Support NeoGAF

[TestOfTide]

A certain candidate loses and everyone says she's the wrong candidate for the time, but Russ Feingold loses and he's somehow still the "solid model of the type of candidate WI Dems should be running"? lol

Don't be looking at 2012 or 2014 over results from 2016, which clearly represent a more updated data and look at the populace.

Better yet, just look at 2006 and 2008 for an understanding of what it takes to not just win the presidency, but also take back both the house and senate.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Will economic populism lead Democrats to victory? Senate results should make us skeptical.

Strickland sorta pollutes the data, IMO. Dude is massively unpopular in his own right here.

Why are we running him for stuff?

 

[Pixieking]

Strickland sorta pollutes the data, IMO. Dude is massively unpopular in his own right here.

Why are we running him for stuff?

This makes me wonder if state/local level Democrats are just dumb-asses. Surely likability/trustworthiness/popularity is even more important on a low-level than it is on the higher Presidential level?

 

[Plinko]

Better yet, just look at 2006 and 2008 for an understanding of what it takes to not just win the presidency, but also take back both the house and senate.

My problem with this is that the electorate is vastly different from 2006/2008. We are much more polarized. The rust belt along with the Midwest seems to be changing due to brain drain and other issues. It's an entirely different map.

 

[kirblar]

Except they didn't let us down in 2008. They managed to turnout for Obama in record numbers.

And before you say it, I refuse to believe that Obama is the only person capable of making these people turn out to vote.

Everyone turned out in '08 in record numbers, no?

The far left have always been fickle babies. This is why the key has always been winning the center.

 

[Poodlestrike]

This makes me wonder if state/local level Democrats are just dumb-asses. Surely likability/trustworthiness/popularity is even more important on a low-level than it is on the higher Presidential level?

Not to mention a past record of failure. He was kind of a shit governor, apparently, who then lost to Kasich.

 

[Hellwarden]

So given the average Trumper hates the man because he didn't stand with their glorious leader, what are the chances Romney actually becomes secretary of state?

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

So given the average Trumper hates the man because he didn't stand with their glorious leader, what are the chances Romney actually becomes secretary of state?

I think Trump is planning to back-hand him like he did Christie

 

[Poodlestrike]

So given the average Trumper hates the man because he didn't stand with their glorious leader, what are the chances Romney actually becomes secretary of state?

Well, considering that the Trump platform was basically "lie to whoever I need to and then fuck them over when I get in office" (with the exception of his racial politics), I'd say pretty good.

 

[kirblar]

I think Trump is planning to back-hand him like he did Christie

This is either deliberate humilitation, or its intra-insider politics spilling out into the wild.

 

[TestOfTide]

Everyone turned out in '08 in record numbers, no?

The far left have always been fickle babies. This is why the key has always been winning the center.

Except this election proved that for the POTUS race it's not about appealing to the center, but about energizing your base to vote.

Indiana didn't turn blue in 2008 due to Obama appealing to the center. It turned blue because Obama was such an energetic candidate that liberals and progressives turned out in record numbers.

Combine that with Howard Dean's 50 state strategy and you end up with record numbers of Democrats in congress.

My problem with this is that the electorate is vastly different from 2006/2008. We are much more polarized. The rust belt along with the Midwest seems to be changing due to brain drain and other issues. It's an entirely different map.

While you are right that the electorate is more polarized, a lot of these Trump voters will be reachable when Trump disappoints them. They are expecting their jobs to come back, so they won't be happy with Trump when he fails to bring those jobs back.

Imagine if Kamala Harris were to run for POTUS with 3 main parts to her platform:

1) The promise of criminal justice reform and reform to how we deal with drug addiction.

2) The promise of new jobs that will fill the void of previously lost jobs. And it can even be framed as improving our trade deals by turning the American workforce into a prized commodity.

3) The promise of equality and opportunity for every American. And not with a weak slogan like "Stronger Together". Use a stronger slogan like "We Will Rise" or "The American Promise for All".

 

[Pixieking]

Not to mention a past record of failure. He was kind of a shit governor, apparently, who then lost to Kasich.

*rolls eyes* Bloody hell.

