Support NeoGAF

[leroidys]

Look, if you guys want to know how to get through to your Trump voting family members at thanksgiving or w/e, give them the same lecture I did.

Here I recorded it if you want to see

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyVF1glhAfk

lmao I'll try that next time.

Speaking of sports analogies though, the "we'll run a better candidate next time" talk worries me. There's absolutely no reason to assume that this will happen. This is the kind of thinking perpetually bad sports team management uses. "We only lost this year because of our injuries", "we would have been great if we just had one more reliable reliever", etc. We can't rely best-case, or even decent-case scenarios to win. And even if we have another Bill or Barack appear out of nowhere, they're not going to get us to october baseball alone if our rotation is garbage and we can't get anyone on base. Or something.

 

[TestOfTide]

There's a lot of angry ass white people who feel that they're losing out to minorities. I see this every day with my midwestern relatives on facebook. They're wrong and at best diet-racists, but they vote.



Yes, I could compile a list, but if I learned anything from the gaming side it's that listwarz are not a productive way to discuss anything. I'm not saying we abandon it, but de-emphasize it at a national level only in the immediate term. There are governorships and state legislatures that need a stronger sell to middle class apathetic white people. I'm not prescribing a formula for every seat in every district in the country.

Sorry, but Democrats deemphasizing it on a national level will only hurt them.

Now, do I think that Democrats running in, for example, Iowa need to rephrase their message to white voters? Unfortunately yes, but only for those running at a state level, NOT national level.

50 state strategy means that you have Democrats in blue and indigo states remain focused on appealing to progressives and minorities, but have Democrats in red and magenta states focus on winning by being blue dogs that focus well on state and local issues.

And like in 2008, you combine that with a POTUS nominee who's campaign focuses on being charismatic and energetic to get liberals, progressives, and minorities everywhere turning out in massive numbers so that you end up with:

- Democrats winning lots of states/districts on the state and local level even if they don't vote democratic for POTUS.

- Turning states considered safe red blue just as a result of REALLY high democratic turnout.

lmao I'll try that next time.

Speaking of sports analogies though, the "we'll run a better candidate next time" talk worries me. There's absolutely no reason to assume that this will happen. This is the kind of thinking perpetually bad sports team management uses. "We only lost this year because of our injuries", "we would have been great if we just had one more reliable reliever", etc. We can't rely best-case, or even decent-case scenarios to win. And even if we have another Bill or Barack appear out of nowhere, they're not going to get us to october baseball alone if our rotation is garbage and we can't get anyone on base. Or something.

Unless Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders end up the 2020 nominee, it's going to be VERY easy to run a better candidate because, unless the GOP is fucking psychic, the GOP won't know who will be the nominee four years from now.

One of the reasons Hillary lost was that EVERYONE knew she would run again as soon as Obama won reelection, so the GOP spent 4 effing years attacking Hillary relentlessly.

 

[Aaron Strife]

How, exactly? We had an enormous money advantage this election but it did not help us. I admit that I'm not fully versed in what exactly the DNC chair does, but from what I've read it's mainly fundraising.

I think the problem is nationalizing the race. Just about every Democrat's solitary concern was running against Trump and keeping him out of the White House. The presidency was Republican voters' top concern of course, but the fact that the party basically wrote off the presidential race let them run more localized campaigns and it worked.

Note that every state voted for the same party in the presidential and Senate races, but note also that the only candidate on our side who even came close to bucking that trend was Jason Kander (lost by 3 compared to Clinton losing the state by 19). Kander was just about the only statewide Dem candidate who could articulate a reason for his candidacy beyond his opponent being worse and ran a campaign very tailored to Missouri voters.

Irony is that he didn't even need to tack right on anything - his famous gun ad (still the best ad of all last cycle even if he didn't win) was in support of gun control. His campaign talked openly about Black Lives Matter (remember where Ferguson is located). There's nothing wrong with contrasting yourself with your opponent but you also need to be able to make the case for yourself. I think Democrats did a poor job all around on that front (though some of this was media perpetuated - "both sides are sooo negative!" - and there's not really much you can do about that).

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

"In order to ensure the security and continuing stability, the republic will be reorganized into the first world empire." - Donald J. Palpatine

"So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause." - Hillary

 

[VendettaRed07]

Can three goal deficits actually be overcome in one period in youth hockey? That harms my suspension of disbelief, but I actually have no idea how much scoring there is in youth hockey or how much variance there is in the scoring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I967z9SJ1K0

 

[AntraxSuicide]

How, exactly? We had an enormous money advantage this election but it did not help us. I admit that I'm not fully versed in what exactly the DNC chair does, but from what I've read it's mainly fundraising.

