-
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
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
balladofwindfishes
Member
There was a tweet a few pages ago that mentioned that no picks are known at all and all of the rumors are just rumors backed by nothing
RustyNails
Member
I hate John Edwards so goddamn much. He was in a nutshell the next Bill Clinton. He could have created a new electoral map for us that was similar to 1992 and with growing AA/Hispanic states like Florida and NC (which was a given anyway).
Fucking hate the fucking bastard shithead.
Fucking hate the fucking bastard shithead.
Source? Everything I've heard says Trump won with fewer votes than Romney, which means overall turnout was way down.
Once you lose in a primary you're done for the Dems.
Clinton was not the exception we thought she was. The candidate must always be a first-time candidate. That is how we win.
to be honest, I had a lot of the same issues that are just like the people who were working on the campaign. I was caught up in my hatred and intolerance for these kind of people so I felt like they didn't deserve kindness or understanding when they're ever so ready to scream at us. The appalling videos and reports today does not help my view of these white rural folks at all.
I won't ever tolerate their views. In fact, I despise their views and by my own selfishness, I wish all rural whites would get left alone in the dark because they deserve it for the crap they espouse and promote. Unfortunately however, not trying was a big mistake that costed the Clinton campaign.
I guess the reason why I don't have much anger towards the DNC because I too, would have made the same horrible mistakes, so I'm willing to listen to people with differing opinions so as long as they understand why some people might be adhesive to the idea that we should appeal to rural white folks because we're so paranoid that the DNC would drop us quick and cold. I never want that, and I would feel forever bitter if that happened. Now, I know that isn't the case with some people and I feel like there's a sense of friction going on and it would need ton of patience to understand each other.
I feel like the problem with the Clinton team was that it was essentially like Poligaf. Too much likeminded people or perhaps being guilty of an echo chamber. I always liked this place because it was the only one that seems to like Hillary Clinton as a candidate but studying in my PR class made me realize we need a coordination of two people sharing and discussing our differences. I just think both sides need to be sensitive when being critical of candidates because it's hard to overcome those feelings of biases.
I won't ever tolerate their views. In fact, I despise their views and by my own selfishness, I wish all rural whites would get left alone in the dark because they deserve it for the crap they espouse and promote. Unfortunately however, not trying was a big mistake that costed the Clinton campaign.
I guess the reason why I don't have much anger towards the DNC because I too, would have made the same horrible mistakes, so I'm willing to listen to people with differing opinions so as long as they understand why some people might be adhesive to the idea that we should appeal to rural white folks because we're so paranoid that the DNC would drop us quick and cold. I never want that, and I would feel forever bitter if that happened. Now, I know that isn't the case with some people and I feel like there's a sense of friction going on and it would need ton of patience to understand each other.
I feel like the problem with the Clinton team was that it was essentially like Poligaf. Too much likeminded people or perhaps being guilty of an echo chamber. I always liked this place because it was the only one that seems to like Hillary Clinton as a candidate but studying in my PR class made me realize we need a coordination of two people sharing and discussing our differences. I just think both sides need to be sensitive when being critical of candidates because it's hard to overcome those feelings of biases.
Excluding them would make it inaccurate nonsense.
Kander has the rising star power people hoped Julian Castro would attain. Dude needs to win a major statewide election though.
As much as I hate to go here when things are raw and people are still licking their wounds....yeah. This is actually important. Bernie spent 5 months fighting a primary he clearly, clearly lost after 2. He got more aggressive and nastier every step of the way, in an election that he had already lost. Given the margins in the election, does anyone want to argue that the funds spent in the primary couldn't have been put to better use in the general? Does anyone think that maybe Bernie could have gotten a better outcome by being a gracious message candidate?
I hate saying this, because I really want a better alliance in the party and because limiting Trump's damage is so much more important than the circular firing squad. There needs to be a dialogue about the way forward that involves everyone opposed to Trump. But that can't happen unless everyone is willing to own their shit. And Hillary owns quite a lot. You can find no shortage of navel-gazing from her primary supporters. Bernie fans need to step up.
