Support NeoGAF

[pigeon]

because what we want to see is change after such a massive and stupid defeat

Hillary and the DNC cannot change how Russia and the FBI behave in a future election, so it is imbecile to keep complaining about that. it won't change anything. if anything, it only makes Russia want to keep influencing on American elections because: a) it works and b) it makes the democrats look stupid after that

what they can do is see how to appeal to the voters that Trump captured, and how Hillary failed them, and how the campaign was so epically misguided that it came down to a few percentages swayed by a stupid letter from the FBI. it should not have come down to that in the first fucking place

blaming Russia and Comey will just lose another election. the rust belt does not want to hear about russian hackers! it wants to hear about fixing their own economy. it doesn't want to hear that america is already great

because just whining about Russia ain't gonna win votes in 2018 and 2020 because Hillary was already doing that in the 2016 election and it already did not work

congratulations on doubling down on defeat

at least have the decency to admit that Hillary is lying by saying she takes "absolute responsability" and then blaming external parties. at least understand how words work

My strategic plan is to change nothing and rely on the good folks on GAF who have told me that Trump voters care about the economy or Clinton personally and aren't just huge racists, because presumably they'll just change their vote when they realize that Trump can't deliver on anything other than his overt racism and then we'll win in a landslide.

This seems fine to me.

 

[ElFly]

They absolutely didn't after Comey. Polls tightened and the real effect of Comey's letter wasn't actually seen.

You do realize polls are a snapshot of a singular time, right? They give an idea if the election were held that day, but they can't predict the future and how people might chang their votes. They also have margin of error on top of that.

Trump never had "less than 0% chance of winning." That's obviously hyperbole.

Do people not understand math? If I tell you there's a 3% chance of something happening and it happens that doesn't make what I said wrong. It means we landed in the 3%....

but that is assuming that the aggregated poll model is correct

it is completely possible that the real probability of Trump winning after the letters had shot way higher

if you think that Trump had only a 3% of chance of winning in the last week, would you live in a, say, groundhog style week until Trump loses? after all you'd only have to wait one, or at most two weeks until Clinton wins, what with it being only a chance of 3%

what would really happen is that you would be able to learn piano very well and seduce andie mcdowell like a suave motherfucker, cause the real probability of Trump winning was way way higher. it is only the poll aggregation model that assigned such a low probability to that event

remember, that probability was only valid _if the modelling after the poll was correct_, for that both the polls had to be accurate, and the model had to be good



even if the model and the polls were good, I don't know what happens once the candidates start relying on said model to make campaign decisions, and stop campaining in states where the model tells them they are secure

 

[royalan]

I'm a minority voter, and I didn't have "delusions" about this being a close race so much as fear that the Democrats were going to find some way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again. Trump was not a "formidable" candidate. He was a different, boisterous candidate that appealed to a lot of hateful, ignorant fucks but also a lot of ignorant fucks who were hungry to vote for someone who wasn't the same old shit. He was, and still is, deeply unpopular. The only way the election could even be so close with him in the race is if he were running against others who were also deeply unpopular, and that's exactly what happened. I maintained then as I do now that Hillary would've gotten steamrolled by any halfway decent Republican candidate; I think Mitt Romney, absent the stink of losing in 2012, would've absolutely crushed her. That she ran against Trump made her chances better, not worse.

I say this all the time:

Explain Kasich.

Kasich was the most liked Republican candidate in the field, but he was a joke.

How likable you are has no bearing on whether or not you'll vote for someone. That should be one of THE lessons to take from 2016.

Case in point: as unpopular as Trump is, 96% of his voters would vote for him again:

 

[NoRéN]

We still want Al Gore to go away and Kerry did go away to the extent he could.

Uhh...

We do? Gore is spreading global warming awareness like wildfire and Kerry worked as the fucking Secretary of State, that's not going away lol.

Woo! Saved me from facepalming.

 

[minor effort]

She isnt charismatic. Qualifications are useless without charisma, as Trump proved.

Nerds are not popular outside of the democratic base it seems.

Thank God dems have Bernie and Joe for 2020!