If you're full-time, then you've got the time to get to know the various state leaders you need to prop up with the money you raise.

Take MS for example (my home state). We can absolutely take the governorship in 2019 if we run Jim Hood and run him with support. My guess is that DWS probably doesn't know the name Jim Hood at all, and so would likely write off any help in that race as a lost cause.

And I have to note that while DWS was a bad DNC chair, Representatives should be well-liked in their district, and her debate with Canova only proved to me that she should hold that seat for as long as she wants it. She clearly knows her constituents, and they elect her overwhelmingly.

Sorry, but Democrats deemphasizing it on a national level will only hurt them.

Now, do I think that Democrats running in, for example, Iowa need to rephrase their message to white voters? Unfortunately yes, but only for those running at a state level, NOT national level.

50 state strategy means that you have Democrats in blue and indigo states remain focused on appealing to progressives and minorities, but have Democrats in red and magenta states focus on winning by being blue dogs that focus well on state and local issues.

And like in 2008, you combine that with a POTUS nominee who's campaign focuses on being charismatic and energetic to get liberals, progressives, and minorities everywhere turning out in massive numbers so that you end up with:

- Democrats winning lots of states/districts on the state and local level even if they don't vote democratic for POTUS.

- Turning states considered safe red blue just as a result of REALLY high democratic turnout.



Unless Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders end up the 2020 nominee, it's going to be VERY easy to run a better candidate because, unless the GOP is fucking psychic, the GOP won't know who will be the nominee four years from now.

One of the reasons Hillary lost was that EVERYONE knew she would run again as soon as Obama won reelection, so the GOP spent 4 effing years attacking Hillary relentlessly.

I think the problem is nationalizing the race. Just about every Democrat's solitary concern was running against Trump and keeping him out of the White House. The presidency was Republican voters' top concern of course, but the fact that the party basically wrote off the presidential race let them run more localized campaigns and it worked.

Note that every state voted for the same party in the presidential and Senate races, but note also that the only candidate on our side who even came close to bucking that trend was Jason Kander (lost by 3 compared to Clinton losing the state by 19). Kander was just about the only statewide Dem candidate who could articulate a reason for his candidacy beyond his opponent being worse and ran a campaign very tailored to Missouri voters.

These both nail it. You run the same national platform, but you provide cover at the local level for people like Kander who are going to have to contradict you to win. Kander's claim to fame was that ad where he puts a rifle together to prove that he's pro-gun. Do you think national Dems would respond well to that ad? Of course not (I have friends from places like Seattle who would get legitimately shaky even watching it, and they get panicky when they even see a gun). But locally, you have to budge on some things.

Tim Kaine's answer for abortion was great.
JBE's answer for gay marriage was great.
Kander's position on guns was great.

These are things we can do locally to win. Nationally, nothing should change. You cannot go chasing greener pastures if you just won a national election by 3 million votes. You just need to zoom in a bit. The national level is honestly exactly where it needs to be.

 

[leroidys]

Sorry, but Democrats deemphasizing it on a national level will only hurt them.

Now, do I think that Democrats running in, for example, Iowa need to rephrase their message to white voters? Unfortunately yes, but only for those running at a state level, NOT national level.

50 state strategy means that you have Democrats in blue and indigo states remain focused on appealing to progressives and minorities, but have Democrats in red and magenta states focus on winning by being blue dogs that focus well on state and local issues.

And like in 2008, you combine that with a POTUS nominee who's campaign focuses on being charismatic and energetic to get liberals, progressives, and minorities everywhere turning out in massive numbers so that you end up with:

- Democrats winning lots of states/districts on the state and local level even if they don't vote democratic for POTUS.

- Turning states considered safe red blue just as a result of REALLY high democratic turnout.

That's well and good for a presidential election, but we are never going to win midterms with our current strategy. At least not in the next 20 years, or absent Trump nuking someone (or the economy).

Unless Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders end up the 2020 nominee, it's going to be VERY easy to run a better candidate because, unless the GOP is fucking psychic, the GOP won't know who will be the nominee four years from now.

One of the reasons Hillary lost was that EVERYONE knew she would run again as soon as Obama won reelection, so the GOP spent 4 effing years attacking Hillary relentlessly.

That's a decent point. Having email-ghazi in the news for four years indeed ended up being insurmountable, esp. with the FBI and RF helping spread the FUD.

I think the problem is nationalizing the race. Just about every Democrat's solitary concern was running against Trump and keeping him out of the White House. The presidency was Republican voters' top concern of course, but the fact that the party basically wrote off the presidential race let them run more localized campaigns and it worked.

