I ranted about this weeks ago. We cannot afford to be distracted with bullshit like this.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
I ranted about this weeks ago. We cannot afford to be distracted with bullshit like this.
Winning in 2020 shouldn't be too hard, but if anybody can bungle it, it's the Democratic Party.
Run somebody who succeeds where Hillary fails. Somebody charismatic and intelligent who can support the interests of working class voters would do pretty well... especially because everyday Americans will probably bleed even more profusely under Trump's plutocracy. A charismatic candidate who connects to working people in rhetoric and in policy and attacks Trump on his failures should be able to win.
Kamala Harris could be a good choice. Keith Ellison would be better, but the Muslim thing might unfortunately preclude him from even winning the primary.
Older and whiter candidates with moderate policies won't be able to build a coalition to crush Trump. Another John Kerry is not the way to go.
Run somebody who succeeds where Hillary fails. Somebody charismatic and intelligent who can support the interests of working class voters would do pretty well... especially because everyday Americans will probably bleed even more profusely under Trump's plutocracy. A charismatic candidate who connects to working people in rhetoric and in policy and attacks Trump on his failures should be able to win.
Kamala Harris could be a good choice. Keith Ellison would be better, but the Muslim thing might unfortunately preclude him from even winning the primary.
Older and whiter candidates with moderate policies won't be able to build a coalition to crush Trump. Another John Kerry is not the way to go.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Okay, so. They're 46-65 and live in the Rust Belt, but aren't paid very much. My guess is something like: their early career was in manufacturing or coal or something like that, but they got laid off in maybe the late '90s or around that time. They shifted to something like being a mechanic or general handyman, or maybe were just forced into retail or a relatively low-tier service position. They're probably somewhat conservative - they're not going to be keen on abortion, and they'll probably own a few guns. They won't be anti-background check, mind, if anything they probably think that is important, but they don't trust the messenger.
They have strong community values - they're not motivated by equality in the abstract, but if they have a family member struggling to get by or a cousin or friend, they'll do what little they can. They're religious, but probably don't attend church enormously often. They're very worried about the security of their community and their way of life - they know some kids who grow up round these parts get big city jobs, and they're happy for them, they guess, but they think that there's not much left here for everyone else. They feel mostly forgotten - like America used to think they were important, and now passes them by. They were union members once, perhaps still are. They really value what the unions did, and it was what used to keep them voting Democrat. They fucking hate middle management - snooty guys, not much better than themselves, who lord it over them, with their lattes and degrees, haven't done an honest day's work on their life; not like a proper working Democrat.
They gave Obama a shot in 2008 because the Republicans didn't seem to be running the economy so well, and in 2012, they either just about voted for him, mostly because of the auto bailout, or abstained, because the alternative was a guy who all the campaign adverts said wanted to ship your job to China.
They're racist in the loose sense. They don't actively hate black people - they probably don't know many if any, and the ones they do know get pigeonholed as "one of the good ones" - but they've been persuaded by decades of rhetoric that black people are the reason the government doesn't care about them. All those tax dollars are going to welfare queens when they feel like they're really struggling because they often just can't afford to do anything but cover a minimum existence - rent, food, car. It really upsets them, because they feel like they've worked hard, kept their head down, always done the right thing, and they're not given their dues because of these others. They feel like Trump will give them back some of their dignity.
They don't trust Clinton because she's too keen to help the others - she's the reason the state doesn't have any time for them, why they seem to be struggling to get from one paycheck to the next, while the big cities are doing fine. They really want the old industries back - a secure career - but she's talking about clean energy - wasn't it the clean energy that killed coal?
Like, this is the rough picture. What does Kamala Harris say to these people? And why will they believe her? Because they're the people that elections are won or lost over at the moment, and probably will be until ~2028 or so when the Sun Belt becomes the key swing region.
whyamihere
Banned
Watch Dems completely ignore their autopsy report and pull off a win in 20/24 without MN, MI, WI, PA, NH, or ME and win NC, GA, AZ, and FL.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Okay, here are my thoughts on the primaries.
