Support NeoGAF

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Basically, Trump ran on being an outsider and successfully signalled he WAS an outsider by being racist as shit, while Hillary could not shake being a decades-long insider and openly embraced diversity, which looked like a "fuck you" to uneducated rural whites in states hit hard by the opioid epidemic and the collapse of the Rust Belt. They bought hook, line, and sinker the conservative media contention that minority issues are concocted by liberal power brokers to retain power and decided Dems no longer care about them, a fact exacerbated by the DNC's conscious decision to court suburbia.

 

[Autodidact]

And to be fair, when I jumped ship from Bernie to Hillary after the NY primary, there was a fair amount of that among her supports as well.

It'd be "oh she's an incredibly progressive candidate, just as progressive as Bernie" one sentence and then "universal healthcare is never going to happen in the US, get over it" the next.

Universal healthcare or single-payer healthcare? There's a difference. The latter may indeed never happen due to our insurance system and the jobs tied to it. The former, however, could materialize with another D/D/D setup willing to emulate a Netherlands-style model (private insurance, but coverage and rates regulated by government) that would complement the US's existing structure. Universal coverage can be achieved with a mixture of private/public insurance.

You can also be a progressive and acknowledge the difficulty of implementing single-payer in this country.

 

[Suikoguy]

We were hearing this about the general as well.

The ground game/GOTV operation was supposed to be THE failsafe. Ignoring it was insanity.

No doubt there. Most of us rated it as more important than TV advertisements which are becoming less and less important every election.

 

[megalowho]

Odd, I had no idea there was a book on Neogaf user political views.
If you are not talking about neogaf users, who the fuck are you talking too?

I was responding to you dropping a chart in the thread about how views on racial diversity was the primary factor, shifting the conversation away from the apparently uncomfortable topic at hand.

 

[The Technomancer]

I was responding to you dropping a chart in the thread about how views on racial diversity was the primary factor, shifting the conversation away from the apparently uncomfortable topic at hand.

Trust me, nothing is more uncomfortable right now for a lot of white progressives than thinking about how racist a lot of their friends and family might actually be

 

[jack_package_200]

Hopefully the DNC under Perez and Ellison can turn things around during 2020 general.

Mook can fuck off forever.

No, we didn't. We really, really didn't.

Maybe one day you will understand. I doubt it though at this point.

How delusional have you gotten at this point?

Savage

 

[megalowho]

Trust me, nothing is more uncomfortable right now for a lot of white progressives than thinking about how racist a lot of their friends and family might actually be

Agreed, but not sure how you got that from my reply and not in the mood for forum judo today. Enjoy the political chat folks.

 

[Suikoguy]

I was responding to you dropping a chart in the thread about how views on racial diversity was the primary factor, shifting the conversation away from the apparently uncomfortable topic at hand.

Ok. I was responding to the generalizing by two other posters, and seem to have gotten you mixed up with them. I'm terrible with remembering usernames, sorry.

In regards to your argument, I don't get this consistent notion of it being either/or. Racism was the biggest driver of Trump's win, Clinton made other mistakes that also cost her.

 

[Sirpopopop]

No matter what there will still be people on here who refuse to accept that Clinton failed to offer a serious message to working class white people, and that it was what did it for her.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie.../clinton-plan-to-revitalize-coal-communities/

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie...dges-to-fight-for-all-americans-as-president/

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/hillary-clinton-working-class/509477/

She detailed plans to help coal miners and steel workers. She had decades of ideas to help parents, particularly working moms, and their children. She had plans to help young men who were getting out of prison and old men who were getting into new careers. She talked about the dignity of manufacturing jobs, the promise of clean-energy jobs, and the Obama administration's record of creating private-sector jobs for a record-breaking number of consecutive months. She said the word ”job" more in the Democratic National Convention speech than Trump did in the RNC acceptance speech; she mentioned the word ”jobs" more during the first presidential debate than Trump did. She offered the most comprehensively progressive economic platform of any presidential candidate in history—one specifically tailored to an economy powered by an educated workforce.

 

[Black_Sun]

Honestly I'd rather lose again than give up the fight for civil rights. Sorry.

Ideology before pragmatism.

You don't have to give up. Just go slower.

 

[The Technomancer]

Agreed, but not sure how you got that from my reply and not in the mood for forum judo today. Enjoy the political chat folks.

