Support NeoGAF

[Yoda]

Happy New Year all!

My prediction for 2017: The experts got it all wrong last year and they'll get it all wrong this year too. It's going to be fun to watch.

Prediction: Most ppl will go back to being disinterested in politics, turnout in 2018 will be embarrassingly low, and the saga will continue!

 

[Wag]

Watching ABC This Week on Hulu. Sean Spicer gives me a headache.

 

[Kevitivity]

Sure. But he leverages anti-establishment rhetoric and genuinely means he wants to do x, y, and z. The problem with Bernie is that he was no Elizabeth Warren on his signature issues. Bernie was like a professional protester for decades that got things done until people finally started taking him seriously. His heart has always been in the right place so in a sense I'm happy he finally received some respect after years of being out there fighting the good fight.

You make some good points.

Bernie and Trump both campaigned for the working class, albeit with different different plans and rhetoric. Let's hope the real winners are Americans.

 

[Aaronology]

You make some good points.

Bernie and Trump both campaigned for the working class, albeit with different different plans and rhetoric. Let's hope the real winners are Americans.

Both campaigned for the white working class, sure, but only Trump understood the issue that demographic cares about.

Spoiler

It's not the economy.

 

[Kevitivity]

It absolutely was the economy in my opinion.

 

[kirblar]

You make some good points.

Bernie and Trump both campaigned for the working class, albeit with different different plans and rhetoric. Let's hope the real winners are Americans.

White working class.

It absolutely was the economy in my opinion.

Of course that's your opinion, you left out the "white."

 

[royalan]

You make some good points.

Bernie and Trump both campaigned for the working class, albeit with different different plans and rhetoric. Let's hope the real winners are Americans.

Neither Bernie Sanders nor Donald Trump campaigned on any real, workable plans that they could explain in detail.

Americans lost.

 

[Aaronology]

It absolutely was the economy in my opinion.

Your opinion is absolutely not based on facts. I just wrote about this in the OT and I'll repost the relevant bits here, as it's topical.

Sanders was not on the ballot in 2016, but his platform, his stable of endorsed candidates and the initiatives they backed were. And they under-performed Clinton in the exact same areas Bernie has criticized Democrats for neglecting the white working class. He's been silent on the losses of Strickland, Feingold et al as has his supporters. These candidates followed his playbook and were defeated by margins much greater (in some instances) than Clinton. Instead, Bernie blames the Democrat's political correctness on Trump's victory. He whines that Hillary failed to reach the WWC, and that the party didn't focus enough on the economy.

...except that in PA, MI, WI, and OH exit polls show it was Hillary Clinton who actually won voters concerned about the economy! Donald Trump wasn't carried to victory by the "economic anxiety" of the white working class at all, but by their xenophobia. That he named himself "Mr. Brexit" is amazingly appropriate in this context, is it not?

Further:
In nearly every swing state, voters preferred Hillary Clinton on the economy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/02/in-nearly-every-swing-state-voters-preferred-hillary-clinton-on-the-economy/?utm_term=.a88b5cc0bf75

The circles with bright red slices are those in which voters who thought the economy was the most important issue either preferred Trump or preferred both candidates equally. Those are all states that went for Trump. In every other state, voters most worried about the economy preferred Clinton, even though she lost eight of those states.

Trump's narrow wins in those three key states mean that any number of factors could have been the determining one. But across the country, the story told by the exit polls seems clear: Trump didn't win because people were worried about the economy. He won thanks to people who were worried about the subjects of immigration and terrorism that he started hammering on from the very first day of his campaign.

The Dangerous Myth That Hillary Clinton Ignored the Working Class
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/hillary-clinton-working-class/509477/

But among the 52 percent of voters who said economics was the most important issue in the election, Clinton beat Trump by double digits. In the vast majority of swing states, voters said they preferred Clinton on the economy. If the 2016 election had come down to economics exclusively, the working class—which, by any reasonable definition, includes the black, Hispanic, and Asian working classes, too—would have elected Hillary Clinton president.

