Support NeoGAF

[Cesare Borgia]

The same plot which lead to the rise of Trump.

You think after 4 years of people paying attention to Breitbart that you can run Tammy Duckworth in 2020?

A great politician can overcome just about anything (see: Bill Clinton, Obama). I like Duckworth but she's not a great politician. She's not beating out a democrat primary field, much less Trump in a general election.

 

[Psychoward]

off-topic but I'm arguing with an idiot regurgitating literal israeli propaganda


what were the reasons why Palestinians rejected previous two state solutions again, I'm gonna take a wild guess and assume it wasn't because the deal was too good

 

[TumblingHippo]

It feels like we've already lost if the narrative has become "We're so racist and sexist now that CERTAIN people aren't allowed to run for president anymore."

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Couple thoughts on this, though I mostly agree with this. The first issue is that I'm not sure how winnable Florida is against Trump, at least with our current vision of the future. Obama would have lost it against him and Clinton had huge success with GOTV here and still lost to the sheer surprise panhandle turnout, unless there's new information I've missed here. Unless the panhandle types abandon him in 2020 because there isn't a wall or anything, I'm not sure what else there is to do here aside from maybe hope that there's even more migration of Puerto Ricans there. It'll also be important to watch how the gubernatorial and senate races go, though as Romney learned in 2012 that's not the only indicator.

The trouble is that if you say "okay, we can't win Florida", then suddenly a Democratic victory becomes much harder. After Florida, the next closest state is North Carolina - and I'd expect that to be about 1.5% more Republican than Florida in 2020 still. So if you can't win Florida... what can you win?

And this is why I think it is really important people understand the next election can't just be "appeal to the Democratic base". I mean, I don't really know what the Democratic base is (or at least, what lots of you guys mean when you say the Democratic base), and I think we all have different ideas of it, but the prevailing idea seems to be the coalition of urban city liberals and ethnic minorities, especially African Americans. Well, if that's your base and what you're concerned with is winning them/mobilizing them, it doesn't win you the presidency. Almost certainly, the next Democratic president will have to get some people who voted for Trump to vote for them. I don't really see any way around that. If you sweep the Rust Belt, you win without Florida, so the Rust Belt is the place to start, but after that, Florida is clearly the next target.

Secondly, there should be some level of defense played in Minnesota and New Hampshire, both of which were really narrow wins for Clinton. I'm not aware of NH having much in the way of demographic shifts so I'm not sure what could make it swing one way or the other, but Clinton only winning there by 3k votes shouldn't leave us complacent about it. Minnesota should probably be safer since it had all of the same issues that the other upper Midwestern states had with traditionally rural areas turning Republican but it still held blue, but a couple visits and some infrastructure there is probably a good idea, as well as trying to make sure Franken's seat isn't lost. It'll also benefit from the increased focus on Wisconsin and Michigan but I think making sure it keeps its 40 streak stays strong.

I agree. I didn't mention it because if the Democrats can't win Minnesota, it implies they can't win the Rust Belt, so they've already lost and there's no point talking about further strategy. A similar thing applies to New Hampshire.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I think Harris and Masto are much better public speakers than Duckworth is.

You all think this matters more than it does. Trump is a terrible public speaker. Have you listened to him? It's just pure word vomit. Clinton was absolutely and comprehensively a better speaker than Trump, and the electorate thought that too (see the debate polls). Nevertheless, they voted for Trump. It's not about how well you speak; it's about what you say. Obama was charismatic... but at the end of the day, what was more important was that he was talking about Romney shipping your jobs to China. Sound familiar?

But I think very few want to admit this, because most people in this thread fundamentally agreed with both the content and direction of the Clinton campaign, and would rather look for other scapegoats. That's why you're looking at Harris. Right, because the Rust Belt is going to listen to some California city girl, daughter of a doctor and a university professor who grew up in a well-off family and went to law school. Come on.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Might be time to look around you at every Western country and just accept that the West got a lot more racist in the last decade.

That said, I would probably be fine with Duckworth, because we shouldn't kowtow to white supremacy. I just don't think this is a very strong argument.