Sorry I'm a bit on edge

 

[kame-sennin]

Oh, well she had policy papers - those always win elections and convince voters.

Sigh

This is like a meme at this point. A candidate's job is to sell their ideas. Clinton blinders people's only retort to her failure to message is "but she had a website". Great - keep that winning strategy. Elections will always be win by policy papers and websites full of platform proposals.

/S

Yeah. There's a huge difference between having a clear and concise message versus in-depth policy plans. It's great to have both, but people respond more to the former than the later.

And yes, Trump did have that. As shitty as it is, "Make America Great Again", 'I will get tough with the people who have embarrassed us', and 'I will make great deals for America' are very clear messages.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Honestly I'd rather lose again than give up the fight for civil rights. Sorry.

Because as we all know losing again is going to do a lot for civil rights!

 

[The Technomancer]

Yeah. There's a huge difference between having a clear and concise message versus in-depth policy plans. It's great to have both, but people respond more to the former than the later.

And yes, Trump did have that. As shitty as it is, "Make America Great Again", 'I will get tough with the people who have embarrassed us', and 'I will make great deals for America' are very clear messages.

There aren't simple answers and there aren't easy answers, and Trump won by lying about there being simple easy answers. So the question becomes: how comfortable are we with lying?

That's an actual question. I don't know the answer

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Honestly, Hillary barely winning, being a lame duck with an obstructionist Congress for four years, and losing to a Ted Cruz or more polished Trump-type candidate in 2020 after not getting much non-executive order change achieved likely would not have been THAT much better of an outcome. Less embarrassing for America, but Trump tanking the Republican party via incompetent stupidity may lay the groundwork for a very good election for Dems in 2020.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

Ran a horrible campaign, can't blame Russia or the republicans

Honestly, Hillary barely winning, being a lame duck with an obstructionist Congress for four years, and losing to a Ted Cruz or more polished Trump-type candidate in 2020 after not getting much non-executive order change achieved likely would not have been THAT much better of an outcome. Less embarrassing for America, but Trump tanking the Republican party via incompetent stupidity may lay the groundwork for a very good election for Dems in 2020.

Supreme Court Judge Neil Gorsuch says hello to your logic

 

[guek]

Ideology before pragmatism.

You don't have to give up. Just go slower.

Some people equate any compromise with complete concession. Some times that's quite admirable but it's rarely realistic.

Honestly, Hillary barely winning, being a lame duck with an obstructionist Congress for four years, and losing to a Ted Cruz or more polished Trump-type candidate in 2020 after not getting much non-executive order change achieved likely would not have been THAT much better of an outcome. Less embarrassing for America, but Trump tanking the Republican party via incompetent stupidity may lay the groundwork for a very good election for Dems in 2020.

It's still early days in the Trump presidency. Things can certainly get a lot worse.

 

[2Smashed4U]

Honestly, Hillary barely winning, being a lame duck with an obstructionist Congress for four years, and losing to a Ted Cruz or more polished Trump-type candidate in 2020 after not getting much non-executive order change achieved likely would not have been THAT much better of an outcome. Less embarrassing for America, but Trump tanking the Republican party via incompetent stupidity may lay the groundwork for a very good election for Dems in 2020.

It does make me wonder sometimes. We would've had to take these lumps eventually.

 

[madstarr12]

Hmmm. She would have won Wisconsin had she received the same or better amounts of votes in the major cities as Obama 2012 had. The same with Wayne County in Michigan, she would have won the state had she accumulated the same votes as Obama 2012 in that one county. In a way, she could have won with only the main Democratic party voters, while also losing Independents. She didn't even need the crazy 2008 turnout.

 

[jack_package_200]

Ran a horrible campaign, can't blame Russia or the republicans

Why not all of that?

Why can't all of those things have contributed to her defeat?

 

[kirblar]

Honestly, Hillary barely winning, being a lame duck with an obstructionist Congress for four years, and losing to a Ted Cruz or more polished Trump-type candidate in 2020 after not getting much non-executive order change achieved likely would not have been THAT much better of an outcome. Less embarrassing for America, but Trump tanking the Republican party via incompetent stupidity may lay the groundwork for a very good election for Dems in 2020.