1. The people who want to run for the Dem nomination next time should start proposing bills to legalize weed right now because millennials care about that.
2. Dem nominees in the future should not have been involved in major diplomatic situations or major bills that could have good or bad outcomes. Hillary's decision in Libya was the best she could make out of a bad situation, but people still dragged her over and over again because of some of the bad outcomes. The crime bill had some ideas that might have worked, but it failed in many parts.
3. Dem nominees should not have long histories in general. Hillary and Bernie could not have come out in favor of gay marriage prior to 2010 politically, but it annoyed a lot of people that they were against it in the past (and for someone who doesn't pay a ton of attention to politics, this was reasonable).
4. Full single payer health care in America is a terrible idea politically because people don't want their taxes to be raised to have their health insurance replaced with government health insurance.
5. There is no polling to suggest that voters care about free trade and Trump's trade policies are about to kill seniors so potential Dem nominations should take no stances towards free trade right now and see how Trump's trade war changes people's opinions.
1. The people who want to run for the Dem nomination next time should start proposing bills to legalize weed right now because millennials care about that.
2. Dem nominees in the future should not have been involved in major diplomatic situations or major bills that could have good or bad outcomes. Hillary's decision in Libya was the best she could make out of a bad situation, but people still dragged her over and over again because of some of the bad outcomes. The crime bill had some ideas that might have worked, but it failed in many parts.
3. Dem nominees should not have long histories in general. Hillary and Bernie could not have come out in favor of gay marriage prior to 2010 politically, but it annoyed a lot of people that they were against it in the past (and for someone who doesn't pay a ton of attention to politics, this was reasonable).
4. Full single payer health care in America is a terrible idea politically because people don't want their taxes to be raised to have their health insurance replaced with government health insurance.
5. There is no polling to suggest that voters care about free trade and Trump's trade policies are about to kill seniors so potential Dem nominations should take no stances towards free trade right now and see how Trump's trade war changes people's opinions.
No campaign is brilliant till it is. I'd like to pull as many lessons as possible from this election but at the same time everyone still seems to be working off their shellshocked hot takes. Till Sept 30th of next year I believe we'll still be working off Obama's budget iirc so I'd like to see what tumbles out of the woodwork by that point and how it plays with the electorate along with the bevy of other proposals the GOP lobs out into space.
Going this is what we need right now isn't how we ended up with Obama in the first place. Likely it could shake out much in the same way.
Hillary effectively ran to the right of Trump on trade. His jobs rhetoric in the Rust Belt was lifted from Obama verbatim.
That's not a mistake the Democrats can afford to make again.
That's not a mistake the Democrats can afford to make again.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I love how even college educated people in Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana vote based on which candidate hates black people more.
Are the University of Alabama and LSU and Ole Miss segregated or something?
It's kind of amazing that Nick Saban can get so many great black football players to move to Alabama.
Yeah, this is a terrible idea. When Trump's trade policies cause 6% real inflation, every Dem candidate should be running to the "right" of Trump on trade.
Are the University of Alabama and LSU and Ole Miss segregated or something?
It's kind of amazing that Nick Saban can get so many great black football players to move to Alabama.
Yeah, this is a terrible idea. When Trump's trade policies cause 6% real inflation, every Dem candidate should be running to the "right" of Trump on trade.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think Kamala Harris will struggle because she has absolutely *nothing* in common with this guy. She was born to wealthy parents, she went to a good university, she qualified in law, she's always lived in a big city and always in the coast. And, bluntly, she's not rural/suburban, without a college degree, originally from a poor background, white, or male, or old, or mid-Western. I don't think you need to be all of those, but I think you need to be at least one or two. Obama had two ways in - he grew up in a low-income household and came from the Midwest. One of the key points of his campaign in both '08 and '12 was being anti-globalization. He was for the auto-bailout and against NAFTA, and that was believable because he came from the Midwest, just like us. And because of his childhood, he knew what it was like to live on the margins. That was enough.
