Support NeoGAF

[royalan]

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.

But isn't this exactly what happened?

Bernie got a lot of concessions leading up to he convention. More than most losers. His platform is very visible in the party platform. Bernie Sanders definitely had a visible impact on the policies Hillary pushed in the election.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable giving the loser more than that. As was said, they lost for a reason.

We also need to remember that the primaries weren't particularly close. This wasn't Obama vs Clinton '08. Bernie Sanders got blown out by almost 4 million votes.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I mean, if you think Sanders designed 43.1% of Clinton's policy platform or chose 43.1% of her key political appointment announcements, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I mean, if you think Sanders designed 43.1% of Clinton's policy platform or chose 43.1% of her key political appointment announcements, I have a bridge to sell you.

Proportional influence isn't the only alternative to winner takes all.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Proportional influence isn't the only alternative to winner takes all.

No, but it is the only principled alternative.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Watch Adam Curtis' century of the self, the fourth part is about how Bill Clinton and Tony Blair won, third part about Reagan and Tatcher. Both give perfect insight in why Trump won this time, and especially Bill Clinton's second term win which was similar.

Basically Bill just talked about minor topics like v-chips and smaller government. People are greedy and want to hear about policies that affect them directly. You just need to win, then you can get things done and ignore those silly issues.

A funny part is when in the UK they asked if financing the trains was a priority to the voters, voters said no, then when trains were always facing problems people said "wtf! The rains are a priority!".

Don't listen to the masses, just get them to vote for you, but make sure you don't get a candidate who will then spend his next four years trying to shake hands with the other side.

 

[Pixieking]

Watch Adam Curtis' century of the self, the fourth part is about how Bill Clinton and Tony Blair won, third part about Reagan and Tatcher. Both give perfect insight in why Trump won this time, and especially Bill Clinton's second term win which was similar.

Basically Bill just talked about minor topics like v-chips and smaller government. People are greedy and want to hear about policies that affect them directly. You just need to win, then you can get things done and ignore those silly issues.

The thing is, Clinton spoke about policies that affected people directly, and it didn't help. For example...

"I'm a woman who cares about abortion"
"I'm LGBTQ, and I care about the Bathroom Bill"
"I'm young and I care about student debt"
"I've got a relative who's dying, and I care about the ACA"
"I live in Flint, and care about clean water"

Are all demographics that Hillary courted with policies. Now, you can argue her messaging skills were an issue, but I don't think you can do more than that with regards to policy. This election proved that policy matters less to the democratic base voting than personality or perception. It also proved that morally and ethically, a large base of Republican voters are pure shit, willing to ignore the personal failings of a candidate.

 

[studyguy]

Dear Santa,
All I want for Christmas is a Cold War.
Thanks,

Donald J Trump.



Waking up to 'lets have an arms race' and I don't know what to say.

 

[excelsiorlef]

No, but it is the only principled alternative.

Nonsense.

Incidentally though all off the Dem delegates were awares proportionally...

But the runner up doesn't get proportional say. That's true for other countries too. I mean hell other parties in other countries don't even chose their leader via a democratic vote.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The thing is, Clinton spoke about policies that affected people directly, and it didn't help. For example...

"I'm a woman who cares about abortion"
"I'm LGBTQ, and I care about the Bathroom Bill"
"I'm young and I care about student debt"
"I've got a relative who's dying, and I care about the ACA"
"I live in Flint, and care about clean water"

If you add these groups up, they don't come to 50%+1 of the population in the key swing states. If I am a 45-64 year old Catholic white guy who lives in a former industrial town and earns $30,000 or less (again, as I pointed out, the swing demographic), which policy here applies to me? Maybe the ACA, maybe - but the ACA is a mess and the benefits aren't actually intuitive to most of the population. Everything else is something for someone else. All you're appealing to is my empathy. That works during the good times, but these ain't good times, and I need a little empathy for me.

Are all demographics that Hillary courted with policies. Now, you can argue her messaging skills were an issue, but I don't think you can do more than that with regards to policy. This election proved that policy matters less to the democratic base voting than personality or perception.

No, it proves that an enormous part of the Democratic party simply do not understand how large parts of the American electorate work.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Nonsense.

Counter-nonsense!

Incidentally though all off the Dem delegates were awares proportionally...

And? Democratic delegates don't do very much of importance aside from vote for the Democratic nominee, which is very much not awarded proportionally.

But the runner up doesn't get proportional say. That's true for other countries too. I mean hell other parties in other countries don't even chose their leader via a democratic vote.

Actually, no. The parties in America are loose coalitions of what are several different parties in many other countries. Under the Swedish electoral system, for example, the Democratic Party would probably split into about three or four distinct political blocs. The electoral system means that no party can get a majority if they do not win a majority of the vote, occurring only very infrequently, and so the Prime Minister's party (usually but not necessarily the largest party in a given coalition) must, at all times, hold the confidence of all his allies, or face a Vote of No Confidence and lose office. So each party has (approximately) a proportional say - that is, each political bloc that are a party each under the Swedish system but a single party under the American system has a distribution of say in the Swedish system but very little say unless they are the largest under the American system.

