Support NeoGAF

[Jisgsaw]

What shocks me the most... How the hell did Trump's approval go back up from his 36% of awhile ago, with the clusterfuck of the last weeks?

How the hell is it still that high?

 

[BrutishMrFish]

That's a total false equivalence. I'm complaining about to Corporate Democrats who are poisonous to the party in he current political landscape. Not voters.

The current landscape has nothing to do with it when you've been pushing the same shit since the primaries. Don't act like you haven't thrown around centrist (or neoliberal, or establishment) as an insult, and don't act like you haven't suggested that people who take corporate donations are not on the left.

Plus, saying that elected representatives "are ruining the party" is putting some blame on the voters because you wouldn't have the representatives with the voters. Holding voters responsible for their choices is an absolutely fair thing to do, but don't act like you're not one of the people who put centrists down. By all means, say whatever you want about them, but don't act like you're above it all when you're not. That's as dumb as telling someone to be mature when you can't even be bothered to post a proper rebuttal with any substance to support your arguments.

 

[legacyzero]

It's been over 8 months now.
Furthermore, we're currently living under an administration that is trying to fuck us over everyday. With everything that's happening, I'm surprised that people still have the time and energy to think about Clinton.

It's simple. We NEEEEED to win in 2018 and 2020. We need to learn from 2015/2016. We need to be a better party in almost every aspect. If we can't reflect and if we're ok with status quo, which we're currently sailing on, we will lose again.

I'm baffled why this isn't widely talked about more. Democrat autopsy needs to happen. Simply screaming "RUSSIA!" And "WE'RE BETTER THAN THEM!" Isn't gonna get us shit.

 

[Staccat0]

What shocks me the most... How the hell did Trump's approval go back up from his 36% of awhile ago, with the clusterfuck of the last weeks?

How the hell is it still that high?

People on the left talk about "normalizing" Trump a lot, but they don't spend much time thinking about what that IS. In reality, I'm afraid that we're slowly acclimating people to the idea of his legitimacy by amplifying every negative story about him. It seems counter-intuitive and there isn't a better course of action, but it's a thing.

You wanna drop them bombs closer to an election.

 

[ResoRai]

Fuck that, she didn't do everything right but she did enough in a sane world to trash that buffoon. She humiliated him in the debates, she out-fund-raised him, she presented coherent proposals to counter his gibberish, she behaved with class and humanity when he behaved like a shit slinging gibbon. And the American people still looked at both choices and picked Trump. Trump voters bear the blame. And third party and non-voters. And Russia to a still undisclosed degree.

True. When it comes down to it:

We're such a stupid country.

 

[I Stalk Alone]

Trump and Clinton are cut from the same cloth. I wouldn't believe any of their lies. Maybe elect someone who is a scientist or someone that actually cares and focuses on the social and environmental wellbeing of their country and it's planet.

 

[Neoweee]

Trump and Clinton are cut from the same cloth. I wouldn't believe any of their lies. Maybe elect someone who is a scientist or someone that actually cares and focuses on the social and environmental wellbeing of their country and it's planet.

Yes, the woman that spent her life in law and politics, and worked for women's and children's rights in the developing world, is totally the same as the racist blowhard entertainer.

Democrats got somebody that cared about the environment for their candidate in 2000. The Green party absolutely fucking destroyed him, with their best-ever showing (by a lot).

 

[Toxi]

Trump and Clinton are cut from the same cloth. I wouldn't believe any of their lies. Maybe elect someone who is a scientist or someone that actually cares and focuses on the social and environmental wellbeing of their country and it's planet.

You'd think six months of Trump would put this nonsense to bed.

You'd think.

 

[legacyzero]

The current landscape has nothing to do with it when you've been pushing the same shit since the primaries. Don't act like you haven't thrown around centrist (or neoliberal, or establishment) as an insult, and don't act like you haven't suggested that people who take corporate donations are not on the left.

Plus, saying that elected representatives "are ruining the party" is putting some blame on the voters because you wouldn't have the representatives with the voters. Holding voters responsible for their choices is an absolutely fair thing to do, but don't act like you're not one of the people who put centrists down. By all means, say whatever you want about them, but don't act like you're above it all when you're not. That's as dumb as telling someone to be mature when you can't even be bothered to post a proper rebuttal with any substance to support your arguments.

I don't even know what you're saying here. All those "DONT ACT LIKE!'s" you're throwing around, and I'm not in agreement to most of it. And yeah, don't expect me to engage in serious conversations with you if you're just going to attack attack attack. All this Ad Hominem all over the place. I already started ignoring one poster in his bread for that.