So, every part of the Democratic Party needs some brains and also some outsider saying "What the Jesus man? Why are you fronting them?"

 

[kirblar]

You CANNOT energize by going far left on econ policy. That kills the people in the center.

It's Charisma, Charisma, Charisma.

 

[Good Job Bob]

A certain candidate loses and everyone says she's the wrong candidate for the time, but Russ Feingold loses and he's somehow still the "solid model of the type of candidate WI Dems should be running"? lol

Don't be looking at 2012 or 2014 over results from 2016, which clearly represent a more updated data and look at the populace.

Hillary's platform was a solid platform for a Dem to run on in 2016, but yes she was absolutely an awful messenger for it.

Maybe things have changed in Wisconsin, I dunno. But you can't draw that conclusion off of one race. If Tammy loses her re-election bid in 2018 then perhaps you could start sounding some alarms. I agree what the Feingold race does show is that economic populism, even in a favorable race, isn't a magic bullet to office as seemingly suggested by some.

 

[TestOfTide]

You CANNOT energize by going far left on econ policy. That kills the people in the center.

It's Charisma, Charisma, Charisma.

Exactly. You tap into those progressive and liberal voters who didn't vote this year by running a new blood democrat.

 

[Supast4r]

You CANNOT energize by going far left on econ policy. That kills the people in the center.

It's Charisma, Charisma, Charisma.

This. America was founded on the founding fathers committing terrorism because they didn't want to pay taxes o tea. This country was founded to hate taxes hence why the stigma has been kept for so long.

 

[royalan]

You CANNOT energize by going far left on econ policy. That kills the people in the center.

It's Charisma, Charisma, Charisma.

Pretty much.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

*rolls eyes* Bloody hell.

So, every part of the Democratic Party needs some brains and also some outsider saying "What the Jesus man? Why are you fronting them?"

I'm pretty sure Nevada and the west coast are the only Democrats that have their act together.

 

[Pixieking]

I'm pretty sure Nevada and the west coast are the only Democrats that have their act together.

Man alive... Not to toot my own horn too much, but I could do so much to help the party, if I could just get my foot in.

 

[dramatis]

Hillary's platform was a solid platform for a Dem to run on in 2016, but yes she was absolutely an awful messenger for it.

Maybe things have changed in Wisconsin, I dunno. But you can't draw that conclusion off of one race. If Tammy loses her re-election bid in 2018 then perhaps you could start sounding some alarms. I agree what the Feingold race does show is that economic populism, even in a favorable race, isn't a magic bullet to office as seemingly suggested by some.

Isn't this just blaming one losing candidate while making excuses for another losing candidate?

There's particularly no logic for propping up Feingold as the model candidate for the WI Dems when he lost by worse margins than Hillary in the same state.

 

[Plinko]

While you are right that the electorate is more polarized, a lot of these Trump voters will be reachable when Trump disappoints them. They are expecting their jobs to come back, so they won't be happy with Trump when he fails to bring those jobs back.

Imagine if Kamala Harris were to run for POTUS with 3 main parts to her platform:

1) The promise of criminal justice reform and reform to how we deal with drug addiction.

2) The promise of new jobs that will fill the void of previously lost jobs. And it can even be framed as improving our trade deals by turning the American workforce into a prized commodity.

3) The promise of equality and opportunity for every American. And not with a weak slogan like "Stronger Together". Use a stronger slogan like "We Will Rise" or "The American Promise for All".

1. Brain drain is a huge issue going forward. Look at that map showing where college graduates move from. Michigan, Wisconsin, PA, etc, all hit very hard.

2. It has been echoed on here before: I don't think our country is ready for a female president that isn't a beloved celebrity of some nature. It is so incredibly backwards in 2016 that we're talking about this, but it is a major issue with Midwestern voters. I like Harris, but I think this board tends to overrate her prospects at this point.

As sad as it is, I think if you replace Harris with a likeable male candidate and that platform, they probably win if the economy is bad.

 

[Wilsongt]

It's going to be a pretty boring year at Fox News until the Dems running for Senate and House emerge. They can only fellate the Republicans for so long without stepping in to criticize and spread misinformation somewhere.