There are obviously countries that work more along the American model - the United Kingdom excepting the very infrequent hung parliaments, France when not in periods of cohabitation. But they have very similar problems - albeit less badly than the United States does.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

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.

Regarding Trump, they tried all of that. They absolutely went after his business acumen. His bankruptcies. The people he screwed over. None of it finished him off.

It's not that going negative wasn't effective. It was. But it turns out they maxed out on it early. There was no more blood to squeeze from the stone by the summer. The campaign didn't need to find something else negative to focus on, nor did they need to harp on one specific thing. They probably just needed to turn positive after the convention.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

The neeever ennnndiiinnggg priiiiiiiiiiiiimmaaaaaarrrrryyy

 

[excelsiorlef]

Counter-nonsense!



And? Democratic delegates don't do very much of importance aside from vote for the Democratic nominee, which is very much not awarded proportionally.



Actually, no. The parties in America are loose coalitions of what are several different parties in many other countries. Under the Swedish electoral system, for example, the Democratic Party would probably split into about three or four distinct political blocs. The electoral system means that no party can get a majority if they do not win a majority of the vote, occurring only very infrequently, and so the Prime Minister's party (usually but not necessarily the largest party in a given coalition) must, at all times, hold the confidence of all his allies, or face a Vote of No Confidence and lose office. So each party has (approximately) a proportional say - that is, each political bloc that are a party each under the Swedish system but a single party under the American system has a distribution of say in the Swedish system but very little say unless they are the largest under the American system.

There are obviously countries that work more along the American model - the United Kingdom excepting the very infrequent hung parliaments, France when not in periods of cohabitation. But they have very similar problems - albeit less badly than the United States does.

You just quoted the general election systems. I was speaking of party leadership selection. Which is what we were talking about.

 

[sc0la]

that dislike had existed for a long time, and a lot of people were just trying to pretend it wasn't there.

[Citation needed]

Really though the media did more damage than sanders did (and emailz!1)

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You just quoted the general election systems. I was speaking of party leadership selection. Which is what we were talking about.

I'm trying to compare like for like. Party leaderships in proportional countries are not comparable to party leaderships in America. In proportional countries, because American-style wide parties are replaced by smaller units, parties tend to be, internally, very ideologically homogeneous - if there was a big disagreement, then a new party would form and absorb one of the two sides. That means that the election of the leader is not really an ideological dispute - everyone tends to be more or less in agreement on the issues. Instead, it just becomes a competency dispute - who can do this best?

In the American-style wide party system, parties are very heterogeneous internally. When you run for leader, you don't have a small group of like-minded people trying to decide who can most effectively carry out a pre-agreed upon range of principles. Instead, you have a large group of diverse-minded people all trying to get their candidate to be able to run the party. The leadership battle is necessarily an ideological dispute - which set of principles should our party abide by?

So I think the analogy for the nominee of American parties is *not* the position of party leader in proportional countries. They're very different positions and there are very different selection criteria. Mogens Lykketoft did not to fulfil the same role as Hillary Clinton.

Rather, the analogy is the selection of the Prime Minister or in those countries were the Leader of the Opposition requires an investiture vote, also the Leader of the Opposition. It is about finding a compromise between different political blocs; something which should use a proportional electoral system. Or, put another way, American coalitions are formed before the election and European coalitions (gross generalization, but there you go) are formed after the election; so you need to compare what happens before American coalitions to what happens after European ones to get an accurate picture.

 

[B-Dubs]

[Citation needed]

Really though the media did more damage than sanders did (and emailz!1)

It's amazing what a 25-year smear campaign will do to someone's numbers.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

[Citation needed]

Really though the media did more damage than sanders did (and emailz!1)

I think you need to contextualize those. Early on, she was a secretary for a relatively non-political post who had opposed the current President. If you're a Republican who wanted to look moderate, you just say "we're not being obstructionist! We'd have worked with Clinton, we just can't work with that damn Obama feller!". It's not true, but it gives you reasonable cover, and people buy into it. Clinton ends up looking good because she isn't Obama.

That immediate sharp fall in her favourables, the most significant drop of all, and one that dwarves any campaign effect, is when she announced that she was running to be President. Suddenly, she's not something you can use to contrast with Obama, she's the new Obama. That's when she stopped being the "oh, I'm not a hatemonger, look at my blackDemocratic friend" and started being "you upstart Negrobaby-killer!".

If you're using her non-candidate favourables to argue that she was really well liked, I don't think you understand how politics works. It would be like arguing that Kerry would be a great candidate for 2020 because people love him as Secretary of State. Clue: that would be a terrible idea.

The favourables you need to look at are the ones from when she was running and not when she was in office - so, late 2007/early 2008, late 2000, and late 2006. They're not good. I mean, they're not terrible, per se - they're mostly around +3, +4 - but most successful Presidential candidates had far better track records than that.

 

[fantomena]

Biden: Clinton never figured out why she was running

And why is 2020 even being discussed?

