• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Valhelm

contribute something
Sirpopopop said:
Both sides talked about class struggle. Donald Trump's message of NAFTA, Mexicans, and "they are taking our jobs" resonated far more than Hillary Clinton's far more nuanced and minority hospitable message of clean energy along with a host of tax cuts & spending increases.

So if you want to appeal to these voters, you need to assail trade agreements. You need to demonize the other. You need to offer facile solutions like, "Damn those foreigners."
Click to expand...

How about offering more comprehensive programs of unemployment relief? Bernie did it.

This isn't a popular position on Gaf, but I think the United States has fundamental problems in the relationship of employer and employee that must be addressed. Obama, Bernie, and Trump all tapped into resentment of this relationship and soared in the Rust Belt. Hillary assumed Obama's promises, but inability to help certain communities, would be enough to let her retain Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

Hillary's right-wing attitudes toward employment were also part of what kept millennials home.
 
P

Pixieking

Banned
Veelk said:
I just overheard my mom talking on the phone. She was talking about Trump and how he's being accused of sexual harassment with the whole pussy grabbing video.

Her response was something like "Well, why is she accusing him of sexual harassment? What he should have responded with was pointing out what the fuck she was doing when Bill was having sex with Monica and who knows how many others. That would shut her right up."

It's not the first time that my mom has brought up a sentiment. She seems to genuinely believe that Hillary is to blame for Bill's having sex with a woman. More than that, she seems to consider a consensual affair to be comparable to sexual assault. But with Trump's victory, she feels the need to lord it over, like "ha, see, told you she was just as bad".

This is coming from a woman who herself has experienced sexual harassment. And there are 53% of white women who think like her, and voted trump.

I don't understand this. I am never going to understand this.
Click to expand...

Lack of empathy, and a generational belief that the woman is to blame. This is slowly dying out as, well, people die, but it's also going to see a resurgence. Trump has normalised both his own behaviour, and the excuses for his behaviour. It is, now, truly locker room talk.
 
R

royalan

Member
Veelk said:
I just overheard my mom talking on the phone. She was talking about Trump and how he's being accused of sexual harassment with the whole pussy grabbing video.

Her response was something like "Well, why is she accusing him of sexual harassment? What he should have responded with was pointing out what the fuck she was doing when Bill was having sex with Monica and who knows how many others. That would shut her right up."

It's not the first time that my mom has brought up a sentiment. She seems to genuinely believe that Hillary is to blame for Bill's having sex with a woman. More than that, she seems to consider a consensual affair to be comparable to sexual assault. But with Trump's victory, she feels the need to lord it over, like "ha, see, told you she was just as bad".

This is coming from a woman who herself has experienced sexual harassment. And there are 53% of white women who think like her, and voted trump.

I don't understand this. I am never going to understand this.
Click to expand...

Don't be quietly offended. Fight against it.
 
G

Grief.exe

Member
I know it's easy to despair right now, but I'm guessing people are going to show up in droves in 2020. This is going to be a wake up call for minorities, Millennials, and Gen Z. You can't stay home and watch this burn down around you.

Look at the bright side, we destroyed this planet now we put our faith in Elon Musk's Mars plans.
 
D

dramatis

Member
1.21Gigawatts said:
Their base is the middle class, that includes women and minorities.
They alienated the middle class by having an establishment candidate like Clinton who the Trump campaign successfully labled as "in bed with corporate interests".

Wake up man, Clinton lost because of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania went to Trump. States where Obama won easily. States that lean democrat.
But when they democrat candidate doesn't seem to care about them, while the other guy does... then they'll go red. And it doesn't matter one bit that Trump likely lied to them about stopping TPP and renegotiating NAFTA, he made them believe that he cares, Clinton didn't.

Thats how Trump even convinced a majority of white women to vote for him, thats how Trump convinced a sizable percentage of hispanics to vote for him, even though he regularly insulted them, but at the end of the day these people care about their own well being and that largely connected to the economy, so at the end of the day many decided to vote for the guy who hates them but promises jobs(Trump) over the perceived corporate puppet who doesn't care about their situation at all(Clinton).

I've talked to a lot of people across the US a few months ago, and if asked, they all say that before they view themselves as minority, they view themselves as american with problems like difficulties to find a job, difficulties to get an education etc.
Clinton thought it'd be enough to appeal to minorities as minorities, instead of addressing the normal problems these people face as part of the middle class.