It did. But this racism isn't exogenous, some factor totally outside of political discourse and political events. It was caused and influenced by the choices of our politicians and our institutions over the last few decades. Key among those was the collapse of working class representation within leftist parties, who were taken over by middle class, bourgeois, urban liberals, for whom leftism is an ethical preference and not a necessity of circumstance. This left these voiceless people to be mobilized along different lines - and one of those lines was their racial identity. But that's not irreversible or a permanent state of affairs. It just requires leftist parties to realize they need to put the voice of the working class front and centre again.

 

[Psychoward]

off-topic but I'm arguing with an idiot regurgitating literal israeli propaganda


what were the reasons why Palestinians rejected previous two state solutions again, I'm gonna take a wild guess and assume it wasn't because the deal was too good

gaf pls someone is wrong on the internet this is vital

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

The trouble is that if you say "okay, we can't win Florida", then suddenly a Democratic victory becomes much harder. After Florida, the next closest state is North Carolina - and I'd expect that to be about 1.5% more Republican than Florida in 2020 still. So if you can't win Florida... what can you win?

And this is why I think it is really important people understand the next election can't just be "appeal to the Democratic base". I mean, I don't really know what the Democratic base is (or at least, what lots of you guys mean when you say the Democratic base), and I think we all have different ideas of it, but the prevailing idea seems to be the coalition of urban city liberals and ethnic minorities, especially African Americans. Well, if that's your base and what you're concerned with is winning them/mobilizing them, it doesn't win you the presidency. Almost certainly, the next Democratic president will have to get some people who voted for Trump to vote for them. I don't really see any way around that. If you sweep the Rust Belt, you win without Florida, so the Rust Belt is the place to start, but after that, Florida is clearly the next target.

The thing about Florida is that if Trump mobilizes the same kind of panhandle force in future elections in Florida, I don't see where Democrats try to cut into those margins because they were overwhelmingly new voters going for Trump, rather than the Rust Belt-type flipped communities. Clinton outperformed Obama 2008 there and still lost, and if you look at the county maps they're basically the same. Unless we either go racist to try and win panhandle racists over or the panhandle racists are disappointed and fail to mobilize the way they did this year then I don't see any path to victory there.

NC, on the other hand, I think would benefit from a lot of the same strategies we've talked about in the Rust Belt, which is to try and visit some of the rural areas and keep the margins we lose by down. I mean, that's what we have to do in WI/MI/PA right? Win back Scranton or Western Wisconsin. That, and fix the voter ID shit if we can. That would help a lot in NC and WI.

 

[pigeon]

It did. But this racism isn't exogenous, some factor totally outside of political discourse and political events. It was caused and influenced by the choices of our politicians and our institutions over the last few decades. Key among those was the collapse of working class representation within leftist parties, who were taken over by middle class, bourgeois, urban liberals, for whom leftism is an ethical preference and not a necessity of circumstance. This left these voiceless people to be mobilized along different lines - and one of those lines was their racial identity. But that's not irreversible or a permanent state of affairs. It just requires leftist parties to realize they need to put the voice of the working class front and centre again.

I mean, this continues to be the fantasy of a white European sheltered from the realities of white supremacy in America, but we clearly aren't going to make any progress along those lines because you are very confident in that fantasy.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

gaf pls someone is wrong on the internet this is vital

Palestine and Israel disagreed about the territorial extent of the two-states. Palestinian negotiators wanted almost the full area of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, plus East Jerusalem and Gazan territorial waters which Israel does not classify as part of the Occupied Territories. They were willing to offer equal area land swaps, but Israel wanted to annex about 5% of the area of the current West Bank with no return. Palestine wanted East Jerusalem, and for custody of the Temple Mount, neither of which Israel was willing to compromise on. Palestine wanted complete right of return, Israel wanted limited right of return, for refugees, because Israel did not want to acknowledge Palestinian refugeeism as being Israeli in cause.

Right of return and East Jerusalem are generally acknowledged to have been the points that made the deal fail (especially Temple Mount).