Note that every state voted for the same party in the presidential and Senate races, but note also that the only candidate on our side who even came close to bucking that trend was Jason Kander (lost by 3 compared to Clinton losing the state by 19). Kander was just about the only statewide Dem candidate who could articulate a reason for his candidacy beyond his opponent being worse and ran a campaign very tailored to Missouri voters.

Irony is that he didn't even need to tack right on anything - his famous gun ad (still the best ad of all last cycle even if he didn't win) was in support of gun control. His campaign talked openly about Black Lives Matter (remember where Ferguson is located). There's nothing wrong with contrasting yourself with your opponent but you also need to be able to make the case for yourself. I think Democrats did a poor job all around on that front (though some of this was media perpetuated - "both sides are sooo negative!" - and there's not really much you can do about that).

Interesting, I didn't pay attention to this race- I'll have to look into it more. My initial (maybe unfair) reaction though is that it's only a single race. I agree with your analysis of running candidates with local appeal though. "All politics are local" is one of the million political maxims that we forgot about this race for some reason. See also: "Michigan, Michigan, Michigan" and "It's the economy, stupid".

The national level is honestly exactly where it needs to be.

Is it though? We got our ass beat the last 3 elections. We couldn't take the house with once-in-a-lifetime politician Barack Obama on the ticket. Yes, we can ascribe that to gerrymandering, but that's the map we have now.

 

[B-Dubs]

These both nail it. You run the same national platform, but you provide cover at the local level for people like Kander who are going to have to contradict you to win. Kander's claim to fame was that ad where he puts a rifle together to prove that he's pro-gun. Do you think national Dems would respond well to that ad? Of course not (I have friends from places like Seattle who would get legitimately shaky even watching it, and they get panicky when they even see a gun). But locally, you have to budge on some things.

Tim Kaine's answer for abortion was great.
JBE's answer for gay marriage was great.
Kander's position on guns was great.

These are things we can do locally to win. Nationally, nothing should change. You cannot go chasing greener pastures if you just won a national election by 3 million votes. You just need to zoom in a bit. The national level is honestly exactly where it needs to be.

Exactly. The national level is in a good place, but the state and lower levels need the room to run around and differentiate themselves. We need people who will be a good fit for their states and districts and have them focus on local politics.

 

[RastaMentality]

i'm actually surprised the gutting Planned Parenthood talk hasn't ramped up yet. i mean i'm sure it's coming but i thought it'd be a top GOP priority.

 

[whyamihere]

"In order to ensure the security and continuing stability, the republic will be reorganized into the first world empire." - Donald J. Palpatine

"So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause." - Hillary

Maybe the prequels weren't as bad as we thought.

 

[B-Dubs]

Maybe the prequels weren't as bad as we thought.

I came out of Rogue One tonight thinking about Trump's space militarization...

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

Maybe the prequels weren't as bad as we thought.

Also 1984

Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

 

[TestOfTide]

That's well and good for a presidential election, but we are never going to win midterms with our current strategy. At least not in the next 20 years, or absent Trump nuking someone (or the economy).


That's a decent point. Having email-ghazi in the news for four years indeed ended up being insurmountable, esp. with the FBI and RF helping spread the FUD.

If you are thinking of the midterms as a national race, then you are doing it wrong. The only NATIONAL race is POTUS. Everything else is a state or local level race and needs to be treated on a state by state by district by district by area by area basis.

 

[leroidys]

If you are thinking of the midterms as a national race, then you are doing it wrong. The only NATIONAL race is POTUS. Everything else is a state or local level race and needs to be treated on a state by state by district by district by area by area basis.

I don't know that I totally agree with that. Republicans nationwide have been running against Obama and congressional dems (even while they're in the minority) non-stop for the past 8 years.

 

[B-Dubs]

I don't know that I totally agree with that. Republicans nationwide have been running against Obama and congressional dems (even while they're in the minority) non-stop for the past 8 years.

They've also had good fits for their districts, mostly because they gerrymandered them this way. I mean, compare Peter King in NY to Steve King in Iowa. One is clearly crazier than the other. You have to tie whatever the national message is into what the issues are in the individual district.

 

[TestOfTide]

I don't know that I totally agree with that. Republicans nationwide have been running against Obama and congressional dems (even while they're in the minority) non-stop for the past 8 years.

Yes, having a President to be against during midterms helps. And now it'll be the democrats' turn again like it was in 2006.

Also, though technically this example isn't a midterm election, do you remember that crosshairs map Palin got shit for posting? Well that map was a fairly long list of Districts that voted for McCain, but also voted for the Democrat in the US House race.

