It’s the solstice, the darkest time of year in the Northern Hemisphere. I awaken in the dark and check for news about Standing Rock and about the Trump transition team.
21st century fake news defines a mandate anyway the winner wants it defined. Dick Cheney reminded us that his puppet Dubya winning by only one vote (popular or electoral college) would be no different than winning by ten million votes as mandates are created by those having control of the media which both the Dubya and Trump Regimes have.
We have to count to some extent on the courts. The government is set up with checks and balances. Attorneys genera in a number of states are collaborating for court fights to make sure agencies enforce the regulations that have been passed by Congress. The ACLU is planning to use the courts to protect civil liberties. Also, some governors and city mayors are making plans to fight an increase in hate crimes. Legislators in California and probably a number of other states are looking to pass laws to given undocumented immigrants more legal protection. It appears that the Democrats in Congress are ready to function as an opposition party and work to obstruct legislation from the Republican majority. Regardless of Trump's insane statements about climate change a number of states and many local governments will move ahead to reduce emissions and build resilience against climate change. What individuals can do seems almost endless in resisting. Protesting on the streets, lobbying elected officials, giving money to organizations fighting Trump, are some of the more obvious things. The enemy is apathy. The worst thing to do is just try to live life without in some manner fighting back.
Better, get drunk, and stay that way!
"We don't need no shelter from the storm"
Get it straight!
It is not Trump Presidency.
It is not Clinton Presidency.
It is POTUS.
'America' is the nadir of human prosperity.
Not relying on Republican or Democratic parties does not mean not fighting back; it can be part of doing so.
Occupy shows what went wrong. What began as an extraordinary people's movement that could have changed the course we're on, and was successfully redefined (by Dem pols and lib media) as a pep rally for the middle class, with an occasional pat on the head to low wage workers.
BLM! quickly added, "...and the lives of white people in poverty don't." It has virtually been open season on our homeless poor for years, as they've been beaten, even killed, by police and citizens alike. As the statistics show, the majority of victims of police violence have been white, poor. They were disappeared from the media/public discussion from the start.
When liberals call on us to come together to push back against (what actually does meet the definition of) fascism, what many hear is the call to help protect the advantages of the better-off alone, the middle class.
You wouldn't know from liberal media that Flint, MI is far from the only community to have a water crisis, or that Standing Rock isn't the only community to be harmed by pipelines.
Divide, subdivide, conquer. Some say we aren't supposed to talk about it, but ignoring reality has always been a failed strategy.
On voter suppression: The primary tool this time was the photo ID mandate. Free photo IDs were made available for those who don't have drivers' licenses, primarily the poor, the elderly and the disabled. Those in cities needed only to walk or take a bus to the nearest DMV to get one. The majority of US poor (not having drivers' licenses) are white, and live in small towns and rural areas between the major cities. The nearest DMV can be 30 miles away, so many had no way to obtain the photo ID.
But the primary problem was the candidates. Trump/Clinton have strikingly similar ideologies. Both alienated much of their own voting bases. This resulted in unusually low voter turnout, with much of the country voting third party or withholding their votes. The Electoral College system took over from there, and chose Trump.
I like your analysis but fundamentally disagree that Clinton got some special deal in news coverage. What I saw was the typical Clinton Rules played full force for most of the campaign. By far, the media played host to Republican stories about Clinton, repeatedly, as they did in the 90s. This actually benefitted Bernie in my opinion. Better to get light coverage (and he got significantly more in the final three months of the campaign) and be not-Clinton, than constantly pilloried. Here's some pretty compelling data:
The above is not exhaustive, but the Clinton Rules are well known and were extremely active in this election. Republicans nearly always have an open forum to "work the refs," as Eric Alterman phrased it, and do so with abandon. But, I think the best pre-general election coverage was noted by a campaign reporter himself:
So is your comment. Happy Holidays!