 

[Psychoward]

Palestine and Israel disagreed about the territorial extent of the two-states. Palestinian negotiators wanted almost the full area of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, plus East Jerusalem and Gazan territorial waters which Israel does not classify as part of the Occupied Territories. They were willing to offer equal area land swaps, but Israel wanted to annex about 5% of the area of the current West Bank with no return. Palestine wanted East Jerusalem, and for custody of the Temple Mount, neither of which Israel was willing to compromise on. Palestine wanted complete right of return, Israel wanted limited right of return, for refugees, because Israel did not want to acknowledge Palestinian refugeeism as being Israeli in cause.

Right of return and East Jerusalem are generally acknowledged to have been the points that made the deal fail (especially Temple Mount).

Any good articles for reading up more on it? If you had to say one side was more wrong, who would it be?

like this is the article she used and it's just.... factually wrong on so many accounts lol

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=83&x_article=2116

looked up the site and lo and behold it's a pro-israeli propaganda shitter

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The thing about Florida is that if Trump mobilizes the same kind of panhandle force in future elections in Florida, I don't see where Democrats try to cut into those margins because they were overwhelmingly new voters going for Trump, rather than the Rust Belt-type flipped communities. Clinton outperformed Obama 2008 there and still lost, and if you look at the county maps they're basically the same. Unless we either go racist to try and win panhandle racists over or the panhandle racists are disappointed and fail to mobilize the way they did this year then I don't see any path to victory there.

NC, on the other hand, I think would benefit from a lot of the same strategies we've talked about in the Rust Belt, which is to try and visit some of the rural areas and keep the margins we lose by down. I mean, that's what we have to do in WI/MI/PA right? Win back Scranton or Western Wisconsin. That, and fix the voter ID shit if we can. That would help a lot in NC and WI.

North Carolina will be more Republican than Florida, though. Like, yes, lots of Trump's voters in Florida (almost uniquely) were new voters altogether, whereas in North Carolina they're established voters - but given Florida is already closer than North Carolina, you need to switch a smaller number of people than you do in North Carolina. Not to mention North Carolina and Georgia together are only about as much as Florida, so even if switching Florida voters is twice as hard, a) you only need to switch half as many, and b) you only have to switch one state not two.

I'm not too insistent on this; I think North Carolina + Georgia is also a viable strategy. I think the Democrats can probably do all three with some careful messaging - if you treated Florida like two states by splitting it between north and south, I suspect you'd the two halves of Florida behave more like other states and Florida's weirdness is created by the fact it's a super liberal half glued to a true South half. If so, Florida might be susceptible to the same messaging as North Carolina and Georgia. But I do think writing off Florida would be an immense mistake. It will be an enormously important and competitive state in 2020. Winning it would almost singlehandedly shut down Trump.

 

[kirblar]

I mean, this continues to be the fantasy of a white European sheltered from the realities of white supremacy in America, but we clearly aren't going to make any progress along those lines because you are very confident in that fantasy.

The Dems only seem to win when the economy goes into a recession and actual economic anxiety takes hold.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Any good articles for reading up more on it? If you had to say one side was more wrong, who would it be?

I don't know about articles, it's a complicated subject and can't really be reduced to article length. When I studied it for my master's, I found that Swisher's The Truth About Camp David was pretty insightful, as well as Ben-Ami's Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy. The latter is especially interesting as it is written by a key player.

 

[sphagnum]

The Dems only seem to win when the economy goes into a recession and actual economic anxiety takes hold.

Obama would have crushed McCain even if the economy hadn't collapsed, but that's because of reaction to Bush I guess.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I mean, this continues to be the fantasy of a white European sheltered from the realities of white supremacy in America, but we clearly aren't going to make any progress along those lines because you are very confident in that fantasy.

Okay, so in your lala land of "America's vote is solely motivated by racism and nothing can change this in any way ever", who do the Democrats run and why?

Also, if we're playing "you're X, your argument is invalid" - you're not working class. You didn't grow up poor in a post-industrial area affected by the collapse of the mining industry. You haven't seen the collapse of hope in these communities. You're a middle class elite, stuck in your ivory tower with your fancy principles. You have no idea what America looks like.

 

[Retromelon]

Any good articles for reading up more on it? If you had to say one side was more wrong, who would it be?