Trump and Clinton are cut from the same cloth. I wouldn't believe any of their lies. Maybe elect someone who is a scientist or someone that actually cares and focuses on the social and environmental wellbeing of their country and it's planet.

Ive been accused of some nonsense... but I just don't think this is reasonable.

Hillary would be doing a HELLUVA lot better for EVRYONE if she was President right now. That kinda position feels really disengenous.

 

[KingSnake]

Trump and Clinton are cut from the same cloth.

 

[ISOM]

Trump and Clinton are cut from the same cloth. I wouldn't believe any of their lies. Maybe elect someone who is a scientist or someone that actually cares and focuses on the social and environmental wellbeing of their country and it's planet.

LOOOL You gotta love the uninformed and ignorant. Clinton's campaign ran on social and environmental issues. Trump ran on the platform of fuck caring about social issues and the environment. That you don't even know that shows how political unaware so much of the voting population is.

 

[eBay Huckster]

What shocks me the most... How the hell did Trump's approval go back up from his 36% of awhile ago, with the clusterfuck of the last weeks?

1) this isn't the same pollster, and an average of this question continues to show a downward trend
2) some slight variation is expected in polling and 41% isn't completely out of the ordinary if the real value is 36%
3) 41% is pitifully fucking low for 6 months in

Throughout the West, anti-establishment campaigns has consistently beaten the establishment over the past 18 months.

except in the Netherlands (where the left splintered more than anti-establishment "won"), the UK (where Con/Lab won the highest two-party vote share in a long time), and soon to be Germany (where Merkel is well on her way to winning another majority)

also, interesting how you say 18 months and not 2 years, given that the very pro-establishment Liberals won in Canada in that span

 

[Delusibeta]

Throughout the West, anti-establishment campaigns has consistently beaten the establishment over the past 18 months. In reflection, the trend has become very clear, and that nominating a candidate that was the definition of the establishment in the US was a major error.

 

[legacyzero]

1) this isn't the same pollster
2) some slight variation is expected in polling and 41% isn't completely out of the ordinary if the real value is 36%
3) 41% is pitifully fucking low for 6 months in

The lowest of any President in this stretch IIRC.

He's pretty goddamn bad

Throughout the West, anti-establishment campaigns has consistently beaten the establishment over the past 18 months. In reflection, the trend has become very clear, and that nominating a candidate that was the definition of the establishment in the US was a major error.

People wanted a populist and anti-establiment candidate. They got one. They just got he wrong one. Which I fear will taint the concept for 2020. Let's hope that's incorrect.

 

[mug]

I can't stand her but I still voted for her.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

Is Hillary usually associated to the three strikes law by people ?

 

[royalan]

My stance entirely and I voted for her. Beating Trump should've been a layup.

Then why couldn't anyone else do it?

Trump beat everyone. Including Hillary Clinton. Including 17 candidates on the right. He even got more raw votes than Bernie Sanders in their respective primaries.

If people keep thinking that Trump should have been easy to beat then we're all fucking doomed. That's not the lesson to take from 2016.

The ignorance, the partinsanship and the pure-blooded hatred that exists in this country is more real than we all thought, and Trump tapped directly into it. And half of you crying in this thread about how easy to beat Trump should have been really ought to know better, because you go home every day to that very hate and ignorance. Its present at your local bars. It's present at those uncomfortable dinners with the family members you avoid talking about politics and minorities with. Well, they got their way.

So let's cut the crap with "it should have been easy." We live in a hateful, racist ass country. And anybody lacking the shame to speak directly to that has a legit chance at the presidency.

 

[Maiden Voyage]

Is Hillary usually associated to the three strikes law by people ?

Hillary? No. Clinton? Yes.

 

[xxracerxx]

Trump and Clinton are cut from the same cloth. I wouldn't believe any of their lies. Maybe elect someone who is a scientist or someone that actually cares and focuses on the social and environmental wellbeing of their country and it's planet.

So you absolutely did not follow Clinton's campaign then....got it.

 

[shawnbuddy]

Is Hillary usually associated to the three strikes law by people ?

Much more so than people who actually voted for it. People just hate her. They blame her for everything, there's no logic or reasoning behind it.

 

[Father_Brain]

Blaming Hillary for losing, in a democratic election is the stupidest fucking thing. She lost because of voters and even if she made mistakes campaigning, all voters had the ability to learn about her proposed policies, themselves. We're basically blaming her for not saving people from themselves.

Funny, I'd say blaming the voters when things don't go your way is pretty damn anti-democratic.

If Democrats continue convincing themselves they're owed votes by virtue of not being Republicans, they're going to keep losing.

