CIA, and determined that it was BS.

        OTOH there was a real conspiracy among elected and appointed officials to cover up and distort the evidence provided by the CIA rank and file.

        This included reprisals for public “whistle-blowing” and other public activity.

        If anybody in the Bush administration had noticed people talking about a conspiracy to provide fake evidence to invade Iraq and dismissed it as “conspiracy ideation” they would certainly have deserved the same treatment people who do it WRT climate do.

        AFAIK nobody ever did, I certainly didn’t notice any. I’m pretty sure I would have, but perhaps not. Especially if it had actually been some left-wing MSM like the NYTimes, who are always dismissing things that way. (But they did support the Iraq invasion.)

      • There were at least a couple of lines of conspiracy ideation, (1) the Iraq had WMD, and (2) that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. As with all conspiracy theories they are light on facts with a heavy dose of imagination and wishful thinking wrapped around it.

      • Yea, I keep hearing that 9-11 connection. But never from Bush or the Administration. So whose conspiracy ideation are you talking about?

      • Yes, that was Cheney suggesting that a leading terrorist had met Saddam. Saddam was more likely to kill AQ fanatics than meet them, but anyway.

      • Let me get this straight.

        You claim “tin foil” hat conspiracies are facts where there is proof of the action.

        You claim that “facts” are things that have no evidence, but they sound good to you.

        Yea, you need a LOT of schooling! Again, E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. Your “conspiracy theories” lack them. My facts have all they need.

        Come back when you learn the difference.

      • “There were at least a couple of lines of conspiracy ideation”

        Don’t you realise what sort of prat you look when you witter about “conspiracy ideation”, straight out of the Loopy Lew Lewandowsky and Cook the (failed) cartoonist playbook?

      • I am sure you have some favorite conspiracies, come on. Check radio shows with Monckton and Alex Jones if you want to see what the rest of the skeptics are into.

      • @Cat – Lewandowsky and Cook practiced conspiracy ideation to try to tar those who were not sycophants. And so does Jim D. He calls “conspiracies” that which are fact, and calls fact that which has no evidence.

        He could be Lewandowsky under a pseudonym.

      • No, it is on camera. Sorry, we have both written and visual proof that indeed the violent agitators were bought and paid for by Soros and the Democrats. It was only after the video was released showing the democrats bragging about it, that the violence subsided.

        A conspiracy is an idea with little evidence and no proof. This is no conspiracy (other than a criminal conspiracy by Democrats) as we have ample evidence and proof.

        I take it you have no clue about AGW either given your inability to understand the difference between a “conspiracy” and a fact?

      • There’s still people showing up outside where Trump lives demonstrating. People don’t need to be paid to dislike him. They just do from the kind of things he has said.

      • There goes Lucy again! Trying to pull the football out.

        Only you are talking about who loves or hates him. We have evidence, damning evidence, they are paid. You have NO evidence they are not. So you are trying to change the subject to who likes him and who does not.

        That is not the issue. I can get a million people to march and demonstrate they hate peanut butter if I had enough money.

      • Jim D: “There’s still people showing up outside where Trump lives demonstrating. People don’t need to be paid to dislike him. They just do from the kind of things he has said.”

        And yet had Hillary won, you would have been hard put to get anyone to demonstrate outside her house, even if you offered to pay them.

        That’s because unlike Lefties, Right wingers can respect a person’s privacy. They are capable of keeping things in perspective, you see.

        Lefties on the other hand don’t even know the meaning of respect.

      • I think the “Lock Her Up” mob would have been around and not just faded away. You saw those people. They looked sincere and rather scary, but they have faded into the background recently. Will they come back? I don’t know. You tell me.

      • The Lie in your statement is that the FBI said before the election (long before) that Hillary had broken the law. Yet there were no demonstrations demanding to “lock her up” around her residence.

        We do not need to hypothesize about unicorns and rainbows. We have the facts once again.

      • AK, you can have your conspiracy theories, but maybe these people just don’t like the hate and fear that Trump’s campaign was built on.

        There’s something incredibly hypocritical about types like you yapping about “conspiracy theories” after all the yapping you did about Exxon.

        As we both know, Trump’s campaign was not built on “hate and fear”, except in the fantasies of the MSM and lefty media. The media has been inciting violent protest (I posted links earlier). If they need a ride to the protest I’m sure ACORN will help out with buses. And, if they can’t come up with ready cash, Moveon.org or some similar “charity” will be there to help.

        This sort of stuff has been going on for decades, there’s nothing secret about most of it. It’s been reported for years. Only deniers hide their eyes and yap about “conspiracy theories”.

      • The people just don’t like him. You can tell by the unpopularity polling. This is a reflection of such an unliked person becoming president. We don’t see the happy rallies we saw after Obama came in. Do they even exist? I am not surprised at all by this. Maybe you are.

      • The same polls that predicted a Hillary landslide? LOL

      • No, really, Trump is not a liked person. Does that surprise you so much?

      • All you can honestly say is YOU do not like him. But then you have made that readily apparent. What his family and colleagues say differs from your opinion greatly. But then if we are going to elect who we like personally, very few are going to vote period.

      • There were polls. People don’t like him.

      • Again, do you not follow threads? Apparently so I will say it again.

        Are these polls you talk about the same ones showing Hillary with a double digit lead?

        The only thing you can say is that YOU do not like him.

      • The people just don’t like him.

        Because the MSM lied about him. Over and over and over and over.

        We don’t see the happy rallies we saw after Obama came in. Do they even exist?

        Yes.

        I am not surprised at all by this. Maybe you are.

        Not surprised. Disgusted, but not surprised.

      • David Springer

        Michael Moore is mistaken about those majorities.

      • David Springer

        The bar where we had our election party had its roof raised off by the cheering as critical states were declared for Trump.

        There’s a lot of people who love the guy. Trust me. That number will grow. It takes a while for a lot of people to appreciate the blunt style of New Yorkers. Empire State residents don’t waste time with political correctness.

      • JimD: Obama’s approval rating is over 50% and a lot of the rest don’t disapprove that much.

        Obama has a higher approval rating than his policies. His policies turned a Democratic bicameral majority in the Congress into a Republican bicameral majority.

