ErasureAcer
Banned
Couldn't read much of it...too wrong from the get go. "Great Man Syndrome"???? All white men suffer from it...give me a break.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
Couldn't read much of it...too wrong from the get go. "Great Man Syndrome"???? All white men suffer from it...give me a break.
UltimaPooh
Member
Yeah. It reads like an r/the_donald post.
balladofwindfishes
Member
I don't agree this was the GOP's election to lose. It was quite the opposite, the Democrats to lose. The pendulum often swings back and forth because the president's don't generally leave their second terms in the same position Obama was in, as far as a strong economy, popularity, and the health and ability to freely campaign.
Hillary vs anyone other than maybe Kasich, would have been a sure win for her. Because none of them were going to appeal to the WWC that are required to win the midwest.
You're concentrating on the wrong parts. The huge list of oppo is what would have mattered.
aspiegamer
Member
It's over-the-top in some spots, but it makes a number of good points. A bit cruel to Sanders supporters. Yeah there were complications but were far from terminal for the broader party.
These aren't complex or deep strategic issues, either. These are extremely fundamental problems that dogged him all the way, and would have even worse in a GE. Very basic oppo. Though really "Jewish. Socialist. Atheist." should have been #1 and the rest of the article would have been redundant. Like it or not, his campaign starts and ends on that alone. Polls in recent years have shown Americans would be more welcoming of a Muslim or gay president than a socialist.
These aren't complex or deep strategic issues, either. These are extremely fundamental problems that dogged him all the way, and would have even worse in a GE. Very basic oppo. Though really "Jewish. Socialist. Atheist." should have been #1 and the rest of the article would have been redundant. Like it or not, his campaign starts and ends on that alone. Polls in recent years have shown Americans would be more welcoming of a Muslim or gay president than a socialist.
UltimaPooh
Member
I think the best thing as a Bernie supporter is to never talk about what would have happened to Bernie if he made it to the GE... Because he never did and the rest is just a bunch of hypotheticals and people dragging up some ideas to confirm their bias (whether they were for or against.) It's not scientific and a waste of time.
People said 2008 was too early for Obama. If a Dem wins,
People were wrong. (thought Clinton got vindicated on how to approach working with the GOP.)
W/ the Dems, your presidential hopes die as you age. If she doesn't do 2020, she's probably never getting another shot.
BTW- Romney and Mattis picks for State/Defense are apparently coming from Trump himself. This is why they're making noise externally on Romney. (I love that he's backstabbing Russia immediately.)
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Obama was from a pretty low income family background and was from Illinois, not the coast. With respect to what we're talking about, he's very different to Harris. He has some natural authenticity because of his background. It wasn't charisma alone.
Those rural voters just voted for fucking Trump.
Background isn't relevant anymore, not to the degree it used to be. Tribalism re: states and such is just not the factor it used to be.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
You can't say that because of one election. These rural voters voted Trump precisely because Clinton didn't have the background to connect. So why do the same thing with Harris?
I don't believe this at all. Not with how quickly Obama was successfully painted as an elite once he was elected.
Oh, and how an unapologetic elitist was just elected on the backs of the white lower class he's about to royally fuck.
Your background doesn't matter more than your ability to sell it at the podium.
balladofwindfishes
Member
But Clinton was from a small business owner from Illinois...
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
If clinton didn't have the background. Trump sure as hell didn't.
RastaMentality
Banned
yes, that same low income background where he lived in Africa and wore (to quote our pres elect) "Muslim garb". There's not much of any sample to look at but I don't think white voters cared as much about this black guy's income level growing up since it wasn't in typically "all american places". especially since conservatives think he was rich before getting in the WH now anyways.
Kamala has a pretty awesome story with an indian immigrant mother and a Jamaican father who were very much interested in their child's education. it's a prime #blackexcellence story. I don't know how rust belt white voters will eat that up, but it's gonna be huge with black and asian voters.
RustyNails
Member
So how did everyones thanksgiving dinner convo go?
Mine was pretty much an autopsy of Clinton campaign. After much discussion, we ended with that suburban and rural white man will not vote for a woman, especially the boomers. They come from a background where they may have encountered a black man as their boss, but never a woman. With that talk in mind I really do not want to risk with another woman candidate in 2020, especially someone who is multiracial. I dont think America is going to be ready for a madame president until the boomers and the vestiges of sexism die off
Mine was pretty much an autopsy of Clinton campaign. After much discussion, we ended with that suburban and rural white man will not vote for a woman, especially the boomers. They come from a background where they may have encountered a black man as their boss, but never a woman. With that talk in mind I really do not want to risk with another woman candidate in 2020, especially someone who is multiracial. I dont think America is going to be ready for a madame president until the boomers and the vestiges of sexism die off
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
My experience throughout the Midwest has been basically an echoing of this paradigm.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Mine was mostly about unions, weirdly enough. My cousin and Aunt (both Clinton voters) are pretty strongly anti-union, so that sort of devoured the discussion. They're both in health insurance, and their experience with unions is mostly limited to GE. The core of the argument was that unions were essentially outmoded, with most of their essential functions being part of federal law, and the rest being in business' best interests (Toyota being the go-to example of a nonunion company that treats its people very well). I still say that without unions to serve as a counterbalance, people would get royally screwed, and they didn't really have an answer for what happens if unions are simultaneously removed as a factor AND most of those work regulations are suspended.