They've also had good fits for their districts, mostly because they gerrymandered them this way. I mean, compare Peter King in NY to Steve King in Iowa. One is clearly crazier than the other. You have to tie whatever the national message is into what the issues are in the individual district.

Or to give an even better example, look at how Republicans like Charlie Baker win in blue states.

 

[leroidys]

They've also had good fits for their districts, mostly because they gerrymandered them this way. I mean, compare Peter King in NY to Steve King in Iowa. One is clearly crazier than the other. You have to tie whatever the national message is into what the issues are in the individual district.

Yeah, I mean it's definitely not an 'either-or' type of deal. That reminds me, Steve King is just the type of slimeball I would have expected to show up in the Trump administration, but I haven't heard anything about him. Guess that's one small bright spot.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

JFK created and then ran on the myth that Russian nukes were much better and more numerous than ours which JFK knew was a lie so that he could say that Former Supreme Allied Commander and President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower was weak on defense.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=5B0BF2197E9E0A0F116C45468E822C9B.f02t04

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a dick-measuring contest that spiraled out of control.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

NBC News ‏@NBCNews 4 hours ago
Corker: Committee won't demand Tillerson's tax returns during confirmation for state position http://nbcnews.to/2herSR0

The rollover continues unabated.

 

[Dominican Power]

Who watched this interview with Maddow and Kellyanne? So infuriating.

 

[Wilsongt]

The rollover continues unabated.

I see Hillary took her brass balls with her after her defeat.

We are so fucked. Democrats need to step the fuck up, but they won't. At this point, all we can hope for is a wave of moderate Republicans vs Batshit insane Republicans.

 

[Retromelon]

DINO's vs Real Americans you mean

 

[Wilsongt]

DINO's vs Real Americans you mean

With the rate that Democrats are shrinking, that's all we can hope for.

 

[Hillary Clinton]

JFK created and then ran on the myth that Russian nukes were much better and more numerous than ours which JFK knew was a lie so that he could say that Former Supreme Allied Commander and President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower was weak on defense.

Yes, JFK should have buoyed his campaign resume with "the current administration is doing everything it should be doing against the communists and there is nothing I can do to improve on this," even though the Soviets were publicly lying about their superiority as well. Perhaps you should blame Vice President Nixon for not proving to the American people that JFK was lying.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a dick-measuring contest that spiraled out of control.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a military crisis about the existence and strategic placement of missile deterrents, irrespective of their numerosity, which is what the missile gap concerns. Even if the Soviets had no missiles except the ones they were placing in Cuba, that would have still caused a military crisis.

 

[studyguy]

DINOS VS RINOS, battle of the ages. Two demagogues go in, one country falls dead.

I'm simply getting by on the entertainment of Trump's crew floundering as they search desperately for someone to attend the inauguration whose name isn't Ted Nugent.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I think to this end Heitkamp, Manchin et al need to be kept in line on cabinet votes.

They have 52 in their caucus, let them figure that shit out.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Is it though? We got our ass beat the last 3 elections. We couldn't take the house with once-in-a-lifetime politician Barack Obama on the ticket. Yes, we can ascribe that to gerrymandering, but that's the map we have now.

Those elections you're talking about aren't national, they're a collection of local races you have to win. National elections are like the Super Bowl; one race to win. Midterms are more like "winning" the Olympics; a bunch of contests that add up to a grand winner.

I don't know that I totally agree with that. Republicans nationwide have been running against Obama and congressional dems (even while they're in the minority) non-stop for the past 8 years.

The GOP actually hasn't been running against Obama in several key areas, which is why their state control is good. They have a number of offices (MA governor, MD governor, etc...) that they hold precisely letting those guys undercut them nationally. On the Dem side, we would treat that as progressive treason and try to primary those guys, but the GOP side doesn't care; they just want the seat.

The GOP has their Larry Hogan types, and we need to combat that by finding our own local candidates who can win elections by subtly (or sometimes blatantly) disagreeing with the national party. It's one of the main reasons I'd argue that the President's party does worse in midterms; the sitting POTUS is de facto the leader of the party and its platform, and so people get nervous running a campaign that disagrees with their sitting President. But when you're locked out of the White House, there's no obvious leader to follow, so you get packs that get together and form up stronger. In 2006, we saw on our side the combined efforts of Clinton structure, Pelosi fundraising, Reid machine, etc... without anyone worrying about stepping on toes since there weren't toes to step on.

