Support NeoGAF

[Retromelon]

Had a strange dream last night. For some reason I was back in middle school and Trump and I were in an empty hallway. I said hey could I please get a picture with you and he was like ehh sure. He was being really personable so I said you're really nice, it's strange because you're usually an asshole. And then the dream ended. I think this happened because I watched this yesterday

 

[Frank the Great]

The next Democratic candidate needs to be:


1. Charismatic
2. Anti-free trade, with track record to prove it
3. Not a woman

That's pretty much it. The platform can be the same as Hillary's with the trade caveat.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

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?

Do people really vote on specific policies in midterms? They usually seem to be driven by opposition to something, or emotional support for something. Anti Iraq war/Bush in 2006, anti Obamacare/Obama in 2010, Ebola/ISIS fear mongering in 2014. Then there's 2002 when the incumbent party made small gains due to rally-around-the-flag sentiments, post 2001.

Republican fortunes in 2018 will rely moreso on the economy and what Trump does as president moreso than any specific policy proposal democrats make. Perhaps Trump starts a dumb war that fails out the gate in terms of public support. Maybe his Obamacare plan is worse than the gimped Obamacare it replaces. Maybe his Supreme Court appointments lead to abortion or gay marriage being shitcanned. Opposition to stuff like that is more likely to bring people to the polls than democrats coming up with some grand "jobs plan" that republicans won't hold a vote on.

 

[B-Dubs]

The next Democratic candidate needs to be:


1. Charismatic
2. Anti-free trade, with track record to prove it
3. Not a woman

That's pretty much it. The platform can be the same as Hillary's with the trade caveat.

I'm not sure 2 is all that important. Trump used free-trade as a way to stoke fear of "the other." There's a reason he always talked more about NAFTA than any of the other deals we've made.

 

[dramatis]

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.

We're not writing academic papers, and you miss the point. It is fine by me to criticize the Hillary campaign. However, it is clear discrimination for no good reason to hammer Hillary and then excuse Feingold. Rather than saying, "I don't know what happened up there", what's so hard about concluding that voters in WI didn't want Feingold, since they didn't vote for him? Because then the person seeking to excuse Feingold would have to admit that economic populism doesn't work in the rust belt states, at least not in WI.

The case being argued here is partiality to Feingold because of bias towards what ideas he represents.

 

[Frank the Great]

I'm not sure 2 is all that important. Trump used free-trade as a way to stoke fear of "the other." There's a reason he always talked more about NAFTA than any of the other deals we've made.

I think Trump going to the left of Hillary on trade is what won him the rust belt. It was pretty smart.

 

[Totakeke]

Do people really vote on specific policies in midterms? They usually seem to be driven by opposition to something, or emotional support for something. Anti Iraq war in 2006, anti Obamacare/Obama in 2010, Ebola/ISIS fear mongering in 2014. Then there's 2002 when the incumbent party made small gains due to rally-around-the-flag sentiments, post 2001.

Republican fortunes in 2018 will rely moreso on the economy and what Trump does as president moreso than any specific policy proposal democrats make. Perhaps Trump starts a dumb war that fails out the gate in terms of public support. Maybe his Obamacare plan is worse than the gimped Obamacare it replaces. Maybe his Supreme Court appointments lead to abortion or gay marriage being shitcanned. Opposition to stuff like that is more likely to bring people to the polls than democrats coming up with some grand "jobs plan" that republicans won't hold a vote on.

You're probably right, but that also means there's nothing really to talk about here.

 

[Makai]

I'm not sure 2 is all that important. Trump used free-trade as a way to stoke fear of "the other." There's a reason he always talked more about NAFTA than any of the other deals we've made.

Cause that's the one he can name.

 

[B-Dubs]

I think Trump going to the left of Hillary on trade is what won him the rust belt. It was pretty smart.

He laced it with a large amount of racial resentment though. Hell he started off with the racial resentment then wound the free-trade shit around that. The trick is figuring out which one won him the rust belt.

 

[chadskin]

@realDonaldTrump:
In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally

Amazing.

 

[dramatis]

I think Cerium is back?

Also that salt on Trump's face

 

[Balphon]

@realDonaldTrump:
In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally

Amazing.

At some point his tweeting is going to become actually dangerous, if it hasn't already.

 

[kadotsu]

How dumb does Trump need to tweet for us to not get baited?

 

[RDreamer]

At some point his tweeting is going to become actually dangerous, if it hasn't already.

Seriously, there's no way we go 4 years without a crazy international incident at this rate.

The president elect calling into question the integrity of our democracy by stating outright that millions voted illegally is just fucking appalling. How can we be beacon of democracy with him at the helm?