 

[The Technomancer]

Good article on the subject.

I would counter that slightly with this piece, or at least try and counter the notion that "running more progressive is an obvious recipe for success". This piece looks at the Democratic primaries going back to the Civil Rights movement and how the people who were voting in Democratic primaries started rejecting what we think of as bold progressivism. Democrats haven't been running significantly progressive candidates on the national stage because they keep getting rejected in primaries even when they're expected to win. There's a very real case to be made that we have an actual voter problem; no-one can agree on what good progressive change looks like an in particular a huge chunk of white voters only seem on board with economic progressivism if it isn't given to black people.

What concessions are going to have to make to those people to get them on our side?

https://agenda-blog.com/2017/07/03/...beralism-and-the-white-working-class/#more-42

The expected frontrunner in 1976's primary was Congressman Mo Udall. Udall like Humphrey, was a staunch progressive. In fact, Udall had been a backer of Humphrey-Hawkins, an ambitious full employment bill that, as Humphrey proclaimed in 1974, was aimed at securing ”every adult American's right to useful job opportunities at fair rates of compensation" through making the federal government an employer of last resort and allowing Americans to sue over being deprived of their right to a job. Udall was also less of an establishment figure than Humphrey and given to proposals like the breaking up of General Motors. ”Economic concentration is un-American," he said in one primary speech. ”Not what we teach to our kids."

....


Carter, many reasoned, didn't stand a chance. Udall, like Humphrey, was a union-backed progressive that could expect wide elite, middle-class, and working-class liberal support without the weariness and baggage brought about by Humphrey's long career. Carter was a conservative Southerner without any of Wallace's name-recognition or raw demagogic appeal. With Wallace in poor health and Carter a non-starter, surely the white working class would uniformly back the clear progressive choice this time around.

They did not. The white working class swung for Carter who swept the entirety of the Rust Belt and most of the country. George Wallace racked up double digit shares of the vote as well in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Horrified by the prospect of Carter's victory, union leaders launched a last ditch effort to block his nomination by backing the anti-busing liberal Henry ”Scoop" Jackson in the hopes of forcing a contested convention that could nominate Hubert Humphrey. Idaho Senator Frank Church and California Governor Jerry Brown launched campaigns also aimed at stopping Carter. All failed.

What did Carter offer, precisely, that so galvanized his white working class backers? The parts of his economic program that weren't opaque to voters were regressive by Democratic standards. And he wasn't the kind of fiery populist Wallace had been. It's commonly observed now, as it was then, that Carter's folksiness, religious faith, and gentle charm stood in stark and attractive contrast to the dark, skullduggerous politics Watergate exposed. This was undeniably a factor in his success. But Carter staked his victory on more than relatability and a clean image. On civil rights, Carter tried to triangulate his way out of offending blue-collar whites.

The whole thing is fascinating

 

[studyguy]

What shocks me the most... How the hell did Trump's approval go back up from his 36% of awhile ago, with the clusterfuck of the last weeks?

How the hell is it still that high?

41% is based on Bloomberg alone, other polls may vary, but just looking at Trump doesn't really gauge the picture much. He's dragging virtually everyone down associated with him.

Same poll does not bode kindly for the house speaker and senate leader to boot along with astronomically shit favorable for the R's in general.

 

[royalan]

Funny, I'd say blaming the voters when things don't go your way is pretty damn anti-democratic.

If Democrats continue convincing themselves they're owed votes by virtue of not being Republicans, they're going to keep losing.

Haven't you repeatedly argued that Bernie should have gotten the nomination despite losing the vote?

 

[sephi22]

Trump sucks ass.
I don't know why I have to like Hillary too.

I don't think about Hillary in my day to day life. But I wish ill upon Trump every couple hours.
If polled, I'd probably say I dislike them both

 

[Toxi]

Funny, I'd say blaming the voters when things don't go your way is pretty damn anti-democratic.

Blaming the people who make the decisions makes perfect sense. Part of having power is taking the responsibility that comes with it.

Is your definition of "democratic" giving people a blowjob no matter what decisions they make?

 

[Yoshi]

Well she was an absysmal candidate who managed to lose against a racist clown, of course this does not push her popularity by much. I just hope the democrats do not dare to repeat the mistake and make her or something like her a candidate again.

 

[Sanjuro]

Donald Trump > LeBron James > Kevin Durant > Hillary Clinton

 

[xxracerxx]

Well she was an absysmal candidate who managed to lose against a racist clown, of course this does not push her popularity by much. I just hope the democrats do not dare to repeat the mistake and make her or something like her a candidate again.