I'm german, by german standards Bernie is centrist.

The democrats would have won this election if they had picked Bernie. You think idealism like that will weaken the party. Why would it?

So yeah, Bernie would've been not ideal, I was hoping for 4-8 years of Clinton during which an informed social democratic movement can form.

But anything would have been than Trump and its beyond me how the democratic party didn't get the memo after Bernies success in the primaries that Clinton needs to adjust her message if she wants to reach as many people as possible.
Heck, it would have probably been enough to have Warren oder Sanders as VP.

The future of the democratic party are people like Warren and Sanders. Principled people.
People are sick of pragmatism in politics. And I don't know if thats a good thing or not, but thats how it is now.
If the democrats continue their establishment ways they'll hand Trump a second term, because guess what. Less regulations, unleashed fossil fuel industry and his tax plan will have short term positive effects. So in 4 years you might look at an uphill battle in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Colorado and many many more states because he actually brought back some jobs by deregulating fossil fuel industry and investing in infrastructure.
Even though thats not a sustainable strategy, it might just carry him into a second term before it collapses.
Click to expand...
The base of the Democratic party is minorities, women, and millennials. It's known as the Obama coalition.

EU people always walk into conversations with misconceptions about what works in US politics. Moreover, because they don't have the history of diversity that the US has, they always put white people first. So the priority is always economic populism (which is just lying and demagoguery) over intersectionality, which would include both economic and social aspects together. Oh no, the whites are too allergic to the social part! We'll have to go with only the economic part instead! Nevermind the history of discrimination in the application of these 'economic populist' policies.

That is how you leave people behind. It's not like Germany, where your population of black people in total is some 800k+, so you ignore them because they don't have much voting power. In the US, they're 42 million people. Even if they weren't a significant chunk of the population and therefore a potent voting bloc, you still can't leave 42 million people behind.

Colorado is the state with the highest amount of college-educated voters in the whole US. The divide between Trump and Hillary voters is heavy in education. She won by a higher percentage in CO than Trump did in WI, MI, or PA.

Anti-establishment is not a fucking position. It's not a fucking policy. It's nothing but wanting to kick those who have power in the balls, because you want the power. It has no plans. It has no solutions. It's all about 'optics'—we can't take money, it'll look bad, even if we need it to fund congressional races! We can't rebuke white people for being racist, they'll get mad at us and we'll look bad! Even if you're seasoned and qualified, if you don't agree 100% with us, we're not going to accept you!

And that is how idealism weakens the party. Labour in the UK is an example of this right now, because they are always focused on infighting the party and 'purging the Blairites', when obviously from a moderate standpoint even a fucking Blairite would be better than a Tory, no? But no, in the eyes of the far left a Blairite is a Tory, with no nuances, no room for differences, no compromises. Sorry, I'm not interested in turning the Democratic Party into that.

Why is the uncompromising attitude of the left permitted, while an uncompromising attitude from closer to the center is garbage? There is hypocrisy everywhere.

Warren was a Republican for much longer than Hillary Clinton, then she became a Democrat. Indeed, a principled person.

Sanders is super against money in politics, unless the DNC is funneling some into his reelection campaigns. Then, it's okay. Indeed, also a principled person.

Get real. Nobody in the world is pure after they've lived long enough. They're not the future of the party, they're old. Exit polling said the electorate wanted more conservative policies, not more liberal ones. But that is selectively ignored by the Sanders stans, just like how he didn't really sweep the rust belt, and the states he got he didn't even win by high margins.
 
H

Hindl

Member
Grief.exe said:
I know it's easy to despair right now, but I'm guessing people are going to show up in droves in 2020. This is going to be a wake up call for minorities, Millennials, and Gen Z. You can't stay home and watch this burn down around you.
Click to expand...

We need them to come out in 2018 first
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Looks like Trump's first major environmental issue as president will be the solve a drought that's starting in the South.

He's not going to know how to handle it. But it's a first test to see where he goes from here.

Unless Obama manages to fix it in a month and a half. Maybe. He's Obama, he has magic powers.
 
T

TumblingHippo

Member
Fenderputty said:
I think I thought of the first positive I can come up with regarding POTUS orange turd. Gun and ammo sales should drop
Click to expand...