Edit: I would say Oprah should run for president, but the only way the US elects a woman president at this point is if she is a Republican.

There are people who still think that Clinton would have started WW3?

Wat?

 

[numble]

Isn't this just blaming one losing candidate while making excuses for another losing candidate?

There's particularly no logic for propping up Feingold as the model candidate for the WI Dems when he lost by worse margins than Hillary in the same state.

He got 1000 votes less than Hillary against the anti-establishment guy saying he will leave after 1 more term. If you agree that Democratic turnout in Wisconsin was depressed due to lack of turnout, voter ID suppression, and increased rural turnout due to active campaigning, there is NOTHING you can read by comparing the two close races. I really don't make sense of why there wasn't any campaigning by Hillary in Wisconsin if the Senate race was so important and she had lost the primary. Obama had a RCP average of +11% and still visited 5-6 times.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

No, we appeal to other voters who aren't tied to dying industries and are greater in number.



Exactly this.

Spoiler

I'm actually friends with a black, gay, opera-singing atheist who voted Trump.

But then this takes us back to the question that's been asked in this thread dozens of times since the election: How do Democrats appeal to this group without outright lying to them?

You can't sell an anti-trade message because that would be dishonest. And besides, trade (smart trade) is a good thing. A strong global economy led by the US SHOULD be the way forward. How do you push that as a Democrat? You're used to winning the trade argument by default against a standard Republican, but can't against a candidate like Trump who will run dangerously far to your left on the issue.

Why should the US lead a strong global economy? Also, why do you frame the message as anti-trade?

The message is a rejection of US-led international laws and corresponding policy outcomes i.e. who currently benefits and who is a loser.

All a Democrat or Republican has to say is that the current structure and intent of international law will change. Other leaders should follow suit and try to put their country first. Don't engage in races to the bottom and don't let countries like the US wipe out say Mexican farmers while maintaining subsidies for US industries. Don't be a sucker, but rather play it smart with people looking to profit off your ignorance and judgement.

 

[gutter_trash]

You CANNOT energize by going far left on econ policy. That kills the people in the center.

It's Charisma, Charisma, Charisma.

yup, Americans want their shiny unicorns over policy

 

[Holmes]

Kris was permaed?? Kev pls

 

[Totakeke]

Who better to believe on how to change minds of white nationalists than Derek Black?

It surprises me now how often Mr. Trump and my 19-year-old self would have agreed on our platforms: tariffs to bring back factory jobs, increased policing of black communities, deporting illegal workers and the belief that American culture was threatened. I looked at my white friends and family who felt dispossessed, at the untapped political support for anyone — even a kid like me — who wasn’t afraid to talk about threats to our people from outsiders, and I knew not only that white nationalism was right, but that it could win.

People have approached me looking for a way to change the minds of Trump voters, but I can’t offer any magic technique. That kind of persuasion happens in person-to-person interactions and it requires a lot of honest listening on both sides. For me, the conversations that led me to change my views started because I couldn’t understand why anyone would fear me. I thought I was only doing what was right and defending those I loved.

Much has been made of the incoherence of Mr. Trump’s proposals, but what really matters is who does — and doesn’t — need to fear them. None of the ideas that Mr. Trump has put forward would endanger me, and I once enthusiastically advocated for most of what he says. No proposal to put more cops in black neighborhoods to stop and frisk residents would cause me to be harassed. A ban on Muslim immigration doesn’t implicate all people who look like me in terrorism. Overturning Roe v. Wade will not force me to make a dangerous choice about my health, nor will a man who personifies sexual assault without penalty make me any less safe. When the most powerful demographic in the United States came together to assert that making America great again meant asserting their supremacy, they were asserting my supremacy.

The motivations that led to this choice are more complex. I have no doubt many of his supporters voted thinking he’d soften his rhetoric, that his words didn’t really matter. The words were not disqualifying for them because they don’t see, or refuse to see, what the message of hate will reap.