Combined age of that ticket in 2020: 157.

No way both of them are sharing a ticket in 2020.

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

Fact 1: She fucked up a lot
Fact 2: Russia/Wikileaks hurt her a lot
Fact 3: She was still despite all that still on track to win until Comey decided in the 11th hour to stir some shit.

All these are true.

.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

I'm a minority voter, and I didn't have "delusions" about this being a close race so much as fear that the Democrats were going to find some way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again. Trump was not a "formidable" candidate. He was a different, boisterous candidate that appealed to a lot of hateful, ignorant fucks but also a lot of ignorant fucks who were hungry to vote for someone who wasn't the same old shit. He was, and still is, deeply unpopular. The only way the election could even be so close with him in the race is if he were running against others who were also deeply unpopular, and that's exactly what happened. I maintained then as I do now that Hillary would've gotten steamrolled by any halfway decent Republican candidate; I think Mitt Romney, absent the stink of losing in 2012, would've absolutely crushed her. That she ran against Trump made her chances better, not worse.

Man, I'm really not trying to be a dick but are we watching and seeing the same shit. There is a wave of populism and xenophobic rhetoric that is winning time and time again. Brexit, Trump, you wanna call the French election?

It doesn't take much to hit to push the lever for change, even if that change is brash and probably in your worst interest. It is a wholly different thing to reflect on it and say, you know what I made the wrong decision. Look at Brexit, the shit happened, poll them afterwards and they realized the ramifications of their actions and they deeply regretted it. Same is true with Trump.

How many threads and news articles are out on a daily basis about people saying they supported Trump. They hit the button, then X, Y, Z happened and they are now like WTF. He is taking away my MY heathcare?! He is deporting MY family member!?

 

[TestOfTide]

I say this all the time:

Explain Kasich.

Kasich was the most liked Republican candidate in the field, but he was a joke.

How likable you are has no bearing on whether or not you'll vote for someone. That should be one of THE lessons to take from 2016.

Case in point: as unpopular as Trump is, 96% of his voters would vote for him again:

Correction: 96% of self-admitted Trump voters say they would vote for him again. The better question is how many of those shy Trump voters would do the same and how many Trump voters are too ashamed to even admit they voted for Trump?

Trump has his fanbase, but he didn't win on just his hardcore fanbase. He won because enough of the electorate had been tricked into believing that Hillary got away with various crimes, including murder.

EDIT: Also, that survey is about if they revoted the 2016 election, not a question about whether they would vote for a NON-HILLARY Dem candidate.

 

[shintoki]

Unless the Dems completely cease to develop candidates, I don't see why you would want either Bernie or Biden. They're more charismatic than Clinton, but why repeat the same issues we had in 2016. You bring out a candidate who lost already a nasty primary or someone whose been in the lime light for god knows how many years.

Let Bernie does what he does best, stir shit up and go out to the blue collar workers. He good at both of them.
Let Biden relax finally after 45 years of being in office. He earned it.

Basically, let us hope the Dems don't need either of them for their party come 2020.

 

[APF]

<<
Clinton Most Admired Woman for Record 20th Time

PRINCETON, N.J. -- Americans again name Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama the woman and man living anywhere in the world they admire most. Both win by wide margins over the next-closest finishers, Malala Yousafzai for women and Pope Francis and Donald Trump for men.

Although Clinton and Obama each led this year's poll by significant margins, the percentage mentioning each as most admired is slightly lower than the percentages they have received in the past. Across the eight times Obama has been most admired man, an average 23% of Americans have named him, while in the 20 times Clinton has been most admired woman, an average 16% have named her.

The top 10 list for men includes three presidents (Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton), three current presidential candidates (Trump, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Dr. Ben Carson), and three religious and spiritual leaders (Pope Francis, the Dalai Lama and the Rev. Billy Graham). The only top 10 male finisher who doesn't fall into one of those categories is Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates.
>>

http://www.gallup.com/poll/187922/clinton-admired-woman-record-20th-time.aspx

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

<<
Clinton Most Admired Woman for Record 20th Time

PRINCETON, N.J. -- Americans again name Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama the woman and man living anywhere in the world they admire most. Both win by wide margins over the next-closest finishers, Malala Yousafzai for women and Pope Francis and Donald Trump for men.