I don't think it is Bernie's fault. I think there is a mosaic of faults. Which means that there is a mosaic of ways to do better. American didn't elect a racist totalitarian because of one thing in particular. I want to do better in all the ways, next time.
.....actually, looking back a lot of animosity came from supporters online. We know this happened with Trump. I wonder if the Russia trolls played a role in the primary too?
Eh. They're definitely going to happen. Try talking the west coast out of it. Bad idea or no (generally I support it as a sign of solidarity and opposition).
1000% spot on.
We needed a real primary in 2016. Biden and Warren should not have sat out. Finding who is resonant is an important part of the process. Heirs are bad, even if Gore and Clinton both would have made great presidents, much better than the war criminal and racist monster who won by technicality.
Frank the Great
Banned
Absolutely correct.
Policies, experience, credentials. None of it matters. The more likeable candidate always wins.
When you speak to real people they don't say "I think Hillary's plan for expanding community college to help shift the workforce is a poor use of resources.". They don't say, "I like Trump's plan to eliminate environmental regulations. Most voters don't know about or give a shit about any of that.
Most people just say, "I don't trust Hillary" or, "at least Trump says what he means."
That's it.
whyamihere
Banned
Overall turnout was up. You cannot conclusively say Dem voters stayed home. You base analysis on data, not the other way around.
Here's a new Nate Cohn tweet.
It's pretty clear there is something different happening in Pennsylvania and Florida versus Wisconsin and Michigan.
VendettaRed07
Member
Softer views on guns and abortion.
Sometimes, the charismatic ones tend to follow their dick for whatever reason.
ShironRedshift
Member
How is it even supposed to be possible to appeal to "WWC" voters anyway, for the people pushing that as a focus? I mean, people don't want to call them racist or whatever. Fine, let's go with that for a moment here. Even if that is the case, these are still people, for whatever reasons that they may have, do not trust the traditional mainstream media. At all. They have no confidence in it whatsoever. If they're getting news, it's from sources like Drudge Report. Or Fox News. Or, especially now that Trump is President, places like Breitbart as well. These places will ALWAYS be biased against our candidates, no matter who they are, no matter what policies they espouse, and will always trout out whatever conspiracy theory nonsense based on the slimmest of threads possible that they can fine. That's what this group accepts as reliable news and trusts if anything and that will only be increasingly the case during the Trump years as these places no doubt grow due to the influence of people like Trump and Bannon.
That being the case, how can we ever possibly reach out to this demographic when the information they consume, and will increasingly consume during these intermediate years, are inherently titled against whoever we run, no matter who they are? How in any way is that a winning strategy? How can we possibly counteract that influence when they flat-out refuse to trust anything else from the beginning? That's a hell of a handicap going after that particular demographic that will only be slipping more and more away from us during the Trump years due to only increased power and influence, and I just can't see how that's done since that will involve someway making them trust sources like the NYT or Washington Post or whatever and that flat-out isn't going to happen and if anything is going to get worse not only because of the influence of people like Bannon but also Trump's own statements on how he wants to restrict the freedom of the press and since we're talking about people who voted Trump this year and support him it'll be the sources that Trump and Bannon will be leading them to and that doesn't bode well for us being able to break that influence.
I just don't get how that's supposed to work out and make any sense at all. It's just a flat-out rejection of the reality and a strategy doomed to failure since they voted for Trump, accepted him, and Trump and his cabinet and followers will just push them farther toward sources like Drudge and Breitbart and Fox News, not less, and there's just not much to be done if that's indeed the case. There's no winning move to get these people, short of becoming a flat-out clone of the Republican party (and even that would probably fail for being seen as too sudden and too transparent). None.