Most of Mr. Trump’s supporters did not intend to attack our most vulnerable citizens. But with him in office we have a duty to protect those who are threatened by this administration and to win over those who don’t recognize the impact of their vote. Even those on the furthest extreme of the white nationalist spectrum don’t recognize themselves doing harm — I know that because it was easy for me, too, to deny it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/opinion/sunday/why-i-left-white-nationalism.html?_r=0

 

[Wilsongt]

Kris was permaed?? Kev pls

Hew?

 

[dramatis]

He got 1000 votes less than Hillary against the anti-establishment guy saying he will leave after 1 more term. If you agree that Democratic turnout in Wisconsin was depressed due to lack of turnout, voter ID suppression, and increased rural turnout due to active campaigning, there is NOTHING you can read by comparing the two close races. I really don't make sense of why there wasn't any campaigning by Hillary in Wisconsin if the Senate race was so important and she had lost the primary. Obama had a RCP average of +11% and still visited 5-6 times.

That's not the argument, now is it?

Here is a guy who says Feingold is the "solid model of the type of candidate WI Dems should be running"—his words, not mine.

Feingold was supposedly exemplary of the economic populism of the Sanders kind, but he lost worse than Hillary did in WI. That means he is NOT a "solid model of the type of candidate WI Dems should be running".

What I am pointing out is the discrepancy in blaming Hillary for everything...but excusing Feingold for losing. It's only because Feingold embodies the ideas that he prefers, which is why he's willing to excuse Feingold's loss as an anomaly rather than to admit that "democratic socialist" economic populism can't win over racist economic populism. Are you not the same? You're sitting here "blaming everything but Feingold", but that's not okay when it comes to Hillary?

The Sanders-type economic populism didn't win in WI. Trump-type economic populism did. It's not railing against Wall Street and special interests that will win you elections. It's railing against The Other: the blacks, the Latinos, the gays, the uppity women. This is the admission that people don't want to make because they don't want to have to reconcile with the idea that America could actually be this shitty. Or that to appeal to that crowd, they will have to compromise on their purity of ideals and philosophies.

 

[Wilsongt]

I know he won't, but I wouldn't blame Obama for falling off the face of the earth in January. For a guy who truly loves this country, it has to be heart breaking to be blamed for everything wrong with it, have everything you want blocked for 6 years, and then have your entire legacy unraveled in 2.

 

[TestOfTide]

1. Brain drain is a huge issue going forward. Look at that map showing where college graduates move from. Michigan, Wisconsin, PA, etc, all hit very hard.

2. It has been echoed on here before: I don't think our country is ready for a female president that isn't a beloved celebrity of some nature. It is so incredibly backwards in 2016 that we're talking about this, but it is a major issue with Midwestern voters. I like Harris, but I think this board tends to overrate her prospects at this point.

As sad as it is, I think if you replace Harris with a likeable male candidate and that platform, they probably win if the economy is bad.

With regards to where college graduates are going, aren't the potential pickups based on that stat Arizona and North Carolina? And even if Ohio is now a lost cause, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin can easily flip back so long as there is more turnout in urban and suburban areas to create "blue walls" within the state.

With regards to whether or not America is ready for a female president, I strongly disagree for numerous reasons. First off Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by more than 2 million. Second off most of the dislike of Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with the fact that the GOP had been rebuilding a negative narrative about her as early as December 2012. That being said, I do think that we have a better shot with a minority woman than a white woman.

And as for your suggestion that we go with a charismatic male candidate, I have trouble thinking of any male candidates that fit the "New Blood Democrat" criteria other than Cory Booker. And just talking with people I know from New Jersey tells me that Cory already has too many skeletons in his closet.

That's not the argument, now is it?

Here is a guy who says Feingold is the "solid model of the type of candidate WI Dems should be running"—his words, not mine.

Feingold was supposedly exemplary of the economic populism of the Sanders kind, but he lost worse than Hillary did in WI. That means he is NOT a "solid model of the type of candidate WI Dems should be running".

What I am pointing out is the discrepancy in blaming Hillary for everything...but excusing Feingold for losing. It's only because Feingold embodies the ideas that he prefers, which is why he's willing to excuse Feingold's loss as an anomaly rather than to admit that "democratic socialist" economic populism can't win over racist economic populism. Are you not the same? You're sitting here "blaming everything but Feingold", but that's not okay when it comes to Hillary?