 

[Pixieking]

If you add these groups up, they don't come to 50%+1 of the population in the key swing states. If I am a 45-64 year old Catholic white guy who lives in a former industrial town and earns $30,000 or less (again, as I pointed out, the swing demographic), which policy here applies to me? Maybe the ACA, maybe - but the ACA is a mess and the benefits aren't actually intuitive to most of the population. Everything else is something for someone else. All you're appealing to is my empathy. That works during the good times, but these ain't good times, and I need a little empathy for me.

Bear in mind that I didn't say that they were the only groups that Hillary courted. I could easily have continued, with, for example "I'm an ex-factory worker in the Rust Belt, and have no skills that can be used for a future role". Which, again, Hillary had a policy for (though not one they wanted to hear). You do mention empathy, but it's worth pointing-out that some of my points above are indirectly relevant to your swing voter - abortion rights, ACA, and (theoretically) clean water are issues that can indirectly affect your white guy. For instance, sister-in-law accidentally gets pregnant, wife needs an operation or long-term treatment, local water is polluted from old coal mine.

No, it proves that an enormous part of the Democratic party simply do not understand how large parts of the American electorate work.

Little from column A, little from column B. It's obvious that voters acted against their interests, either by voting R, or not voting. It's also obvious that any other Dem candidate wouldn't have had Hillary's baggage, which is one of the reasons why she lost. Both of those points heavily imply that the electorate think themselves smart, but act stupid. Definitely, though, the Demoractic Party needs to do a better job messaging, and listening to voters.

 

[excelsiorlef]

.

Except again with all do respect they aren't comparable.

US essentially has three elections (Two primaries plus GE)

Also if the US had a different system
Sanders vs Clinton wouldn't be for a party leadership but for Prime Minister or President. Which means he also has to run against Trump and since they'd be different parties it would also mean all bets are off in terms of campaigning from Clinton and he'd have gotten hit hard on his tax plans, etc...

The end remains you can't compare leadership election to a GE and the US GE separates leadership and "back benchers" into different votes.

 

[geomon]

Nat’l Police Union Expects Trump to Bring Back Racial Profiling, Lift Ban on Militarized Police

However, Trump and the FOP hope and expect to overturn this practice of persecuting individuals over their skin color. In the last bullet on their list, the FOP wrapped up their potential actions with the end of the ban on racial profiling.

Reverse or amend the broad, Bush-era ban on racial profiling by all or some Federal agencies

Among their other expectations, the FOP notes that Trump should reverse the position of the Federal government on the use of private prisons too.
In a stunning turn of events, the U.S. Department of Justice announced in August it will no longer use private prisons to incarcerate federal prisoners, deeming the notorious for-profit facilities both less safe and less effective in providing correctional services than those operated by the government.

“They simply do not provide the same level of correctional services, programs, and resources; they do not save substantially on costs; and as noted in a recent report by the Department’s Office of Inspector General, they do not maintain the same level of safety and security,” Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates explained in the announcement.

Immediately following the announcement that they would lose their tax-subsidized cash cow, prison stocks plummetted.

Equally troubling is the call for a 2-year mandatory minimum Federal prison sentence: for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying.

This is yet another ‘yuge’ giveaway to the prison industry as it would force the federal government to use and build more private prisons just to house the massive number of immigrants caught reentering the US.

The Free Thought Project spoke to a border patrol agent who called the provision a ‘nightmare,’ noting that it would create massive prison camps across the country as well as insane costs for housing these individuals.

So, there you have it. The Trump presidency, according to the police, is the creation, growth, and subsidization of the most massive police state the world has ever known.

Dear libertarians who voted for Trump, regret that decision yet?

PDF link to the list of demands from the National Fraternal Order of Police

It's going to be open season on people of color after January 20th, if it wasn't already. This is some scary shit.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

Biden: Clinton never figured out why she was running

And why is 2020 even being discussed?

Damn, ouch

 

[B-Dubs]

Police Union Calls On Trump To Create Police State









PDF link to the list of demands from the National Fraternal Order of Police

It's going to be open season on people of color after January 20th, if it wasn't already. This is some scary shit.

Your link is banned, might want to find another source

 

[sc0la]

I think you need to contextualize those. Early on, she was a secretary for a relatively non-political post who had opposed the current President. If you're a Republican who wanted to look moderate, you just say "we're not being obstructionist! We'd have worked with Clinton, we just can't work with that damn Obama feller!". It's not true, but it gives you reasonable cover, and people buy into it. Clinton ends up looking good because she isn't Obama.

That immediate sharp fall in her favourables, the most significant drop of all, and one that dwarves any campaign effect, is when she announced that she was running to be President. Suddenly, she's not something you can use to contrast with Obama, she's the new Obama. That's when she stopped being the "oh, I'm not a hatemonger, look at my blackDemocratic friend" and started being "you upstart Negrobaby-killer!".

If you're using her non-candidate favourables to argue that she was really well liked, I don't think you understand how politics works. It would be like arguing that Kerry would be a great candidate for 2020 because people love him as Secretary of State. Clue: that would be a terrible idea.

The favourables you need to look at are the ones from when she was running and not when she was in office - so, late 2007/early 2008, late 2000, and late 2006. They're not good. I mean, they're not terrible, per se - they're mostly around +3, +4 - but most successful Presidential candidates had far better track records than that.