Here are some

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/world/mideast-peace-effort-pauses-to-let-failure-sink-in.html?_r=0

Publicly, Mr. Obama has said that both sides bear responsibility for the latest collapse. But the president believes that more than any other factor, Israel’s drumbeat of settlement announcements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem poisoned the atmosphere and doomed any chance of a breakthrough with the Palestinians.

“At every juncture, there was a settlement announcement,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. “It was the thing that kept throwing a wrench in the gears.”

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/03/israel-palestine-delusion-state-solution-160324132044351.html

It is duplicitous enough for the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to try to convince audiences outside his own country from time to time that he supports the creation of a Palestinian state. Worse still is that he portrays his efforts in this regard as being constantly thwarted by the Palestinians themselves.

In other words, Netanyahu would have us believe that he is a greater proponent of such a state than those who have been denied it by almost half a century of Israeli military occupation and colonisation.

He reiterated this fallacy on March 22, while addressing the annual conference of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, Washington's most influential pro-Israel lobby group.

He said he was willing to resume talks on a two-state solution "immediately … anytime, anywhere", if only his Palestinian counterpart Mahmoud Abbas was willing to do the same.

This just one day after the Israeli government issued notices to seize nearly 120 hectares of land from Palestinian villages in the northern West Bank, and days after it declared more than 2,300 dunums of land in Jericho as "state lands", which are then usually granted to Jewish settlers.

Never mind that in the same speech, Netanyahu urged the United States to oppose any UN resolution calling for the creation of a Palestinian state. It seems no one else apart from him - not the international community or even the Palestinians - is allowed to seek such a state.

And no one else is allowed to define its parameters. Israel's ever-expanding settlement enterprise, which controls around half of the West Bank - including its water aquifers and most fertile land - and has made a Swiss cheese out of the Palestinian territory - must be largely maintained.

 

[kirblar]

Okay, so in your lala land of "America's vote is solely motivated by racism and nothing can change this in any way ever", who do the Democrats run and why?

Also, if we're playing "you're X, your argument is invalid" - you're not working class. You didn't grow up poor in a post-industrial area affected by the collapse of the mining industry. You haven't seen the collapse of hope in these communities. You're a middle class elite, stuck in your ivory tower with your fancy principles. You have no idea what America looks like.

America doesn't look a thing like those dying towns. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/normal-america-is-not-a-small-town-of-white-people/

Metros with demographics most like America today

1 New Haven-Milford, CT 93.2
2 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 91.6
3 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 90.2
4 Oklahoma City, OK 89.4
5 Springfield, MA 89.3
6 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 88.2
7 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI 88.2
8 Wichita, KS 87.6
9 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 87.2
10 Kansas City, MO-KS 86.8

There is nothing "elite" about growing up as a middle class kid in the suburbs. It's the norm.

 

[Psychoward]

Here are some

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/world/mideast-peace-effort-pauses-to-let-failure-sink-in.html?_r=0

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/03/israel-palestine-delusion-state-solution-160324132044351.html

yeah that's more like it


then again it was probably a hopeless exercise arguing with someone who links from CAMERA lmfao

and she's a poli sci major and involved in a lot of israeli organizations too, we're fucked

 

[Deleted member 231381]

America doesn't look a thing like those dying towns. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/normal-america-is-not-a-small-town-of-white-people/

No, of course not. It's a rhetorical device designed to appeal to the swing vote - everyone thinks they're the real America regardless of whether they are or not. Nobody ever said "I'm not real America". But the key swing vote - a.k.a the thing we're actually worrying about? It does look like that, because of the unfortunate setup of the electoral college. So, if you want to win elections, "real America" is probably the BOOT counties, most of which are decaying industrial towns.

If we didn't have the electoral college, you'd be right - the suburban middle class people like pigeon who have comfortable desk jobs and reasonable wage expectancies would be the chief vote. But because the Founders drafted one of the worst constitutions known to modern Western nations, here we are.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

The collapse of hope and economic prospects in American communities started in urban minority communities long before it hit "real" America. It's the same old story with a different setting; shit only really matters when it happens to white people.