Although Clinton and Obama each led this year's poll by significant margins, the percentage mentioning each as most admired is slightly lower than the percentages they have received in the past. Across the eight times Obama has been most admired man, an average 23% of Americans have named him, while in the 20 times Clinton has been most admired woman, an average 16% have named her.

The top 10 list for men includes three presidents (Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton), three current presidential candidates (Trump, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Dr. Ben Carson), and three religious and spiritual leaders (Pope Francis, the Dalai Lama and the Rev. Billy Graham). The only top 10 male finisher who doesn't fall into one of those categories is Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates.
>>

http://www.gallup.com/poll/187922/clinton-admired-woman-record-20th-time.aspx

No offense, that is from 2015. The 2016 result isn't much different but the methodology is rather shit, I mean yah...

Results are based on telephone interviews conducted December 7-11, 2016 with a random sample of &#8211;1,028&#8212;
adults, aged 18+, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on this sample of
national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level

What woman that you have heard or read about, living today in any part of the world, do you admire most?
And who is your second choice?

Shocking results there Gallop.

 

[pigeon]

What if the Boomers are the worst generation and we should run a politician from a good generation instead

 

[JesseEwiak]

No offense, that is from 2015.

I'll give you good odds that either her or another neoliberal shill like Merkel will win it again this year.

 

[Laughing Banana]

I love how the good side is in quotes as if there's any merit to the modern GOP and any doubt that the Dems aren't overall the good side in America right now.

More important to be above everyone else for that punchy drive-by tho

Putting "good side" in quotes amuses me greatly, as if they recognize the GOP is in fact a bunch of evil shit stains.

I am putting it in quotes because even though you should understand that you are on the right side of things, you spend and waste your time fighting over petty things like this instead of trying to unite together to fight against whatever misery Trump is concocting in the US. Such a waste of time and energy, and it's sad that the ones that are supposed to be representing the "good side" are still dizzy trying to find a unified voice instead of these senseless bickering.

 

[ElFly]

Hillary isn't running in 2018 or 2020

also instead of appealing to the laughable Trump voters how about they appeal to the 47% of America that didn't vote, many of whom lean left? The ones who are actually not huge Trump supporters and voted for him will have realized they fucked up by then anyway, and if they don't regret voting for him, pandering to them is a lost cause. Sure you may flip a few but it's not worth dedicating your strategy to them.

that's what she says now. it is not 100% secure

besides it doesn't matter if she isn't running -even tho the random appearances of chelsea clinton here and there make me nervous they are trying to test the waters for another clinton- because even then, recognizing the errors in her campaign would be a positive in a future campaign by a different candidate, particularly if it comes from the "establishment" of the democratic party

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I am putting it in quotes because even though you should understand that you are on the right side of things, you spend and waste your time fighting over petty things like this instead of trying to unite together to fight against whatever misery Trump is concocting in the US. Such a waste of time and energy, and it's sad that the ones that are supposed to be representing the "good side" are still dizzy trying to find a unified voice instead of these senseless bickering.

So why don't you spend your time doing something positive instead of wagging your finger here

 

[royalan]

that's what she says now. it is not 100% secure

besides it doesn't matter if she isn't running -even tho the random appearances of chelsea clinton here and there make me nervous- because even then, recognizing the errors in her campaign would be a positive in a future campaign by a different candidate, particularly if it comes from the "establishment" of the democratic party

Chelsea Clinton didn't run for President. This is actually really gross.

 

[MIMIC]

Sure, but we're not actually talking about 3%. Most places had Trump at 25-30% chance. If the weather guy says there's a 30% chance of rain I usually think it might fucking rain. Especially not going to call the weather guy wrong if he says there's a 30% chance of rain and it'll be 67 degrees and it was 67 degrees with some rain. In this case national polling predicted pretty well Hillary's actual margin. Where they failed to predict was the electoral college and that's because it's a bit of an odd system that can cascade depending on what sates tip just over the scales or some slight over performance, etc.