The chart was only to demonstrate that the idea that she was extremely disliked for a "long time" is a myth. It helps people feel better and backs up their "I told you so"s

 

[geomon]

Your link is banned, might want to find another source

Thanks, I fixed it.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Except again with all do respect they aren't comparable.

US essentially has three elections (Two primaries plus GE)

Two - you can't participate in both primaries; they're functionally part of the same election process. And when you reach that point... so does the Parliamentary system. First, you have the general election. Then you have the "hidden election" - the legislature failing to VoNC the Prime Minister. It is most useful to think of the primary in US politics as equivalent to the "hidden election", and the general election as the same in both. US politics is "back to front" compared to other systems. First, you build the coalitions (the primaries), then you win offices (the the general). In the European, you win the offices (the general), then you build the coalition (the 'hidden election'). So, in that sense, they are comparable. Not identical, no, but similar enough we can draw lessons of what does and doesn't work from the differences (and the similarities).

Also if the US had a different system
Sanders vs Clinton wouldn't be for a party leadership but for Prime Minister or President.

Correct, yes; that is my entire point. The "Sanders Party" and the "Clinton Party" would have contested a general election. The Sanders Party would have won, I don't know, 40 seats, and the Clinton Party 60. They are more similar to each other than they are to the Kasich Party or the Trump Party, so they decide to form a coalition. As per tradition, Clinton becomes Prime Minister, as leader of the largest party in the coalition... but the Prime Minister's policy agenda and cabinet appointments are decided proportionally. The Sander Party can expect to get 40% of the cabinet positions and 40% of the policy manifesto, or they can just walk.

In the American system, the "Sanders Party" and the "Clinton Party" contest a primary. The Clinton Party wins, and forms a coalition of the "Sanders Party" and the "Clinton Party" - called the Democratic party. If the Democratic Party wins the election, Clinton becomes President, but has absolutely no requirement to select a policy agenda proportionately or make cabinet appointments proportionally. The Sanders Party can expect absolutely nothing, unless they threaten to ask their votes to not vote for the Clinton Party (hard to do).

This means that parties in the American system (I keep saying American system, really it is just any majoritarian system, which includes a number of European countries like the UK and France) tend to have *much* more hostile leadership elections than do European ones. The best strategy to pursue in the American system is to threaten to ask your voters not to vote. It's the only way to make the other side listen to you. The best strategy to pursue in the proportional system is for everyone to work together. Everyone's share of the pie is already allocated at the institutional level, so the primary motivation is increasing the size of the pie.

Which means he also has to run against Trump and since they'd be different parties it would also mean all bets are off in terms of campaigning from Clinton and he'd have gotten hit hard on his tax plans, etc...

I mean, yes, things would like different. That's an obvious truism. I'm arguing that they would probably be better. That's my argument. If the winner of the Democratic nomination was institutionally obliged to offer a portion of the policy slate and appointment slate to all other candidates, in proportion to how well those candidates did, then primaries would be a lot less vitriolic.

I mean, you might think that the vitriol serves a useful purpose, or that there are other valuable reasons to concentrate power so heavily and with so little respect for democratic egalitarian norms, fine. But I'm specifically responding to the idea that the vitriol we've seen was unexpected or a product of long time scales or a product of Sanders specifically. No, it was entirely expected having happened many times before, is the product of the way the Democratic primary is structured, and all losing candidates are incentivized to act this way - just as Clinton did in 2008.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The chart was only to demonstrate that the idea that she was extremely disliked for a "long time" is a myth. It helps people feel better and backs up their "I told you so"s

Okay, let me put it differently, then - as a candidate for elected office, she has never been well-liked.

 

[Box of Kittens]

Watch Adam Curtis' century of the self, the fourth part is about how Bill Clinton and Tony Blair won, third part about Reagan and Tatcher. Both give perfect insight in why Trump won this time, and especially Bill Clinton's second term win which was similar.

Basically Bill just talked about minor topics like v-chips and smaller government. People are greedy and want to hear about policies that affect them directly. You just need to win, then you can get things done and ignore those silly issues.

A funny part is when in the UK they asked if financing the trains was a priority to the voters, voters said no, then when trains were always facing problems people said "wtf! The rains are a priority!".

Don't listen to the masses, just get them to vote for you, but make sure you don't get a candidate who will then spend his next four years trying to shake hands with the other side.

I tend to think the "Clinton won because of v-chips and school uniforms" conventional wisdom is wrong. I think by far the biggest factor in his re-election is the state of the economy in 1996. GDP was growing, unemployment was down, people were generally happy with the status quo. All the talk of "soccer moms" was more of a boost to Mark Penn's career than anything else, where he went on to prove his incompetence again and again.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Bear in mind that I didn't say that they were the only groups that Hillary courted. I could easily have continued, with, for example "I'm an ex-factory worker in the Rust Belt, and have no skills that can be used for a future role". Which, again, Hillary had a policy for (though not one they wanted to hear). You do mention empathy, but it's worth pointing-out that some of my points above are indirectly relevant to your swing voter - abortion rights, ACA, and (theoretically) clean water are issues that can indirectly affect your white guy. For instance, sister-in-law accidentally gets pregnant, wife needs an operation or long-term treatment, local water is polluted from old coal mine.

