Clinton lost millenials to Sanders and women to Trump...
In a contest between Hillary and Trump, she shouldn't have lost millennials to Trump.
The reason why she did, was because Sanders spread the anti-establishment poison in among millennials.
In terms of women, the only demographic she lost was white, non college-educated women. She won every other female demographic. Beyond race, the division is in education.
Because we don't follow the dogmatic believe that the US is special snowflake where stuff that works everywhere else doesn't work.
Just because minorities and Europe aren't always distinguishable by a single phenotypical trait(skin color) doesn't mean Europe isn't diverse.
The priority is to do whats best for the community. The "Fuck you, got mine" sentiment is way less apparent in Europe.
Thats why Europe has universal healthcare for everyone without notable differences in quality of care, no matter whether you are rich or poor.
Thats why Europe has a free or almost free education system, where everyone gets the same opportunities regardless of financial situation.
Thats why europeans are fine with paying up to over 50% in taxes so the government can give 36 months of unemployment benefits followed by an unconditional base payment called "Sozialhilfe - "Social support".
The reason why you don't have the "Fuck you, got mine" sentiment was because you guys were more white overall to begin with. You didn't have to see the 'foreigners' when you walked out on the street. Now that Europe is getting more diverse, exactly what happened? The rise of the right wing. Brexit. Exactly the "fuck you, got mine" sentiment that you say is 'way less apparent' is becoming more apparent when diversity in Europe is becoming more apparent.
Why do you think Germany leaves minorities behind and ignores them?
To be honest I rarely get what the perceived problem with minorities in Germany is for americans. We don't have systemic racism like we see it in the US.
It seems like you are criticizing more the fact that black people are such a small minority in Germany than the way they are treated in Germany.
You don't have systemic racism because Germany went for a much longer time with a much less diverse population than the US. You don't have the history...because you didn't have the history of racial diversity.
I don't get this argument.
If they weren't a sizable chuck, that would mean if they weren't 42 million people.
So lets say they were less than 1 million people, would that change anything?
What you're not understanding here is that for the history of this nation, non-white populations have either been killed, enslaved, or treated as second-class citizens.
The harping on "Sanders is the solution!" and "Democratic socialism!" ignores that back when 'democratic socialism' was implemented in the country in the form of things like the New Deal (1940s), the Great Society (1960s) and so on, they were implemented in discriminatory ways. Screaming "fuck this" "fuck that" "my way or the highway" is, more or less, abandoning minority population to pursue 'economic populism' promoted to whites, which is bound to treat minorities as second class again. If you are going to move forward, you have to include minorities, and the rush to pander to the white working class ignores the fact that you're presenting:
Economic betterment + equality for non-white people
Versus what the Republicans are presenting:
Economic betterment + inequality with you (whites) on top
Which do you think the white working class would choose, really.
All the more reason for democrats to push for an education reform so that everyone gets the same education opportunities.
Its about not taking money from special interest groups.
Do you really believe Wall Street poured money on Clinton and didn't expect anything in return?
Its fucking bankers, the calculate return on investment in their sleep. Thats literally all they do.
What can they push if they do the Labour strat and lose everything in favor of party purity?
Hillary was going to try and get Citizens United overturned, which was a case about her to begin with. So what if she was getting paid by Wall Street? People are so eager to say money shouldn't be speech, but then they treat it like it is speech. Yes, they expected returns. But here we are again, people saying we should play by the rules the electoral system and gun for white working class in the rust belt, but
they don't think about how they fucking need money to compete and win elections. Democrats got trashed in 2010 and 2014 because they didn't play so well under the system as changed by Citizens.
If you're low on the ballot and don't accept the money, you're going to lose. So what was all that about needing to win elections?
Racists are racists no matter what, but politicians have to be smart and look at the reasons for the racism. People don't just become openly racist, its usually problems they face and demagogues who are telling them to blame minorities for it.