      • My unsubstantiated theory is Obama’s ratings are improved out of comparison with the candidate replacements (now replacement).

      • Where he succeeded was with giving America a better name in the world and seeing us out of the recession at a better rate than most other countries. The public also give Congress a failing grade for not helping him more. They know where the blame goes.

      • Better name in the world? ROFL!!!! Sorry, the US name is MUD thanks to Obama, Kerry and Hillary. OUr allies do not trust us, and our enemies no longer respect us.

        And out of the recession? LMAO!!! Yea, with over 94 million no longer in the work force, wages stagnant, and no growth in 8 years. He led us into stagflation. Not out of a recession.

      • Trump is making us a laughing stock. You need to get out of the country more.

      • laughing stock? No, but you are trying. SO still 2+ months until he is president, and what have we heard so far?

        Canada and Mexico say that NAFTA is open for negotiation. Russia says “Well Done!”. The UN is having to change soiled pants. China is wagging a finger and quivering “You betta not!”.

        What I have not heard is laughing. At least not at Donald. At Obama, lots of it!

      • The Russians are happy for the same reasons that NATO are not. Assad is happy too. These are not the people we want to be happy with a US president. We would prefer if the EU and NATO remained happy, which they have not.

      • now you are telling us you are Karnac. Yea, when you cannot do simple math. Sorry, you have no clue.

        I have opinions on why. And as they are more informed than yours, more likely to be true. But then I do not have to worry about it since as I said, it is still 2+ months in the future.

        What you have, Karnac, is no clue. What you have is hate. ANd so it colors all your views.

      • I am only saying look who is happy and who isn’t with this turn of American politics. Maybe you don’t care what NATO and the EU think, and that is fine too.

      • Is Ambassador Stevens Happy? How about the patrons of the Pulse Night club? Are they happy with the current Administration?

        I looked at who you WANT to be happy. And I am glad they are not.

      • Would you blame the administration or the terrorists first? What about 9/11? Use an equal standard.

      • i blame the terrorists for the terrorist acts. Do you normally blame the victims?

        Benghazi was not about stopping the terrorist – you have to be right 100% of the time, they only have to be right once. Benghazi was about PUTTING the ambassador in harms way to cover up an illegal arms deal, and then denying any assistance and then lying about it!

        You can blame the government for the terrorist. Liberals love to blame the victims. I blame the government for lying and incompetence.

      • The State Department did not send the ambassador anywhere he didn’t want to go. He went to an insecure area by his own choice. Things happen.

      • Wrong again! Ambassadors go where they are TOLD to go. They have no choice in the matter except to resign.

        You are consistent in being wrong.

      • “Trump is making us a laughing stock.”

        No Jimbo.

        Obama made you a laughing stock, amongst everyone except the pseudo-intellectual self-elected “elite”, who have lost in both the USA and the UK. One day you’re going to have stop denying that..

        Crimea, the Ukraine, Syria mean anything to you?

        Where was your precious Hussein Obama when Putin was busy annexing the first two and laying waste to the third?

        I’ll tell you – on the bloody golf course. Do you think everybody doesn’t know that? Hey, even under the much-maligned Dubya the Russians never went that far, they knew he wouldn’t stand for it.

      • So, while Obama is cool around the world, Trump, not so much. Americans overseas will be constantly trying to defend his latest tweet or behavior or disown him completely, perhaps pretending to be Canadian to avoid associations. World leaders talking to him will quickly discover he doesn’t actually know anything and just show him shiny objects to amuse him.

      • YOU may be trying to apologize for him, but the rest of us will not. The rest of the world only knows what the American MSM says about the country. And as we saw, with proof, is they lie through their teeth for the democrats.

        Trump will be dealing with the leaders, and they are not as gullible as the population at large which has no clue about the real America (otherwise, they would not have been surprised at the election).

      • Trump is out of his depth with geopolitics. He is learning all this on the job. An apprentice, you could say.

      • So was Obama. His only foreign policy experience was a Madrassa in Indonesia! But unlike Obama, Trump can learn. He has shown that.

        No one is elected for their foreign policy experience. And very few have any going in. All must learn. Bill Clinton’s experience was a trip to London in college!

        Keep throwing up (pun intended) your impotent objections. We can use the comedy.

      • Trump has shown himself to be weak on knowledge and even on willingness to learn. To learn, you have to be interested. He is just not interested in anything except money and himself.

      • No, You see what you want to (see previous comment). And it is seldom correct. You do not earn Billions by NOT learning. You do not build an empire by NOT be willing to adapt and change.

        YOU have not become rich. YOU have not built an empire. YOU are describing yourself. We have the evidence that you are wrong. And we do not care what the haters think or feel.

      • He knows how to borrow money and buy things, often with misguided optimism. Sometimes he fails big for his creditors or shareholders, and he is no longer able to borrow in the US because of his failures, so now he does most of his borrowing overseas. It’s a continuing cycle.

      • Lesson #1 for those who may have missed it the first time.

        Chapter 11/13 is when you PAY the creditors, you just restructure payment. Chapter 7 is when you do not. Trumps were not Chapter 7.

        Lesson #2 – 4 Bankruptcies out of 527 Companies is a restructure rate of less than 1%. The average bankruptcies is many times higher.

        Lesson #3 – Trump knows how to win. He did. You lost.

        Lesson #4 – A sure way to always lose is to underestimate your opponent. I gather you never have won.

      • philjourdan: “Lesson #4 – A sure way to always lose is to underestimate your opponent. I gather you never have won.”

        I doubt he’s even bothered to try.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I don’t want a leader that is “cool” around the world. I want one that is trusted by our friends and feared by our enemies and Obama is neither.

      • stevenreincarnated: “I want one that is trusted by our friends and feared by our enemies and Obama is neither.”

        Obama is rather the opposite, despised by your enemies and distrusted by your friends.

      • One possibility is that Putin is going to sense a weakness in Trump as regards Eastern Europe and may start to test him. Trump has already telegraphed his weakness on NATO and unwillingness to argue with Putin’s aggression, which is dangerous.

