Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 63 posts

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#11

Post by xenadu02 »

ufo wrote: post #7

The thing that is really confusing for me is how Trump managed to get elected despite all this opposition to him.

The tl;dr is voter apathy in key midwest states. IIRC Trump underperformed but Clinton underperformed even more. It is difficult to say with certainty but the FBI letter probably cost her the election by slightly depressing turnout.

It also looks like the Republican effort to disenfranchise people by reducing early voting, voting hours, closing polling stations, enacting voter ID laws, purging voter rolls, etc has worked in the sense that it slightly reduced Dem turnout which was enough in this election. Their efforts to steal elections by gerrymandering themselves into power has also given them outsized control of the House and various state governments.

It is really embarrassing that the majority of the country votes D and the Rs have control over the government. It's pure subversion of democracy.

Russia certainly tried to influence the election but if it had been Obama running (or anyone charismatic) instead of Clinton it wouldn't have mattered; Trump would have lost by a huge EC margin.

I'm far more worried about the long-term damage to the country now that the FBI has once again become an open political weapon, and that Rs are unapologetically disenfranchising people in an attempt to maintain power permanently.

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#12

Post by LyndsySimon »

ufo wrote: post #7

The thing that is really confusing for me is how Trump managed to get elected despite all this opposition to him.

Because 3 million women motivated enough to protest doesn't outweigh 30 million women motivated enough to vote.

The fact of the matter is Trump's support base is broader than his opposition - at least, in the states where it matters.

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#13

Post by LyndsySimon »

xenadu02 wrote: post #11
ufo wrote: post #7

The thing that is really confusing for me is how Trump managed to get elected despite all this opposition to him.

The tl;dr is voter apathy in key midwest states. IIRC Trump underperformed but Clinton underperformed even more. It is difficult to say with certainty but the FBI letter probably cost her the election by slightly depressing turnout. It also looks like the Republican effort to disenfranchise people by reducing early voting, voting hours, closing polling stations, enacting voter ID laws, purging voter rolls, etc has wo…

> Russia certainly tried to influence the election but if it had been Obama running (or anyone charismatic) instead of Clinton it wouldn't have mattered; Trump would have lost by a huge EC margin.

While I don't agree with a great deal of the rest of your assertions, this stands out to me as the important one. If the Democrats had run almost anyone other than Hillary Clinton, they would have likely won.

They ran Hillary Clinton.

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#14

Post by hackuser »

Mao_Zedang wrote: post #3
michaelchisari wrote: post #2

This is truly unprecedented. For perspective, the largest march on DC during the Vietnam War was 500,000. Adjusted for population, that would be 784,411 people. Estimated crowd in DC on Saturday was 1.2 million. Nationwide, it was 3 million. Just one of the six Los Angeles area protests had 750,000 people. Even Witchita, Kansas had thousands. I've never seen anything like this, and it's just the beginning.

Honestly I am going to say its the end not the beginning, in four years, Trump will run again and maybe we will see another tantrum protest but at least for the next four years do not expect any great resistance or movement, the time for that is over.

> the time for that is over

That's a talking point of Trump supporters, but a moment's thought shows that it's not remotely true. It seems to assume that people only participate in democracy by voting and then politicians rule on their own recognizance during their terms, almost as if voters were electing kings/queens.

In a democracy, politicians are responsive to voters' desires 365 days/year; you can call them, write them, meet with them, protest them, and if you pay any attention to democratic politics, you know it has a serious effect (along with passively collected information such as survey results).

Second, protesting government is a major part of democracy. The March on Washington led by Martin Luther King had nothing to do with an election. The U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights protects it, saying "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I don't remember the Republicans having the same attitude at all about Obama; they resisted all the time in every way possible, setting records in Congress for obstructionism, buying guns, etc. Vladimir Putin seemed to start this talking point; perhaps it's true for him, but he knows little about democratic government.

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#15

Post by losteric »

Mao_Zedang wrote: post #3
michaelchisari wrote: post #2

This is truly unprecedented. For perspective, the largest march on DC during the Vietnam War was 500,000. Adjusted for population, that would be 784,411 people. Estimated crowd in DC on Saturday was 1.2 million. Nationwide, it was 3 million. Just one of the six Los Angeles area protests had 750,000 people. Even Witchita, Kansas had thousands. I've never seen anything like this, and it's just the beginning.

Honestly I am going to say its the end not the beginning, in four years, Trump will run again and maybe we will see another tantrum protest but at least for the next four years do not expect any great resistance or movement, the time for that is over.

nice username.

I don't think it's the end. People were inspired yesterday, the crowds realized they have the numbers and the passion to fight back. People were taking action, finding their local organizations, learning how to inform their representatives, and even planning the next protests already.

We're going to see more and more of this.

We will also see more "Alternative Facts" and PR campaigns from the White House, closely following Dugin's handbook (dismiss, distract, distort, and dismay).

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#17

Post by hackuser »

xenadu02 wrote: post #11
ufo wrote: post #7

The thing that is really confusing for me is how Trump managed to get elected despite all this opposition to him.

The tl;dr is voter apathy in key midwest states. IIRC Trump underperformed but Clinton underperformed even more. It is difficult to say with certainty but the FBI letter probably cost her the election by slightly depressing turnout. It also looks like the Republican effort to disenfranchise people by reducing early voting, voting hours, closing polling stations, enacting voter ID laws, purging voter rolls, etc has wo…

> the FBI letter probably cost her the election by slightly depressing turnout.

Of course it's hard to point to one factor in such a complex, real world situation, But look at a chart of Clinton's poll numbers; she was comfortably ahead, and as soon as Comey's letter came out, her number dropped like a rock and never recovered.

> It is really embarrassing that the majority of the country votes D and the Rs have control over the government.

Note that the Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 national elections. Other than George W Bush's second election in 2004, the GOP hasn't won a nationwide majority since 1988.

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#18

Post by losteric »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #13
xenadu02 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tl;dr is voter apathy in key midwest states. IIRC Trump underperformed but Clinton underperformed even more. It is difficult to say with certainty but the FBI letter probably cost her the election by slightly depressing turnout. It also looks like the Republican effort to disenfranchise people by reducing early voting, voting hours, closing polling stations, enacting voter ID laws, purging voter rolls, etc has wo…

> Russia certainly tried to influence the election but if it had been Obama running (or anyone charismatic) instead of Clinton it wouldn't have mattered; Trump would have lost by a huge EC margin. While I don't agree with a great deal of the rest of your assertions, this stands out to me as the important one. If the Democrats had run almost anyone other than Hillary Clinton, they would have likely won. They ran Hilla…

The DNC definitely backed the wrong horse in the Clinton vs Sanders primaries.

Re: The Women's Marches maybe the largest in US history

#19

Post by michaelchisari »

revx wrote: post #5
Mao_Zedang wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I am going to say its the end not the beginning, in four years, Trump will run again and maybe we will see another tantrum protest but at least for the next four years do not expect any great resistance or movement, the time for that is over.

I think this time, there's enough of a threat to general persons' livelihoods (repeal of ACA, threat of international embarrassment or incident, etc) that we will start to see organized resistance. But only time will tell...

A normal presidency would see these protests and exercise caution. This is not a normal presidency, so I feel as though we're going to see a continuous escalation in response.
Post reply on HN