Harris is the ultimate middle class liberal's candidate. I don't think she'd win in 2020, especially if the economy continues the current recovery, and I think if you're picking her, you misunderstood exactly why Clinton just lost.
If you want a minority candidate - which I think is entirely understandable and desirable - look in a different state, and look for a different background. I think Duckworth fits the criteria, for example - and this isn't ideological self-interest saying this, because she's probably further away from my politics than Clinton was; she's relatively moderate, I just think she can also win. I struggle to spot any specifically black as opposed to generally minority Senators who I think would stand an especially strong chance, but there are probably ones in the House, which I'm much less familiar with - if there are, I hope the DNC can identify them and start taking steps to raise their profile. I'd definitely be talent-scouting for someone if I were the DNC.
Honestly, in retrospect, Obama was such a damn good candidate. It's just a shame he couldn't have been run a third time.
Harris is the ultimate middle class liberal's candidate. I don't think she'd win in 2020, especially if the economy continues the current recovery, and I think if you're picking her, you misunderstood exactly why Clinton just lost.
If you want a minority candidate - which I think is entirely understandable and desirable - look in a different state, and look for a different background. I think Duckworth fits the criteria, for example - and this isn't ideological self-interest saying this, because she's probably further away from my politics than Clinton was; she's relatively moderate, I just think she can also win. I struggle to spot any specifically black as opposed to generally minority Senators who I think would stand an especially strong chance, but there are probably ones in the House, which I'm much less familiar with - if there are, I hope the DNC can identify them and start taking steps to raise their profile. I'd definitely be talent-scouting for someone if I were the DNC.
Honestly, in retrospect, Obama was such a damn good candidate. It's just a shame he couldn't have been run a third time.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Find me a single poll that shows trade listed as one of voter's top 10 issues first.
Then tell me that people will be very anti free trade after Trump causes huge post-tax inflation with his trade wars.
Iowa didn't swing to Trump because Trump threatened their biggest buyer over and over again.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I mean, I sort of agree. I don't really think they're completely separate - what policies you run on obviously affects the narrative the public gets. But it is a single aspect of it, and by no means the whole thing.
whyamihere
Banned
I love how even college educated people in Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana vote based on which candidate hates black people more.
Are the University of Alabama and LSU and Ole Miss segregated or something?
It's kind of amazing that Nick Saban can get so many great black football players to move to Alabama.
Yeah, this is a terrible idea. When Trump's trade policies cause 6% real inflation, every Dem candidate should be running to the "right" of Trump on trade.
That's an interesting map. Especially Arizona.
Dems would need to continue to make inroads with ALL white voters - college educated and not -- to win GA.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's synonymous with the economy, which is usually the top issue.
It depends how Trump does it. If he starts putting tariffs on foreign producers of luxury goods, it could be enormously popular. I'm genuinely worried about this. The swing voter I'm talking about doesn't give a damn if the price of yachts goes up - he's never going to buy a yacht. But if yacht production comes back to America because it's cheaper to buy American than Chinese now, you bet he'll be happy - his job is back, and the people who're paying for that are rich Americans and Chinese workers, neither of whom he cares about. If Trump does that successfully, I would be really, really worried for Democratic chances.
You're assuming that the inflation rises will hit everyone. Well, no. If tariffs are raised solely on goods purchased predominantly by wealthier Americans and less so on the guy we're talking about, then the wealthy American sees the inflation and the guy we're talking about sees the job.
I mean, it just did.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Don't agree here, the most popular government service is Medicare and the most popular and successful part of the ACA was the Medicaid expansion. This might even more relevant in 2020 when Ryan has ruined Medicare. Even if establishing universal coverage is impossible, we can make incremental steps to improving coverage with our existing single payer systems by lowering the Medicare age/expanding Medicaid and allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices.
The ACA is also super unpopular and trying to defend it instead of using our existing popular and successful systems to expand coverage.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Explanations other than "free trade!" as to why Trump won rust belt whites which are far more reasonable.