Megan McArdle made the argument during the primary/election cycle that Dems were better off losing the Presidency to Trump now and having the reactioary pendulum on their side in 2020 (due to redistricting) rather than having 4 mediocre Dem years under Clinton and a giant R sweep in 2020 instead.

Pretty sure she was dead-on about this. Unfortunately, 8 years of a D president seems to breed insane amounts of complacency.

Supreme Court Judge Neil Gorsuch says hello to your logic

The seat would not have been filled under Clinton and the GOP win in 2020 would have filled it.

 

[EatinOlives]

Ran a horrible campaign, can't blame Russia or the republicans

With Trump's margin of victory being as thin as it was and with the sheer amount of factors that went into this campaign, there is no "silver bullet" explanation for the outcome, but at the same time there is no way any person can make an informed decision that X or Y DIDN'T make an impact.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Ran a horrible campaign, can't blame Russia or the republicans



Supreme Court Judge Neil Gorsuch says hello

Unfortunate, but you never know with these guys if they will be a conservative like Roberts, who has some pragmatism and historical perspective, or a conservative like Thomas or Alito.

Plus, as mentioned above, Repubs planned to just keep filibustering, anyway.

 

[guek]

The seat would not have been filled under Clinton and the GOP win in 2020 would have filled it.

You really can't say that with any certainty. I mean, maybe the GOP could have kept stalling for 4 more years, I really didn't think they could do it for an entire year prior to the election, but the latter does not ensure the former.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

Why not all of that?

Why can't all of those things have contributed to her defeat?

Not going to Wisconsin, ignoring the rust belt states like they were sheep ready to vote without asking for the democrat, entire campaign about how shit Trump is and nothing about her own policies.....


Russia and Republicans were only a small part of the equation

 

[kirblar]

You really can't say that with any certainty. I mean, maybe the GOP could have kept stalling for 4 more years, I really didn't think they could do it for an entire year prior to the election, but the latter does not ensure the former.

It's Mitch McConnell. They absolutely would have stalled it. We can say it with certainty because he's a guy who's interested in one thing: power.

 

[Autoignition]

Because as we all know losing again is going to do a lot for civil rights!

lmao no wonder why the prevailing narrative is that the Democrats are the party that doesn't stand for anything.

 

[The Technomancer]

You really can't say that with any certainty. I mean, maybe the GOP could have kept stalling for 4 more years, I really didn't think they could do it for an entire year prior to the election, but the latter does not ensure the former.

I actually didn't think they could have prior to the election either but 4 months into the Trump presidency...yeah I think these chucklefucks could have pulled it off

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

You really can't say that with any certainty. I mean, maybe the GOP could have kept stalling for 4 more years, I really didn't think they could do it for an entire year prior to the election, but the latter does not ensure the former.

Multiple GOPers said they were going to do that, they ran on people electing them yo give Hillary an opposition Congress to do that, and if the country is so partisan that DONALD TRUMP was preferable to a Clinton, people would not have given a shit.

 

[Averon]

The GOP would have absolutely kept that SC seat open for 4 years if Clinton had won. Them not having a hearing for Garland for nearly a year and blowing up the filibuster the first chance they got proved how far they would go.


In retrospect, the Dems lost the chance to fill that seat back in 2014 mid-terms when they lost control of the Senate.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

The GOP would have absolutely kept that SC seat open for 4 years if Clinton had won. Them not having a hearing for Garland for nearly a year and blowing up the filibuster the first chance they got proved how far they would go.

It would've been political suicide since they used the reason was they were waiting for the new president, zero chance of a 4 year blockage lol

 

[kirblar]

It would've been political suicide since they used the reason was they were waiting for the new president, zero chance of a 4 year blockage lol

It wasn't political suicide under Obama and it wouldn't be political suicide under Clinton because it's too arcane for the general public to give a shit about (and the GOP base LOVES it.)

 

[guek]

It's Mitch McConnell. They absolutely would have stalled it. We can say it with certainty because he's a guy who's interested in one thing: power.

I actually didn't think they could have prior to the election either but 4 months into the Trump presidency...yeah I think these chucklefucks could have pulled it off

Multiple GOPers said they were going to do that, they ran on people electing them yo give Hillary an opposition Congress to do that, and if the country is so partisan that DONALD TRUMP was preferable to a Clinton, people would not have given a shit.