The Sanders-type economic populism didn't win in WI. Trump-type economic populism did. It's not railing against Wall Street and special interests that will win you elections. It's railing against The Other: the blacks, the Latinos, the gays, the uppity women. This is the admission that people don't want to make because they don't want to have to reconcile with the idea that America could actually be this shitty. Or that to appeal to that crowd, they will have to compromise on their purity of ideals and philosophies.

Actually there is another possibility: that because Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate, a lot of millenials and minorities were not energized enough to vote while Trump managed to energize all the rural areas into voting in record numbers.

If one or both of those two things doesn't happen in 2020, it will be much easier for Democrats to rebound.

 

[Totakeke]

With regards to whether or not America is ready for a female president, I strongly disagree for numerous reasons. First off Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by more than 2 million. Second off most of the dislike of Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with the fact that the GOP had been rebuilding a negative narrative about her as early as December 2012. That being said, I do think that we have a better shot with a minority woman than a white woman.

But

Hillary Clinton, by contrast, epitomizes the dorky arrogance and smugness of the professional elite. The dorkiness: the pantsuits. The arrogance: the email server. The smugness: the basket of deplorables. Worse, her mere presence rubs it in that even women from her class can treat working-class men with disrespect. Look at how she condescends to Trump as unfit to hold the office of the presidency and dismisses his supporters as racist, sexist, homophobic, or xenophobic.

Trump’s blunt talk taps into another blue-collar value: straight talk. “Directness is a working-class norm,” notes Lubrano. As one blue-collar guy told him, “If you have a problem with me, come talk to me. If you have a way you want something done, come talk to me. I don’t like people who play these two-faced games.” Straight talk is seen as requiring manly courage, not being “a total wuss and a wimp,” an electronics technician told Lamont. Of course Trump appeals. Clinton’s clunky admission that she talks one way in public and another in private? Further proof she’s a two-faced phony.

Manly dignity is a big deal for working-class men, and they’re not feeling that they have it. Trump promises a world free of political correctness and a return to an earlier era, when men were men and women knew their place. It’s comfort food for high-school-educated guys who could have been my father-in-law if they’d been born 30 years earlier. Today they feel like losers — or did until they met Trump.

Manly dignity is a big deal for most men. So is breadwinner status: Many still measure masculinity by the size of a paycheck. White working-class men’s wages hit the skids in the 1970s and took another body blow during the Great Recession. Look, I wish manliness worked differently. But most men, like most women, seek to fulfill the ideals they’ve grown up with. For many blue-collar men, all they’re asking for is basic human dignity (male varietal). Trump promises to deliver it.

https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-so-many-people-dont-get-about-the-u-s-working-class

 

[TestOfTide]

But


https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-so-many-people-dont-get-about-the-u-s-working-class

You are focusing on the gender aspect and not focusing on the fact that since 2012, the GOP has been rebuilding the narrative that Hillary Clinton is a two faced scheming politician.

The GOP won't have time to build that narrative on Kamala Harris or Catherine Masto unless they can figure out right this very second to start focus on attacking them and even then those two don't have the baggage that Hillary Clinton had.

 

[Totakeke]

You are focusing on the gender aspect and not focusing on the fact that since 2012, the GOP has been rebuilding the narrative that Hillary Clinton is a two faced scheming politician.

The GOP won't have time to build that narrative on Kamala Harris or Catherine Masto unless they can figure out right this very second to start focus on attacking them and even then those two don't have the baggage that Hillary Clinton had.

That's one item of the many listed though.

 

[Pixieking]

The Sanders-type economic populism didn't win in WI. Trump-type economic populism did. It's not railing against Wall Street and special interests that will win you elections. It's railing against The Other: the blacks, the Latinos, the gays, the uppity women. This is the admission that people don't want to make because they don't want to have to reconcile with the idea that America could actually be this shitty. Or that to appeal to that crowd, they will have to compromise on their purity of ideals and philosophies.

America is going to have to deal with the fact that, even if everyone who voted for Trump isn't a racist, they're shitty, gullible, people, who have ruined a lot of lives.