Victory in 2020 is going to require the Left do some soul searching and earnestly attempt to analyze what went wrong and what did not go wrong. To that end Sanders is not helping. People who have convinced themselves that appealing to the "economic anxiety" of the WWC are not helping. Propagating a false narrative that the WWC actually even care about the economy as their primary issue is not helping. Constantly arguing that Sanders would have fared better in 2016 when his entire platform fared worse than Clinton's is not helping. Ignoring that his candidates who did appeal to the WWC's presumed "economic anxiety" and were soundly defeated is not helping. The truth is that we can not begin preparing ourselves for the next election if we're still squabbling over a man who never figured out why he lost his primary and clearly does not understand why the party lost the general.​

So to repeat myself: It wasn't about the economy. Hillary Clinton campaigned on the economy. She talked about jobs more than her opponent. She is the one who garnered the votes of Americans who highlighted the economy as their primary issue. And she still lost. Because for the white working class the economy was demonstrably not their primary concern. And believing it was and exclusively appealing to them on this issue is one of the reasons BernieCrats performed even worse than HRC in the Rust Belt.

If we can't be honest about why we lost how can we hope to win 2020? This is the question I'm asking everyone still carrying the torch for Bernie Sanders.


Relevant:

 

[aspiegamer]

...except that in PA, MI, WI, and OH exit polls show it was Hillary Clinton who actually won voters concerned about the economy! Donald Trump wasn't carried to victory by the "economic anxiety" of the white working class at all, but by their xenophobia. That he named himself "Mr. Brexit" is amazingly appropriate in this context, is it not?

Yup, the Brexit vote was a carbon copy of this, but the margins were even more extreme. We white folk are apparently easier to scare than ever before. I remember a word cloud thing about this last summer. Let's see if I can find it...

...And Remain voters were completely aware of what happened. One of the allegedly big talking points of Leave was mythical money flying away that could have gone toward the NHS, but all of 2% were impressed. I quoted the image due to size, sorry.

 

[dramatis]

I can't believe it's been 12 years and somebody is still stuck on Kucinich.

Those people are the reason why the primary never ends.

 

[pigeon]

You make some good points.

Bernie and Trump both campaigned for the working class, albeit with different different plans and rhetoric. Let's hope the real winners are Americans.

Campaigning for white supremacy and oppressing people of color is "campaigning for the working class"

Pretty much sums it up

 

[leroidys]

Your opinion is absolutely not based on facts. I just wrote about this in the OT and I'll repost the relevant bits here, as it's topical.

Sanders was not on the ballot in 2016, but his platform, his stable of endorsed candidates and the initiatives they backed were. And they under-performed Clinton in the exact same areas Bernie has criticized Democrats for neglecting the white working class. He's been silent on the losses of Strickland, Feingold et all as has his supporters. These candidates followed his playbook and were defeated by margins much greater (in some instances) than Clinton. Instead, Bernie blames the Democrat's political correctness on Trump's victory. He whines that Hillary failed to reach the WWC, and that the party didn't focus enough on the economy.

...except that in PA, MI, WI, and OH exit polls show it was Hillary Clinton who actually won voters concerned about the economy! Donald Trump wasn't carried to victory by the "economic anxiety" of the white working class at all, but by their xenophobia. That he named himself "Mr. Brexit" is amazingly appropriate in this context, is it not?



Further:
In nearly every swing state, voters preferred Hillary Clinton on the economy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/02/in-nearly-every-swing-state-voters-preferred-hillary-clinton-on-the-economy/?utm_term=.a88b5cc0bf75


The Dangerous Myth That Hillary Clinton Ignored the Working Class
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/hillary-clinton-working-class/509477/



Victory in 2020 is going to require the Left do some soul searching and earnestly attempt to analyze what went wrong and what did not go wrong. To that end Sanders is not helping. People who have convinced themselves that appealing to the "economic anxiety" of the WWC are not helping. Propagating a false narrative that the WWC actually even care about the economy as their primary issue is not helping. Constantly arguing that Sanders would have fared better in 2016 when his entire platform fared worse than Clinton's is not helping. Ignoring that his candidates who did appeal to the WWC's presumed "economic anxiety" and were soundly defeated is not helping. The truth is that we can not begin preparing ourselves for the next election if we're still squabbling over a man who never figured out why he lost his primary and clearly does not understand why the party lost the general.​

So to repeat myself: It wasn't about the economy. Hillary Clinton campaigned on the economy. She talked about jobs more than her opponent. She is the one who garnered the votes of Americans who highlighted the economy as their primary issue. And she still lost. Because for the white working class the economy was demonstrably not their primary concern. And believing it was and exclusively appealing to them on this issue is one of the reasons BernieCrats performed even worse than HRC in the Rust Belt.