It's really easy to say something completely unverifiable would have happened with absolute certainty. I hate Mitch McConnell with the burning passion of a thousand exploding suns but like I said, it's impossible to know for certain how things would have actually played out even if he had tried to stall for 4 years.

 

[The Technomancer]

It would've been political suicide since they used the reason was they were waiting for the new president, zero chance of a 4 year blockage lol

To a large chunk of the GOP base the Democrats are an illegitimate party. Violating procedure to stop the Democrats is allowed and encouraged because the Democrats shouldn't be allowed power in the first place

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

It wasn't political suicide under Obama and it wouldn't be political suicide under Clinton because it's too arcane for the general public to give a shit about (and the GOP base LOVES it.)

that's a good point, but I don't think a 4 year block is reasonable


but who cares about these hypotheticals? Trump is the king now

 

[Averon]

It would've been political suicide since they used the reason was they were waiting for the new president, zero chance of a 4 year blockage lol

Political suicide? Really? The GOP have suffered no political cost for their obstruction ever since Obama was elected back in 2008. What makes you think they would have suffered by blocking Garland (or any Dem pick for that matter) for 4 years?

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

It wasn't political suicide under Obama and it wouldn't be political suicide under Clinton because it's too arcane for the general public to give a shit about (and the GOP base LOVES it.)

Yes, it is difficult to underemphasize how partisan the country had to be to get Trump elected. These people voted for a racist carnival barker because he said he'd support the police and spank China and ISIS for stealing their jobs and making them unsafe, you really think they'd care that the GOP was keeping the Supreme Court safe from a speech-hating, gun-stealing, socialism-supporting, baby-killing liberal activist judge?

 

[elrechazado]

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie.../clinton-plan-to-revitalize-coal-communities/

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie...dges-to-fight-for-all-americans-as-president/

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/hillary-clinton-working-class/509477/

Too bad campaigns aren't about who has website-described plans for things.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Too bad campaigns aren't about who has website-described plans for things.

Moreover, every politician has plans for this or that, but why would they assume Hillary would do any of that stuff when her campaign was all over the place about what it was even about? Hillary's basic political posture is generalized acwuiescence to liberal-leaning technocrats, how the hell does anybody get excited about that, especially when her big splash on the policy stage was the failed, well-meaning mess that was HillaryCare?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Moreover, every politician has plans for this or that, but why would they assume Hillary would do any of that stuff when her campaign was all over the place about what it was even about? Hillary's basic political posture is generalized acwuiescence to liberal-leaning technocrats, how the hell does anybody get excited about that, especially when her big splash on the policy stage was the failed, well-meaning mess that was HillaryCare?

Hillary lost anyone who was paying attention when she flip-flopped on the Iraq War, gay marriage, and then TPP in the years leading up to the Democratic primary. I don't know who she thought she was fooling but nobody outside of neoliberals and technocrats were buying what she was selling.

It's hilarious seeing the same Hillary supporters turning against Elon Musk after the fact because he dared to acknowledge Donald Trump's existence. No lessons learned at all.

 

[Father_Brain]

Right, which in my opinion is evidence that there should have actually been an effort to attract them because if they turned out for her the way they did without really being courted by her campaign, it suggests that there are probably a decent amount of those voters who abstained from voting or went 3rd party that also could have been drawn in with a bit more effort. Going forward, I think it's important to recognize that the fastest growing rifts between the two parties is education level. Look for traditionally R areas with well-educated people regardless of income or ethnicity and I think you'll find a pool of voters who can be swung toward the Dems in the future as the Republican Party continues to reject science, data, etc.

On what basis are you arguing that affluent white suburban Republicans weren't a major focus, if not *the* major focus, of Clinton's general election campaign? Schumer outright said as much, in his infamous "for every WCW we lose" quote.

 

[War Peaceman]

I still don't understand things like this. The people VOTED FOR HER to be the candidate. Nobody "ran her", we all collectively decided she was the best Democratic candidate.

Yeah, plenty of people liked her. She got millions more votes than Sanders and Trump. Just not in the most strategically beneficial beneficial configuration.

Very interested to read this. My current position is that there were a number of self-inflicted wounds. Mook seems to have made many mistakes and tried to run the numbers rather than actually have people campaigning in the swing states. Hillary definitely fucked up by giving speeches to Wall Street - she didn't need to do that at all, it was an unforced error.