Actually there is another possibility: that because Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate, a lot of millenials and minorities were not energized enough to vote while Trump managed to energize all the rural areas into voting in record numbers.

Thing is, this confuses and mangles together various issues.

1) Hillary is a bad candidate
2) Millenials and minorities not energised
3) Trump emergised rural areas

1) is subjective, and has the quagmire of emails, biased press (from Fox, the NYT, CNN, etc.), Comey letter, and the GOP attacking her for 25+ years (back to Bill's administration). She's also the GOP's rallying cry for sexists - she's a woman who doesn't know her place, and was such a bad wife, her husband cheated on her multiple times.

2) can be split between privileged Millenials who didn't want to vote for someone with better policies, because "both sides are bad", and minorities who did kinda vote for Hillary, but not as expected. Hispanics, it is noted, aren't as much of a voting block as African Americans.

3) can be split between Trump speaking to his racist base (panhandle Florida), and lying to people who think that automation can be reversed, and they can get jobs like their dads or grandads.

tl;dr - there is no single reason for this loss. Seriously!

 

[Suikoguy]

Hillary's platform was a solid platform for a Dem to run on in 2016, but yes she was absolutely an awful messenger for it.

Maybe things have changed in Wisconsin, I dunno. But you can't draw that conclusion off of one race. If Tammy loses her re-election bid in 2018 then perhaps you could start sounding some alarms. I agree what the Feingold race does show is that economic populism, even in a favorable race, isn't a magic bullet to office as seemingly suggested by some.

Teachout?

It's not just Feingold.

 

[Big Baybee]

It's frustrating not seeing any political ads for Foster Campbell in Louisiana.

 

[TestOfTide]

America is going to have to deal with the fact that, even if everyone who voted for Trump isn't a racist, they're shitty, gullible, people, who have ruined a lot of lives.



Thing is, this confuses and mangles together various issues.

1) Hillary is a bad candidate
2) Millenials and minorities not energised
3) Trump emergised rural areas

1) is subjective, and has the quagmire of emails, biased press (from Fox, the NYT, CNN, etc.), Comey letter, and the GOP attacking her for 25+ years (back to Bill's administration). She's also the GOP's rallying cry for sexists - she's a woman who doesn't know her place, and was such a bad wife, her husband cheated on her multiple times.

2) can be split between privileged Millenials who didn't want to vote for someone with better policies, because "both sides are bad", and minorities who did kinda vote for Hillary, but not as expected. Hispanics, it is noted, aren't as much of a voting block as African Americans.

3) can be split between Trump speaking to his racist base (panhandle Florida), and lying to people who think that automation can be reversed, and they can get jobs like their dads or grandads.

tl;dr - there is no single reason for this loss. Seriously!

Hillary got attacked so relentlessly because literally everyone knew she was going to be the nominee as early as December 2012.

Those "privileged millenials" managed to vote in record numbers in 2008 so they aren't unreachable.

The racists will always vote for Trump, but the desperate who thought Trump would bring back jobs can absolutely be reached, especially when Trump fails to bring back those jobs.

 

[faisal233]

It's frustrating not seeing any political ads for Foster Campbell in Louisiana.

I saw a few in New Orleans but not much. The Democratic party doesn't believe in a 50 state strategy and neither does most of PoliGAF. It's just lip service while focusing the next messiah that will save us all.

 

[Big Baybee]

I saw a few in New Orleans but not much. The Democratic party doesn't believe in a 50 state strategy and neither does most of PoliGAF. It's just lip service while focusing the next messiah that will save us all.

I think a lot of southern states could be in play if democrats get off their ass and actually do something.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Downslate candidate messages barely matter because nobody knows anything about them or even really cares about them that much. Once you remove the incumbency bonus, over 90% of the variation in voting for Senator was explained by the vote for the President. Nobody cares if Feingold runs on progressive issues because if the rest of his party doesn't back him and the President wouldn't govern that way, his issues are irrelevant - they're not going to happen. He may as well have said he'd give everyone a solid gold bar and called it a day.