      • Jim D: “unwillingness to argue with Putin’s aggression, which is dangerous.”

        And there’s me (and anyone else who was paying attention) thinking it was Hitlery who was hell-bent on starting WWIII! Aided and abetted by the EUSSR…

      • Trump plays Chamberlain in this analogy.

      • Jim D: “Trump plays Chamberlain in this analogy.”

        No, I don’t think so.

        In any case Chamberlain has been somewhat badly treated by historians, his delaying tactics enabled the UK to embark on a massive rearmament program and generally get the hatches battened down in preparation for the inevitable.

      • No, that was Kerry with Iran. But thanks for playing!

      • If Trump wants to do anything with the Iran deal he has to go past Putin first, which he won’t of course.

      • Trump can do what he wants with the Iran deal, because it has no weight of law with the US. It was never ratified by the Senate. He needs no ones permission to do a thing. He is not some mealy mouth Obama.

      • LOL!!!! No, Putin already sensed one in Obama. That is why he has Syria, Georgia, and the Ukraine.

        We will see how well Trump does with Putin, and like all things, he can be worse than Obama, but it will be hard to do that.

  71. I’m thinking the woman behind the man might have a bright future. Kellyanne Conway was the first woman to guide a Presidential campaign to a win. (Glass ceiling broken :) She kicked major butt and is much better looking than Karl Rove to boot. I’m so glad he’s water under the bridge. He was a serial failure of late.

  72. Any single body of law that’s over 5500 pages can’t be good. Hopefully Trump will axe the TPPA right off the bat. We need surgical agreements, not the broad, give-up-your-rights monstrosities. From the article:

    TPP Trade Deal Hits 5,544 Pages, Longer Than Obamacare PLUS Rubio’s ‘Gang Of Eight’ Cheap-Labor Amnesty Bill

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/05/tpp-trade-deal-hits-5544-pages-longer-obamacare-plus-rubios-gang-eight-cheap-labor-amnesty-bill/

  73. The song of the brain-washed. From the article:

    Throngs of demonstrators held marches across the United States on Wednesday to protest Republican Donald Trump’s surprise victory in the U.S. presidential election, blasting his campaign rhetoric about immigrants, Muslims and other groups.

    In New York, thousands of protesters filled streets in Midtown Manhattan as they made their way to Trump Tower, while hundreds others gathered at a Manhattan park and shouted: “Not my president.”

    In downtown Chicago, thousands more gathered outside the Trump International Hotel and Tower while chanting phrases like “No Trump! No KKK! No racist USA.” Chicago police closed roads in the area, impeding the demonstrators’ path. There were no immediate reports of arrests or violence.

    “I’m just really terrified about what is happening in this country,” said 22-year-old Adriana Rizzo, who was holding a sign that read: “Enjoy your rights while you can.”

    Protesters railed against Trump’s campaign pledge to build a wall along the border with Mexico to keep out undocumented immigrants, and other policies they deemed racist.

    “I’m particularly concerned about the rise of white nationalism and this is to show my support against that type of thing,” Rizzo said.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-protests-idUSKBN1343CO

  74. Judith,

    You should consider contacting Trump and offering your services to bring sane energy policy to the US.

  75. Good analysis, Judith. But you mention ” . . . the Hollywood and rock star icons who came out en masse for Clinton apparently didn’t sway many voters . . .” I think the importance and number of liberals in Hollywood is exaggerated. Here’s a list of names of people who reportedly voted for Trump. A lot of heavy hitters from both the sports and entertainment worlds:

    Robert Downey
    Loretta Lynn
    Clint Eastwood
    LL Cool J
    Jon Voight
    Robert Duvall
    Tom Selleck
    Mel Gibson
    Sylvester Stallone
    Bruce Willis
    Kurt Russell
    James Caan
    Owen Wilson
    Adam Sandler
    Jesse Ventura
    Hulk Hogan
    Bob Barker
    Willie Robertson
    Tom Brady
    Tony Danza
    James Earl Jones
    Gretchen Wilson
    Johnny Ramone
    Kenny Chesney
    Wayne Newton
    Ben Stein
    Heather Locklear
    Kid Rock
    Stacey Dash
    Jesse James
    Bob Barker
    Carrie Underwood
    Roseann Barr
    Kelsey Grammar
    Vince Vaughn
    Chuck Norris
    Scott Baio
    Peyton Manning

    I’m sure there were many more.

  76. Ya’ll are confusing. Much of what I see posted here is an expectation for Trump to manifest as ‘just another round’ of Republicanism. But much of what was professed as desirable about Trump is he would be a ‘change agent’. Being ‘just another Republican’ is no different in the scheme of things than having ‘just another Democrat’ as president other than party and orientations.

    Where is the change in that?

    Trump is touted as a businessperson. What is the benefit of having him conform to the system when the supposed goal is to have him come in and change the system bringing his business talents and a different view and benefits?

    • You’ve caused your own confusion. Nobody knows what Trump is going to do, probably including Trump. Perhaps generally it is better to dance with the devil you know than the devil you don’t, but sometimes, when the devil you know comes with reprehensible dance moves, then maybe it is better to dance with the devil you don’t know.

    • Curious George

      Let’s see how much of the energy he spends on protecting the rights of the unborn.

      Or other individual rights. Remember that many years ago a Republican Speaker of the House called the Congress from the recession to make sure that a brain-dead lady in Florida did not get disconnected from a life support?

      Republicans should get their priorities right.

    • David Springer

      Danny Thomas | November 9, 2016 at 10:40 pm | Reply

      “Ya’ll are confusing. Much of what I see posted here is an expectation for Trump to manifest as ‘just another round’ of Republicanism. ”

      That’s what you get for reading people other than me. Then you wouldn’t be confused. I told you that Trump was a Democrat more of his adult life than he’s been a Republican. Maybe I forgot to say “Write that down”.

      Write that down.

      • David,
        “That’s what you get for reading people other than me.”
        More common ground? You reading this as I am?

        But being a Democrat (in Republican’s clothing) is still more of the same.

        Being a thinking independent with the will to build his cabinet not with D.C. proxies but with the best ‘people’ wouldn’t.