The email server was exactly what other SoS' did so I don't blame her for that, also worth noting that her emails weren't hacked. The Clinton Foundation stuff is mostly conspiracy nonsense, especially when the DJT foundation was deeply corrupt. The Comet letter is some high grade bullshit given what we've heard since.

I think she was the victim of a long running smear campaign. That she was unable to be forgiven for relatively minor things and Trump was for more severe (and increasingly so) speaks to a prevailing misogyny. There is also the charisma factor, but given how she was totally dominant in the debates I'd say that is less important.

Ultimately though the people of voted for a racist, rapist traitor are responsible for Trump. They deserve the scorn. They deserve to be shamed.

 

[Zelenogorsk]

It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and ”spirit-crushing" campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) and that failed, repeatedly, to correct course.

Alright that sentence made me chuckle.

I honestly really regret voting for Clinton and if I could go back in time I would have voted Democrat for all the down-ballot positions and left the president option blank. I think that would have helped send a message to the DNC about running a better candidate. Also I live in Missouri so thanks to the electoral college my vote for Clinton didn't count anyways.

 

[SketchTheArtist]

Bill Burr put it perfectly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZbQtCtxAXM

 

[Black_Sun]

Yeah, plenty of people liked her. She got millions more votes than Sanders and Trump. Just not in the most strategically beneficial beneficial configuration.

Very interested to read this. My current position is that there were a number of self-inflicted wounds. Mook seems to have made many mistakes and tried to run the numbers rather than actually have people campaigning in the swing states. Hillary definitely fucked up by giving speeches to Wall Street - she didn't need to do that at all, it was an unforced error.

The email server was exactly what other SoS' did so I don't blame her for that, also worth noting that her emails weren't hacked. The Clinton Foundation stuff is mostly conspiracy nonsense, especially when the DJT foundation was deeply corrupt. The Comet letter is some high grade bullshit given what we've heard since.

I think she was the victim of a long running smear campaign. That she was unable to be forgiven for relatively minor things and Trump was for more severe (and increasingly so) speaks to a prevailing misogyny. There is also the charisma factor, but given how she was totally dominant in the debates I'd say that is less important.

Ultimately though the people of voted for a racist, rapist traitor are responsible for Trump. They deserve the scorn. They deserve to be shamed.

Rape is a hard accusation. We also have a lot of people on the right that have accused Bill Clinton of rape.

Unless he was found guilty of it, it won't affect most people

 

[madstarr12]

Hillary lost anyone who was paying attention when she flip-flopped on the Iraq War, gay marriage, and then TPP in the years leading up to the Democratic primary. I don't know who she thought she was fooling but nobody outside of neoliberals and technocrats were buying what she was selling.

It's hilarious seeing the same Hillary supporters turning against Elon Musk after the fact because he dared to acknowledge Donald Trump's existence. No lessons learned at all.

Lol. I was paying attention to that, I'm critical of her flip-flops, I still voted for her. Does that make me a neoliberal? Don't toss around a generalization about her voters being "neoliberal" like an insult. If that's how things are going to be with people like you, then I hope that Democrats focus on registering new voters, and growing a new base for elections that doesn't include people with your mindset of "my way or the highway"

 

[maxiell]

Having read the book, Mook actually comes across relatively well and you can tell he was one of the main sources they used.

 

[boiled goose]

Hillary lost anyone who was paying attention when she flip-flopped on the Iraq War, gay marriage, and then TPP in the years leading up to the Democratic primary. I don't know who she thought she was fooling but nobody outside of neoliberals and technocrats were buying what she was selling.

It's hilarious seeing the same Hillary supporters turning against Elon Musk after the fact because he dared to acknowledge Donald Trump's existence. No lessons learned at all.

As someone who thought Hillary was an awful candidate, I still voted for her without any hesitation. Even without fooling me, Trump was Iinfinitely worse.

Just on competence alone let alone his clear racism, hatred, lying, corruption, mysoginy, etc.

 

[legacyzero]

Can you seriously say that the DNC had no preference in the outcome? I think the party's involvement played a role in the outcome of the primary.