If we can't be honest about why we lost how can we hope to win 2020? This is the question I'm asking everyone still carrying the torch for Bernie Sanders.


Relevant:

Thanks, great post. Lot to mull over here.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Instead of writing more Bernie or Hillary fanfiction, someone should review my fanfiction.

https://www.fanfiction.net/s/11774579/1/Credence

 

[mo60]

Happy New Year all!

My prediction for 2017: The experts got it all wrong last year and they'll get it all wrong this year too. It's going to be fun to watch.

I do think the experts will be right about Le Pen losing and Merkel staying in power Polls right now have le pen losing by like 25%+. Geert wilders I am not sure about yet. I'm not sure if the experts will be right about anything US politics related yet.

Like I said before the democrats should look like what trudeau and notley(especially notley since she kinda won on a populist platform) did to win their elections in 2015 and apply what they can to US politics.They should also keep a lot of hilary's platform. Trump may end up being the out of touch elite in 2020 like hilary kinda was described as in this election.

 

[ElectricThunder]

I can't believe it's been 12 years and somebody is still stuck on Kucinich.

Those people are the reason why the primary never ends.

Fair is fair though---there haven't been any truly interesting characters in the entirety of the modern history of this crazy election thing since Kucinich and Gravel back in 2008....benign history at least, as Trump lamentably counts on this front. There was no resonance at all, no lingering sentiment, for the lot otherwise of the ensemble cast. Even the Paul folks didn't stand the test of time, though largely on account of Rand running their grift and sellout brand into the ground in the times after~

I've long reckoned that Sanders at least had to take some note of Gravel's bid at the least as he was the Original Old Guy Saying "Folks, We're Running Out of Road Here!".

 

[Poodlestrike]

Your opinion is absolutely not based on facts. I just wrote about this in the OT and I'll repost the relevant bits here, as it's topical.

Sanders was not on the ballot in 2016, but his platform, his stable of endorsed candidates and the initiatives they backed were. And they under-performed Clinton in the exact same areas Bernie has criticized Democrats for neglecting the white working class. He's been silent on the losses of Strickland, Feingold et al as has his supporters. These candidates followed his playbook and were defeated by margins much greater (in some instances) than Clinton. Instead, Bernie blames the Democrat's political correctness on Trump's victory. He whines that Hillary failed to reach the WWC, and that the party didn't focus enough on the economy.

...except that in PA, MI, WI, and OH exit polls show it was Hillary Clinton who actually won voters concerned about the economy! Donald Trump wasn't carried to victory by the "economic anxiety" of the white working class at all, but by their xenophobia. That he named himself "Mr. Brexit" is amazingly appropriate in this context, is it not?



Further:
In nearly every swing state, voters preferred Hillary Clinton on the economy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/02/in-nearly-every-swing-state-voters-preferred-hillary-clinton-on-the-economy/?utm_term=.a88b5cc0bf75


The Dangerous Myth That Hillary Clinton Ignored the Working Class
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/hillary-clinton-working-class/509477/



Victory in 2020 is going to require the Left do some soul searching and earnestly attempt to analyze what went wrong and what did not go wrong. To that end Sanders is not helping. People who have convinced themselves that appealing to the "economic anxiety" of the WWC are not helping. Propagating a false narrative that the WWC actually even care about the economy as their primary issue is not helping. Constantly arguing that Sanders would have fared better in 2016 when his entire platform fared worse than Clinton's is not helping. Ignoring that his candidates who did appeal to the WWC's presumed "economic anxiety" and were soundly defeated is not helping. The truth is that we can not begin preparing ourselves for the next election if we're still squabbling over a man who never figured out why he lost his primary and clearly does not understand why the party lost the general.​

So to repeat myself: It wasn't about the economy. Hillary Clinton campaigned on the economy. She talked about jobs more than her opponent. She is the one who garnered the votes of Americans who highlighted the economy as their primary issue. And she still lost. Because for the white working class the economy was demonstrably not their primary concern. And believing it was and exclusively appealing to them on this issue is one of the reasons BernieCrats performed even worse than HRC in the Rust Belt.

If we can't be honest about why we lost how can we hope to win 2020? This is the question I'm asking everyone still carrying the torch for Bernie Sanders.


Relevant:

This is a Good Post (tm)

 

[The Technomancer]

Oh hey I'm back from my ban. Can we ignore Greenwald forever now?