The 3% shit was like a month or two beforehand. If the weather guy tells you what it's going to do a month beforehand and you don't listen to his forecast the day before then that's on you.

Who are "most places?" Because most the the predictions the day of the election (at least the more popular "trustworthy" ones) had Trump at well below 30%.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html

NY Times: 15%
538: 29%
HuffPost: 2%
PredictWise: 11%
Princeton Election Consortium: <1% (LESS THAN AN ACTUAL PERCENT)
DailyKos: 8%

Nobody looks at those numbers and thinks "bring an umbrella."

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

I'll give you good odds that either her or another neoliberal shill like Merkel will win it again this year.

2016 results were:

Hillary Clinton 12 13 12 15 21 17 17 16 20 18 13
2 Michelle Obama 8 4 3 5 5 5 5 7 3 -- --
3 Angela Merkel 3 2 1 1 1 1 * 1 * * *
4 Oprah Winfrey 3 4 8 6 4 7 11 8 8 16 9
5 Ellen DeGeneres 2 1 1 * 1 2 * * 1 * *
6 Queen Elizabeth 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 * 1 1

Damn son, you win again.

Who are "most places?" Because most the the predictions the day of the election (at least the more popular "trustworthy" ones) had Trump at well below 30%.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html

NY Times: 15%
538: 29%
HuffPost: 2%
PredictWise: 11%
Princeton Election Consortium: <1% (LESS THAN AN ACTUAL PERCENT)
DailyKos: 8%

Nobody looks at those numbers and thinks "bring an umbrella."

No, you always bring an umbrella. I pack one every day cause I know its a fucking projection.

10% chance of rain today, nah fam, it ain't gonna rain I'm good. Out of what you quoted, 538 was and is still my go to. I would have packed an umbrella. Lul PEC, DK, HP. Still would have packed with NYT.

 

[APF]

No offense, that is from 2015.

Golly what could have happened in that single year that erased the previous 20?

EDIT: trump's daughter currently has an office in the White House and is literally, actually, specifically, inarguably being groomed for Presidential politics, but sure let us shit on Chelsea for the crime of being spawn of the demon Clinton line.

 

[King Tubby]

I say this all the time:

Explain Kasich.

Kasich was the most liked Republican candidate in the field, but he was a joke.

How likable you are has no bearing on whether or not you'll vote for someone. That should be one of THE lessons to take from 2016.

Because even in a weak field Kasich was relatively unknown. He was only barely more liked than not, and a huge chunk of people had no idea who the fuck he was. He basically had nowhere near the presence that the other candidates did.

Case in point: as unpopular as Trump is, 96% of his voters would vote for him again:

Of course, they voted for him despite his unpopularity before, he is still as unpopular. I don't see how that contradicts my point in a world where he has by far the lowest approval ratings of any President at this point in their term.

Man, I'm really not trying to be a dick but are we watching and seeing the same shit. There is a wave of populism and xenophobic rhetoric that is winning time and time again. Brexit, Trump, you wanna call the French election?

It doesn't take much to hit to push the lever for change, even if that change is brash and probably in your worst interest. It is a wholly different thing to reflect on it and say, you know what I made the wrong decision. Look at Brexit, the shit happened, poll them afterwards and they realized the ramifications of their actions and they deeply regretted it. Same is true with Trump.

I can't speak for what happens in British or French electoral politics, just my opinion on what happened in the US election. I think people who don't see that there were huge problems with Hillary's candidacy from the start are fooling themselves.

EDIT: I mean, if we were going by the same voting system as Britain or France Hillary would be sitting in the White House. It's not all that comparable.

How many threads and news articles are out on a daily basis about people saying they supported Trump. They hit the button, then X, Y, Z happened and they are now like WTF. He is taking away my MY heathcare?! He is deporting MY family member!?

Going by the statistics, this isn't actually representative of typical Trump voters (or at least those who would participate in such polling). Then again, it takes some time for those regrets to settle in.