        I told you I’d respect the decision even if I didn’t like it in advance, but if it becomes ‘change’ of deck chairs, then hope and not swamp draining you’ll hear about it. WTD.

      • David Springer

        You still don’t get it. Trump isn’t a democrat or a republican. He’s like me in that he would never join a club that would have him for a member. He’ll look at issues one at a time, disregard party platform positions, take the pulse of the electorate using social networking, and make common sense decisions supported by majorities with concessions commensurate with minority wants. Watch and see.

  77. It took me a long time to reach the end of thesde comments. Wow, what a response!
    My faith in proper democracy has been partly restored, thanks to US electors giving the bird to the governing “elites”.
    All that needs to occur is the shaking off of the shackles of shameful PC’ness for a return to some form of wholesomeness in human dignity. Australia is poised to sow a “break crop” at the next Federal election which will, I hope, flush out the influence of NGOs & other lobby groups which seek to direct our collective future. No more trade union ownership of the Labor Party and no more pussyfooting around with so-called environmental groups who see nothing wrong in halting development of new coal mines.
    Good on you Judith and thanks for your always balanced & inquiring approach.

  78. Seems that Mr. Trump taught us a few lessons about leadership and goal setting. Here is an interesting perspective https://bossinthemiddle.com/2016/11/09/midweek-pump-mr-trump-taught-us-a-few-things-about-leadership-and-goal-setting/

  79. Reblogged this on gwfenimore.

  80. Judy, your summary makes a lot of sense. My take on it from Down Under is here: http://donaitkin.com/the-day-of-shock-and-horror/

  81. Trumping the Elites by Joel Kotkin

    As Thomas Frank has noted, Democrats have gone “from being the party of Decatur to the party of Martha’s Vineyard.”
    [ … ]
    The map tells all. Clinton won by large margins in the Northeast and on the West Coast, and in states—Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada—where Trump’s intemperate comments roused Latino voters. But outside of Illinois, a whole swath of the country, from the hills of Appalachia to the fringes of the Rockies, went solidly for Trump.

    Why would that be? Start with basic economics. The economy in the nation’s interior relies on producing things—an endeavor that the coasts have largely abandoned. Energy, manufacturing, and agriculture still define these economies, and employ many white-collar as well as blue-collar workers.

    http://www.city-journal.org/html/trumping-elites-14839.html

    • Good article. Also:

      “In contrast, Trump’s America presents an alternative model, which honors small enterprise, allows housing to meet demand, and does not see the United States as part of a global system to be managed. That there are xenophobic, and even racist, elements in the Trumpian ranks is undeniable—but for most Americans, the true “deplorables” have been the self-appointed regulators and financial masters who seem determined to halt their upward progress, and that of their children. If our governing elites want to know how Trump happened, they need only look in the mirror.”

  82. Nate Silver at 538 writes about why the forecasts — including his — were wrong …

    Given how challenging it is to conduct polls nowadays, however, people shouldn’t have been expecting pinpoint accuracy. The question is how robust Clinton’s lead was to even a small polling error. Our finding, consistently, was that it was not very robust because of the challenges Clinton faced in the Electoral College, especially in the Midwest, and therefore our model gave a much better chance to Trump than other forecasts did.
    my bold
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-difference-2-percentage-points-makes/

    Better but still wrong. Could be applied to climate models as well.

  83. With reports of professors crying in front of their classes I’m afraid the age of “trophies for everyone” has caught up with us.

    Suck it it up, kids. And for the students, I say sometimes adults don’t provide the best role models.

    • “I’m afraid the age of “trophies for everyone” has caught up with us.”

      Ha, so true!

      It’s understandable why the left got it so wrong this election cycle, they live in an artificial virtual world where ideas are intellectually inbred and birthed in social media as reality; this brings with it all the intellectual deformities requisite from inbred thought. This happens to also be the reason much of climate science is voodoo science! People are tired of being stuck with pins by pinheads who believe their own crap.

  84. “My name’s Donovan. Irish. Both sides, mother and father. I’m Irish, you’re German. But what makes us both Americans? Just one thing. One, one, one. The rule book. We call it the Constitution… and we agree to the rules, and that’s what makes us Americans. It’s all that makes us Americans.”

    – Bridge of Spies

    That’s the reminder that the election sent.

  85. David Springer

    DS message to President Trump: Shiit just got real.

  86. Despite Hillary Clinton and President Obama urging their backers to accept Trump’s victory and support his transition into power…

    The MSM is busily spreading hate and encouraging violence.

    Not to mention the leftist rags.

  87. So, I didn’t vote for prez and find politics more and more the stuff of groundlings. And this may have been covered in the political threads.

    But I’m curious about the alleged agent provocateurs the DNC, and according to the videos, Clinton herself planted to commit violence at the Trump rallies.

    Is this accurate? Is it criminal of the worst kind? Did Obama know?
    Is this worse than Watergate?

    The people, organizations, and affiliations with the DNC were evidently all real. And as described in the video by the participants, they kept candidate-white hat-black hat chain of plausible deniability.

    Pretty evil stuff, though they did offer medical care and a treatment program to the mentally ill they took advantage of.

    But even that’s evil – who’s gonna believe the mentally ill when they say Hillary paid them to beat up Trump supporters.

  88. The notion of Trump “Trumping the elites” is non-sensical. Trump is of, for, and by the “elites.” this notion of him as some kind of working class hero is a con that seems to have worked on a whole lot of folks.

    http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/9/13572172/donald-trump-white-working-class

    • Trump is of, for, and by the “elites.”

      More BS.

    • Shoe0nHead but foot not in mouth:

    • I guess you don’t understand – the elites refers to the political elites and establishment.

      this notion of him as some kind of working class hero is a con that seems to have worked on a whole lot of folks.

      I guess you further don’t understand.
      Trump is a working class hero, not because of who he is, but because of the working class support for him. It’s the same contradiction as Sanders being a Socialist but owning three homes.

      Now, Trump perhaps skillfully pandered to the working class with a lot of lies a simplifications of a complex world they can’t understand, but they are the ones that decide whether he’s a hero, and will until reality disappoints them.

