The left and right express themselves in different ways. Instead of burning garbage cans, burning effigies, and #notmypresident, the reaction to Obama was racist cartoons[1], years of "Where's the birth certificate?" nonsense, and a sharp rise in the number of right wing militia groups[2].
[1] http://media.npr.org/programs/newsnotes/features/2008/10/oba...
[2] http://media.salon.com/2013/03/militiagraph.jpg
That said, I agree the reaction from the left has been... unfortunate. It's demonstrating just how badly the left has succumbed to the politics of fear. The growing anti-establishment, anti-globalism/technocrat, "tired of the same old crap" sentiment has been obvious for years, but the left is acting surprised that their traditional establishment, "incremental change", corporate sellout candidate wasn't popular. Instead of recognizing the problem and changing tactics, far too many people want to give up and leave. /sigh/
But also, on the left, this is ridiculous. They accused Trump of peddling fear --but then turn right around and do exactly that same thing they furiously were denouncing!
When isn't this true when people are fed such positions by demagogues? A lot of Trump voters are middle class and upper middle class people with relatively cushy lives making decent salaries, have healthcare, and have never been drafted to war, never begged for food, etc.
Yet somehow these people have been taught that they're country isn't "great" and that only a radical restyling of things via a strict conservative agenda will "fix" things. I recall Bush having the same sentiment and tell me, were you or any of these voters better off after 8 years of Bush?
I also want to point out that right now the unemployment rate is at a historic low of 4.9% and was nearly double that in 2009. The GDP per capita in the US is $53,000, literally 8x that in China and 4x that in Russia.
The reality here is that you can have a rational and nuanced view of politics, society, your country, your economy, etc. Or you can engage in negative politics and tell people who own homes and two cars that they've been "shafted by liberals" and that if they only implement various crazy schemes, including undoing precious regulations that keep our environment safe, that only then will they be "great."
Do you think, that perhaps, this kind of rhetoric convinces people to vote against their own interests and the kinds of people who actually will benefit from a Trump presidency might be the kinds of people who benefited from a Bush presidency, that's to say the connected upper class? Because that's what it looks like to me.
edit: I can't reply below but there's a big difference between encouraging economic growth via traditional methods and a radical restructuring and an anti-globalization promise that will 'bring factory jobs' back to the heartland that is literally impossible unless you start paying people $1 and hour. The former is what every politician promises and latter is what Trump promises. These are stark differences in how to speak to the electorate and how to make realistic promises a government can carry out.
So, at least in appearances, she bought in to the same line of thought --and no one more so than Bernie!
This was why McCain lost South Carolina. McCain has an adopted Bangladeshi daughter, Bridget, and the Bush people ran a whisper campaign that she was black as if that mattered but it did in South Carolina.
So in 2008, McCain instead ran pretty much straight up against Obama and since that essentially meant running as a third Bush term, he got buried.
Romney ran a pretty clean campaign only obliquely mentioning the Birther nonsense.
I don't even have to tell you what kind of campaign Trump ran since you just lived through it.
Then you weren't paying attention. A quick google of "obama not my president -trump" or "obama effigy" will show you plenty of examples, with the bonus racism of hanging the effigy from a tree like they did back in the day. Here [1] is a 2009 Psychology Today article about the "not my president" phenomenon. In the late '90s there were anti-Clinton "My President is Charlton Heston" bumper stickers [2], referring to his position in the NRA.
I'm not justifying people's actions today, and I don't think it's a productive way to move forward, but it's also definitely not a new development.
[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-meaning-in-life/200... [2] https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-bumper-sticker-charlton-he...
Is that how they want to show the rest of America the way forward?
Just because you win an election doesn't mean suddenly everyone is forced to agree with your odious views.
The way forward for them is to protest and point out the flaws in the Trump policies and his presidency. To pressure the electorate and politicians that, no we aren't on board with a radical conservative restructuring of our society. Don't expect to suppress dissent with some kind of bullshit "respect the office" argument. Democracies thrive on disagreement and political change. These people are engaging in their right to self-assembly and protest. It will not go away. Trump supporters will need to deal with this. Its clear that you're trying to legitimize a novelty protest vote via this kind of 'concern troll' attitude and it just won't work. People aren't going to suddenly roll with the Trump agenda because you want everyone to play nice.
I think you have to realize that political change isn't about winning one election. The process involves and endless push back via many mechanisms, including protest.
You may have a particular issue you have dear to your heart, and I accept that, but you have to have other people see your point of view rather then fear your point of view.
He didn't position himself as a threat to white people, especially white men, to the degree that he did to minorities, the LBGT community, and other groups.
Here's a good summary of his position on the topic: http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/aug/14/se...
In addition, Pence has a history of anti-LGBT behavior as well.
When taken in consideration of how much leeway to decide domestic policy that Trump has promised to give him, Pence is a seriously scary VP for queer people everywhere in the US.
--
[1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20010408125427/http://mikepence.c...
Trump's answers in those interviews don't sound much different from the ones we heard from Hillary or Obama back when they could not favor gay marriage either --but they've moved on and it looks like Trump has moved on (still, what he might do as policy is unknown, for now).
So, here, it is no surprise. We know how the system works --there is no reason to cry when you know how the system works but it goes against you. It's sour grapes.
But what do you expect people to do when they're unhappy with how it works? Do you expect them to calmly organize and use lobbying to affect change?
No. You do not. Nobody does. People don't know how to do that. People do know how to complain loudly though. So that's what is happening.
> there is no reason to cry when you know how the system works but it goes against you.
There absolutely is a reason. That's how change starts.
> So, here, it is no surprise.
And neither should you be surprised at people crying about it, IMO.
Hispanics are more naturally conservative and mostly align with Dems at the moment because of immigration policies and social issues. But as they Americanize, LatAms, at least so far, tend to not care about immigration issues as much and tend toward the view of a fair visa system and rely less on state services, as they integrate. As this happens, Hispanics eventually are likely to break even just like the rest of the population. Then people on one side or the other will prefer electoral votes over pop votes again.
So, you see, a gen or so, we're likely to see Hispanics move to the right, and then the Dems will find a reason to antagonize their new views (like they now antagonize their previous pet group, the working class union workers who abandoned them).
The response has been very vitriolic and visceral. It's not the way to seek common ground and find a way forward. This is the recipe to antagonize and seek distance and further fracturing.