 

[JesseEwiak]

2016 results were:

Hillary Clinton 12 13 12 15 21 17 17 16 20 18 13
2 Michelle Obama 8 4 3 5 5 5 5 7 3 -- --
3 Angela Merkel 3 2 1 1 1 1 * 1 * * *
4 Oprah Winfrey 3 4 8 6 4 7 11 8 8 16 9
5 Ellen DeGeneres 2 1 1 * 1 2 * * 1 * *
6 Queen Elizabeth 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 * 1 1

Damn son, you win again.

Weird, where's Tulsi Gabbard, Jane Sanders, or Nina Turner in that list?

Chelsea Clinton didn't run for President. This is actually really gross.

It's insanity that the Left seems to be more upset Chelsea Clinton is getting some wacky feel good awards from random charities that give awards to rich people all the time than ya' know, Ivanka Trump basically helping to run the country.

 

[MrGerbils]

It's disappointing to see so many people think so lowly of their fellow citizens.

I want a party that pushes policy that would benefit all Americans, not just the rich, and that pushes for less war, not more. Neoliberalism is good about pushing for inclusiveness for minorities (race, sex, religion, all of it) but it still reinforces economic systems that hold the majority of Americans down.

I don't want a party that just screams and looks down their nose at everyone as being racist idiots who are beneath them. I also don't see how that's an effective method for change.

I genuinely believe that leveling the playing field, breaking down class warfare, and giving people opportunity (to work, live, and thrive in communities) would go a long way toward fighting racism in future generations.

I'm from the south and grew up with plenty of people who had shitty views when they were young but then went to college, had their minds opened, met more diverse people, and became better people themselves. I wish everyone in the country had that opportunity.

America, and the Democrats, are not going to advance without the flyover states. Instead of just screaming at them that they're racist imbiciles, maybe take a look at policy that could support them and enrich their lives. And no I don't mean going weak on abortion or gay marriage rights. I mean a workers rights focused democratic socialism.

 

[Psychoward]

I am putting it in quotes because even though you should understand that you are on the right side of things, you spend and waste your time fighting over petty things like this instead of trying to unite together to fight against whatever misery Trump is concocting in the US. Such a waste of time and energy, and it's sad that the ones that are supposed to be representing the "good side" are still dizzy trying to find a unified voice instead of these senseless bickering.

That's a big assumption there.

Figuring out the reasons why Hillary lost and the best strategy going forward is important.

Fighting Trump is important.

Luckily many of us are doing both!

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

It's disappointing to see so many people think so lowly of their fellow citizens.

I want a party that pushes policy that would benefit all Americans, not just the rich, and that pushes for less war, not more. Neoliberalism is good about pushing for inclusiveness for minorities (race, sex, religion, all of it) but it still reinforces economic systems that hold the majority of Americans down.

I don't want a party that just screams and looks down their nose at everyone as being racist idiots who are beneath them. I also don't see how that's an effective method for change.

I genuinely believe that leveling the playing field, breaking down class warfare, and giving people opportunity (to work, live, and thrive in communities) would go a long way toward fighting racism in future generations.

I'm from the south and grew up with plenty of people who had shitty views when they were young but then went to college, had their minds opened, met more diverse people, and became better people themselves. I wish everyone in the country had that opportunity.

America, and the Democrats, are not going to advance without the flyover states. Instead of just screaming at them that they're racist imbiciles, maybe take a look at policy that could support them and enrich their lives. And no I don't mean going weak on abortion or gay marriage rights. I mean a workers rights focused democratic socialism.

You don't actually feel that voting for Trump was a good idea, do you?

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Golly what could have happened in that single year that erased the previous 20?

EDIT: trump's daughter currently has an office in the White House and is literally, actually, specifically, inarguably being groomed for Presidential politics, but sure let us shit on Chelsea for the crime of being spawn of the demon Clinton line.

The broader point is the methodology of the poll.

What woman that you have heard or read about, living today in any part of the world, do you admire most? And who is your second choice?

I bet you half those people couldn't name another woman that met the criteria in the first place.