      BTW, consider these ‘swing states’ that led Trump to victory:
      Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina ( with Michigan to come ).
      These were all states that Sanders won in the primary.
      Sanders and Trump were both populists with a lot of overlap.
      The venality of populism is the often incorrect simplicity of message and blame of all problems on a small segment ( Sanders: the rich, Trump: immigrants ).

      https://musingsofabrit.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clinton-v-sanders.jpg

      • ==

        Like I said, it’s a con that has worked on a lot of people, including many self-described “skeptics.”

        But I will say that it isn’t about what people “can’t understand.” That’s condescending, IMO. It’s about what they want to believe to be true influencing their analysis. It happens to all of us.

        On the other hand, there may be an interesting outcome in that he will be held to be accountable and to formulate policies that really do benefit the working class. I think that it’s quite unlikely, but what I think is perhaps more plausible is that his faux championing of the case for the middle- and working-classes will spur the Democrats to get back on track, and finally leave behind the Clintionian belief that corporatist triangulation is the way to win elections by trying to out-Republican the Republicans. My guess is that the damage from a Trump presidency will far outweigh that positive development should it come about, but time will tell.

      • Sorry – meant to quote this at the top of my comment – as my comment was in response to this:

        ==> Now, Trump perhaps skillfully pandered to the working class with a lot of lies a simplifications of a complex world they can’t understand, but they are the ones that decide whether he’s a hero, and will until reality disappoints them. ==>

      • Trump has supplied thousands of jobs to the working class already. He at least has a clue what needs to happen and how to get there. I don’t believe he will kill trade and we have to remember he first will stake out a negotiating position that will be extreme.

  89. Nature says scientists “stunned” by Trump win, then quotes APS saying Trump is “anti-science,” but the comments disagree a bit. http://www.nature.com/news/donald-trump-s-us-election-win-stuns-scientists-1.20952?platform=hootsuite

  90. “A key message of this election is that the power of elites to persuade us has evaporated.”

    Yes … and then it rains.
    Elites never die.
    They just go to he!! and regroup.

  91. Commentary: The unbearable smugness of the press:

    “It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump’s victory. More than that and more importantly, we also missed the story, after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on.

    This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. Had Hillary Clinton won, there’s be a winking “we did it” feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-the-unbearable-smugness-of-the-press-presidential-election-2016/

    Nearly an entire field of professionals abandoned their professional guidelines in pursuit of demagoguery, a phenomenon that permeates more than just journalism. Priest class yearnings are apparently profoundly common.

  92. ““People are frustrated, people are just really sad and shocked,” said Trey Boynton, the director of multi-ethnic student affairs at the University of Michigan. “A lot of people are feeling like there has been a loss. We talked about grief today and about the loss of hope that this election would solidify the progress that was being made.”

    There was a steady flow of students entering Ms. Boynton’s office Wednesday. They spent the day sprawled around the center, playing with Play-Doh and coloring in coloring books, as they sought comfort and distraction.”

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/11/09/colleges-try-to-comfort-students-upset-by-trump-victory/

    Poor little snowflakes.

    • That’s priceless. Perhaps Ms. Boynton needs to make the rounds with a bag of gummy bears so they can get back on their sugar high.

      I’m so out of touch, I never realized coloring books are the rage on college campuses these days.

    • Playing with Play-Doh and coloring in coloring books.

      My God, what have we come to. At one of the finest universities in America.

      The leaders of tomorrow. I was just looking at my father’s Navy pictures from WWII after my grandson called wanting my Army pictures from 1967 for his Veterans Day project.. Those pictures

      got me thinking of all those kids who were ordered to charge pill boxes in WWII to protect our freedoms so the current generation can play
      with Play-Doh.

      What troubles the kids have today.

  93. Professor Curry,

    “a massive ‘egg on face’ moment for nearly all of the pollsters who predicted a Clinton win. Clearly, the polling methodologies need rethinking in this age of the internet.”

    I doubt that is correct. The last average of 4-way polls tracked by RealClearPolitics gave Clinton a lead of 3.3%. The current total of the popular vote gives Clinton at 0.2% lead. Estimates are that her lead will be roughly 0.8% in the final count.

    That puts the polls within their 95% margin of error.

    Polls are just statistical tools. Like stories about data and forecasts in the sciences — such as economics and climate — they should be presented with error bars. That often doesn’t happen because of incentives. Readers want simple stories. The press wants readers. Scientists want media exposure, and give journalists exaggerated confident conclusions (those who don’t remain obscure).

    • As you know, it’s electoral votes, not popular vote that count.

      The electoral vote is not an anachronism, or nonsensical.

      It represents a compromise representation between the states and direct proportional representation. This is logical and sensible for the United States of America.

      ALL of the final polls predicted a Clinton win, (save for CNN ‘too close to call’, but with a Clinton lead).

      So, yes, this was a failed and surprising prediction.

    • Re: replies to my comment

      (1) The national polls were within their margin of error vs. the current count, and the final vote totals will significantly narrow that gap.

      (2) The failure on the electoral college totals is somewhat like a weakness of climate models: downscaling to regional levels. The margin of error increases a lot. I have never seen a margin of error on the aggregate State level poll numbers, but I’ll bet it is high — and that the actual results are probably within that margin of error.

      As many have pointed out, a small change in the total vote — such as 2% — can produce a large swing in the electoral college results.

      (3) About those confident predictions of the outcome.

      Those are not contrary evidence to what I said, they are confirming evidence. The pollsters took their data and gave grossly overconfident forecasts of the outcome (as I explained above). It is a systemic problem today affecting not just election pollsters but economists, and climate scientists.

      As I said above, the problem was not with the polling methodologies, but with the pollsters. They could have given outcomes based on their models along with the margin of error. But it sounded so much better to pretend to be Mr. or Ms Wizard and predict the outcome!

      Perhaps that will be the lesson learned from this election. But I doubt it.

      • Editor,

        A potential problem might be that all the pollsters might then predict a win for either candidate A or candidate B (after taking into account margins of error).

        Or you could just save money by asking a passing twelve year old child to predict the outcome. Faster, cheaper, and just as accurate!

        Alternatively, assume that the future is unpredictable. Make your assumptions based on whatever you like.