1. They voted for Obama in 2008 because they would have voted for any D because of the recession, then they voted in 2012 for Obama because Romney was coming for their Medicare. They voted for Trump because Trump said he wasn't coming for their Medicare. They might vote whomever in 2020 if Trump does come for their Medicare.
2. A lot of voters don't care about issues and just liked Obama a lot because of his charisma while disliking Hillary a lot because of random fucking shit. This is shown by... Hillary having the worst favorables of any presidential candidate ever other than Trump. Nominating anyone who is liked by the general public might win these voters back.
I am specifically talking about Bernie Sanders' proposal to immediately make our health system into Britain's by taking away everyone private health insurance and replacing it with government health insurance and increasing people's taxes.
Lots of people like their health care plan and don't like taxes. It's a suicidal idea. Increasing health coverage is good. Replacing people's health insurance with government health insurance against their will is a bad political move.
1. They voted for Obama in 2008 because they would have voted for any D because of the recession, then they voted in 2012 for Obama because Romney was coming for their Medicare. They voted for Trump because Trump said he wasn't coming for their Medicare. They might vote whomever in 2020 if Trump does come for their Medicare.
2. A lot of voters don't care about issues and just liked Obama a lot because of his charisma while disliking Hillary a lot because of random fucking shit. This is shown by... Hillary having the worst favorables of any presidential candidate ever other than Trump. Nominating anyone who is liked by the general public might win these voters back.
I am specifically talking about Bernie Sanders' proposal to immediately make our health system into Britain's by taking away everyone private health insurance and replacing it with government health insurance and increasing people's taxes.
Lots of people like their health care plan and don't like taxes. It's a suicidal idea. Increasing health coverage is good. Replacing people's health insurance with government health insurance against their will is a bad political move.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Of course people would vote "against China" if China is their biggest buyer: they think that can be changed to reverse the tables or just make China disappear. People are that dumb. No one there is proud to get a paycheck from China. Makes perfect sense that a state that depends on trade with China would vote for the anti-China candidate; this is the USA, not Nigeria.
Full single payer got fucking trounced as hard as humanely possible in CO. Even with the prospect of Ryan going through his Atlas Shrugged dream of obliterating medicare and the ACA we still have the fact that people do not want massive tax increases.
Nothing seems to play worse across the board than telling people you pay more for something that will objectively help in the long run without immediate gains in the shortrun. .
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
CO single payer got trounced after tons of money got dumped in to stop it while every prominent Colorado Democrat said it was a bad idea. Also, I just said there are incremental ways to move towards universal coverage with our existing single payer systems.
And since the ACA is just as unpopular, maybe we should just give up on fixing American healthcare?
And since the ACA is just as unpopular, maybe we should just give up on fixing American healthcare?
TestOfTide
Banned
Okay now you have something more specific for me to work with. Obviously the Clinton part won't matter because remember that she didn't lose favorability until after the GOP shifted from attacking Just Obama to attacking him AND Hillary.
Now, ASSUMING that Trump fails to improve their job and livelihood, one thing that WILL appeal to them is a message of "Hey, I'm going to invest in beating China and those other countries not by isolating us from them, but by creating an American Workforce that every country in the world wants a piece of like they did right after World War 2. And I want YOU as part of that new workforce. Trump lied about your old job coming back, so I'm going to invest in getting YOU a job of the future that gives you good wages and decent benefits."
That will be one of the key ways Democrats beat Trump: Flanking the antiTrade rhetoric with rhetoric about creating the "American Workforce Everyone Wants".
If they are about community, the Kamala can also appeal to them by, when talking to voters like him, focusing on the part of a Criminal Justice Reform platform that's about Drug Policy Reform. Now I'll admit that NH is not the same as the Rust Belt, but one thing I found was VERY appealing to most voters was the Democratic concept of treating drug addiction as a medical issue instead of "an excuse to throw people in jail".