Naw, I'm seeing lots of minorities of all different types wondering if they should arm themselves to protect themselves. And those on the turd's side know they can use their weapons as threats against the others. It won't stop.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Maybe it would be more efficient for all the white liberals (and British liberals who seem to have lost their way) to just post quotes from this article.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/welcome-to-the-second-redemption/507317/

the atlantic said:
Democrats now face a renewed white-identity politics whose appeal will be immensely difficult to neutralize, and the notion that a more vigorous, left wing economics will return the white working class to the Democratic fold is likely a fantasy. The last Democrat to come close to winning the white vote was Bill Clinton, who combined his economic populism with promises to “end welfare as we know it” and advertised his willingness to use state violence against black Americans, turning the execution of Ricky Ray Rector to his political advantage.

The uncomfortable truth is that, whether you’re Donald Trump or Bill Clinton, economic populism is most effective in American politics when it is paired with appeals to racism. Maybe the Democrats can and will find a way to do so without such appeals. By the time they do, it may simply be too late to stop what is coming.

The Republican Party of yesteryear championed amendments abolishing slavery and seeking to protect the rights of the freedmen. It still abandoned blacks when the political cost of defending them became too high. Today’s Democratic Party is perfectly capable of doing the same to elements of the diverse coalition that twice secured the presidency for Barack Obama.

So America stands at the precipice of a Second Redemption. Unlike the first, it was not achieved by violence, and has not ended in the total disenfranchisement of people of color. Its immediate consequences may not be as total, or as dire. Yet it has a democratic legitimacy that extends far beyond the American South. The erasure of the legacy of the first black president of the United States will be executed by a man who rose to power on the basis of his embrace of the slander that Obama was not born in America.
Click to expand...

All of this has happened before. It happens every time people of color strive for equality -- the active, violent resistance of white nationalists, aided and abetted by the white moderates who support people of color in only those years in which doing so might help win elections.
 
D

Debirudog

Member
Veelk said:
I just overheard my mom talking on the phone. She was talking about Trump and how he's being accused of sexual harassment with the whole pussy grabbing video.

Her response was something like "Well, why is she accusing him of sexual harassment? What he should have responded with was pointing out what the fuck she was doing when Bill was having sex with Monica and who knows how many others. That would shut her right up."

It's not the first time that my mom has brought up a sentiment. She seems to genuinely believe that Hillary is to blame for Bill's having sex with a woman. More than that, she seems to consider a consensual affair to be comparable to sexual assault. But with Trump's victory, she feels the need to lord it over, like "ha, see, told you she was just as bad".

This is coming from a woman who herself has experienced sexual harassment. And there are 53% of white women who think like her, and voted trump.

I don't understand this. I am never going to understand this.
Click to expand...

When hatred for a person becomes too strong, it supplants empathy for other people.
 
S

Sirpopopop

Member
Valhelm said:
How about offering more comprehensive programs of unemployment relief? Bernie did it.
Click to expand...

A youth jobs bill?

Clinton had one of those too:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie...8/hillary-clintons-jobs-plan-for-millennials/

This isn't a popular position on Gaf, but I think the United States has fundamental problems in the relationship of employer and employee that must be addressed. Obama, Bernie, and Trump all tapped into resentment of this relationship and soared in the Rust Belt. Hillary assumed Obama's promises, but inability to help certain communities, would be enough to let her retain Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...

She proposed bold, nuanced plans to help them that reflected the reality of the world. She certainly would have helped them out, or made an effort to help them out.

As for the employer/employee resentment - maybe. Personally, I think there were other factors at play in many of those cases:

Obama did well with in 2008 because people were sick and tired of Bush, plus the RECESSION THAT STARTED UNDER BUSH'S watch. He wouldn't have done as well with them otherwise.

In 2012, they were turned off by Romney's 47% comments, plus the fact that he was part of the "establishment."

In sum Obama benefited through the mistakes of his opponents, who directly insulted the WWC where it hurt.

Trump did well because he didn't have to deal with a recession on his watch, nor did he have to deal with the weight of insulting them, or being part of any "establishment." So those negatives weren't in play. All of his racist & sexist comments weren't seen as a real negative because it wasn't seen as him insulting them. Plus, he offered an easy scapegoat to latch the blame onto: Mexico.