 

[Kid Heart]

@realDonaldTrump:
In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally

Amazing.

Every time he does this it's to fan his fragile ego and scream for attention, and yet despite knowing that I still can't help but be mad. The guy who "tells it like it is" is in flat out denial and his supporters don't care.

 

[Boke1879]

Him not winning the popular vote and this whole Jill recount shit really fucking bothers him.

Dems should scream from the rooftops that the GOP doesn't have a mandate and that Donald lost the popular vote by over 2 million.

 

[RoKKeR]

lmao

I'll be awaiting the day when his handlers finally rip his phone away from him.

 

[whyamihere]

Oh man this is really going to bother him.

 

[Big Baybee]

@realDonaldTrump:
In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally

Amazing.

Ban him, twitter. You have the power.

 

[PBY]

This fucking buffoon.


Jesus Christ it's only November.

 

[nature boy]

It would have been much easier for me to win the so-called popular vote than the Electoral College in that I would only campaign in 3 or 4--

So-called?

 

[Totakeke]

Another reason why Hillary is such an abnormally terrible candidate. Doesn't even know how to do this right.

 

[chadskin]

Ban him, twitter. You have the power.

Possible nuke zone?

 

[DrForester]

So can we discuss this in the political thread?

Guy is delusional and thinks he won the popular vote.

 

[The Librarian]

The next Democratic candidate needs to be:


1. Charismatic
2. Anti-free trade, with track record to prove it
3. Not a woman

That's pretty much it. The platform can be the same as Hillary's with the trade caveat.

You're a sexist jerk.

 

[royalan]

lmao

I'll be awaiting the day when his handlers finally rip his phone away from him.

Why would they ever do that after the results of this election?

Letting Donald Trump be an idiot on Twitter is nothing but Win for them.

-It distracts the media. Absolutely controls them, actually.
-It distracts the fickle-ass-fuck Left who'd rather outrage over dumb shit than stay focused on the very real ways Trump could fuck us over.
-It keeps his base mobilized.

 

[PBY]

Honestly

His tweeting is deeply depressing to me. How the fuck do you counter this???? Millions will believe it. The news media almost feels like it has to cover it...bc he's the fucking leader of the free world.

It's like a lose lose lose situation.

 

[TestOfTide]

Ban him, twitter. You have the power.

They don't even have to ban him. Just a suspension would be enough to piss Trump off.

Imagine how many millenials would be driven to vote if it became social media itself that was on the line.

In a war between Trump and Social Media, social media will easily win.

Why would they ever do that after the results of this election?

Letting Donald Trump be an idiot on Twitter is nothing but Win for them.

-It distracts the media. Absolutely controls them, actually.
-It distracts the fickle-ass-fuck Left who'd rather outrage over dumb shit than stay focused on the very real ways Trump could fuck us over.
-It keeps his base mobilized.

Yes, but as soon as Twitter bans/suspends him, then it becomes Trump vs Social Media.

There is absolutely no way that Trump can win a war against social media.

 

[Rebel Leader]

Him not winning the popular vote and this whole Jill recount shit really fucking bothers him.

Dems should scream from the rooftops that the GOP doesn't have a mandate and that Donald lost the popular vote by over 2 million.

I know. We should rub it in more?

 

[Balphon]

Honestly

His tweeting is deeply depressing to me. How the fuck do you counter this???? Millions will believe it. The news media almost feels like it has to cover it...bc he's the fucking leader of the free world.

It's like a lose lose lose situation.

Twitter should probably close the account, but they'd be strolling into a minefield if they did.

 

[whyamihere]

Hillary was too low energy to rig in Pennsylvania and had to settle to rigging California.

 

[Wilsongt]

So can we discuss this in the political thread?

Guy is delusional and thinks he won the popular vote.

Uh....

Idiot.

 

[numble]

We're not writing academic papers, and you miss the point. It is fine by me to criticize the Hillary campaign. However, it is clear discrimination for no good reason to hammer Hillary and then excuse Feingold. Rather than saying, "I don't know what happened up there", what's so hard about concluding that voters in WI didn't want Feingold, since they didn't vote for him? Because then the person seeking to excuse Feingold would have to admit that economic populism doesn't work in the rust belt states, at least not in WI.

The case being argued here is partiality to Feingold because of bias towards what ideas he represents.

The reference to academic papers is because they require an accepted standard of logic and reasoning. If no political scientist would accept your argument for the minimal discrepancy between Feingold and Clinton, I don't see how it is a message that the DNC should take forward with Wisconsin. There are so many more reasons for the loss in Wisconsin.