        You’ll have to accept the future – facts are facts after they have occurred. Until then, they remain fantasies. Just like climatological polling of toy computer game results.

        Any reasonable twelve year old will be equally as skilful at predicting future climate. Money back guarantee if I’m wrong!

        Cheers.

      • Mike,

        “Or you could just save money by asking a passing twelve year old child to predict the outcome. Faster, cheaper, and just as accurate!”

        No, it is not. Most of the major polling models have far better than chance records.

        “Alternatively, assume that the future is unpredictable. ”

        No, it is not. It is not perfectly predictable, since everything has a margin of error.

      • Editor,

        I didn’t say toss a coin, although that would be as accurate as a poll in many cases. The problem with any forecast is – can you trust it with your life, your money, or anything of value? You say “most of the polls . . . “. How do you know in advance which one is correct? Of course, you don’t! The voters decide – that’s the only poll that counts. The pollsters will take all the money you’ve got, and tell you anything you want to hear.

        As to the future, it is perfectly predictable – in your opinion. Weasel words such as “margin of error” tell me that you mean “perfectly predictable” according to the climatological meaning. In other words, “perfectly predictable” means not predictable in any useful sense. CYA seems to apply, as usual. “Margin of error” is just a convenient excuse when your’e wrong, when it comes to polls – and many other predictions.

        How much money have you made on the basis of your opinion that the future is perfectly predictable? Or do you only predict the past?

        I have a different opinion to you, obviously. If people want to keep paying pollsters, hucksters, or other fortune sellers, I wish them good luck.

        Cheers.

    • Update: the number of uncounted votes is big

      California’s Secretary of State reports that there are 4.4 million uncounted votes. If she gets 62% of those (the rate for counted votes), that’s another 2.7 million votes for her. With the other states, this potentially boosts her winning margin of the popular vote much closer to that of the pre-election surveys.

      http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2016-general/unprocessed-ballots-report.pdf

      • stevenreincarnated

        The problem with the popular vote argument is that if the election were based on popular votes it would change the way people campaigned and the way people vote. It would also make eliminating the illegal voting more important. It really doesn’t matter because it isn’t the popular vote that counts so for those that continue to argue the popular vote as if it means something, and this is not directed at the person I am responding to, all I can say is you lost, get over it.

  94. “Trumping the elites”

    How is that correct? Trump was backed by one faction of US elites, the one that has been strongest at the State level and in Congress for many years. His finance chairman is an alumni of Goldman Sachs; his supporters include many other members of the US elites.

    “The claim that America’s elites unified to oppose Donald Trump is plausible only if by ‘elites’ you mean David Brooks, Ross Douhat, and George Will, as opposed to, say, the Republican …party’s entire leadership class, almost every one of its elected officials at the federal and state level, its money, its many and various propaganda outlets…”

    — Paul Campos (Professor of Law, U CO-Boulder) at Lawyers, Guns, and Money.

    • Trump, though not as rich as he claims, is rich, so no it’s not the wealthy elite.

      But is was the political elite ( Bush Dynasty, Clinton Dynasty, Republican Party, National Review , Barak Obama, etc. etc.).

      It was also the media elite ( NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, CBS News – they were all but coronating Clinton on their election coverage before reality set in ).

      Here are the real elites Trump was motivated to trump. I kind of give him cerdit for this “I’ll show you who can be president”:

    • Eddie,

      Almost every Republican elected official supported Trump, as did the Republican party’s political machinery.

      • Yes, all except for:

        The last two Republican presidents:
        George H.W. Bush: ABSTAIN
        George W. Bush: ABSTAIN

        The last three Republican presidential candidates:
        George W. Bush: ABSTAIN
        John McCain: NAY
        Mitt Romney: NAY

        Four Former RNC Chairs:
        Marc Racicot: NAY
        Michael Steele: NAY
        Mel Martinez: NAY
        Ken Mehlman: NAY

        Current Republican Senators:
        Lindsey Graham: NAY
        Kelly Ayotte: NAY
        Ben Sasse: NAY
        Marco Rubio: SOFT YEA
        Rob Portman: NAY
        Pat Toomey: UNDECIDED
        Mark Kirk: NAY
        Jeff Flake: NAY
        Dean Heller: SOFT NAY
        Lisa Murkowski: NAY
        Cory Gardner: NAY
        Dan Sullivan: NAY

      • Eddie,

        There are thousands of elected Republican officials, each responding to their local political circumstance. In every election there are those who decline to support the headline candidate. This is business as usual.

        When the parties were more ideologically heterodox (pre-1970) it was common to have a quarter or a third opposing (more or less vocally) the national ticket — such as Southerners bailing on a northern liberal. George Wallace and his fellow Democratic Party defectors were an extreme example of this.

        When there were true landslide elections, there were massive defections by elected officials — such as in 1964 and 1972. But nobody said the victory of Johnson or Nixon were “repudiation of US elites.”

      • There are thousands of elected Republican officials, each responding to their local political circumstance. In every election there are those who decline to support the headline candidate. This is business as usual.

        No. This was remarkable.
        Many Republican establishment didn’t just not endorse, they opposed
        Many of those didn’t just oppose – they endorsed the candidate of the other party!

      • The clue is that Trump explicitly ran against the elites and the people disenfranchised by the elites voted for him.

      • Whites “disenfranchised” by the elites (of which Trump is a member) voted for him, but not minorities who have been “disenfranchised” by the elites.

        But I guess they don’t register for you, eh?

      • Does the election of Trump cause people to lie? Or are they just doing more since he won the election?

        Minorities did indeed support Trump. Stop your lying Josh.

      • Trump wanted to drain the swamp. which is Congress, but now he has to work with them. That unpopularity in DC is what he built on as an outsider. The people who elected him did not realize that he doesn’t have that much control in DC, even as President. If they don’t want to pay for a wall, he won’t get them to. If they don’t want to deport millions of people, he won’t have help on that either.

      • Jim D,

        It doesn’t matter whether the people who elected the candidate knew what you think they should have known, or not. It doesn’t even matter whether you think the result is unfair, undemocratic, or just plain wrong.