It's why I think we'll see some gains made when we figure out which conservative groups get weaker under Trump. Whichever ones disagree with him will either speak out about their disagreements (which will cost them support in the party in a lot of ways) or they'll stay silent (which turns off the people who feel like their faction isn't doing enough). Then you target areas that are held by these now-weakened factions. (For example, if Trump starts shitting himself on foreign policy by capitulating to foreign interests, then he'll definitely start losing the super military regions. Then you find some general who's also a Democrat and run them in some of these states/districts and run on a platform of "He's a pansy draft dodger, but I'd kick his ass in a heartbeat.")

 

[excelsiorlef]

That's what we've been running since 2012 and it hasn't been working. Forget the POTUS, we should have done much better in the senate this year. That's also a million conditionals, none of which matter if we can't retake congress and state legislatures. How are we going to stop deportations if we don't control a single branch of government, and so few states?

This is a really stupid thing to post. I'm trying to have a discussion in good faith.

If you run a campaign wherein minority issues are essentially silenced you're not going to win enough of the racist white vote to makeup for the minority vote which will look at the Dems as just like the GOP (and be basically justified in doing so) and not vote.

White folk haven't broke Democrat since 1964 that ain't changing anytime soon, if you create even the perception that the Dems are abandoning their core base (minorities carry the Dems to victory basically on their back) you'll lose for decades.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Manchin shot Obama's cap and trade bill in one of his commercials, that seemed to work.

Benefit of not having the WH is it becomes very easy to run against the establishment so we'll at least have that going for us.

2020 - PPP did a very preliminary look at the Democratic primary. They find an overwhelming majority of voters want someone younger than 70 and a decent plurality want someone who hasn't run for president before. Sounds good. Here's how the candidates fare:

Joe Biden 31%
Bernie Sanders 24%
Elizabeth Warren 16%
Cory Booker 4%
Al Franken 3%
Kirsten Gillibrand 3%
Sherrod Brown 2%
Andrew Cuomo 2%
Julian Castro <1%

Oops!

(Of course, PPP correctly points out this is a name recognition thing more than anything else - apart from Biden and Sanders, only Warren and Franken have more than 50% name recognition although Booker and Cuomo are close)

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Financial Times' list of worst business people of 2016 is prettttty good.

 

[Hillary Clinton]

Arrogant Hillary, speaking in the third person. Or maybe it's some brain damage from that concussion.

After the Constitutional Convention it's well known Benjamin Franklin was asked what form of government the new nation would have. A republic, he replied, if you can keep it. Well that's still our charge and it's as urgent as it's ever been. We must stand up for our democracy just as I have done my entire career. Let me just mention briefly one threat in particular that should concern all Americans - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike, especially those that serve in our Congress: the epidemic of malicious, fake news, and false propaganda that flooded our social media over the past year. It's now clear that so-called "fake news" can have real world consequences. This isn't about partisanship, or politics. Lives are at risk, lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days to do their jobs, contribute to their communities. It's a danger that must be addressed, and addressed quickly. Bipartisan legislation is making its way through congress to boost the government's response to foreign propaganda and silicon valley is starting to grapple with the challenge and threat of fake news. It's imperative that leaders in both the public sector and the private sector step up to protect our democracy and innocent lives.

 

[mo60]

This is an op-ed(it's a bit hyperbolic with the title) but it's a kinda interesting article about North Carolina's about the integrity of elections in the state with all the things that has been going in the state in the last year or so.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article122593759.html

 

[Dominican Power]

https://twitter.com/tauriqmoosa/status/812168245004423168


Jesus.

 

[chadskin]

@AFP:
#BREAKING Putin: Nobody believed Trump would win 'except us'

A+ trolling game

 

[Aaron Strife]

@AFP:
#BREAKING Putin: Nobody believed Trump would win 'except us'

A+ trolling game

From the fucking asshole who brought you this

https://youtu.be/jsZsnrqmrnk

But conservatives love him because hurr hurr he's so badass and makes Obama look like a weak pussy lol!

God fuck everyone. Of course Democrats can't win, we don't fucking cheat. And when we do win the legislature makes the executive an in-name-only office anyway (NC).

 

[Plinko]

Manchin shot Obama's cap and trade bill in one of his commercials, that seemed to work.

Benefit of not having the WH is it becomes very easy to run against the establishment so we'll at least have that going for us.

2020 - PPP did a very preliminary look at the Democratic primary. They find an overwhelming majority of voters want someone younger than 70 and a decent plurality want someone who hasn't run for president before. Sounds good. Here's how the candidates fare:

Joe Biden 31%
Bernie Sanders 24%
Elizabeth Warren 16%
Cory Booker 4%
Al Franken 3%
Kirsten Gillibrand 3%
Sherrod Brown 2%
Andrew Cuomo 2%
Julian Castro <1%

Oops!