Hillary's right-wing attitudes toward employment were also part of what kept millennials home.
Click to expand...

How is her youth job's bill right wing at all?

I think I'll stick to my sentiments here.


Edit: Oh, just saw pigeon's link to that Atlantic article. I'll just cite that instead.
 
E

East Lake

Member
pigeon said:
Maybe it would be more efficient for all the white liberals (and British liberals who seem to have lost their way) to just post quotes from this article.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/welcome-to-the-second-redemption/507317/



All of this has happened before. It happens every time people of color strive for equality -- the active, violent resistance of white nationalists, aided and abetted by the white moderates who support people of color in only those years in which doing so might help win elections.
Click to expand...
Newsflash we aren't in a utopia yet. If you're willing to accept economic incrementalism it doesn't make sense to think you can nominate anybody racially progressive enough and expect them to win.
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Sirpopopop said:
A youth jobs bill?

Clinton had one of those too:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie...8/hillary-clintons-jobs-plan-for-millennials/



She proposed bold, nuanced plans to help them that reflected the reality of the world. Obama did well with them in 2008 because people were sick and tired of Bush, plus the RECESSION THAT STARTED UNDER BUSH'S watch. He wouldn't have done as well with them otherwise.

In 2012, they were turned off by Romney's 47% comments, plus the fact that he was part of the "establishment."

Trump didn't have to deal with a recession on his watch, nor did he have to deal with the weight of insulting them, or being part of any "establishment."



How is her youth job's bill right wing at all?

I think I'll stick to my sentiments here.
Click to expand...

This is a huge factor I have not seen mentioned but a couple of times.
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
Grief.exe said:
Best case scenario in 2018 doesn't even have a good outlook. It might just be impossible considering the geography at play, let alone having trouble getting Democrats to vote in midterms.
Click to expand...
There's more than senate races, we have a bunch of governors and state legislatures to take back. We can try to win as many as house seats back as possible.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Crab said:
What, the country that doesn't have gay marriage at all?

Come on, PoliGAF. This "I will move to X" when "X" is barely better and in some cases worse than America is embarrassing.
Click to expand...

I just want to note the reason we don't have SSM is utterly pathetic. It has popular support, majority parliamentary support in both houses and can't get through because the Prime Minister (leader of our center right party) is being held hostage by a combination of the socially conservative party he's in alliance with and a handful of his own more extreme conservatives who want a completely unnecessary plebiscite before allowing a free vote in Parliament and he's completely helpless here because he's only got a 1 seat majority, though he'd realistically need to lose ~3 before it cost him government and his situation in the Senate is worse, so he can't afford to tick off the Trumpish One Nation party there either. It's one of the most impressive failings of a parliamentary system I've ever seen.
 
M

marrec

Banned
Grief.exe said:
Best case scenario in 2018 doesn't even have a good outlook. It might just be impossible considering the geography at play, let alone having trouble getting Democrats to vote in midterms.
Click to expand...

Best Case Scenario for Dem turnout in 2018 is Trump being a complete malicious fascist and cockup.

Otherwise... who the fuck knows.

I keep having to remind facebook friends that the next elections isn't 2020. Seems Dems are forever doomed to ignore midterms.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Grief.exe said:
I know it's easy to despair right now, but I'm guessing people are going to show up in droves in 2020. This is going to be a wake up call for minorities, Millennials, and Gen Z. You can't stay home and watch this burn down around you.

Look at the bright side, we destroyed this planet now we put our faith in Elon Musk's Mars plans.
Click to expand...

Will it, though? Only one minority showed up in droves this year.

I have lost faith in Democrats to do anything successfully after this week. And it'll be even harder for them to vote in 2018 and 2020.
 
B

BotoxAgent

Member
Wilsongt said:
Will it, though? Only one minority showed up in droves this year.

I have lost faith in Democrats to do anything successfully after this week. And it'll be even harder for them to vote in 2018 and 2020.
Click to expand...

yeah, not to mention...they are unreliable. Most of us have the attention span of a fly
 
V

Valhelm

contribute something
Sirpopopop said:
A youth jobs bill?