The key word being 'indirectly'. Again, these people feel like they need help, and they're not getting it. You're appealing to them solely through their sense of desire to help others. That will work when they don't feel like their own security of life is at risk, but when it is? No. Again, this key swing demographic earns $30,000 or less. Abortion ain't mean shit to them when they couldn't make the food budget this week.

And I don't actually think Clinton had many policies for this specific group. The ones she did have, she struggled to communicate. Clinton On The Issues has, under Clinton's manufacturing proposals, clean energy investments thrown in first. Don't get me wrong, I'm big on clean energy. But if you're the guy I described, you associate clean energy with job loss. It was clean energy that killed the mines, killed the factories, killed coal. And Clinton doesn't seem to be aware, in the slightest, how that sentiment is going to play out. To the extent there are policies for these people, the messaging is absolutely, totally, and completely wrong.

 

[Box of Kittens]

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:

Sherrod Brown 2%

Not surprising given his current lack of name recognition, but I'd love to see those numbers start to go up as we approach 2020. Of all the names being floated around I think he has the best shot at appealing broadly to the Democratic coalition (simplifying a bit, I think both "Clinton Democrats" and "Sanders Democrats" would see a lot to like in him) and appealing to Midwestern swing voters in the general election.

Yes, I know he has to survive 2018 first, but I think he's actually in very good position to do so despite how badly Ohio went this time around, given his own appeal and the likelihood of 2018 being a relatively strong year for Democrats.

And why is 2020 even being discussed?

Is this a serious question? If you're a Democrat, then the next presidential election is an important thing to think about (so are the 2018 midterms of course). I'd take more 2020 talk over continually rehashing the 2016 primary any day.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

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.

Nah, Sanders just accused Clinton of criminal activity.

 

[Ether_Snake]

The thing is, Clinton spoke about policies that affected people directly, and it didn't help. For example...

"I'm a woman who cares about abortion"
"I'm LGBTQ, and I care about the Bathroom Bill"
"I'm young and I care about student debt"
"I've got a relative who's dying, and I care about the ACA"
"I live in Flint, and care about clean water"

Are all demographics that Hillary courted with policies. Now, you can argue her messaging skills were an issue, but I don't think you can do more than that with regards to policy. This election proved that policy matters less to the democratic base voting than personality or perception. It also proved that morally and ethically, a large base of Republican voters are pure shit, willing to ignore the personal failings of a candidate.

No that's not "directly", all that stuff is very generic. Bill knew he would get the left, he needed to get the rest.

Just watch the thing, it's 15mins for the part about Bill
https://youtu.be/eJ3RzGoQC4s?t=12109

This part is basically a parallel to what is happening right now. 1992 Bill Clinton was pretty much Obama 2008-2012, but then the Democrats didn't adapt to win again unlike Bill did in 1996.

Democrats need to stop playing the hope and moral high ground game, and not run an establishment pick. Focus on the swing voters.

 

[Pixieking]

The key word being 'indirectly'. Again, these people feel like they need help, and they're not getting it. You're appealing to them solely through their sense of desire to help others. That will work when they don't feel like their own security of life is at risk, but when it is? No. Again, this key swing demographic earns $30,000 or less. Abortion ain't mean shit to them when they couldn't make the food budget this week.

When I say "indirectly", I mean people for whom your swing voter has a personal relationship to. In these circumstances, "they need help, and they're not getting it" also applies to their immediate circle of friends/relatives/acquaintances. Abortion will "mean shit to them", if, for example, it's a relative who is another mouth to feed for your extended family. The ACA will matter if their mother-in-law has to have some costly treatment and in-hospital care. Whether they realise that this is all interconnected is a different matter.

As an analogy, btw, look at the Senators and Congressmen who empathised with Trump's sexual assault victims only in relation to family members. They have no ability to empathise with the women themselves, who are strangers, so they related the awful actions of Trump to their wives, mothers, daughters, sisters. If Trump had done something to those family members, it wouldn't be empathy

Also, side-note I missed earlier: Your should maybe strike out "Catholic" from your swing voter descriptor, or add-in "lapsed". Catholics are (generally speaking) against abortion, and since that's a mainstay of the Dem platform, they ain't gonna be swing voters. Non-Evangelical Christian is possibly more accurate for your swing voter.

And I don't actually think Clinton had many policies for this specific group. The ones she did have, she struggled to communicate. Clinton On The Issues has, under Clinton's manufacturing proposals, clean energy investments thrown in first. Don't get me wrong, I'm big on clean energy. But if you're the guy I described, you associate clean energy with job loss. It was clean energy that killed the mines, killed the factories, killed coal. And Clinton doesn't seem to be aware, in the slightest, how that sentiment is going to play out. To the extent there are policies for these people, the messaging is absolutely, totally, and completely wrong.

Oh, yeah, I agree that her messaging was wrong. But I think her policy was sound. I think it's the one objective failure of Hillary and her campaign - the one thing everyone probably agrees on. Her ability to sell her policies veered from okay, to absolutely terrible, and her clean energy/retraining the Rust Belt sales-pitch was shit.