What other Democrat has as much Republican hatred built up than Clinton? Obama gathered plenty in his time, but still a few decades short.

 

[Slayven]

A 20 year long hit piece works

 

[Keri]

Funny, I'd say blaming the voters when things don't go your way is pretty damn anti-democratic.

If Democrats continue convincing themselves they're owed votes by virtue of not being Republicans, they're going to keep losing.

Your statement has no logical connection to what I said. The reason Trump won, is because of voters. That's factually correct. So, the people who believe this is a bad thing (of which I'm obviously one), should place their blame at the foot of other voters. It would be just as ridiculous for Trump supporters to blame Trump for losing, in a fictional world where Hillary won. In that world, she would have won because of her supporters.

Politicians should obviously do their best to have their messages heard by as many people as possible, but at the end of the day, the responsibility is on voters to educate themselves and vote accordingly. There's nothing anti-democratic about that.

 

[Night Angel]

This doesn't surprise me TBH. She will always be unpopular with the right, and her loss in what should've been the easiest victory in history damaged her approval with the left.

Some of that disappointment is warranted. She may have done a lot, but she made crucial mistakes during her campaign that she was explicitly warned against doing. Even though she addressed policy issues adequately on several occasions, many people's interaction with her campaign led them to believe she was campaigning mostly on identity politics and "I'm not Trump." She could have done more in the key states she lost.

No candidate deserves votes, no voters are required to vote for any candidate. While some of the criticism is certainly overblown, you can't absolve her of all blame. Which isn't to say she wasn't working against significant headwinds, including misogyny, the Email bullshit, and fake news.

 

[Father_Brain]

Your statement has no logical connection to what I said. The reason Trump won, is because of voters. That's factually correct. So, the people who believe this is a bad thing (of which I'm obviously one), should place their blame at the foot of other voters. It would be just as ridiculous for Trump supporters to blame Trump for losing, in a fictional world where Hillary won. In that world, she would have won because of her supporters.

Politicians should obviously do their best to have their messages heard by as many people as possible, but at the end of the day, the responsibility is on voters to educate themselves and vote accordingly. There's nothing anti-democratic about that.

It's not that voters are devoid of moral agency or that their choices are beyond reproach. It's that there's literally no constructive real-world solution that can possibly arise from focusing solely on them.

No one who hews to the "blame the voters" line is ever able to articulate any actual solutions beyond conservative-sounding platitudes about "personal responsibility," and really, what possible solutions could there be if voters are to blame? Mind control helmets? Reeducation camps?

That's because the point of the "blame the voters" narrative isn't to actually help Democrats win elections, or to advance better policies, but rather to reinforce liberals' faith in their own moral and intellectual superiority, which seems to be the top priority for many of them these days.

Haven't you repeatedly argued that Bernie should have gotten the nomination despite losing the vote?

I have literally never argued anything of the sort. No one is owed votes, whether Sanders in the primary or Clinton in the general.

 

[Yoshi]

What other Democrat has as much Republican hatred built up than Clinton? Obama gathered plenty in his time, but still a few decades short.

I don't know probably none, but it was incredibly dumb of the democratic party to push Clinton to become the candidate, because republican's hate for her wasn't new. Still, she ran against a raist scumbag, but nevertheless managed to lose from a serious advantage. Sanders might have had some problems, being really left leaning and not especially superstitious (as opposed to Clinton in both points), but he managed to get a message accross, which I think is a major point and one where Clinton was lacking severely.

 

[PSqueak]

If you think they're the same, then yes, you are.

I mean you don't have to think they're the same to dislike both, many american friends of mine told me they begrudgingly voted Hillary because she was the lesser of 2 evils.

 

[MIMIC]

Everybody Hates Chris Hillary

 

[steveovig]

Shows exactly what an 8-year smear campaign can do, mixed with one or two mis-steps that were actually her fault.

 

[Keri]

It's not that voters are devoid of moral agency or that their choices are beyond reproach. It's that there's literally no constructive real-world solution that can possibly arise from focusing solely on them.

No one who hews to the "blame the voters" line is ever able to articulate any actual solutions beyond conservative-sounding platitudes about "personal responsibility," and really, what possible solutions could there be if voters are to blame? Mind control helmets? Reeducation camps?

That's because the point of the "blame the voters" narrative isn't to actually help Democrats win elections, or to advance better policies, but rather to reinforce liberals' faith in their own moral and intellectual superiority, which seems to be the top priority for many of them these days.

Literally, the only constructive real-world solutions focus on voters.

So, you are again not making any logical sense.

 

[boiled goose]

Don't understand why people cannot like both. Crazy how it has to be one or the other when they were similar on so many issues.