(disclaimer: this is a transcript by Breitbart of a podcast, I haven't had time to listen to it myself yet

I think Breitbart is actually a fascinating case. And I do think right-wing media has had a lot more success in pioneering ways to challenge establishment authority that left-wing media has.

I think very much the same spirit that animates Breitbart was also the animating force behind Matt Drudge and, to a lesser extent, Rush Limbaugh — none of which have ever been part of or comfortable within the Republican establishment.

In fact, all of them, in varying degrees, has been very antagonistic to the Republican establishment. Certainly Drudge has and definitely Breitbart has, maybe not Rush Limbaugh quite as much, but to some degree, too.

So there’s obviously a lot of things at Breitbart that are published that I vehemently disagree with and sometimes find repellant just on an ideological basis.

But what I find really interesting about Breitbart is that it captured the ethos of a significant part of the conservative movement and the right-wing electorate, and even independents that have been completely excluded from all of the organs of establishment thought in the Republican party. And not only did that, but it was so independent in how it did it.

You know, it was extremely critical of Republican party leaders, and even today — I mean, obviously, I think it’s fair to say Breitbart has been partial to Trump, but one of the things that has actually impressed me is that even in this transition, when Trump nominates someone who’s record is at odds with the promises that Trump made that appealed to Breitbart’s writers and readers, Breitbart has been very vocal in being very critical, even of the candidate with whom they’re most closely associated with, which is Trump — which is integrity and a sort of editorial independence that I think most media outlets on both the left and the establishment right utterly lack.

And so there’s a lot of bad things I have to say about Breitbart articles and Breitbart writers, just on political grounds, but in terms of how they’re using their platform, and how they’re amplifying and channeling this independence and giving voice to people who are otherwise excluded, I think it’s all very impressive in terms of the impact they’ve been able to have.

https://soundcloud.com/stranahan/making-the-news-episode-13-glenn-greenwald

 

[Wilsongt]

Has this election resulting in almost all PoliGaffers getting banned at least once?

 

[B-Dubs]

Has this election resulting in almost all PoliGaffers getting banned at least once?

I managed to survive without a ban, and I'd prefer not to eat one by admitting this.

 

[Plinko]

Your opinion is absolutely not based on facts. I just wrote about this in the OT and I'll repost the relevant bits here, as it's topical.

Sanders was not on the ballot in 2016, but his platform, his stable of endorsed candidates and the initiatives they backed were. And they under-performed Clinton in the exact same areas Bernie has criticized Democrats for neglecting the white working class. He's been silent on the losses of Strickland, Feingold et al as has his supporters. These candidates followed his playbook and were defeated by margins much greater (in some instances) than Clinton. Instead, Bernie blames the Democrat's political correctness on Trump's victory. He whines that Hillary failed to reach the WWC, and that the party didn't focus enough on the economy.

...except that in PA, MI, WI, and OH exit polls show it was Hillary Clinton who actually won voters concerned about the economy! Donald Trump wasn't carried to victory by the "economic anxiety" of the white working class at all, but by their xenophobia. That he named himself "Mr. Brexit" is amazingly appropriate in this context, is it not?



Further:
In nearly every swing state, voters preferred Hillary Clinton on the economy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/02/in-nearly-every-swing-state-voters-preferred-hillary-clinton-on-the-economy/?utm_term=.a88b5cc0bf75


The Dangerous Myth That Hillary Clinton Ignored the Working Class
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/hillary-clinton-working-class/509477/



Victory in 2020 is going to require the Left do some soul searching and earnestly attempt to analyze what went wrong and what did not go wrong. To that end Sanders is not helping. People who have convinced themselves that appealing to the "economic anxiety" of the WWC are not helping. Propagating a false narrative that the WWC actually even care about the economy as their primary issue is not helping. Constantly arguing that Sanders would have fared better in 2016 when his entire platform fared worse than Clinton's is not helping. Ignoring that his candidates who did appeal to the WWC's presumed "economic anxiety" and were soundly defeated is not helping. The truth is that we can not begin preparing ourselves for the next election if we're still squabbling over a man who never figured out why he lost his primary and clearly does not understand why the party lost the general.​

So to repeat myself: It wasn't about the economy. Hillary Clinton campaigned on the economy. She talked about jobs more than her opponent. She is the one who garnered the votes of Americans who highlighted the economy as their primary issue. And she still lost. Because for the white working class the economy was demonstrably not their primary concern. And believing it was and exclusively appealing to them on this issue is one of the reasons BernieCrats performed even worse than HRC in the Rust Belt.