Going by the statistics, this isn't actually representative of typical Trump voters (or at least those who would participate in such polling). Then again, it takes some time for those regrets to settle in.

It is representative of his approval rating, which isn't heading in the direction that he would prefer.

 

[RDreamer]

Who are "most places?" Because most the the predictions the day of the election (at least the more popular "trustworthy" ones) had Trump at well below 30%.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html

NY Times: 15%
538: 29%
HuffPost: 2%
PredictWise: 11%
Princeton Election Consortium: <1% (LESS THAN AN ACTUAL PERCENT)
DailyKos: 8%

Nobody looks at those numbers and thinks "bring an umbrella."

I suppose you're right there were a few more outlets than I thought with high numbers. I personally went to 538 and NY Times most. And I take a lot of those Lean Dem to basically mean probably but not assured (basically about a 30% chance in my brain). I suppose that might not be what lean dem actually means to most.

There was still a helluva lot of polls trending upward into the margin of error and beyond on election day. I suppose if you only look at HuffPost then sure you're not bringing an umbrella. On election day I sure as fuck was. Still devastating but it wasn't out of NOWHERE. The Comey letter clearly had a huge effect and a lot of people saw that.

 

[The Technomancer]

It's disappointing to see so many people think so lowly of their fellow citizens.

I want a party that pushes policy that would benefit all Americans, not just the rich, and that pushes for less war, not more. Neoliberalism is good about pushing for inclusiveness for minorities (race, sex, religion, all of it) but it still reinforces economic systems that hold the majority of Americans down.

I don't want a party that just screams and looks down their nose at everyone as being racist idiots who are beneath them. I also don't see how that's an effective method for change.

I genuinely believe that leveling the playing field, breaking down class warfare, and giving people opportunity (to work, live, and thrive in communities) would go a long way toward fighting racism in future generations.

I'm from the south and grew up with plenty of people who had shitty views when they were young but then went to college, had their minds opened, met more diverse people, and became better people themselves. I wish everyone in the country had that opportunity.

America, and the Democrats, are not going to advance without the flyover states. Instead of just screaming at them that they're racist imbiciles, maybe take a look at policy that could support them and enrich their lives. And no I don't mean going weak on abortion or gay marriage rights. I mean a workers rights focused democratic socialism.

Class solidarity in America doesn't exist. Not across racial lines. We've seen it time and time again. I'm not from the south, but I didn't grow up in a big city, so I have some experience with the "leaving to change perspectives" thing and I have to ask: for every friend you know that went to college and had their mind expanded, how many followed in their parents footsteps and now watch Fox News?

 

[Aruarian Reflection]

 

[Psychoward]

It's disappointing to see so many people think so lowly of their fellow citizens.

I want a party that pushes policy that would benefit all Americans, not just the rich, and that pushes for less war, not more. Neoliberalism is good about pushing for inclusiveness for minorities (race, sex, religion, all of it) but it still reinforces economic systems that hold the majority of Americans down.

I don't want a party that just screams and looks down their nose at everyone as being racist idiots who are beneath them. I also don't see how that's an effective method for change.

I genuinely believe that leveling the playing field, breaking down class warfare, and giving people opportunity (to work, live, and thrive in communities) would go a long way toward fighting racism in future generations.

I'm from the south and grew up with plenty of people who had shitty views when they were young but then went to college, had their minds opened, met more diverse people, and became better people themselves. I wish everyone in the country had that opportunity.

America, and the Democrats, are not going to advance without the flyover states. Instead of just screaming at them that they're racist imbiciles, maybe take a look at policy that could support them and enrich their lives. And no I don't mean going weak on abortion or gay marriage rights. I mean a workers rights focused democratic socialism.

https://www.google.com/#q=number+of+people+who+voted+for+trump

We can't just ignore that America was literally built on the backs of black slaves and founded by straight white male landowners. It's no surprise that we're still fucked up.

How can you seemingly follow the news and still not condemn people who continue to support the Republicans?

You're upset that I don't like most Trump voters, well I'm upset most Trump voters don't value my rights as a human being. So, I think I win this round.