Democrats lost this decade (and probably the next) in the 2010 election as a result of racist backlash against Obama. Even if Hillary had won an extra hundred thousand votes spread across 3 states, she still would have been dealing with a Republican House, Republican Senate and Republican controlled States. The Democratic party has been eviscerated; it is a hollow shell.

 

[whyamihere]

You all think this matters more than it does. Trump is a terrible public speaker. Have you listened to him? It's just pure word vomit. Clinton was absolutely and comprehensively a better speaker than Trump, and the electorate thought that too (see the debate polls). Nevertheless, they voted for Trump. It's not about how well you speak; it's about what you say. Obama was charismatic... but at the end of the day, what was more important was that he was talking about Romney shipping your jobs to China. Sound familiar?

But I think very few want to admit this, because most people in this thread fundamentally agreed with both the content and direction of the Clinton campaign, and would rather look for other scapegoats. That's why you're looking at Harris. Right, because the Rust Belt is going to listen to some California city girl, daughter of a doctor and a university professor who grew up in a well-off family and went to law school. Come on.

Honestly, this is awful analysis, even for you.

 

[Slurpy2k20]

Trump’s latest Cabinet picks signal he has no intention of governing as a populist outsider - Vox
https://apple.news/AA4knyDgfR5eqv4OvtMM74A

No shit.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

lel shitpost

OK.

 

[shinra-bansho]

It feels like we've already lost if the narrative has become "We're so racist and sexist now that CERTAIN people aren't allowed to run for president anymore."

There's a big difference between saying that certain types of people shouldn't run, and saying that they and everyone else should go into it with both eyes open about the reality of the situation.

And that "Barack Obama" doesn't actually mean we live in some post-racial, post-gender bias harmony utopia.

 

[whyamihere]

OK.

Maybe, next time, you decide not to reduce someone to "a California city girl, daughter of a doctor and a university professor who grew up in a well-off family and went to law school". You're like one tick away from saying uppity.

We elected a Harvard educated law school professor from Hawaii without a dad. He had more appeal to the Midwest than white woman who grew up in a Midwestern town!

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Maybe, next time, you decide not to reduce someone to "a California city girl, daughter of a doctor and a university professor who grew up in a well-off family and went to law school". You're like one tick away from saying uppity.

The Rust Belt looks at her, that's what they'll see. What does Kamala Harris know of Youngstown, Ohio?

We elected a Harvard educated law school professor from Hawaii without a dad. He had more appeal to the Midwest than white woman who grew up in a Midwestern town!

We did. And that's because Clinton, by this point, was a New Yorker worth millions with family connections to Wall Street who primarily tried to speak to educated suburbanites, while Obama grew up in a single-parent household that wasn't always well off and actually was still a Midwesterner at the point he contested. Obama had the basic understanding of these places that led him to realize that opposing NAFTA and the like was really good for his electoral chances - probably because he cut his political teeth in Illinois, in the Rust Belt. Clinton did not - probably because her most recent political experiences were the White House amongst the political classes and then New York, in coastal America. Guess which one Harris is from?

 

[whyamihere]

The Rust Belt looks at her, that's what they'll see. What does Kamala Harris know of Youngstown, Ohio?



We did. And that's because Clinton, by this point, was a New Yorker worth millions with family connections to Wall Street who primarily tried to speak to educated suburbanites, while Obama grew up in a single-parent household that wasn't always well off and actually was still a Midwesterner at the point he contested. Obama had the basic understanding of these places that led him to realize that opposing NAFTA and the like was really good for his electoral chances. Clinton did not.

You're reducing Harris to her identity while also ignoring Obama's. I'm done. This is so bad! Stop.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You're reducing Harris to her identity while also ignoring Obama's. I'm done. This is so bad! Stop.

No. I'm literally saying: Obama's identity was enormously important, and Harris does not share the reasons that made it important - he was from a poor family, a single-parent family; she is from a rich family, a stable family. He cut his political teeth in the Rust Belt, she cut hers in California. Large parts of his early Senatorial career were staked on opposing NAFTA, large parts of hers were on death penalty cases (and I'm an enormous opponent of the death penalty, but it's not something that people mostly concerned with their material livelihood care about). I wish you'd actually read.