If we can't be honest about why we lost how can we hope to win 2020? This is the question I'm asking everyone still carrying the torch for Bernie Sanders.


Relevant:

I like this post, but one counterpoint:

Hillary Clinton may have campaigned on the economy, but only 9% of her commercials (where most people saw her) actually talked about her policies. The rest were about how terrible of a candidate/person Trump was. She may have campaigned on economy, but most people didn't know/hear it.

 

[chadskin]

Donald Trump told Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer in a phone call he likes him more than his GOP brethren House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a source close to the transition team said.

During a recent phone call, the president-elect “said to Schumer he likes Schumer more than Ryan and McConnell because they both wanted him to lose,” the source said. “They are Republicans and Trump knows they didn’t support him.”

http://nypost.com/2017/01/01/trump-tells-schumer-he-likes-him-more-than-other-gop-leaders/

 

[tuxfool]

http://nypost.com/2017/01/01/trump-tells-schumer-he-likes-him-more-than-other-gop-leaders/

Of course he likes Chuck Schumer, he's from NY. It all goes towards Trump's desire to be loved by New York complexes.

 

[Dan]

Has this election resulting in almost all PoliGaffers getting banned at least once?

Nope.

http://nypost.com/2017/01/01/trump-tells-schumer-he-likes-him-more-than-other-gop-leaders/

LOL. He thinks other people are as easy to manipulate as himself.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I like this post, but one counterpoint:

Hillary Clinton may have campaigned on the economy, but only 9% of her commercials (where most people saw her) actually talked about her policies. The rest were about how terrible of a candidate/person Trump was. She may have campaigned on economy, but most people didn't know/hear it.

And yet according to the stats in the post she won the economy vote even in the fabled swing states

Almost like economic anxiety actually is a smokescreen

 

[B-Dubs]

I like this post, but one counterpoint:

Hillary Clinton may have campaigned on the economy, but only 9% of her commercials (where most people saw her) actually talked about her policies. The rest were about how terrible of a candidate/person Trump was. She may have campaigned on economy, but most people didn't know/hear it.

Well, the thing is, according to that polling, they did know it. She won voters who cared the most about the economy and jobs so the message got through. She lost the WWC voters because they wanted their factory jobs, the ones they got straight out of HS and let them lead comfortable lives, back. They didn't want to hear that those jobs are gone and they need new ones, that automation is going to eat their lunch if they aren't careful. Trump basically conned them, he said he could bring that way of life back and gave them someone to blame for it leaving (hispanics). The only way to fight a conman is to let everyone know he's a conman, the issue is the e-mail crap gave people an excuse to pretend Trump wasn't a conman.

Of course he likes Chuck Schumer, he's from NY. It all goes towards Trump's desire to be loved by New York complexes.

Yup. He's nothing more than a conman who wants to be among the Manhattan elite. Dude is incredibly transparent, if the rest of the country had known him like we do his con wouldn't have worked.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Was thinking about the SoTU speech upcoming and I hope them Dems don't just sit quietly. They need a "you lie" moment and wound his ego at every turn they can. Pretty simple to show when these people don't get their jobs back that Trump was too busy on Twitter to care about them.

 

[Wilsongt]

Was thinking about the SoTU speech upcoming and I hope them Dems don't just sit quietly. They a "you lie" moment and would his ego at every turn they can. Pretty simple to show when these people don't get their jobs back that Trump was too busy on Twitter to care about them.

Democrats would get flayed, drawn, and quartered if they did what Joe Wilson did.

 

[studyguy]

Has this election resulting in almost all PoliGaffers getting banned at least once?

Nah, my bans are always more mundane.

 

[Wilsongt]

Nah, my bans are always more mundane.

Kellyanne Conway got me banned.

On that note... the POTUS tweeted yesterday.