I mean yes "neoliberals" could stand to be stronger on businesses, wall street and the pharmaceutical companies but at the end of the day they're also good for the working class.

 

[royalan]

It's disappointing to see so many people think so lowly of their fellow citizens.

I want a party that pushes policy that would benefit all Americans, not just the rich, and that pushes for less war, not more. Neoliberalism is good about pushing for inclusiveness for minorities (race, sex, religion, all of it) but it still reinforces economic systems that hold the majority of Americans down.

I don't want a party that just screams and looks down their nose at everyone as being racist idiots who are beneath them. I also don't see how that's an effective method for change.

I genuinely believe that leveling the playing field, breaking down class warfare, and giving people opportunity (to work, live, and thrive in communities) would go a long way toward fighting racism in future generations.

I'm from the south and grew up with plenty of people who had shitty views when they were young but then went to college, had their minds opened, met more diverse people, and became better people themselves. I wish everyone in the country had that opportunity.

America, and the Democrats, are not going to advance without the flyover states. Instead of just screaming at them that they're racist imbiciles, maybe take a look at policy that could support them and enrich their lives. And no I don't mean going weak on abortion or gay marriage rights. I mean a workers rights focused democratic socialism.

Democrats do offer policies that help working people. That's why every working class but the white working class votes for them. Even in those flyover states.

I wonder why that is...

 

[APF]

What woman that you have heard or read about, living today in any part of the world, do you admire most?

Which is why Oprah was the winner all those years. Good point.

 

[The One and Done™]

You sucked Hilary. That's why you lost. You provided no true alternative.

 

[Adam_Vania]

Neoliberalism is good about pushing for inclusiveness for minorities (race, sex, religion, all of it)

it is good about marketing itself as pushing for those things. what real world gains have been made for any of those? the Iraq War and Patriot Act have done a lot of damage to these realms. supporting corporate supremacy and for-profit prisons also work against inclusiveness. yet the marketing is all about how liberals care so much. it seems that actually doing anything to help takes a backseat to being seen as something who cares.

 

[Laughing Banana]

So why don't you spend your time doing something positive instead of wagging your finger here

Hm, this is actually very good advice.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

It's disappointing to see so many people think so lowly of their fellow citizens.

I want a party that pushes policy that would benefit all Americans, not just the rich, and that pushes for less war, not more. Neoliberalism is good about pushing for inclusiveness for minorities (race, sex, religion, all of it) but it still reinforces economic systems that hold the majority of Americans down.

The party that pushes for less war...hmm. Republicans aren't pushing for war in NK and Iran.

Neo liberalism, great for including minorities, but holds the majority of Americans down (i.e. whites). K.

I don't want a party that just screams and looks down their nose at everyone as being racist idiots who are beneath them. I also don't see how that's an effective method for change.

It isn't, but I think you should accept and stop trying to deny that it is a massive underlying issue that people refuse to admit cause....

I genuinely believe that leveling the playing field, breaking down class warfare, and giving people opportunity (to work, live, and thrive in communities) would go a long way toward fighting racism in future generations.

Leveling the playing field. How would you do that exactly, that is class warfare. Look at the socio-economics of wealth in this country, what do you notice? I can give you my personal views as a teacher in/around Houston TX.

I'm from the south and grew up with plenty of people who had shitty views when they were young but then went to college, had their minds opened, met more diverse people, and became better people themselves. I wish everyone in the country had that opportunity.

Damned if I don't agree there. Problem is you have a certain party that is trying to get rid of that education in HS and college. They see that liberal arts education that everyone receives in college as a problem. You know what that is?

America, and the Democrats, are not going to advance without the flyover states. Instead of just screaming at them that they're racist imbiciles, maybe take a look at policy that could support them and enrich their lives. And no I don't mean going weak on abortion or gay marriage rights. I mean a workers rights focused democratic socialism.

I agree. But lets not give them false promises like we are bringing back coal jobs, etc. Tax corporations who send stuff overseas. This is going to require government intervention, you cool with that? Cause companies aren't gonna do it for our interest.