 

[studyguy]

I'd take any discussion over rehashing the 2016 primary again for the Nth time.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...equire-rex-tillerson-to-turn-over-tax-returns

Republicans Won't Require Rex Tillerson To Turn Over Tax Returns


Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson will not be required to turn over his tax returns to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Despite Democrats' urging, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-TN) said in a statement that tax returns won't be required.

"He already has submitted a completed nominee questionnaire and will soon submit an extensive financial disclosure. Furthermore, prior to his confirmation hearing, he will go through the same ethics and FBI checks as previous Secretary of State nominees," Corker said in a press release.

Keep losing faith in those confirmation hearings as the days go by. Feels like more and more too many of them will go through without a hitch.

 

[plagiarize]

I know Clinton's policies. I know there was plenty for white working class people, or out of work coal miners, etc.

The problem was, that it wasn't in her messaging. Sure, you can point to a campaign rally she did in a specific state where she mentioned something, but she said a lot in a lot of states. Bernie said the same thing everywhere. Trump did too.

I don't blame someone who lost work due to their factory going out of business for not reading through the hundreds of pages of policies on Clinton's website to find the part that spoke about what Clinton would do for them.

The campaign adverts and the messaging was predominantly about how awful a person Trump was. Yes policy was mentioned in debates and interviews. Yes how bad a business person came up.

But that wasn't the main message of the campaign. It was 'do you want your daughter to hear the horrible things this man has said? No? Vote Clinton!'

Obama's central message was about what *he* was going to do. Same with Bernie. It's not a complicated formula.

I love Clinton's policies. I think they'd have been great for the country. I wanted to hear more about that. The campaign took a clear 'go negative' focus. That was a mistake. One based on data suggesting it was effective. They spoke openly about this.

Going on about how awful Trump was, while the republicans were going on about how awful Clinton was, made the whole 'both are terrible' thing disenfranchise a lot of people or turn them to third parties, and we know who that benefitted.

edit: "You can't eat equality" is such a white thing to say. If you're a black college graduate struggling to eat while a white high school drop out is earning more money than you... you kind of could eat equality, because if you had it, your wages would be much higher.

 

[TestOfTide]

No that's not "directly", all that stuff is very generic. Bill knew he would get the left, he needed to get the rest.

Just watch the thing, it's 30mins for the part about Bill https://youtu.be/eJ3RzGoQC4s?t=12109 This part is basically a parallel to what is happening right now. 1992 Bill Clinton was pretty much Obama 2008-2012, but then the Democrats didn't adapt to win again unlike Bill did in 1996.

Democrats need to stop playing the hope and moral high ground game, and not run an establishment pick.

I'm gonna need you to specify what qualifies as establishment.

Or actually I'll just cut to my point and say that whether not Dems run an "establishment" Democrat isn't that important a factor. Especially when I look at who would be great picks and bad picks to have as the POTUS nominee:

Great Picks:
- Kamala Harris
- Catherine Cortez-Masto
- Jason Kander
- Kirsten Gillibrand

Bad Picks:
- Elizabeth Warren
- Bernie Sanders
- Tulsi Gabbard
- Cory Booker (used to think otherwise, but my NJ friends say he has the stink of NJ politics on him)

What matters is that the POTUS nominee has the following factors:

- Energy and Charisma of a New Blood Democrat
- Focuses their campaign on Crminal Justice Reform, flanking the anti-trade rhetoric, and unapologetically pro-equality
- Tailors each of these three campaign focuses to the state they are running in in the primaries
- Doesn't just campaign in urban and suburban areas
- Doesn't waste time attacking the Democratic Party
- Attack Trump on his strengths. For example, feed the narrative that Trump is weak-willed and afraid to piss off his fanbase
- Checks of the "experience" box by having the running mate be an old white guy with a lot of experience (even Trump did this with his Pence pick) (For example, Sheldon Whitehouse could be a good running mate pick)
- Doesn't try to focus on every single issue. Sure throw some bones and put it on the website, but it's more important to have a lot of people know a few parts than a few people know a lot of parts.
- DON'T TELL THE DNC TO MAKE STATE RACES ABOUT THE POTUS RUN. This is important so that you can win at local and state levels even in areas where POTUS has no chance.

 

[Pixieking]

Democrats need to stop playing the hope and moral high ground game, and not run an establishment pick.

Can't watch vids right now - in the front room with people watching TV, but I've bookmarked it for later.

One thing I will say is that "not running an establishment pick" is going to be risky, if not downright stupid. I assume by that you mean an outsider, like (but not specifically) Bernie and Trump sold themselves as. But you know what? I'm going to bet that establishment is what people will want in 3-ish years, when the Primaries start.

Trump has started crazy as fuck, tanking the stock prices of multiple companies (at least temporarily), wanting more nukes, pushing people with no government or diplomatic experience, and continuing talk of a Muslim registry.

I think people - everyday Joes - are going to be very scared by January 2020, and will want a steady hand and at least some knowledge of the world. And that, to a greater or lesser degree, means an establishment pick. Because "establishment picks" are smart people, who don't get bluffed on nuclear weapons by a foreign powers, and who listen to intelligence briefings.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Can't watch vids right now - in the front room with people watching TV, but I've bookmarked it for later.