President Obama ‏@POTUS 23h23 hours ago

It’s been the privilege of my life to serve as your President. I look forward to standing with you as a citizen. Happy New Year everybody.
12,463 replies 191,151 retweets 591,176 likes
President Obama ‏@POTUS 23h23 hours ago

From realizing marriage equality to removing barriers to opportunity, we've made history in our work to reaffirm that all are created equal.
973 replies 32,013 retweets 119,331 likes
President Obama ‏@POTUS 24h24 hours ago

We brought home more of our troops & strengthened U.S. leadership—leading with diplomacy & partnering with nations to meet global problems.
779 replies 11,467 retweets 44,587 likes
President Obama ‏@POTUS 24h24 hours ago

We traded foreign oil for clean energy, we doubled fuel efficiency standards, & we acted on a global scale to save the one planet we've got.
525 replies 13,305 retweets 43,439 likes
President Obama ‏@POTUS 24h24 hours ago

After decades of rising health care costs, today nearly every American now has access to the financial security of affordable health care.
940 replies 12,483 retweets 40,496 likes
President Obama ‏@POTUS 24h24 hours ago

Facing the worst financial crisis in 80 years, you delivered the longest streak of job growth in our history.
763 replies 19,117 retweets 55,761 likes
President Obama ‏@POTUS 24h24 hours ago

As we look ahead to the future, I wanted to take a moment to look back on the remarkable progress that you made possible these past 8 years.

Now compare that to the new person who is in charge of the twitter...

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 2h2 hours ago

Well, the New Year begins. We will, together, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 31 Dec 2016

Happy New Year to all, including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don't know what to do. Love!
80,536 replies 139,979 retweets 337,391 likes
Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 30 Dec 2016

Russians are playing @CNN and @NBCNews for such fools - funny to watch, they don't have a clue! @FoxNews totally gets it!

When America falls off a cliff, they make sure they hit every rock on the way down.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I like this post, but one counterpoint:

Hillary Clinton may have campaigned on the economy, but only 9% of her commercials (where most people saw her) actually talked about her policies. The rest were about how terrible of a candidate/person Trump was. She may have campaigned on economy, but most people didn't know/hear it.

Is that percentage based on actual number or just from first hand experience?

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

On that note... the POTUS tweeted yesterday...

Yeesh. I still can't get over the fact that this is happening.

Feels like we're shifting into some alternate time-line.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

Ignoring the Washington Post until other sources confirm stories is a better strategy every day.

If any of you only read the Post I really really suggest you broaden your media diet.

Like they have some good reporting but there are way too many articles openly pushing left propaganda and there's just too much of a slant

Also I believe I got banned for criticizing Clinton's conduct in one of the DWS threads (like, what???).

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Ignoring the Washington Post until other sources confirm stories is a better strategy every day.

If any of you only read the Post I really really suggest you broaden your media diet.

Like they have some good reporting but there are way too many articles openly pushing left propaganda and there's just too much of a slant

Also I believe I got banned for criticizing Clinton's conduct in one of the DWS threads (like, what???).

..................................................

You do know that Chris Cillizza was the main driver of "EMAILS," right?

 

[Good Job Bob]

http://nypost.com/2017/01/01/trump-tells-schumer-he-likes-him-more-than-other-gop-leaders/

Also:

At Partnership for NYC event a few wks ago, attendees were struck by Schumer defending Trump over Taiwan leader call

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/815932295060344833

 

[Aaronology]

Has this election resulting in almost all PoliGaffers getting banned at least once?

Ten years without a ban. 2 bans since October.

I like this post, but one counterpoint:

Hillary Clinton may have campaigned on the economy, but only 9% of her commercials (where most people saw her) actually talked about her policies. The rest were about how terrible of a candidate/person Trump was. She may have campaigned on economy, but most people didn't know/hear it.

Plinko, she won the significant majority of swing state voters who cared about the economy. The issue here is that the economy was not the overriding concern of the WWC.


Edit: And the only reference I've seen so far on the 9% stat is your post itself.

 

[dramatis]

Ten years without a ban. 2 bans since October.

Same here, except 8 years instead of 10.

 

[Makai]

Has this election resulting in almost all PoliGaffers getting banned at least once?

I survived

 

[Aaronology]

I survived

 

[Holmes]

I wasn't banned but only because Kev loves me

 

[Rebel Leader]

I wasn't banned but only because Kev loves me

or is that what kev wants you to believe?

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Both campaigned for the white working class, sure, but only Trump understood the issue that demographic cares about.

Spoiler

It's not the economy.

Both campaigned to address the wide myriad of reasons to be concerned about your economic future and folks experiencing hardship.