(Of course, PPP correctly points out this is a name recognition thing more than anything else - apart from Biden and Sanders, only Warren and Franken have more than 50% name recognition although Booker and Cuomo are close)

I still say Sanders will be vocal and public enough over the next 2 years that he's going to be the same influence/problem he was this election, if not moreso. He seems to be one of the very few democrats in attack dog mode already, and my guess is he doesn't tone it down.

If he runs and loses, he's going to need to do a much better job of pushing his voters to vote for the eventual candidate.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I still say Sanders will be vocal and public enough over the next 2 years that he's going to be the same influence/problem he was this election, if not moreso. He seems to be one of the very few democrats in attack dog mode already, and my guess is he doesn't tone it down.

If he runs and loses, he's going to need to do a much better job of pushing his voters to vote for the eventual candidate.

He did a good job. Again, I think this is just a massive scapegoat. Pew Research found that by Nov 6th, 94% of people who voted for Sanders in the primary said they intended to vote for Clinton. The corresponding figure for Trump was 79%. Sanders did a tremendous job of bringing over a demographic that had every reason to be extremely lukewarm about Clinton. I don't really understand what more he was supposed to do.

It's not Sanders voters you needed to worry about. Look at the biggest swings in demographics: the person you're worried about is:

a man
either white or multiple-generation American Latino
45-64
educational level below college
earns under $30,000
lives in the suburbs of a small-medium town
voted Democrat in 2012
Catholic
lives in the Rust Belt

This is the 'swing person'; the critical demographic (at least, the overlap of each of the critical demographics, an archetypical swing person) that was won in 2012 and lost in 2016. It isn't the majority of Trump's support (it's actually a relatively small part), but it is the part of Trump's support that allowed him to win where Romney lost. These are the people you need to be talking to. Obsessing about Bernie or Busters, a fraction of the electorate probably smaller than the Green Party in most states (something like 10% of Americans participated in the Democratic primaries, meaning 4% of Americans voted for Sanders in the Democratic primaries, meaning 0.24% of the American electorate voted for Sanders in the Democratic primaries then failed to vote Clinton), is just going to lead you to another loss.

Essentially everything the Democratic party does for the next few years needs to be looking at the guy above and saying: how do we get his vote?

 

[Aaron Strife]

He did a good job. Again, I think this is just a massive scapegoat. Pew Research found that by Nov 6th, 94% of people who voted for Sanders in the primary said they intended to vote for Clinton. The corresponding figure for Trump was 79%. Sanders did a tremendous job of bringing over a demographic that had every reason to be extremely lukewarm about Clinton. I don't really understand what more he was supposed to do.

It's not Sanders voters you needed to worry about. Look at the biggest swings in demographics: the person you're worried about is:

a man
either white or multiple-generation American Latino
45-64
educational level below college
earns under $30,000
lives in the suburbs of a small-medium town
voted Democrat in 2012
Catholic
lives in the Rust Belt

This is the 'swing person'; the critical demographic (at least, the overlap of each of the critical demographics, an archetypical swing person) that was won in 2012 and lost in 2016. It isn't the majority of Trump's support (it's actually a relatively small part), but it is the part of Trump's support that allowed him to win where Romney lost. These are the people you need to be talking to. Obsessing about Bernie or Busters, a fraction of the electorate probably smaller than the Green Party in most states (something like 10% of Americans participated in the Democratic primaries, meaning 4% of Americans voted for Sanders in the Democratic primaries, meaning 0.24% of the American electorate voted for Sanders in the Democratic primaries then failed to vote Clinton), is just going to lead you to another loss.

Essentially everything the Democratic party does for the next few years needs to be looking at the guy above and saying: how do we get his vote?

Eh. This might be difficult to prove but can't you argue that the very negative turn the primary took after Super Tuesday had a farther reaching effect on Clinton's favorability than just Sanders supporters? Just because people don't vote in the primary doesn't mean they don't keep up with the news or talk with other people about the election, and I think this was around the point where the tone for many people shifted from "eh, Clinton's ok" to "BLAGH FUCK CLINTON BOTH SIDES" even among those I knew didn't really care and didn't vote.

Seeing Sanders partisans throw tantrums over the primary might have validated any hesitancy to vote for Clinton from people outside of that circle. Idk. My hope is for a significantly compressed primary season because I feel when you stretch this process out this far, feelings get hurt and people get desperate. Don't worry everyone, Sanders will win New York. Don't worry everyone, he'll win California. Don't worry everyone, the superdelegates don't vote until August. Don't worry everyone, Clinton will get indicted and they'll have no choice but to give it to Sanders. Every single time. Clinton and the DNC did what they could to bridge the gap between themselves and Sanders, and to his credit Sanders emerged as a strong surrogate and advocate after the convention. But the voters themselves need more time to breathe I think.