And she can also appeal to this guy by talking about how she became DA in San Francisco by defeating a corrupt bureaucrat. It was small but she can frame it as her defeating a corrupt establishemnt.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I am just really annoyed by issue polling that doesn't ask people to rank what they care about at this point.
"Are you for or against X?" could lead to 70% of people being against X while... not really caring. If the government banned paper bags and said that plastic bags had to be used, probably 75% of people would be against that, but no one change their vote based on that. And if you ask them "how much do you care about this?!?" they might just say "a great deal" for every issue to make themselves seem serious to the pollster.
Ranking what issues they care about most is a much better way to do inference on issue polling.
"Are you for or against X?" could lead to 70% of people being against X while... not really caring. If the government banned paper bags and said that plastic bags had to be used, probably 75% of people would be against that, but no one change their vote based on that. And if you ask them "how much do you care about this?!?" they might just say "a great deal" for every issue to make themselves seem serious to the pollster.
Ranking what issues they care about most is a much better way to do inference on issue polling.
2016 has shown that policy specifications mean absolute jack shit. Your campaign needs a clear vision of what your America will look like. For Trump, it's a return to some imaginary ideal where America is white, richer, and less corrupt. Hillary's campaign couldn't even decide on one slogan.
Hillary Clinton
Banned
So Obama won because he had a working class message and was believable because he was from the Midwest (even though I doubt Rust belters identify much with Chicagoans) and a low income household... And Trump won because he had a (smattering of a) working class message and was believable despite being a wealthy coastal New York billyuhnaire... and Kamala Harris will have a working class message if she decides to run, but will not be believable because she came from a middle class family...
Uhuh. I think this is called 'overfitting'.
College education separating voters really should be becoming less and less of a factor. The contrast between Republican and Democrats with college degrees is just too great now, that even if someone is college educated, if they are a white Republican, they still aren't going to be swayed from their support of the GOP.
If they have poor and utter shit education in K-12, college isn't going to suddenly make their world view completely altered, especially in the super red south.
If they have poor and utter shit education in K-12, college isn't going to suddenly make their world view completely altered, especially in the super red south.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I think this is the only good thing someone in Russia has done in 2016.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v4-atFwzCI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v4-atFwzCI
TestOfTide
Banned
Exactly. Assuming Trump fails to keep his promises of bringing those jobs back, ANYONE could easily beat Trump not by being anti-free-trade, but by outright flanking that mindset with a strong message about creating "The American Workforce that Every Country Will Want".
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Trump's plans for tariffs so far have been a 10% tariff on everything or 35% tariffs on Mexico and China and just those countries. That is not targeting luxury goods.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Clinton lost by an incredibly small margin in 3 key states. Slightly better campaigning and she wins. Has nothing to do with her as candidate or her background.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I mean, she would have won easily if her favorables were +0 instead of -10 so that's on her as a candidate.
I just don't know if her favorables had anything to do with free trade when most of the stuff that hurt her was "Benghazi!" "Whitewater!" "EMAILS!"
If Kamala Harris is for weed and doesn't have any scandals, she could do nothing else differently from Hillary and probably do 10 points better with millennials and win the election.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
No. Trump won because he didn't really need any authenticity because he was literally the only person making this message. Like, no, when they look at Trump, they don't see themselves, but at least he is trying to communicate. Clinton just isn't. So you're right, he was a wealthy coastal New York billionaire, but he was running against silence and nothingness, so it was a default win. Clinton basically chose not to contest.
I think you don't appreciate how bad a candidate Trump was *for his own side*. If you asked me to design an election winning authoritarian populist, I could come up with something much better at winning elections than Trump. Like, Le Pen for example - I mean, she won't win because of the design of the French election system, but she does what Trump does much better than he does. Trump was incredibly fortunate to be up against Clinton rather than anyone else.