Thats what Michael Moores point was. Yes they are assholes, but if want to be their president you need to also be willing to address their problems and not just shrug them off as the racist assholes they are.
I don't know much about UK politics, but I don't know how that connects to the US.
Sanders would have definitely won against Trump, his idealism wouldn't have weakened the party against Trump.
His selfishness is what weakened the party. The Democratic party was weakened by his campaign's narrative of 'rigged primaries' and the scorched earth manner in which he dragged out his campaign.
In 2008, Hillary conceded right away to Obama, acknowledged his historical win, and worked hard to bring her people back in the fold. And her supporters were apparently reasonable enough that they lined up behind Obama and supported him.
In 2016, Sanders shouted establishment establishment establishment against the first female candidate who had to fight and suffer so much more than him to make it this far. He did not afford her the same courtesy she gave Obama, and Sanders did not concede right away and acknowledge the historic win of a female candidate. He poisoned his supporters with the rigged narrative. And they didn't turn out for Hillary.
Yes, he weakened the party because of his selfishness and idealism. He broke one of the pillars of the coalition with his indignation about not being chosen over a candidate who worked much harder than him, accomplished much more than him, appealed to more people than him, and compromised with white people long before he even remembered to appeal to black people.
No, he wouldn't have won, because he doesn't have equivalent minority support. He only had the millennial minority support, and that was narrow in the primaries.
"B-but minorities would have lined up behind Sanders against Trump!" Don't tell Hillary's campaign they needed to work for Sanders supporters' votes when Sanders wouldn't have worked for the minority vote, because he would be busy pandering to whites. He's not Obama.
Because the centrist approach gave us Trump now, while the left approach is what works like a charm in Scandinavia and other places.
Shifting ones principles based on inside reconsideration resonates more with voters than shifting positions on topics according to poll numbers.
There is no 'centrist approach'.
Hillary ran on the most progressive platform in decades. She promoted intersectionality. She proposed higher minimum wage. She defended women's rights. She was talking about criminal justice reform and drastic response climate change. She worked with the Sanders campaign to include some of his requests into the platform.
She was "too progressive" for the rust belt. Pretending she was centrist in her campaign is revisionist history.
As long as he doesn't have to meet special interest groups.
I mean, if the 2 million dollars from Pfizer would get them the same influence as the 10 dollars gave 40 year old Mary from Minnesota, then Pfizer wouldn't give the 2 million dollars.
Money buying influence is the problem.
The candidates who have the money to buy ads, pay staff, run operations, collection more information...They're going to win.
You cannot reasonably expect that these poor people that we supposedly want to help should cough up every little cent they have so you can run against a guy who has much more money and manpower than you. This isn't going to happen for downticket races.
Yeah oddly enough Sanders appealed the the left and independents, while Hillary appealed to the centrist part of the democrats.
In the primaries his group was smaller than Hillarys, but in the general election these independents even some of the far left went to Trump, leaving Clinton with only the cetrist part of the democrats.
Sanders however would have had the left, the centrists and the independents, because if Hillary had lost the primaries, her voters would have never supported Trump.
Or in short: Sanders appeal was actually broader than Clintons.
Hillary appealed to quite a lot of liberals. She was just not appealing to people who placed their moral purity above the necessity of preserving Obama's progress, repudiating Trump, and keeping the ship of progress steady on the trip.
They were not 'independents' or 'left', they were conceited people who could only vote for a false idol instead of for progressive policy. Sanders's appeal was not broad, it was just concentrated on people who find it easier to have a savior than to have to go out and vote every two years.
Like I said, Sanders wouldn't be working for the 'centrist' vote. So why would you expect them to line up behind him. Oh right, because they are less selfish than Sanders supporters.
Keita Takahashi, who cooked up the crazy game known as Katamari Damacy, as usual has his eccentric ideas related to the moment.
高橋慶太
‏@KeitaTakahash
DEV696 Idea for new border wall between USA and Mexico. #BorderWall #greatAmerican #Playground
He had a more somber message later.