 

[APF]

Despite his newfound claims to dislike trade, trump is like a living avatar of neoliberalism. It's bizarre to hear someone say it's a set of ideas that pushes for inclusiveness for minorities, because that seems like a million times irrelevant to actual neoliberal policymaking.

 

[mo60]

She owns the most humiliating political loss of all time. That's a hard L to live with.

This says hi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1972

 

[pigeon]

It's disappointing to see so many people think so lowly of their fellow citizens.

Man, I totally agree with this. I was super disapponted when I realized that so many Americans thought so little of others that they voted for a candidate who promised to oppress and terrorize them.

...

Oh, wait. That's not where the rest of your post goes, is it.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Man, I totally agree with this. I was super disapponted when I realized that so many Americans thought so little of others that they voted for a candidate who promised to oppress and terrorize them.

...

Oh, wait. That's not where the rest of your post goes, is it.

Thanks for making me realize I wasted ten minutes typing a reply when I could have finished this glass of wine dreading STAAR testing tomorrow.

 

[Not]

yes lol the person who voted for the Iraq War and Patriot Act is anti-establishment of course she is

You don't understand what "symbolic" means, huh

 

[boiled goose]

The media takes a huge percentage of blame. For how bad Hillary was,in no Fucking way was Trump remotely better or even comparable

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Gotta say, much as I love complaining about the neolibs fucking up it's weird that people complain about Arizona. Arizona was like the fifth closest state that Trump won after MI/WI/PA/FL, it was closer than North Carolina and we've won that before!

She isnt charismatic. Qualifications are useless without charisma, as Trump proved.

Nerds are not popular outside of the democratic base it seems.

Thank God dems have Bernie and Joe for 2020!

Honestly surprised to see you happy for Biden since the only real upgrade from Hillary there is that he's marginally less of a hawk.

 

[Moosichu]

But it is her fault that the Democrats couldn't run someone more likable or with less skeletons in their closet.

Which skeletons? The GOP just invented them.

 

[Polari]

Maybe she should've not completely fucked up her campaign as well. Look at what she got beaten by - it shouldn't have even been close.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Considering the relatively tiny number of votes she lost by in the swing states, she's not wrong.

 

[Kin5290]

She isnt charismatic. Qualifications are useless without charisma, as Trump proved.

Nerds are not popular outside of the democratic base it seems.

Thank God dems have Bernie and Joe for 2020!

The great thing about being a white man is that people always manage to ignore your catastrophic failure in the primaries.

 

[excelsiorlef]

The great thing about being a white man is that people always manage to ignore your catastrophic failure in the primaries.

And in Biden's case attack the woman for being not progressive enough or a centrist/DINO/Whatever while touting someone to the right of her as the person you wanted to run.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

Clinton still whinning about "the Russians". She had the media, the government and the financially interests behind her. She lost because of austounding arrogance and terrible past decisions. Trump had much less going for him and much stronger headwinds.

 

[Magwik]

Which skeletons? The GOP just invented them.

And you can tell it worked quite well.

Maybe she should've not completely fucked up her campaign as well. Look at what she got beaten by - it shouldn't have even been close.

Yes because a campaign built around continuing all of the good Obama has done and working towards making the country better for everyone, and detailing her plans, is such a weak campaign. It shouldn't have been close, but people are selfish racist assholes who don't give a shit about anything but themselves. Why is that such a difficult reality to accept? They knew Trump would more than likely destabilize the system, and wanted that to happen. Anyone who is against change because it isn't immediate enough or radical enough, is a selfish prick.

Clinton still whinning about "the Russians". She had the media, the government and the financially interests behind her. She lost because of austounding arrogance and terrible past decisions. Trump had much less going for him and much stronger headwinds.

You mean the media that never covered her policies and instead gave all of the spotlight to Trump? Yeah I too hate when someone is so sure the majority of voters won't pick a racist moron for the president. Trump should have never been treated legitimately. You make it sound like Trump is some kind of underdog. He ran on a platform he helped shape years ago with bullshit fear mongering and lies. Then only continued to lie and lie and lie and say anything to get votes.