One thing I will say is that "not running an establishment pick" is going to be risky, if not downright stupid. I assume by that you mean an outsider, like (but not specifically) Bernie and Trump sold themselves as. But you know what? I'm going to bet that establishment is what people will want in 3-ish years, when the Primaries start.

Trump has started crazy as fuck, tanking the stock prices of multiple companies (at least temporarily), wanting more nukes, pushing people with no government or diplomatic experience, and continuing talk of a Muslim registry.

I think people - everyday Joes - are going to be very scared by January 2020, and will want a steady hand and at least some knowledge of the world. And that, to a greater or lesser degree, means an establishment pick. Because "establishment picks" are smart people, who don't get bluffed on nuclear weapons by a foreign powers, and who listen to intelligence briefings.

Yes I should have said "shouldn't have run an establishment pick". Who knows in 2020 what people will want, but they won't want to vote for "a party", that era is over pretty much globally.

I'm gonna need you to specify what qualifies as establishment.

Or actually I'll just cut to my point and say that whether not Dems run an "establishment" Democrat isn't that important a factor. Especially when I look at who would be great picks and bad picks to have as the POTUS nominee:

Great Picks:
- Kamala Harris
- Catherine Cortez-Masto
- Jason Kander
- Kirsten Gillibrand

Bad Picks:
- Elizabeth Warren
- Bernie Sanders
- Tulsi Gabbard
- Cory Booker (used to think otherwise, but my NJ friends say he has the stink of NJ politics on him)

What matters is that the POTUS nominee has the following factors:

- Energy and Charisma of a New Blood Democrat
- Focuses their campaign on Crminal Justice Reform, flanking the anti-trade rhetoric, and unapologetically pro-equality
- Tailors each of these three campaign focuses to the state they are running in in the primaries
- Doesn't just campaign in urban and suburban areas
- Doesn't waste time attacking the Democratic Party
- Attack Trump on his strengths. For example, feed the narrative that Trump is weak-willed and afraid to piss off his fanbase
- Checks of the "experience" box by having the running mate be an old white guy with a lot of experience (even Trump did this with his Pence pick) (For example, Sheldon Whitehouse could be a good running mate pick)
- Doesn't try to focus on every single issue. Sure throw some bones and put it on the website, but it's more important to have a lot of people know a few parts than a few people know a lot of parts.
- DON'T TELL THE DNC TO MAKE STATE RACES ABOUT THE POTUS RUN. This is important so that you can win at local and state levels even in areas where POTUS has no chance.

An establishment pick has more to do with what they say they'll do than where they come from. The amount of hate congress get from EVERY AMERICAN has risen to historic levels during the Bush years and continued on during the Obama administration. Everyone hates congress, and Trump attacked them non-stop, and even attacked his own party more than he attacked the Democrats. That's a non-establishment candidate, attacking the politicians themselves was pretty much the only thing Trump had to do.

The point is don't imagine ahead of time what the issues will be; when it's time to run look at what people are asking for specifically. Right now it was a total dislike of congress, so it's no surprise an outsider like Trump won. He's been harping on the same lines for thirty years, but NOW he ran and won because it fitted with what people really were looking for now.

An establishment pick doesn't respond to the feel of the population at the time of the election, they go with an agenda established by a party over long-term objectives.

The election is just about winning, not about what you will actually do, and to win you have to know what people respond to best to cast their vote your way at that moment.

edit: Like mentioned in the Curtis documentary, the Libs in the UK did the same with Blair, the problem was they started believing their own "swing-voter-oriented" propaganda they had devised to win the election, so the party veered right. Obviously, you want to use "propaganda" or "spin" to win those voters, and not fall for it afterwards. You use the swing voters to win, then meet them again in four years, they won't remember anything and in many cases won't even be the same people anyway.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

When I say "indirectly", I mean people for whom your swing voter has a personal relationship to. In these circumstances, "they need help, and they're not getting it" also applies to their immediate circle of friends/relatives/acquaintances. Abortion will "mean shit to them", if, for example, it's a relative who is another mouth to feed for your extended family. The ACA will matter if their mother-in-law has to have some costly treatment and in-hospital care. Whether they realise that this is all interconnected is a different matter.

As an analogy, btw, look at the Senators and Congressmen who empathised with Trump's sexual assault victims only in relation to family members. They have no ability to empathise with the women themselves, who are strangers, so they related the awful actions of Trump to their wives, mothers, daughters, sisters. If Trump had done something to those family members, it wouldn't be empathy.

Okay, ye-es to an extent, then, but I think you overstate it. For example, 46% of women are "pro-life" and think abortion should be illegal under most circumstances as of 2015. There's a strong correlation between being lower income and being pro-life - probably because when you're poorer, you need the protection of cultural and familial values more. So this guy probably doesn't know any women who'd admit to wanting or needing an abortion, certainly not that many close to him.