Hmmm...I wonder what other things this person wrote about.
"It’s Time for Bernie Sanders to Apologize to his Supporters, and to President Obama"
"For Hillary Clinton: The Girl Who Dared."
"If You are Voting for Jill Stein, Here is What I know About You" (lol)
"Top Five Reasons why you Can’t Compare 2008 with 2016" (thought Hillary could beat John McCain, lol)
And here's a real knee-slapper! (from the 2008 vs 2016 piece):
1. What an idiot at thinking that Sanders bred resentment toward Black America and Obama.
2. So Bernie tapping into the same anger that led Trump to victory is suddenly going to veer off course because he's an atheist or a Jew or whatever? What a very convenient argument.
I wonder who she thought was going to win Michigan.
Oh, and instead of Bernie Bros, she went with "Bernie Brats." Yep, no delusional bias there. She also scoffed at the idea that this election was about a revolution. Very nice job.
Last one:
"Okay Bernie Bros — You Lost. Either Go to Trump/Stein or Go Away" (LMAO!!!)
Just another Hillary supporter rehashing the same garbage of what they thinks makes a winning/losing candidacy. And I find it extremely ironic that Hillary supporters were the only ones talking about what makes Bernie bad. Almost as if they're convincing themselves, rather than it actually being true (you know...like literally every other thing that was discussed)
balladofwindfishes
Member
My entire family are super liberals. I'm actually on the moderate end compared to them (even though I'd consider myself very liberal)
So our thanksgiving political stuff was mostly making fun of Trumpers in our family (who weren't there).
Other than my mom and I, my entire super liberal family actually hates unions.
So our thanksgiving political stuff was mostly making fun of Trumpers in our family (who weren't there).
Other than my mom and I, my entire super liberal family actually hates unions.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Tried to start a conversation about this in here a week or so ago and it didn't pick up any traction.
This is absolutely huge because of redistricting.
Unions only help you if you're in one. They are looking out for their members. If you're on the outside looking in, this can be a big net negative.
Unions are absolutely needed in many places, but regulation has to happen in government for a large, large number of workers. Unions aren't a one size fits all answer.
TestOfTide
Banned
Georgia could be a potential pickup in 2020 if the nominee is Harris. Like Obama she has what it takes to create high black turnout, especially if she recognizes that she is a perfect candidate to have Criminal Justice Reform as one of her core campaign messages.
Yes, the focus on the next "rising star" has to stop, unless we can run him/her for every position available.
BTW SC nominee should be stalled until SC has a decision on gerrymandering.
One of the big lessons in this cycle- you need to be talking about Heroin. A LOT.
Name random democratic star for 2020!
Frank the Great
Banned
Interesting.
Of note is the possibility that if Hillary had won, we would have still likely been hit with a recession and no way to stop it due to gridlock. 2018 would have been a bloodbath for Democrats, meaning we would have been fucked for redistricting.
Now we get to run as the opposition party in 2018.
I mean "there are a lot of Governor's mansions opening up soon, we should try to win them" is kind of an obvious plan moving forward no? If you want to talk about specific candidates in the states or maybe specific avenues of attack I'm all ears though.
But you sure as hell don't need a plan to actually try to solve the problem
It was just another reason for my husband to go on about how Wall Street and the establishment were the only things that mattered in this election.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
I would like FiveThirtyEight to update their take on elastic states. They classified Georgia as being relatively rigid with a little larger Republican base, so the Democratic base would need to grow due to a smaller percentage of swing voters. I'm cautious to believe Hillary's performance in Georgia relative to Obama's indicates victory in 2020 is possible. I want to, but flipping Iowa swing voters might be more doable.
I remember seeing an interview with Karl Rove where he said they were praying for Sanders to win the primaries. He said they had the hammer and sickle ads ready to roll.
....wow. You guys still pretend Clinton wasn't an abnormally flawed candidate. Amazing.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Unfortunately there isn't much more to go on at this point. We don't know of many (if any) candidates, and I think that goes back to what people have been saying about democrats not having many rising stars in the waiting. Some states SHOULD be ripe for the picking (Michigan comes to mind, although redistricting in Michigan isn't going to be as huge an issue as in other states because of the solid rural makeup of the state north of Grand Rapids) by democrats, but you can't take anything for granted after this election.