Again, using your same logic, based on the results in Wisconsin, Trump's messaging failed and the lesson is for him to run a campaign in 2020 that puts him closer to Ron Johnson, who beat Trump by 70,000 votes.

 

[TumblingHippo]

The next Democratic candidate needs to be:


1. Charismatic
2. Anti-free trade, with track record to prove it
3. Not a woman

That's pretty much it. The platform can be the same as Hillary's with the trade caveat.

Oooo ooo yes let's learn all the right lessons here.

4. Definitely not gay or muslim.
5. Athiest would be worse than #4, so can't risk that.
6. He can be black as long as he's more Christian and clean than Dr. Martin Luther King's record.
7. Centrist, naw, more right. It's been scientifically proven that only right leaning people can win after a single election. They don't even have to believe it!
8. No usage of emails. But harmful usage of Twitter is just fine.
9. Definately not socialist, but maybe Communist could work?

Spoiler

Yeah I was bitter about #3 but it sends a very poor message that we can't let women try again.

 

[Totakeke]

Lol.

Edit: Actually he might be reigniting this fire.

 

[Plumbob]

Possible nuke zone?

Market Street is already a war zone, seems a little late

 

[mo60]

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

I still think Fillion will be Le Pen's worst nightmare despite his flaws. I heard that people high up in the FN think he will be a very hard opponent to beat for Le Pen.

 

[mo60]

So can we discuss this in the political thread?

Guy is delusional and thinks he won the popular vote.

Dude's deflecting from the fact that no US presidential election winner has lost CA by as much as he did. It must be embrassing for him to lose CA by literally 4 million votes.

 

[nature boy]

Guess that failing NYT article about his conflicts of interest got to him.

 

[thehypocrite]

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

Democrats need to do more and talk less.

Look at the Republicans. Suppressing voters, decades long smear campaigns, redistricting territories. All those are strategies to win, do you know why? Cause it works.

What do Democrats do instead? They go to the courts who are conservative as well, trying to get to a supreme Court that's also under republican control and getting worse. That's not going to cut it.


We need ruthless Democrats willing to do everything to win.

Is obvious that the electoral system in the US is broken. You need to change it to single-transferable-voting, but there's no doing that without winning elections and having control of sufficient states. That has to be the goal.

Get people voting IDs, what's good fundraising all the time and advertising if people can't vote for you due to restrictions? Who are the smart guys in the Democratic party? 8 years in government, 30 years of connections and direct communications with billionaires and still getting outplayed by a party who rejects progress.

Sad!!!

 

[whyamihere]

I can't believe we gave Jill Stein 6.1 million dollars.

 

[metalslimer]

I don't think Trump is playing some clever game with his dumb tweets. Hes just a fucking dumbass and is lucky our media is easily dostracted.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

The next Democratic candidate needs to be:


1. Charismatic
2. Anti-free trade, with track record to prove it
3. Not a woman

That's pretty much it. The platform can be the same as Hillary's with the trade caveat.

The last part shouldn't be the deciding factor - it's more so number 1. She's got to be charismatic, and it's got to be part of her personality.

She's also got to have a decent enough background and nothing "e-mail worthy". The issue with e-mails was that it was too complex to explain away why it wasn't a problem. She can be a career politician but needs to show that she wants change.

 

[Dany]

I don't think Trump is playing some clever game with his dumb tweets. Hes just a fucking dumbass and is lucky our media is easily dostracted.

Hasn't bannon asserted that they relish in these distractions? And that he is for them

 

[Kai Dracon]

Trump may be a dumbass tweeting to satisfy is petulant and childish nature. But his distractions are perfect for the post-truth, clickbait age we are now in.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Lol.

Edit: Actually he might be reigniting this fire.

Y'all remember how Trump constantly projected every terrible thing he did or said or was onto Hillary all through the campaign?

Maybe an audit really is called for...

 

[whyamihere]

Man, you could imagine what would happen if Trump continues to be super unpopular and the Supreme Court strikes down partisan gerrymanders? 2018 in the House would be a SHIT SHOW.

 

[mo60]

Man, you could imagine what would happen if Trump continues to be super unpopular and the Supreme Court strikes down partisan gerrymanders? 2018 in the House would be a SHIT SHOW.

Trump may be able to stack the supreme court with Scalia-lite justices before that happens.

 

[whyamihere]

Trump may be able to stack the supreme court with Scalia-lite justices before that happens.

Er, no. What?

Cert would most likely be granted for this term.

 

[The Librarian]

Er, no. What?

Cert was granted for this term.

The Wisconsin case was?