Clinton had one of those too:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie...8/hillary-clintons-jobs-plan-for-millennials/



She proposed bold, nuanced plans to help them that reflected the reality of the world. Obama did well with them in 2008 because people were sick and tired of Bush, plus the RECESSION THAT STARTED UNDER BUSH'S watch. He wouldn't have done as well with them otherwise.

In 2012, they were turned off by Romney's 47% comments, plus the fact that he was part of the "establishment."

Trump didn't have to deal with a recession on his watch, nor did he have to deal with the weight of insulting them, or being part of any "establishment."



How is her youth job's bill right wing at all?

I think I'll stick to my sentiments here.
Click to expand...

Hillary's plan wasn't job creation, but employer encouragement through tax breaks. This is a right-wing position. It worked for Obama because the alternative in 2008 and 2012 was "try not to starve."

In 2016, this attitude was both a tired status quo and less direct than the bridge Trump was selling. Trump also highlighted his jobs plan much more heavily than Clinton highlighted hers.

To the best of my knowledge, Hillary didn't run ads like this. Trump also pivoted in the final few weeks of his campaign with a greater emphasis on economics. Hillary Clinton stuck with moralistic appeals that didn't resonate with many workers.
 
T

Totakeke

Member
Quixzlizx said:
Yeah, I think people wouldn't be as demoralized about the "base" if Hillary had around the same amount of votes as Obama had, but Trump had massively increased turnout.

But Trump had less votes than Romney.
Click to expand...

That's not a conclusion you can make yet.

Trump has more votes than Romney in MI, PA, FL, NC, WI, IA, OH, NH.
 
J

jtb

Banned
excelsiorlef said:
And it begins.

We're fucked journos are going to just further normalize white supremacy
Click to expand...

They did it for two years, and that was to trade access to a campaign that had no power. Now, how will they debase themselves to snake their way into the white house?
 
J

jtb

Banned
Quixzlizx said:
How many of those states would Trump have won anyway if Hillary had 2012 turnout?
Click to expand...

It's very early to say, but Nate Cohn seems to think that turnout was not the only problem - or at least not the problem that sunk the Democrats this year. The turnout was poorly allocated, for starters.
 
P

Pixieking

Banned
Grief.exe said:
Best case scenario in 2018 doesn't even have a good outlook. It might just be impossible considering the geography at play, let alone having trouble getting Democrats to vote in midterms.
Click to expand...

I think the lead-up to 2018 would be a good time to hammer home the fact that voting is a long-term responsibility. No, it's not shiny, but it's good for the country.

Drive that point home. It's good for everyone in the long-run, regardless of party affiliation.
 
G

Gruco

Banned
Sirpopopop said:
Obama did well with in 2008 because people were sick and tired of Bush, plus the RECESSION THAT STARTED UNDER BUSH'S watch. He wouldn't have done as well with them otherwise.

In 2012, they were turned off by Romney's 47% comments, plus the fact that he was part of the "establishment."

In sum Obama benefited through the mistakes of his opponents, who directly insulted the WWC where it hurt.
Click to expand...
One has to be either insane or terribly naive to look at Obama's victories in the rust belt and interpret it as conclusive evidence of Clinton's failure. This is different from saying that Clinton's campaign could and should have done better. The could have and should have. But Trump goosed turnout in rural districts well beyond anything Obama's rivals were capable of. Hillary didn't have the tailwind of the Bush years. Romney didn't campaign on racist populism. Hillary should have done more. But this is as much a story of Trump being very very successful through bombast, power displays, and scapegoating. I understand that this is a bitter pill to swallow, but it is true. I see it regularly in Michigan. "Economic distress" is a lazy cop out from people who would rather look their noses down on the majority "bubble" than own some hard truths.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Bringing Dune Awakening to the Xbox Series S will be a "challenge", according to Funcom chief product officer
News 2 3
100
5K
mdkirby replied
First time you realized Japanese devs were GOAT?
Drama Retro Game Dev 2 3
118
4K
Spukc replied
Modern Game Devs Suck at Community Support
2
60
3K
Reizo Ryuu replied
Players are now less "accepting" that games will be fixed, say Paradox, after "underestimating" the reaction to Cities: Skylines 2's performance woes
Game Dev
47
2K
Quantum253 replied
Get well soon, @Ultrazilla
37
2K
EviLore replied
Top Bottom