Not all of us. She was flawed--moreso than people like Gore and Kerry. Benghazi and the email thing were devastating. Many on here made fun of the term "optics," but that is what actually drove many rural voters to the polls this time around.
Lmao @ dirt packing farm
balladofwindfishes
Member
Cesare Borgia
Banned
Who knows. Trump won without raising much money, the RNC in disarray, and despite establishment figures openly attacking him. What's he going to look like in four years with the party fully behind him and a billion dollars? Of course that assumes he won't fuck everything up. What if he does fuck everything up, China and/or Europe implode as some people expect, economy tanks, foreign policy disasters, etc etc. Point being we don't know. He could be a popular president, or less popular than W. So democrats have to be prepare for a tough four years no matter what. And they need a candidate who can attack him effectively. Not one who has to deal with "yea, but..." on every issue. When you're facing corruption accusations and your husband is a serial abuser of women it makes it hard to attack Trump effectively, for instance.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Earlier, some in the thread were talking about the DNC coming up with different types of candidates for different areas of the country, and I wholeheartedly agree.
When I was in Michigan, a democratic candidate named Bart Stupak won northern Michigan's (district 1) Congressional race many times in a row (from 1993-2011). He was an extremely popular democrat in a VERY rural area (northern Michigan from Traverse City northward to the bridge plus the Upper Peninsula).
I talked to many in those areas about what made him appealing. First and foremost? He was pro-life. By far, that was the response I heard the most. He never once said he'd repeal Roe V. Wade--just that he was against federal funding going for abortion.
There are many pro-life democrats out there, and I think the DNC would be wise to start building up a few of these to run in these rural areas. That will not be a popular opinion around here, but they don't have to say they'll push to repeal Roe V. Wade to do it. Stupak didn't, and he won in an extremely right-wing area of the state. If democrats want to start getting a foothold in these rural areas again, it might be the best course of action.
When I was in Michigan, a democratic candidate named Bart Stupak won northern Michigan's (district 1) Congressional race many times in a row (from 1993-2011). He was an extremely popular democrat in a VERY rural area (northern Michigan from Traverse City northward to the bridge plus the Upper Peninsula).
I talked to many in those areas about what made him appealing. First and foremost? He was pro-life. By far, that was the response I heard the most. He never once said he'd repeal Roe V. Wade--just that he was against federal funding going for abortion.
There are many pro-life democrats out there, and I think the DNC would be wise to start building up a few of these to run in these rural areas. That will not be a popular opinion around here, but they don't have to say they'll push to repeal Roe V. Wade to do it. Stupak didn't, and he won in an extremely right-wing area of the state. If democrats want to start getting a foothold in these rural areas again, it might be the best course of action.
TestOfTide
Banned
If it needs a new phrase for white people to not assume it only applies to black people, then so be it, but I still stand by my statement that Harris is the perfect candidate to run on that area. She was DA, then state attorney general, and along the way tried out ideas in California to reform how to tackle criminal justice issues.
The only shitty part is that her as the nominee means that Jerry Brown can't be the VP, because like how Obama had Biden, Harris would need some old white dude with lots of experience to be the VP. The only names I can think of that would be potential VP picks for Harris would be Sheldon Whitehouse and Chuck Schumer.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Lol yea, Rubio is really getting those PA mountain men all excited to take their country back
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I honestly think Cruz would have done just as well as Trump.
Hillary was in a terrible situation. Followed an extremely charismatic 8-year democratic president, had Benghazi and the email situation along with the FBI clearly against her, Russia pushing fake news stories about her, and an enraged rural voter group against her. Trump was pretty inflammatory and his statements got many minorities to the polls. I'm not sure minority turnout would have been as high if Cruz was the candidate, and she may have lost by even more.
Hillary was in a terrible situation. Followed an extremely charismatic 8-year democratic president, had Benghazi and the email situation along with the FBI clearly against her, Russia pushing fake news stories about her, and an enraged rural voter group against her. Trump was pretty inflammatory and his statements got many minorities to the polls. I'm not sure minority turnout would have been as high if Cruz was the candidate, and she may have lost by even more.
I'm not sure if you just chose an unflattering picture, but how old is Rubio again? He looks a lot older in this pic than I remember him looking.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Cruz makes squishy noises when he walks
You're still acting like this was a normal election. It wasn't.
Most new voters went to Clinton. Trump's base was the same republicans as always.
LOL
balladofwindfishes
Member
With his Goldman Sachs wife?
Tarkus
Member
He's 46 I think. Definitely aged since his infamous Republican rebuttal.
- Status