 

[kirblar]

Clinton was a crappy politician because she never had to face a competitive election over the course of her entire career. She would have made a great president, but she was always an awful politician.

Harris and others don't have that problem. They've won, and won repeatedly.

 

[whyamihere]

No. I'm literally saying: Obama's identity was enormously important, and Harris does not share the reasons that made it important. I wish you'd actually read.

Your point is terrible, and offensive and multiple levels, because you're assuming that because Harris is not a Midwestern, she cannot understand the Midwest. You are saying she's a city girl -- so is Obama! Fuck, Bernie was a coastal elite. What the fuck was Trump?

After 2004, we thought we needed a red state centrist. Your analysis is as useless as that.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Rahm 2020 I guess.
Chicago being the epicentre of the midwest and being demographically and electorally identical to Iowa.

 

[gutter_trash]

Clinton was a crappy politician because she never had to face a competitive election over the course of her entire career. She would have made a great president, but she was always an awful politician.

Harris and others don't have that problem. They've won, and won repeatedly.

correction, Clinton is a crappy campaigner but a great politician

gotta separate campaigning from governing

Obama is an excellent campaigner but a tad too soft on governing

Rahm 2020 I guess.

Blue Dogs be gone!

 

[kirblar]

correction, Clinton is a crappy campaigner but a great politician

gotta separate campaigning from governing

Obama is an excellent campaigner but a tad too soft on governing

I consider the"getting elected" part pretty core to being a successful politician.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

No. I'm literally saying: Obama's identity was enormously important, and Harris does not share the reasons that made it important - he was from a poor family, a single-parent family; she is from a rich family, a stable family. He cut his political teeth in the Rust Belt, she cut hers in California. Large parts of his early Senatorial career were staked on opposing NAFTA, large parts of hers were on death penalty cases (and I'm an enormous opponent of the death penalty, but it's not something that people mostly concerned with their material livelihood care about). I wish you'd actually read.

So he was one of the good ones?

These people voted for Trump dony start this shit about her background not being authentically midwest. You sound really bad here.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Your point is terrible, and offensive and multiple levels, because you're assuming that because Harris is not a Midwestern, she cannot understand the Midwest. You are saying she's a city girl -- so is Obama! Fuck, Bernie was a coastal elite. What the fuck was Trump?

I mean, she might try to play for the Midwest. We'll see in the primaries. But if she does, I think she'll struggle, because she won't have built the trust. If a senator from California with a history of law suddenly started talking about the Rust Belt and the need for industry, with no prior history of having been talking about this issue, no background that links them integrally to this issue, and you belong to a political community that has developed a deep mistrust of most politicians, what's the odds you're going to suddenly say "well, that's good enough for me?". Quite low.

Trump won because he was the only one saying this message at all. I think if he'd run against Obama, or anyone who was saying this message within even a mote of authenticity, he'd have lost. They'd have painted him as an out of touch elitist businessman out to rip people off, with connections to big money - EXACTLY what Obama did to Romney. Clinton couldn't do this because... well, that almost describes her. And that will be Harris' problem, I think. How can she show Trump for what he really is - a New Yorker, a member of the elite - when she is too?

 

[studyguy]

Gotta put out this craiglist ad now I guess.

LOOKING TO HIRE: MIDWESTERN PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFUL, MUST BE CHARASMATIC, LOOK THE PART, NOT AFRAID OF GETTING HANDS DIRTY, MINORITIES A PLUS BUT NOT TOO ETHNIC, WOMAN OKAY BUT NOT TOO INTIMIDATING.

What else am I missing here? Because I can't imagine we're going to be running off the same ideas and candidates 6mo to a year into the Trump presidency when things shift radically.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Oh he picked Mnuchin after all for Treasury. Wallowing in the swamp.

 

[devilhawk]

He's got an imdb page and everything! http://www.imdb.com/name/nm6518391/

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Rahm 2020 I guess.
Chicago being the epicentre of the midwest and being demographically and electorally identical to Iowa.