(tbf this happened on the left as a whole after the general too, with the recounts and the Hamilton electors. That's the problem with being idealistic I guess)

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Eh. This might be difficult to prove but can't you argue that the very negative turn the primary took after Super Tuesday had a farther reaching effect on Clinton's favorability than just Sanders supporters? Just because people don't vote in the primary doesn't mean they don't keep up with the news or talk with other people about the election, and I think this was around the point where the tone for many people shifted from "eh, Clinton's ok" to "BLAGH FUCK CLINTON BOTH SIDES" even among those I knew didn't really care and didn't vote.

Clinton's average unfavourability on Jan 1st was 53.0%. Clinton's average unfavourability on Oct 15th was 53.9%. Her unfavourabilities didn't change over the course of the real meat of the primary campaign (or only very marginally). People didn't go BLARGH FUCK CLINTON because of Sanders; that dislike had existed for a long time, and a lot of people were just trying to pretend it wasn't there.

In 2008, Clinton herself argued she should stick it out because, you know, Obama might get assassinated. Sanders never near approached that level of rhetoric. Didn't stop Obama winning. Trying to take all the genuine contest out of the Democratic primaries is only going to produce a series of candidates genuinely unsuited to the big leagues.

 

[plagiarize]

Other than not running someone as disliked as Clinton, I think the other simple changes we can make are in how we present our message and how we go negative.

1. Attack Trump on his perceived *strengths* not his weaknesses.
2. Focus on the good things we want to do and give people a reason to vote FOR our candidate.

I think those are both valid lessons to learn from this election. The campaign did a poor job of giving people reason to vote for Clinton, instead just talking about how awful Trump was. Furthermore, we could have easily undermined his strengths by showing that he wasn't an outsider, that he wasn't for the little guy, and that he was a terrible business man, rather than focusing on how racist and sexist he was etc.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Also, it isn't the protracted nature of the Democratic primaries that encourages hostilities, per se, it is the winner-take-all nature of it. If you win, you are the presidential nominee. If you lose, you get a T-shirt or something, I don't know. The only leverage a losing candidate has over a winning one is a threat they won't bring that support with them. You can't blame those candidates for trying to use that leverage - Sanders did it, Clinton did it, Dean did it. If you want to ameliorate that, you want to find some way of dispersing the political capital according to primary performance. If, for example, the losing candidate got a certain number of cabinet picks guaranteed or whatever (off the top of my head example to make the point), then their future goals are much more intimately tied with the success of the winning candidate. People like to say the Democratic party is a coalition, but it is only a coalition up until the end of the primaries. Then it just represents a particular sub-faction of the coalition and fuck everyone else.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Other than not running someone as disliked as Clinton, I think the other simple changes we can make are in how we present our message and how we go negative.

1. Attack Trump on his perceived *strengths* not his weaknesses.
2. Focus on the good things we want to do and give people a reason to vote FOR our candidate.

I think those are both valid lessons to learn from this election. The campaign did a poor job of giving people reason to vote for Clinton, instead just talking about how awful Trump was. Furthermore, we could have easily undermined his strengths by showing that he wasn't an outsider, that he wasn't for the little guy, and that he was a terrible business man, rather than focusing on how racist and sexist he was etc.

I agree. I was saying this before the election, though.

 

[plagiarize]

I agree. I was saying this before the election, though.

Oh these aren't things I thought up myself or anything. Just things I've seen people said that have sounded on point.

I'd been converened about the lack of positive reasons given to vote Clinton, but I hadn't mentioned it because I thought she had it in the bag. But I was very vocal in my annoyance at the remain campaign for not giving anyone positive reasons to stay in Europe during the Brexit campaigning.

For the Clinton campaign it was something I noticed, and occasionally worried about, and pushed back down. But I don't think I said it out loud or on record anywhere.

 

[dramatis]

Don't be stupid. There were plenty of reasons to vote for Hillary, but Sanders stans made hay about personality politics. This "didn't give reason to vote" is just an excuse to take blame off voters who don't care about issues or policy and didn't vote for Hillary because she wasn't their ideal candidate.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That's the vast majority of the electorate then. Probably most of the people in this thread, even. Almost none of us are perfectly altruistic rational utility maximizers with full information and so on; at a certain stage, all of us go "fuck it, gut feel it is".

 

[dramatis]

Yes, I can tell from even the most numbers oriented and supposedly logical there is unmistakable, insurmountable bias.