        The election is over. The result is known. The future is unknowable. You have the choice of accepting reality or not.

        I wish you well.

        Cheers.

      • JimD – the swamp include the sprawling bureaucracy, the NGOs, super-rich elites who dine at the teat of government. There’s a lot of draining to get done. If Trump is even partially successful at obtaining the vision he laid out, the voters might drain the swamp of Congress for him. Glory be that day!

      • jim2, by your definition the swamp includes the already overblown military-industrial complex. I don’t think that is what they mean. It is congress, much like the hog castration meme of a previous candidate who is now a proud member of that swamp. Do those Wisconsin workers want their Obamacare repealed or coal plants running? I think that is not their priority. It was their jobs they want back. Micheal Moore nailed this, but he also says it won’t take long for those same rust-belt people to see that Trump isn’t helping them, just like the rest of them, and then they’ll turn on him too.
        https://www.yahoo.com/news/michael-moore-called-trumps-victory-now-he-has-a-plan-173935634.html

      • MF, yes, I have accepted that America’s next President thinks climate change is a hoax, and on that he is in disagreement, to put it kindly, or rather inferior in knowledge, to put it bluntly, compared to the majority of the American people. They will see what he does on that and other things like healthcare is not in their interest and is purely political in a Washington DC kind of way.

      • JimD,
        Keep your eye on the pea: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-trump-and-company-warmed-climate-change

        http://grist.org/politics/donald-trump-climate-action-new-york-times/

        Damned if I can say for sure which shell it’s under.

      • He may hire a denier for the EPA, so my guess is that he still is one.

      • Actually he is in agreement depending upon how you phrase the question. Does he believe the climate is changing, as does a majority of Americans? yes. Does he believe the hysteria is phony, as do a majority of Americans? Yes.

        To put it mildly, when real science comes back to the issues, you can debate it instead of attacking the man.

      • Yes, climate always changes. Look at the Ice Ages, they say, missing the point.

      • Yes, you missed the point. One of the traits of the alarmists is they do not seem to understand that words mean things. So they use wishy washy terms that have no relevance hoping they can change the meaning of the terms.

        Climate Changes. One of the few constants of the planet.

      • Yes, climate changes, sometimes forced, sometimes naturally. We can all agree.

      • Then you agree that those who use the term “Climate Change Denier” (or even worse “Climate Denier”) are totally clueless on the subject they are pontificating on? You agree that climate changes. And I would challenge you to find anyone who denies that or that a climate exists.

      • Are there deniers of climate change? I think the deniers are those that deny that anthropogenic effects could possibly be important.

      • I think the deniers are those that deny that anthropogenic effects could possibly be important.

        To those you need to add the (large) groups on both sides who deny that anything effective could be done about it without enormous disruption, including socio-ideological transformation of society.

      • You do not get to put words into other’s mouths. The term is “Climate change denier” . So the question remains (if you are capable of answering it), Do you agree with them? Yes or no. Simple question. Should be easy for you to answer.

        We are waiting.

      • Jim D: “or rather inferior in knowledge, to put it bluntly, compared to the majority of the American people”

        You wish!

        One of the most engaging characteristics of Donald Trump is how he gets up the noses of all the right people, to the extent of apparently reducing many of them to tearful hysteria.

      • I’ve heard a lot of people in the last couple of daze who, like you, seem to have some kind of crystal ball and the view inside is always a dour one. I’ll wait and see what happens, thanks.

      • Damned if I can say for sure which shell it’s under.

        The Grist Piece references an ad in the NYTimes December 6, 2009:
        https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/nyt.jpg

        The date is interesting in view of the timeline for Climategate, according to Move left?. The implications were still being mostly covered up, although some hints were seeping out. Only later in the month did Climategate break as a major public issue.

        It seem plausible to me that Mr. Trump’s signature was solicited while Climategate was known only to bloggers and a few WSJ readers with a special interest.

        He may well have felt scammed, and perhaps betrayed, when it later appeared that his signature was on a letter intended to delay attention to the scam revealed by Climategate.

        I can see how that might have left him resistant to the notion that “Global Warming” was anything but a scam. It would have me.

  95. Why Trump won,

    “This election has exposed a Republican Party openly embracing the gutter politics of racism, misogyny, and xenophobia. And, today, in too many states across this country, that ugliness has been rewarded.”
    “We have a tough job ahead. We must all remain vigilant. We must continue to stand with our neighbors, friends, co-workers and fellow Americans of every race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation. Our diversity is the strength of our great country.”
    “We must remain vigilant and always reject and condemn the politics of islamophobia, anti-semitism, homophobia, and blatant racism and sexism that has infected American politics.”
    – Congresswoman Betty McCollum

    In the primaries, Rubio won and Sanders won. Yet Clinton beat Trump by only 40 some thousand votes here. McCollum was reelected Tuesday but she still doesn’t get it while it’s right in front of her. Minnesota hasn’t voted for a Republican Presidential candidate since 1972. Most of us are not the things McCollum brings up here. We’ve had enough political correctness. We’ve seen too much control by the elites. And I do think it was partly a vote against the Republican establishment. To pick up the candidate they dropped and try to get him elected.

    McCollum might look at this:
    “In reading, 67 percent of white students met or exceeded reading standards, compared with 34 percent of black students and 36 percent of Hispanic students. The gap was particularly stark among 11th-graders’ math scores. Fifty-five percent of white students tested proficient, compared with 18 of black students and 24 percent of Hispanic students.”

    To broadly generalize, Blacks in Minnesota live in urban areas controlled by Democrats. The former mayor Minneapolis is taking on this problem yet I am not confident it will be quickly solved. We are liberal Minnesota yet these are the results for blacks. Going from my own knowledge only, Hispanics in Minnesota also live in rural areas. Worthington and Willmar for instance. There would be a tendency for those areas to be more conservative. I don’t know why their scores would be lower? Perhaps some of them are recent arrivals with English as their second language.

    • Curious George

      I wonder if elites are trying to create dumb voters on purpose – the purpose being to stay in power indefinitely. How do American public schools compare to schools elsewhere? The plan seems to be underway.