You're not understanding the key part. Rahm was also from a wealthy background, also grew up in a city, also went to work in Wall Street, also has too many connections with the existing Democratic elite. Yes. he's from Chicago - but that's not enough in and of itself.

Like, it's not the California (at least, alone) part that makes it so hard for Harris. If she'd grown up in Mariposa County as the daughter of a teacher or so on, she'd be in the right ballpark. They don't have to be from a Midwestern state (although I think it would be helpful), but having the kind of autheniticity of the Obama or even Bill Clinton is crucial. I mean, look at Bill - from a single-parent family, son of a travelling car salesman, his stepfather was a gambler and an alcoholic, grew up in Arkansas.

The picture I describe could be Obama. It could be (Bill) Clinton. It could be Duckworth. It could be Sanders. It's not Harris.

 

[shinra-bansho]

So Oprah.

 

[Dany]

Rahm 2020 I guess.
Chicago being the epicentre of the midwest and being demographically and electorally identical to Iowa.

Chicago hates him. Bad choice. He'd lose Illinois in the primaries.

 

[kirblar]

Shinra really needed a /s tag for that? lol

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So Oprah.

Too late now, because she's definitely a member of the wealthy urban America I think the Rust Belt resents, but if Oprah had decided to become a politician very early in her career, before the big money and TV shows, then yes. A sort of nouvelle-Oprah could do exceptionally well, I think.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Emanuel/Cuomo 2020. Make sarcasm great again.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Clinton could have won this election; the margins were so close that I think if you ran the election 100 times over it would be a real toss-up as opposed to Trump 70/30 or whatever. Minor changes could have made the difference (not to mention the impact of key outside events).

But that is all besides the point because even if Clinton wins nothing really changes. Republicans still control the House/Senate and they control the States by overwhelming margins. What's the point of having the Presidency if it costs you control of everything else?

Even worse, Obama has shown us the dangers of focusing on the Presidency above all else. The highly visible Democratic leader gets blamed for everything and allows for a backlash narrative to form (driven by racism in his case, sexism for Clinton) which fosters easy campaign victories against Democrats. Republican control of government results in gridlock and obstruction which is blamed on the President and by extension Democrats. Democrats lose any sense of identity or message as all their policies/goals are never going to pass, whilst Republicans can succeed with only one policy/goal in mind: "Stop Obama/Hillary". The Democrats hemorrhage internally until all that is left is a mildly competitive Presidential husk.

Even in states like Kansas where Republican policies were enacted to disastrous results, voters still re-elect Republicans. Those voters don't give a shit about their candidates' backgrounds. Trump is literally every bad thing you could have in your background rolled into one and his voters gave him a pass on everything.

 

[Dany]

Emanuel/Cuomo 2020. Make sarcasm great again.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

Anyone watching CNN? the retired Democrat general said the reason for the stabbing was because that Somalian attacker didn't have enough job opportunities WTF?? The kid was 18 at OSU and was an honors student at the community college he was before transferring to OSU, had the world in front of him. Was probably the most cringe PC response I've ever heard regarding this type of matter, the type of shit that got so many people sick of the democratic party in the first place

 

[Deleted member 231381]

But that is all besides the point because even if Clinton wins nothing really changes. Republicans still control the House/Senate and they control the States by overwhelming margins. What's the point of having the Presidency if it costs you control of everything else?

I agree - I said as much to pigeon earlier. An enormous amount rests on retaking control of state legislatures. But I think the problems are not separate. State legislatures are, even more so than the electoral college, skewed to the demographic I'm talking about. It's the same group you have to win. But the trouble is, all politics is presidential now - the correlation between the opinion of the-party-in-Washington and the-party-in-state-politics is enormous. If you want to take back state legislatures, running state-central campaigns probably won't cut it out, because people think nationally. The vast majority of voters have no idea what their state rep is called. They vote for them because they have an (R) or (D) next to the name. And what (R) or (D) means to voters is shaped by the parties at a federal level. So winning back state legislatures means changing the image of the Democratic party at the top as well as the bottom.

 

[Dan]

So Oprah.

Can't wait for Dr Oz and Dr Phil in her cabinet.