What I said is no less true regardless of the electorate percentage or whatnot.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

After the uprising of the 8th of November
The Supporters of Secretary Clinton
Had comments distributed on the internet
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the Democrats
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the Democrats
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

 

[Frank the Great]

Also, it isn't the protracted nature of the Democratic primaries that encourages hostilities, per se, it is the winner-take-all nature of it. If you win, you are the presidential nominee. If you lose, you get a T-shirt or something, I don't know. The only leverage a losing candidate has over a winning one is a threat they won't bring that support with them. You can't blame those candidates for trying to use that leverage - Sanders did it, Clinton did it, Dean did it. If you want to ameliorate that, you want to find some way of dispersing the political capital according to primary performance. If, for example, the losing candidate got a certain number of cabinet picks guaranteed or whatever (off the top of my head example to make the point), then their future goals are much more intimately tied with the success of the winning candidate. People like to say the Democratic party is a coalition, but it is only a coalition up until the end of the primaries. Then it just represents a particular sub-faction of the coalition and fuck everyone else.

Or the second place candidate becomes VP. It's not like VP matters anyway.

Bernie on the ticket would have brought in way more support than Kaine.

 

[Crocodile]

The margins are so small that's its hard to be definitive about what the "one cause" was. It's better to think of it as a flurry of bad breaks. 25k loss in Wisconsin + 10k loss in Michigan (where 90k people didn't vote for anyone for president because "both sides") suggests that Busters could have thrown things in those states. Anecdotal of course but too many people were saying "Trump or Sanders because they are outsiders" for me to feel comfortable. However, Clinton not visiting those states after the convention probably hurt more (though to be fair, like ALL the data was saying they didn't need to - seriously what fucking happened with all the internal an public polling) than the Busters. I'm hoping that its just because its still pretty soon after the election but the "healing" is taking longer than I would like. I guess Trump + McConnell + Ryan start passing legislation we can unite vs a common enemy.

Also, it isn't the protracted nature of the Democratic primaries that encourages hostilities, per se, it is the winner-take-all nature of it. If you win, you are the presidential nominee. If you lose, you get a T-shirt or something, I don't know. The only leverage a losing candidate has over a winning one is a threat they won't bring that support with them. You can't blame those candidates for trying to use that leverage - Sanders did it, Clinton did it, Dean did it. If you want to ameliorate that, you want to find some way of dispersing the political capital according to primary performance. If, for example, the losing candidate got a certain number of cabinet picks guaranteed or whatever (off the top of my head example to make the point), then their future goals are much more intimately tied with the success of the winning candidate. People like to say the Democratic party is a coalition, but it is only a coalition up until the end of the primaries. Then it just represents a particular sub-faction of the coalition and fuck everyone else.

How is that different from the Republican primaries? Plus I dunno if I feel good about that. Candidate X won, they should have the right to intact their policies and pick their cabinet. They won for a reason. Like if the candidates want to work things out behind the scenes and can do it amicably I can support that but forcing the will on Candidate Y on Candidate X seems like a good way to engender turmoil, chaos and conflicting agendas.

Or the second place candidate becomes VP. It's not like VP matters anyway.

Bernie on the ticket would have brought in way more support than Kaine.

Except Sanders could have done more work in the Senate than as VP. Also what do you do if you get a President and a VP that hate each other or have poor chemistry? Again, forcing these things is just asking for trouble.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

How is that different from the Republican primaries?

It isn't, they also have this problem - again, more not-Trump primary voters failed to vote Trump in the GE than not-Clinton primary voters failed to vote for Clinton. Trump was just a better candidate than Clinton so our attentions aren't drawn to it.

Plus I dunno if I feel good about that. Candidate X won, they should have the right to intact their policies and pick their cabinet. They won for a reason. Like if the candidates want to work things out behind the scenes and can do it amicably I can support that but forcing the will on Candidate Y on Candidate X seems like a good way to engender turmoil, chaos and conflicting agendas.

This is what I mean by winner-take-all. About 60% of Democratic primary voters preferred Clinton. About 40% preferred Sanders. But if Clinton wins, she gets 100% of the policies/cabinet/whatever, and Sanders gets 0%. So you have a big swathe of disenfranchised people - 40% of the Democratic primary, who get nothing for their input. If Clinton had 60% of the policy control, and Sanders 40%, then everyone's input is rewarded with an equal share of the political output. Instead of Sander's strategy being: don't back Clinton enthusiastically until she compromises at least somewhat (the blackmail strategy), you end up with Sander's strategy being: help Clinton do as well as possible, because you get 40% of that (the co-operation strategy).

I mean, yes, the winning candidate obviously gets the most influence - they did win. But the translation from 60/40 -> 100/0 is what breaks much of the political system and forces these hostile contests.