  96. OMG … SCOTUS

    Prediction:
    All the new Supremes will be graduates of Harvard or Yale.
    Both would be a lock.
    Princeton grads will be considered for the appearance of diversity.

    Meet the new Boss
    Same as the old Boss

  97. Trump’s budget for NSF and NOAA will be interesting next year. Both Ryan and McConnell will resign their chair positions within 100 days of inauguration to get someone with 1,000% loyalty to push all of Trump’s programs. To the victor goes a BIG pen.

  98. So all the pollsters got it wrong. Bad data? Bad model? Bad both? How could this happen? Warning flags have been hoisted for all who model.

  99. Dr. Curry do you know who Myron Ebell is? Leading Trump’s EPA transition team.

  100. From 538 comes a laundry list …
    The Polls Missed Trump. We Asked Pollsters Why.
    The polls missed Donald Trump’s election. Individual polls missed, at the state level and nationally (though national polls weren’t far off). So did aggregated polls. So did poll-based forecasts such as ours. And so did exit polls.

    The miss wasn’t unprecedented or even, these days, all that unusual.
    [ … ]
    Berwood Yost of Franklin & Marshall College said he wants to see polling get more comfortable with uncertainty. “The incentives now favor offering a single number that looks similar to other polls instead of really trying to report on the many possible campaign elements that could affect the outcome,” Yost said. “Certainty is rewarded, it seems.”

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-missed-trump-we-asked-pollsters-why/

  101. For those who thought Trump was kidding about climate change … from the article:

    Myron Ebell, director of energy and environment policy at the conservative think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, is heading Trump’s EPA transition preparation, E&E Daily reported Monday.

    Ebell is an outspoken, longtime skeptic of the scientific consensus that human activity is dramatically changing the climate. He often refers to warnings about global warming as climate “alarmism” and is a vocal critic of President Obama’s climate change regulations.
    Ebell has argued that the Clean Power Plan is illegal and that the Paris climate change agreement is unconstitutional.

    http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/297755-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-trumps-epa-transition

    • Jim2,

      This would be a questionable choice. Ebell is not a scientist. He’s a political theorist and a philosopher. ‘Skeptics’ talk of agenda’s and lacking qualifications for others in positions of decision.

      This role should have a scientist with the understanding that scientists inherently have ‘skepticism’ as a normal trait.

      Environment is not solely about Climate Change and Global Warming. Many ‘skeptics’ with whom we communicate are self-identified environmentalists.

      • The current head of the EPA has degrees in chemical engineering that she never really used. She’s always worked for the EPA. She ain’t no climate scientist, either.

        Trump promised to put people to work. In part, this mean de-regulating the energy industry. I don’t know that Ebell will actually head up the agency or recommend someone else, but the economy has been ignored for too long. We can see the damage done to it, damage from “climate change” is still speculative.

      • What does it matter about the current head of the EPA? She’s not the topic. But for the record: “A native of Boston, in 1976 McCarthy graduated from the University of Massachusetts Boston as a Bachelor of Arts in Social Anthropology. She later attended Tufts University, and from there she gained the further degree of Master of Science in Environmental Health Engineering and Planning and Policy in 1981.[8][9]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_McCarthy

        The EPA is not about ‘jobs’. It’s mission: “EPA’s basic mission is to protect human health and the environment — air, water, and land. EPA, state, local and tribal agencies work together to ensure compliance with environmental laws passed by Congress, state legislatures and tribal governments.”

        Law and order and all that, right? Mission creep has been a concern expressed w/r/t EPA by many skeptics. Now, it seems (please correct if I’m wrong) that the EPA’s job is to ‘create jobs’ according to you. Surely you’re not suggesting here that ‘the laws of Congress, state legislatures and tribal governments’ are to be ignored. That would certainly be ‘mission creep’ and ‘skeptics’ surely would frown upon same.

        Stating again that a scientist would be a better resource with ‘skepticism’ a given to the profession. ‘Draining the swamp’ is not accomplished by trading bureaucrat ‘A’ for bureaucrat ‘B’.

        Presuming you’re of age you might recall an earlier time. A certain Mr. Watt’s holds this view: “I agree with most of it, except item 7 “Abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency”. That’s not really practical. Before “climate change” became the universal boogeyman for any enviro-ailment, real or imagined, the EPA actually did useful work in dealing with real, tangible, pollution issues. We have cleaner air, cleaner lakes, and cleaner waterways today because of that. So rather than abolish it, which would allow resurgence of those problems by the unscrupulous, I think a significant curtailment, plus a revocation of their powers of enforcement – putting enforcement in the hands of law, is a better choice.. – Anthony”

      • Danny Thomas: “Now, it seems (please correct if I’m wrong) that the EPA’s job is to ‘create jobs’ according to you.”

        Danny, it is one of the primary purposes of EVERY government agency to ‘create jobs’. The creation of subordinate positions is the favoured method of increasing the power and influence of bureaucrats in all publicly funded institutions.

        It is one of the corollaries of Parkinson’s law.

      • Cat,

        Get your meaning, but don’t think that’s the kind of job creation Jim2 was professing. He seems to desire that decisions be made outside the stated missions of the entity. Interesting how some profess a need to improve ‘integrity’ in scientific agencies yet Jim2 want’s decisions made ‘to create jobs’ even at the expense of that integrity. Seems to be a dichotomy there.

      • Oops. Got the wrong EPA admin. But McCarthy isn’t a climate scientist either. There’s no reason for you to insist Trump put a climate scientist in charge of the EPA.

        The EPA mission needs to be scaled back. It is killing jobs.

      • Jim2,
        Who said ‘climate scientist’? I said scientist. EPA is about more than CC/GW. Are you aware for what the initials E.P.A. stand?

        The EPA does not need to be ‘scaled back due to job loss’. That’s not it’s mission. If it deals with issues which happen to lead to job loss or job gains is beside the point. You are promoting ‘mission creep’. Skeptics won’t take kindly. ‘Scaling’ for reasons other than it’s mission and promoting ‘mission creep’ are exactly what many have railed against under the current administration. Surely you wouldn’t wish to be viewed as one who’s supported such behavior.

      • OK, Double Deal.