In a way, that gives me hope though. I think Trump should be relatively easily beatable by the right candidate, that can point out how inauthentic his voice is and how they actually have the right plan for the Rust Belt.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
It's really hard to try to analyze the campaign regarding "the issues" when Hillary went from a 5 point lead to a 2 point lead because of EMAILS.
A lot of the reason people disliked her had nothing to do with what policies people thought she would pursue.
A lot of the reason people disliked her had nothing to do with what policies people thought she would pursue.
And_Gignac
Member
Normal people aren't traders. They don't understand not they should understand with whom they trade the most. Most traders are concentrated wealthy elites -anyway (thanks to the concentration of wealth that free trade + cronyism creates).
Trade was the boogeyman of the election, people don't need to understand or have "strong opinions" about weapons of mass destruction for it to be important in their electoral choices.
I cackle'd at his " according to our data, Clinton did the about the same than Obama in '12 with Hispanics" when she is 3 points below him.
whyamihere
Banned
Well after the Senate gives emergency powers to Trump to become the first American Empire, Warren and Kamala are going to be the dissenting Senators who are secretly funding a rebellion. It'll just be crazy once Kamala's son ends up recruiting Tiffany Trump to blow up Trump Tower based on the plans recovered from the developer's daughter.
Also in this scenario Trump nukes California and makes Kamala's son watch.
Also in this scenario Trump nukes California and makes Kamala's son watch.
Economists overwhelmingly agree that free trade is good for the average American. So if economy is your number one issue, you should support the pro-free trade side.
There's no way he can target certain industries without retaliation. A trade war will just result in prices going up for everything and lower income people getting hurt the most. Manufacturing jobs aren't coming back, if companies can't find cheap labor overseas, they'll use automation.
It shouldn't have even been that close. The fact that she still lost is a major sting against her. Gore losing to Bush by a couple hundred votes doesn't mean that Gore was basically fine, it means that Gore fucked up bad. It. Should. Not. Be. That. Close.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
The fact that Trump was anti-free trade and improved with white retired people suggests that there's a lot more going on here than free trade because anti-trade policies are terrible for retired people.
And_Gignac
Member
You know exactly what I meant. Most people in Iowa aren't "trading" with China.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Social Security and Medicare affect people's lives way more than free trade in America and Trump was the first Republican candidate to be for those programs in a fucking long time.
Yes, they are. I know exactly what you meant, but it's not true. Everyone trades- it's the basis of capitalism.
And_Gignac
Member
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Is daily kos a good site?
I'm wondering because don't recall it being one.
I'm wondering because don't recall it being one.
Chinese plant manufactures a T-Shirt. Wal-Mart buys T-Shirt from China. You buy T-Shirt from Wal-Mart.
You're trading with China. Congrats.
whyamihere
Banned
US abstains on Security Council vote on Israeli settlements. What a fuck you to Trump.
(Also this was the right thing to do)
(Also this was the right thing to do)
Economist article on the future of liberalism: http://www.economist.com/news/leade...ts-year-they-should-not-feel-defeated-so-much
They don't really say much... the comments are insane and depressing though:
They don't really say much... the comments are insane and depressing though:
And_Gignac
Member
Yeah. People ain't Walmart owners so they don't care. They are not the real "traders", the owners of the means of production to be precise. Why would they feel threatened by attacks against its Holyness Free Trade?
Because it doesn't have one tbh.
From the article:
"In the 19th century liberal reformers met change with universal education, a vast programme of public works and the first employment rights."
Omg hahaha. This article is AMAZING.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I think we'll be able to argue for raiding the military to pay for Medicare for All... Over 60 in 2020.
"Trump has filled our military with waste, fraud, and abuse! Let's cut the waste and use it to pay for Medicare."
There probably is $150B of waste in the military budget right now anyway...
"Trump has filled our military with waste, fraud, and abuse! Let's cut the waste and use it to pay for Medicare."
There probably is $150B of waste in the military budget right now anyway...
We can't resign ourselves to this. A majority of people in western countries support liberal social and economic policies. We can't let the minority of radicals have the future.
- Status