That being the case, how can we ever possibly reach out to this demographic when the information they consume, and will increasingly consume during these intermediate years, are inherently titled against whoever we run, no matter who they are? How in any way is that a winning strategy? How can we possibly counteract that influence when they flat-out refuse to trust anything else from the beginning? That's a hell of a handicap going after that particular demographic that will only be slipping more and more away from us during the Trump years due to only increased power and influence, and I just can't see how that's done since that will involve someway making them trust sources like the NYT or Washington Post or whatever and that flat-out isn't going to happen and if anything is going to get worse not only because of the influence of people like Bannon but also Trump's own statements on how he wants to restrict the freedom of the press and since we're talking about people who voted Trump this year and support him it'll be the sources that Trump and Bannon will be leading them to and that doesn't bode well for us being able to break that influence.
I just don't get how that's supposed to work out and make any sense at all. It's just a flat-out rejection of the reality and a strategy doomed to failure since they voted for Trump, accepted him, and Trump and his cabinet and followers will just push them farther toward sources like Drudge and Breitbart and Fox News, not less, and there's just not much to be done if that's indeed the case. There's no winning move to get these people, short of becoming a flat-out clone of the Republican party (and even that would probably fail for being seen as too sudden and too transparent). None.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Whilst I don't think Hillary is particularly charismatic, she was clearly more likeable than Sanders to democratic voters because she got millions more votes. It is a circuitous point. If you aren't likeable you won't get voted for.
(Charisma is more important than policy though, sadly)
My Drudge reading coworker was showing me pictures of Craigslist ads offering to pay for people to protest Trump. Trying to use it as proof that no one actually dislikes Trump, and it's all some conspiracy or something. These people will believe anything
metalslimer
Member
I'm OK I guess with the first because we don't have the power to pass anything aND we won't anytime soon but fuck the latter.
I won't stand with a Democratic party that cedes any more on abortion than we already have. Once any ground is ceded on that issue Roe v WADE will be degraded entirely.
excelsiorlef
Member
I've lost so much faith and I didnt have a lot to begin with.
Bernie tapped that vein, he couldn't get older minorties in his court bc his messaging was a bit tone deaf when he made everything about class. You need someone that marry the two, race and class. It's challenging for sure. We really don't want WWC that voted for Trump to become team GOP for life.
It's just disgusting. Calling protestors cry babies, calling the protest a liberal media conspiracy...
YOU FUCKING WON SHUT THE FUCK UP. I can't with these people.
VendettaRed07
Member
Rightly or wrongly over the past eight years she has had sound bite after sound bite saying things that rubbed a lot of people in the country the wrong way. Yes many were baseless. But sometimes baseless attacks stick and work and you have to move on.
And I don't think she sounded the same eight years ago at all. She would never have made similar comments about coal industries or jobs in Appalachia eight years ago that seriously turned people off.
balladofwindfishes
Member
The Democrats will never, ever, ever, ever, ever give up on abortion.
excelsiorlef
Member
So we give up ground on guns, abortion and minority rights?
You really want to make the both sides are the same don't youn
RustyNails
Member
Or Bernie Sanders with "He's against the establishment!" despite being part of the government for decades. I think democrats will finally crack the code with this one. It's about truthiness, really. Not policies. Reagan's Morning in America, Clinton's folksy charm, W's beer drinking likeness, Obama's goody two-shoes image and Trump says whats on his mind stuff is more easy to remember than college affordability or a new income tax law.
If Trump won't fucking show any sense of grace, then the other idiots won't follow suit.
No no no no no.
The Socialist and Communist parties in America threatened a revolt and The New Deal was the compromise Roosevelt passed as a result.
Florida and PA aren't that mysterious. Trump got insane voter activation in the panhandle and PAtucky. Absolutely insane.
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
Bernie was an outsider that went up against a giant and then proceeded to take the minority vote for granted.
Obama went up against the same person 8 years ago and succeeded because he knew he didn't have any space to fuck around. Be real.