Folks looking at low living standards, automation, outsourcing, insecure retirement, rising health care costs, monopolies, etc. Regardless if minorities in the primary and general made a poor gamble with Hillary Clinton that they got burned badly on, those two didn't campaign just for whites. And Elizabeth Warren will not campaign just for whites either. The anti-establishment/stacked deck/rigged message overlaps. Unfortunately for Hillary or Bust supporters, virtually everything they claimed they couldn't afford to lose by going with alternatives tapping into this anxiety will be lost.

 

[TestOfTide]

They had 59 and Joe Lieberman. 60.

My fucking vote helped Al(the 60th) Franken into office.

Holy shit. How did you know they didn't have 60 votes in name only?

Ok first off, Frankenstein didn't take the Senate seat until AFTER he barely won the recount. And even then it didn't become 60 votes until AFTER Arlen Spectre switched back to D.

Second off, Democrats lost the Supermajority when Ted Kennedy died. So really the Democrats only had this supermajority for 6 months and only for stuff that they could get Lieberman to agree too. Or did you forget that we WERE going to have a public option until Lieberman suddenly said he would refuse to vote for one?

And lets look at just what this supermajority was: a combination of progressives, liberals, and blue dogs who could only get passed the filibuster if every single one of them agreed to vote for the bill.

Compare that with House, where Pelosi was getting a SHIT LOAD of bills passed because she didn't need every single blue dog to vote for every single bill. Oh wait you hate Pelosi because she is "establishment".

Fact is, you are wasting your time by making this all about "establishment vs antiestablishment" when really for democrats to win you will need the help of that establishment.

 

[chadskin]

@realDonaldTrump:
@CNN just released a book called "Unprecedented" which explores the 2016 race & victory. Hope it does well but used worst cover photo of me!

(He's so good with computers, he forgot to put a dot before the @CNN mention which means only those who also follow CNN can see the tweet in their timeline.)

 

[Plumbob]

Did this thread get a whole lot angrier all of a sudden?

 

[metalslimer]

Did this thread get a whole lot angrier all of a sudden?

Nowhere to direct the level of frustration most people are feeling until there is actually legislation on the table I guess.

 

[TestOfTide]

Did this thread get a whole lot angrier all of a sudden?

It's because you have too many groups fighting each other on the liberal/progressive side.

 

[Suikoguy]

Thanks Aaronology for another great post, I even bookmarked that one.

Voter data being updated will be the next big discussion, should be interesting to analyze.

 

[Plinko]

Is that percentage based on actual number or just from first hand experience?

Ten years without a ban. 2 bans since October.

Plinko, she won the significant majority of swing state voters who cared about the economy. The issue here is that the economy was not the overriding concern of the WWC.


Edit: And the only reference I've seen so far on the 9% stat is your post itself.

Somebody posted the link to the research (from a Twitter link--Pew Research, maybe?) in here weeks ago. We had a lengthy discussion about it. I'm not just pulling these numbers out of thin air.

Plus, I am not AT ALL saying the economy was the main issue. No implication was made there at all on my part. I posted a while back that I believed there were like 7 or 8 issues all at play here, but racism/sexism/Comey were top of the list.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Fact is, you are wasting your time by making this all about "establishment vs antiestablishment" when really for democrats to win you will need the help of that establishment.

Hardly. This all ends with the death of Capitalism.

 

[Aaronology]

Both campaigned to address the wide myriad of reasons to be concerned about your economic future and folks experiencing hardship.

Folks looking at low living standards, automation, outsourcing, insecure retirement, rising health care costs, monopolies, etc. Regardless if minorities in the primary and general made a poor gamble with Hillary Clinton that they got burned badly on, those two didn't campaign just for whites. And Elizabeth Warren will not campaign just for whites either. The anti-establishment/stacked deck/rigged message overlaps. Unfortunately for Hillary or Bust supporters, virtually everything they claimed they couldn't afford to lose by going with alternatives tapping into this anxiety will be lost.

The WWC did not vote for Trump because of the economy, the economy was not their overriding concern and they overwhelmingly rejected the numerous BernieCrats who ran on Sanders's economic populist platform in favor of big business republicans. You can keep painting this as a Hillary issue and I'll just keep pointing out how progressives to her left underperformed her across the board. The problem with you and the problem with Bernie Sanders is that you're too busy pushing a (false) narrative to care about what actually happened in this election. 2020 does not need the self deluded but for the Left to collectively and earnestly examine why Donald Trump won and not invent reasons in the pursuit of furthering agendas.