This gets dismissed SO much. Another poster a couple months ago equated this past election season to Console wars. People will get behind whatever they support, despite it's flaws, ignoring the clearly better option, for many reasons. I've seen so much mental gymnastics happen here and on Twitter to defend Hillary, (And Reddit was SUPER in for Bernie, nauseatingly. Strange because I'm one of the biggest Bernie-crats on this board, and being on r/politics is pretty cringey)

For some people, no amount of clear and tangible evidence that the DNC intervened from the onset to boost Hillary, and it showed. But not only did people ignore these things (Because she won the primary of course, so HA.) They also ignored the warning signs. The same people that laughed at Trump as a candidate and then watched in shock as he gained traction, also denied that Hillary may be weaker against him than originally thought.

To them, Hillary was DESTINED for the win.

Rally after rally, debate after debate, TV ad after ad, it became increasingly clear that Hillary was losing footing.

-Lack of substance, replaced with platitudes, cliches, and catch phrases. PC outrage at the dirty disgusting man that was Trump.
-A rough history highlighted by Bernie in the primary, really soured people on her, and seeing how the DNC kept doing shady shit, like scheduling debates on strange days/times, finger wagging at networks, feeding questions from Donna Brazile, trying to shame Bernie for being "an atheist" (Which is a sick fucking tactic).
-I was a Hillary supporter from day one, but then Bernie came, his message was CLEAR, and Hillary was the center post for what he was against- big money in politics and corruption which has politicians working for donors instead of the people. It's why Healthcare, climate change, and war is even a fucking conversation right now. After researching Hillary's past, and then looking at Bernie, with a strong record of civil rights support, etc, while Goldwater Girl Hillary with a checkered past in money, wall street dishonesty (got forbid we post that 13 minutes of Hillary lying her ass off video here, as you'll be snarked to hell and back, while the actual evidence is ignored. I was told "a youtube video is not a proper source" LOLOL)
-When you brought up these concerns, what followed was a glorious attempt at condescension, snark, dismissive attitudes, ad hominem (like being called sexist. Yeah, that happened. Multiple times)
-People were even shamed for even suggesting a 3rd party or indie vote, because a vote for anybody else other than Hillary, is a vote for Trump (which, technically, sure), but fuck your right to vote for whomever you chose, be it on conscious, principle, or otherwise.

Now we're here. No lessons learned. Oblivious to the facts. Contempt for anything Bernie (even though, right now- he's on a unity tour with the new DNC Chair, to focus on Unity). What I'm seeing now is ANY Trump voter called racist/sexist/etc, even though a good chunk of those folks voted Obama TWICE. (But that somehow doesn't matter.) Apparently Social Issues are the only thing you should be voting for, even though there are so many more issues out there. I was even told number times by a prominent GAF member on twitter, that all those racist working white folk in the rust belt "Need to die". Yeah. That ALSO happened.

Meanwhile, Bernie is now the most popular Politician in the country, (that was a FOX poll by the way.) even among conservatives, who are also now buying in to Bernie Policies especially after the GOP and Trump tried to assault the ACA.

After all this... He's still labeled a divider. Pie in the sky. And Bernie-endorsed candidates in Kansas (Whom closed an impossible gap with LITTLE TO NO help from the DNC) And in Georgia RIGHT NOW, Jon Ossoff is doing very well.

I want unity in our party. I want to go after the voters we lost in 2016 without calling them names, etc etc. They are DEMOCRATS that fucked up, yes. But are we going to spend 2018 and 2020 yelling at and ostracizing voters that we can bring back? Or are we going to campaign the shit out of those territories, winning over even CONSERVATIVES who will also be hurt by Trump (it's already happening).

Our party will never fucking have unity (on political views) because it's a coalition of diverse interests!

You are asking for the impossible! It's not a party of idealogues! If you turn it into that, you get modern-day UK Labour. And that's terrible for everyone.

Scare tactic. Like, you're barely even being annecdotal. When you drill down, no. You DONT have different interests. At it's core, we have the same wants. Social issues included. We just seem to be going about them differently. Unity is possible, and we should actively be working for it. Or lose again. Very simple.

 

[kirblar]

Our party will never fucking have unity (on political views) because it's a coalition of diverse interests!

You are asking for the impossible! It's not a party of idealogues! If you turn it into that, you get modern-day UK Labour. And that's terrible for everyone.