VendettaRed07
Member
I'd have no issue with a Catholic like Biden or Kaine at least being more sympathetic on it. I don't think positions like theirs endangers anything long term at all. But someone who better communicates understanding of how many people view the issue wouldn't be the worst thing.
And Clinton tapped that vein in 2008. I guess I'm struggling to understand what this "white narrative" is that Republicans get so well and Dems don't. Everything I've seen just seems to point to white nationalist rhetoric having major appeal for white people.
Frank the Great
Banned
I disagree, primaries are a completely different story because most voters are highly engaged and select a candidate for various reasons (ie. "Hillary is more electable" . . . oof). It's why uncharismatic dolts often win primaries for both sides, but the charismatic candidate always wins the general.
Most voters don't even start paying attention until the debates. These are the folks who decide elections based on charisma.
UltimaPooh
Member
Agree completely.
I would say we need to keep the focus on identity politics and just have someone genuine who is human who also wants to raise wages, help the economy, and keep the social safety net strong.
If white voters care they will respond to that and they will be there.
RustyNails
Member
I just came back from hospital lobby and CNN was showing Oregon protests.
Old lady infront talking to the nurse, "they have nothing better to do", "they are professional protestors". The nurse goes "how come they did not protest any other president???" in broken english (seemed to be eastern European/Russian).
This is what was going inside my head.
And Clinton also lost. The vein is poison.
hawkshockey11
Banned
I have not read too much into the '68 - '72 elections however I am under the impression we are currently seeing some parallels here. Young liberals essentially took over the DNC and put forth McGovern (grassroots candidate) who then got absolutely hammered by an incumbent president. Am I understanding this correctly?
If so I think we should tread lightly with 2020.
If so I think we should tread lightly with 2020.
Oh god, my old film professor, one of the nicest and most helpful people I've ever met (who happens to be Japanese and gay) is going on an FB spiel right now admitting that he voted for Trump and that more Republicans voted for the CRA than Democrats. Fucking hell..
UltimaPooh
Member
Did you point out to him that he is fine with racism and sexism?
Issues are going to matter far more to the primary voters, as does all the party support she had locked up long before the primary began.
Clinton is extraordinarily uncharismatic. We ignored it because in an ideal world it wouldn't matter, and because a lot of the reasons people don't like her are extremely unfair.
whyamihere
Banned
Yup. I don't know what we can do about that except hope that Trump enact a lot of Paul Ryan's agenda and you can portray him as the corrupt billionaire elitist he portrayed Clinton as.
Also, amazing:
excelsiorlef
Member
Yup. I don't know what we can do about that except hope that Trump enact a lot of Paul Ryan's agenda and you can portray him as the corrupt billionaire elitist he portrayed Clinton as.
Also, amazing:
He will and those parts will people this:
The words care act.
Man, I so want to, but I feel like that's only gonna end badly for everyone.
VendettaRed07
Member
I never ever suggested give up on minority rights or abortion. We need to be a party of civil rights and labour. Those are the two most important issues and needs to be our constant focus.
I don't see an issue bringing more bluedogs under the umbrella on certain issues because there are certain areas of the country where change of approach on certain parts of the country.
I'm not for conceding a single fucking inch on minority rights. Not anywhere not ever.
The president-elect of the united states is a vacuous, empty shell, sustained only by flattery and attention.
UltimaPooh
Member
Well it's really up to you and I'm not gonna shame you for doing it either way.
But that's the thing we all have to think about... What are you willing to give up for a more just world? Are you going to allow these people to live their lives thinking they weren't complacent in this?
I have told long time friends what they did and I struggled with it and I might lose friends in the future, but it is the just thing, and I wouldn't be a friend if I didn't point it out to them and I certainly wouldn't want to be friends with someone who fails to realize that.
No, she was not. She didn't appeal to everyone, but that doesn't make her uncharismatic. I thought her strong, funny, and empathetic. Not everyone got that, though.
- Status