They are very different on fundamental issues people care a lot about.

Of course on a question of Clinton v Trump it shouldn't be close but we live surrounded by stupidity.

 

[Father_Brain]

Literally, the only constructive real-world solutions focus on voters.

You mean, blaming them for not voting your way, as opposed to offering better candidates, policies, and messaging that are actually aimed at earning their votes instead of treating them as owed to you by virtue of not being the other guy? Yeah, sure.

 

[AmayaPapaya]

Makes a lot of sense. Her numbers were never too far away from Trump. He won, she lost. Her numbers will go down, his will raise. Especially when a BIG part of her appeal in the primary was her supposed electability. You can't just waltz around saying you are the pragmatic choice and only viable option for a general election, and then lose to the least popular candidate in American history.

 

[Gnome Scat]

It's not that I don't like her, I just don't care about her anymore. Rest of the country should follow in suit and move on.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

Not surprising. She lost to the worst candidate in modern history.

 

[rjinaz]

As others have said, the loser is usually pretty unpopular. Given that Clinton loss to this orange cheeto, maybe especially so.

Thankfully she's not going to run for president and other than some fundraising I doubt she'll be politically relevant again. But I'm sure certain people feel better about this, with the mess their party is making right now, they need to feel good about something.

 

[steveovig]

It's not that I don't like her, I just don't care about her anymore. Rest of the country should follow in suit and move on.

I agree. Why is this poll even a thing post-election? She is old news now and we as a party need to move on and learn.

 

[DrROBschiz]

It's not that I don't like her, I just don't care about her anymore. Rest of the country should follow in suit and move on.

Need fresh blood and new faces across the board

I just hope we get some new people with fire in their belly and honest hearts

Trying to be a public servant in this toxic environment seems so draining

Its no wonder people dont want to stick their neck out especially a woman after how Hillary was treated

As others have said, the loser is usually pretty unpopular. Given that Clinton loss to this orange cheeto, maybe especially so.

Thankfully she's not going to run for president and other than some fundraising I doubt she'll be politically relevant again. But I'm sure certain people feel better about this, with the mess their party is making right now, they need to feel good about something.

Well Orange Cheeto had some help...

 

[boiled goose]

I would counter that slightly with this piece, or at least try and counter the notion that "running more progressive is an obvious recipe for success". This piece looks at the Democratic primaries going back to the Civil Rights movement and how the people who were voting in Democratic primaries started rejecting what we think of as bold progressivism. Democrats haven't been running significantly progressive candidates on the national stage because they keep getting rejected in primaries even when they're expected to win. There's a very real case to be made that we have an actual voter problem; no-one can agree on what good progressive change looks like an in particular a huge chunk of white voters only seem on board with economic progressivism if it isn't given to black people.

What concessions are going to have to make to those people to get them on our side?

https://agenda-blog.com/2017/07/03/...beralism-and-the-white-working-class/#more-42



The whole thing is fascinating

I'm not sure how useful going so far back is.
You just have to go yo 2008 to see what a perceived progressive with a message can achieve electorally.

People have been yearning for change in politics for a while. That desire helped Obama and Trump, and it hurt Clinton.

Polarization has also increased. Catering to moderates on other sides is not going to be effective. You need your base.

I think centrist Democrats are not only wrong politically, but also strategically. Proven by almost every election post 08

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/342462-poll-clinton-more-unpopular-than-trump


President Trump is viewed more favorably than his 2016 Democratic presidential rival Hillary Clinton, according to a new poll.

A Bloomberg News survey finds Clinton is viewed favorably by just 39 percent of Americans, compared to Trump, who is viewed favorably by 41 percent of Americans.

Fifty-eight percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of Clinton, compared to a slightly lower majority - 55 percent - who have an unfavorable view of Trump.


-----

I'm assuming more people started disliking her after her election missteps

It really amazes me, I talk with Bernie supporters today and they STILL hate Clinton as much as they do Trump

This country deserves this president

Trump and Clinton are cut from the same cloth. I wouldn't believe any of their lies. Maybe elect someone who is a scientist or someone that actually cares and focuses on the social and environmental wellbeing of their country and it's planet.

My point proven

 

[Whompa02]

Kind of a silly poll tbh.

 

[rjinaz]

Need fresh blood and new faces across the board

I just hope we get some new people with fire in their belly and honest hearts

Trying to be a public servant in this toxic environment seems so draining

Its no wonder people dont want to stick their neck out especially a woman after how Hillary was treated



Well Orange Cheeto had some help...

Well of course, but nonetheless. People don't like a loser.