American politics is not localised any more, and people vote for parties not individuals. It's the party stance that matters. There were only two Democratic Senate candidates who outperformed Clinton by more than one standard deviation and that's Bayh and Kander, and they both lost anyway.

 

[numble]

That's not the argument, now is it?

Here is a guy who says Feingold is the "solid model of the type of candidate WI Dems should be running"—his words, not mine.

Feingold was supposedly exemplary of the economic populism of the Sanders kind, but he lost worse than Hillary did in WI. That means he is NOT a "solid model of the type of candidate WI Dems should be running".

What I am pointing out is the discrepancy in blaming Hillary for everything...but excusing Feingold for losing. It's only because Feingold embodies the ideas that he prefers, which is why he's willing to excuse Feingold's loss as an anomaly rather than to admit that "democratic socialist" economic populism can't win over racist economic populism. Are you not the same? You're sitting here "blaming everything but Feingold", but that's not okay when it comes to Hillary?

The Sanders-type economic populism didn't win in WI. Trump-type economic populism did. It's not railing against Wall Street and special interests that will win you elections. It's railing against The Other: the blacks, the Latinos, the gays, the uppity women. This is the admission that people don't want to make because they don't want to have to reconcile with the idea that America could actually be this shitty. Or that to appeal to that crowd, they will have to compromise on their purity of ideals and philosophies.

People are motivated for the top of the ballot, I think it is fine to criticize the Clinton campaign for how they handled Wisconsin.

Again, the 1000 vote difference is statistically the same and would not qualify you to make your argument in any academic paper. By your same logic, Trump's economic populism did not work because Ron Johnson ran 70,000 votes ahead of Trump, and since Gary Johnson also got 100,000 votes. If Clinton peeled off just half of Jill Stein's economic populist voters or was able to organize to get voters the IDs they needed, the interpretation of the results would be that Trump's populist message failed in Wisconsin.

Unlike Pennsylvania or Florida, Wisconsin was not the case of Trump massively overperforming versus Romney and bringing in a surge of racist new voters--he only got just 1300 more votes than Romney. All indications are that Wisconsin was for the Clinton campaign to lose.

 

[Totakeke]

In the end, it sounds like it boils down to state-level progressive policies don't motivate people to vote.

How is running more progressive policies a proposal for 2018 then?

 

[kirblar]

https://twitter.com/mcbridetd/status/802950334482182148

Timothy McBride ‏@mcbridetd 55m55 minutes ago

My latest chart on popular vote:
Clinton lead 2.2 million
Relative to 2012:
GOP votes up 1.5m
Dems down 1.3m
3rd party up 5.3m

 

[Totakeke]

Do white nationalists belong in the third party? Or are those rural whites?

 

[whyamihere]

You CANNOT energize by going far left on econ policy. That kills the people in the center.

It's Charisma, Charisma, Charisma.

Yes.

 

[numble]

Do white nationalists belong in the third party? Or are those rural whites?

They voted for the GOP, so they belong in Republicans...

 

[B-Dubs]

People are motivated for the top of the ballot, I think it is fine to criticize the Clinton campaign for how they handled Wisconsin.

Again, the 1000 vote difference is statistically the same and would not qualify you to make your argument in any academic paper. By your same logic, Trump's economic populism did not work because Ron Johnson ran 70,000 votes ahead of Trump, and since Gary Johnson also got 100,000 votes. If Clinton peeled off just half of Jill Stein's economic populist voters or was able to organize to get voters the IDs they needed, the interpretation of the results would be that Trump's populist message failed in Wisconsin.

Unlike Pennsylvania or Florida, Wisconsin was not the case of Trump massively overperforming versus Romney and bringing in a surge of racist new voters--he only got just 1300 more votes than Romney. All indications are that Wisconsin was for the Clinton campaign to lose.

I don't think we can say Stein got those voters because of economic populism, that reads like a justification for pushing an ideology. If you've got numbers showing that's why they voted for her that's a different story.

 

[Totakeke]

They voted for the GOP, so they belong in Republicans...

Ah, I read the tweet wrong.

 

[whyamihere]

Juppe conceded to Fillon in the Republican (French!) primary. Could actually open up someone on the left if Hollande doesn't run.