Support NeoGAF

[The Technomancer]

Is there data to back that up?

I just posted it. He got as many votes as Romney and more votes than McCain in Wisconsin and Michigan, and its not explained by population growth. That is the metric of popularity that matters.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

lol they aren't going anywhere

Exactly. Their *their party*. We're the ones who need to leave.

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

You gonna pay for all the down ticket races in 2018?

Who cares about money when they're losing anyway?

That's like figuring out how you're going to survive stranded on an island when you're still at sea in a sinking ship.

 

[God Dayumm]

And that was a bad move. If DWS was going to throw a ruckus and threaten to burn the DNC to the ground, fuck her. Go scorched earth. Have the President publicly condemn her, distance yourself as much as possible. I refuse to believe DWS had more power than the POTUS and presidential nominee combined. Your entire defense of this move rests on the premise that there was absolutely nothing they could do but acquiesce to her unreasonable demands.

And post-fact bullshit or not, it's reasonable to criticize moves that feed so clearly into the opposition's narrative that you're rigging the system. You are intent on defending everything Hillary did this election and it's baffling. Giving DWS a meaningless position in her campaign when she was already being accused of conspiring with the DNC against her opponent was not the right move, and it doesn't require hindsight to come to that conclusion.

Hillary should have called her a deplorable and threatened with jail. Would have been glorious and probably won her the election

 

[sugarhigh4242]

You see. The problem with that is that Republicans stay in line. Dems need to stop trying to court Republicans.

No, the mistake is thinking that the 2016 Democrats are FDR's New Deal coalition. Thomas Frank is very very good on this subject. The Democrats are a neoliberal party. That means they promote reforms which privatize government services. A traditional keynsian/new deal/social democrat party would favor a progressive income tax on the wealthy to find universal services. The neoliberal democrats don't do that. They keep taxes relatively flat, and embrace "public-private partnerships" to deliver services. This is the logic which underpins the ACA, 401K (which largely replaced pensions, and powerful forces want to replace Social Security), Charter Schools, and so on.

The problem is not that the Democrats are trying to do progressive things and getting blocked by Republicans. The Democrats are successfully pursuing a positive program which I (and I'd guess a majority of the country) disagree with.

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

Because her going quietly into the night is better than her running around screaming shit in the media.

And she still wasn't under any obligation to vacate her position either...

Like it's baffling that empty platitudes and a meaningless title is that much of an issue to some of you, it was baffling then and it's especially baffling that it is still an issue several months later.

I was talking about 2012 when he could have chosen to replace her.

Honestly. I would really have loved to see her try to take on Obama. It'd be like watching a political version of a One Punch Man fight.

 

[guek]

They were trying to go into the Convention not on fire...

Fuck her?

Go scorched earth?

Yeah that's a brilliant plan in an election year.

Yes, it would have been the right move. You keep trying to argue that DWS had more power than Clinton and Obama, that if she had retaliated by trying to burn the party down, she would have been successful.

If DWS was really holding the party hostage then yes, fuck her. If she was going to threaten the election because of her own pride then yes, fuck her. The party would not have rallied around her in opposition to Obama and Clinton. If she really wanted to play that game, she would have everyone, the president, the candidate, the rest of the party, the media, everyone attacking her for trying to hijack the party and she would have been ground into dust and Clinton would look all the stronger for it rather than bending over for her selfish demands.

Yes, some times you give people placating meaningless positions to make them go away. Some times you tell them to fuck off. It does not matter if you believe it was meaningless, it still made Clinton look weak and corrupt regardless of the truth.

 

[Father_Brain]

I just posted it. He got as many votes as Romney and more votes than McCain in Wisconsin and Michigan, and its not explained by population growth. That is the metric of popularity that matters.

I'm not sure how one can assess that based strictly on vote totals, especially given the impact of late deciders (who, by definition, are unlikely to have had strong favorable views of either candidate).

 

[excelsiorlef]

Who cares about money when they're losing anyway?

That's like figuring out how you're going to survive stranded on an island when you're still at sea in a sinking ship.

Umm because they actually picked up seats in the Senate this cycle?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Yes, it would have been the right move. You keep trying to argue that DWS had more power than Clinton and Obama, that if she had retaliated by trying to burn the party down, she would have been successful.

If DWS was really holding the party hostage then yes, fuck her. If she was going to threaten the election because of her own pride then yes, fuck her. The party would not have rallied around her in opposition to Obama and Clinton. If she really wanted to play that game, she would have everyone, the president, the candidate, the rest of the party, the media, everyone attacking her for trying to hijack the party and she would have been ground into dust and Clinton would look all the stronger for it rather than bending over for her selfish demands.

Yes, some times you give people placating meaningless positions to make them go away. Some times you tell them to fuck off. It does not matter if you believe it was meaningless, it still made Clinton look weak and corrupt regardless of the truth.

Regardless of the truth. Exactly like I said post facts.

This reads like fanfiction instead of reality. Scorched earth right before the convention is an insane suggestion. You don't go scorched earth on the head of your fucking party right before the convention.

Anyway I'm done with this conversation, not like we're gonna change each other's opinions.

I was talking about 2012 when he could have chosen to replace her.

Honestly. I would really have loved to see her try to take on Obama. It'd be like watching a political version of a One Punch Man fight.

My mistake, agreed getting her out in 2012 would have been best.

 

[guek]

Regardless of the truth. Exactly like I said post facts.

Yes, that's the world we live in, not your fantasy land where optics don't matter in elections.

 

[The Technomancer]

I'm not sure how one can assess that based strictly on vote totals, especially given the impact of late deciders (who, by definition, are unlikely to have had strong favorable views of either candidate).

if the argument we're having is that "Trump should have been easy to beat because his awfulness should have driven down GOP turnout" it seems pretty evident that in the states that mattered his awfulness did not actually matter enough to affect turnout and make them "easy"

That's not an excuse for her losing those states, which she should have won handily. But his awfulness did not appear to give her an advantage

 

[guek]

if the argument we're having is that "Trump should have been easy to beat because his awfulness should have driven down GOP turnout" it seems pretty evident that in the states that mattered his awfulness did not actually matter enough to affect turnout and make them "easy"

That's not an excuse for her losing those states, which she should have won handily. But his awfulness did not appear to give her an advantage

On the list of mistakes, number one with a bullet is probably "everyone underestimated Trump"

 

[Measley]

You had the nasty combo of Hillary's baggage and Trump's celebrity status. You had a unified conservative front who felt that the last 8 years were Jim Crow for white people. You had African Americans who felt unappreciated by the Democratic party, and a candidate linked to Clinton's 1994 crime bill that militarized the police and put thousands of blacks in prison for years. You had the rise of black lives matter, Gay marriage, and other pushes from minorities that frightened the white majority, you had the unfortunate reality that Hillary was a woman so she was held to a different standard than Trump...

It really is a combination of a lot of things.