There's also this big assumption that being a women means you'll necessarily vote for feminism, or being Latino means you'll necessarily vote for immigration reform. It just doesn't seem to have born out. Key swing blocs of women and Latinos seem to have gone "civil rights are good and all, but they're not putting the pay in my pocket". So if this guy mostly knows those sorts of women, which is probable, he still doesn't care. They probably reinforce his views if anything - they're as concerned about the Rust Belt as he is.

You're saying: we're talking to you. They're saying: not about the issues we want to talk about most.

Also, side-note I missed earlier: Your should maybe strike out "Catholic" from your swing voter descriptor, or add-in "lapsed". Catholics are (generally speaking) against abortion, and since that's a mainstay of the Dem platform, they ain't gonna be swing voters. Non-Evangelical Christian is possibly more accurate for your swing voter.

I was picking demographics that saw the most swing from 2012 to 2016. Catholicism saw the biggest swing - as in there were more 2012 D/2016 R Catholics as a proportion of total Catholics than there were 2012 D/2016 R non-Evangelical Christians as a proportion of total non-Evangelical Christians.

It's a caricature, to an extent - very few electors will fit every single one of those criteria. It' just designed to give a rough picture of who exactly it is we're talking about. There will be people older or younger than that, of a different religion to that, with a slightly different income to that, but that is the Ur-Swing voter, the concentrate of swingness.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I like how we're relitigating the primary about two heavily flawed candidates for the seven hundredth time while Trump talks about restarting the arms race.

 

[Bronx-Man]

Kamala Harris is probably the best chance we got of winning 2020.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I like how we're relitigating the primary about two heavily flawed candidates for the seven hundredth time while Trump talks about restarting the arms race.

I mean, what else are we supposed to do? There's no winnable elected office coming up for quite some time. Trump doesn't care if we protest. Nobody really cares if we protest except people who already agree with us. All we can do is try and plan for 2018 and 2020. The best plan involves understanding why we went right in 2016. And so you end up where we are.

Like what do you want anyone to say about Trump restarting the arms race? This is a very liberal community. Nobody is going to be happy about it or defend it. Nobody can do anything about it. So we just end up with a load of "woe is us, woe, woe" posts that are even less useful than identifying critical demographics the Democrats need to win 2018 and ways that they can restructure the party in order to do so, which is what the preceding conversation was actually about.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Kamala Harris is probably the best chance we got of winning 2020.

What does she have to say to the swing voter I outlined? What shared experiences do they have that give her some credibility with which to make her message? Because, at least to me, the answers seem to be: "very little", and "nothing", which means she's not an election winner.

 

[Dominican Power]

I can't believe Putin is regurgitating the same shit that Trump is saying. Trump is such a fool.

 

[kirblar]

What does she have to say to the swing voter I outlined? What shared experiences do they have that give her some credibility with which to make her message? Because, at least to me, the answers seem to be: "very little", and "nothing", which means she's not an election winner.

What shared experiences did Trump have?

Oh wait, white male. Got it.

It's not who you are, it's charisma/message/etc- if she has "it", we'll see it in action.

 

[studyguy]

I'd be all for Harris but likely she'd just get demonized as some WEST COAST LIBERAL ELITE CLINTONISTA!!!!1

I'd like to see what she does in the coming years where CA is basically set on a warpath against the Trump administration. We might be west coast nutjob libs but if CA ends up being seen as some kind of bulwark against brash GOP politics and Harris is at the forefront along with Brown and crew... who knows. What better way to make a name for yourself than to stand against Trump.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Kamala Harris should put forth a bill to legalize weed ASAP.

Would be a very good contrast among millennials between her and Trump considering that Trump is about to start a war on weed.

 

[TestOfTide]

What does she have to say to the swing voter I outlined? What shared experiences do they have that give her some credibility with which to make her message? Because, at least to me, the answers seem to be: "very little", and "nothing", which means she's not an election winner.

Give me more specific examples (what is this swing voter's career, what are their views, and where are they from) and I'll give you answers.

Kamala Harris should put forth a bill to legalize weed ASAP.

Would be a very good contrast among millennials between her and Trump considering that Trump is about to start a war on weed.

Even going as far as "I will decriminalize weed and let every state choose if they want to fully legalize it" will be enough. And the best part is that you can tie that into a Criminal Justice Reform platform that has a big chunk about Drug Policy Reform to tackle issues like weed and opioids.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Nate Cohn has good analysis of how demographics voted, but his explanation as to why seems preettttty stupid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/u...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Nate Cohn argues that Trump's opposition to free trade won him whites without a college degree while Nate fails to grapple with a few things.

1. Iowa swung most hard to Trump despite Iowa depending heavily on trade with China.

2. People generally have no strong opinions on trade as shown by the wild partisan swings on the question "is free trade good?" depending on who is in power. WWC Dems may not like free trade much, but they also probably don't care either way.

3. Trump also had different stances (during the campaign at least) on social security and Medicare than other Republicans and those two programs affect people's lives far more than trade

 

[Deleted member 231381]

What shared experiences did Trump have?

Oh wait, white male.

Correct, yes. I mean, it helped immensely that Clinton wasn't even trying, it gave Trump a free way in - he didn't need that many shared experiences because it was his message vs. absolutely nothing, so he wins by default.