Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 231381]

So we lie to them, like republicans do?

There is no magic wand fix for those voters, and one of the few good things a Trump presidency will bring is to prove even he or any Republican can't fix it as he promised.

This isn't an answer.

I've said: what do you do?

You've said: there's no magic wand.

Well, like sure, there's no magic fucking wand. There never is in politics. But there are still things you can do. I and other posters have talked about some of them - infrastructure projects, subsidizing manufacturing to make it profitable, making big investments in manufacturing productivity so that manufacturing can compete with cheap labour due to better capital, improved transport links. They're complicated, difficult, but they're a start. But you've gone from: there's no magic wand -> therefore we don't do anything. So you are implicitly saying: let them die.

You're Queen Antoinette, sitting atop the battlements with your "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche." Of course they didn't vote for you!

 

[Chumley]

I don't know, tell me then, what gets the message across?

Dropping the trolling attitude would be a start. "You lost, lost, lost" for example.

 

[Tubie]

Clinton was/is very, very disliked.

Run the campaign with Biden there in her place, he almost certainly wins. Clinton herself was the biggest problem. This doesn't mean that the Dems didn't have problems- we had many senate/house races running behind Clinton. But without her unfavorability issues, we are likely squeaking out those margins that we lost by here on the presidential level.

I love Hillary and even I can admit that we lost due to the candidate and not the message.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Clinton was/is very, very disliked.

Why? This isn't some exogenous factor. She's not just disliked as a fundamental force of nature. She was disliked on account of her message. As everyone on here was so keen on pointing out, as Secretary of State she had really high approval ratings. Then they tanked as she ran and people saw that she had nothing to say to them. If Biden runs on the same platform? Biden would also be disliked.

 

[mo60]

What the democrats need is a trudeau,obama or notley like candidate. Not a sanders like candidate. Trudeau, obama and notley are moderate enough to appeal to moderates while being able to appeal to people on the left. The democrats should seriously look at what trudeau and notley did to win their elections in 2015.They do also need fix their midterm problem.

 

[kirblar]

Why? This isn't some exogenous factor. She's not just disliked as a fundamental force of nature. She was disliked on account of her message. As everyone on here was so keen on pointing out, as Secretary of State she had really high approval ratings. Then they tanked as she ran and people saw that she had nothing to say to them. If Biden runs on the same platform? Biden would also be disliked.

The past 20 years of being a GOP target.

This is something that's hard to convey to you, because you're in the UK, and we're not. Just please, trust us on this one. We've lived it, we know what people think- this has been an issue with her for eons dating back to the Clinton admin and the failed Health Care bill.

 

[HariKari]

If Biden runs on the same platform? Biden would also be disliked.

Biden is more likable as a person and doesn't have her baggage following him around in the scenario where he runs. He also has a stronger association with Obama. He would have won.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Biden is more likable as a person and doesn't have her baggage following him around in the scenario where he runs. He also has a stronger association with Obama. He would have won.

And I think he's the only one who could have....

 

[Tubie]

This isn't an answer.

I've said: what do you do?

You've said: there's no magic wand.

Well, like sure, there's no magic fucking wand. There never is in politics. But there are still things you can do. I and other posters have talked about some of them - infrastructure projects, subsidizing manufacturing to make it profitable, making big investments in manufacturing productivity so that manufacturing can compete with cheap labour due to better capital, improved transport links. They're complicated, difficult, but they're a start. But you've gone from: there's no magic wand -> therefore we don't do anything. So you are implicitly saying: let them die.

You're Queen Antoinette, sitting atop the battlements with your "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche." Of course they didn't vote for you!

I never said we just ignore them, neither did Hillary now or Obama in 2008. There are things that can mitigate that disaster, but most of those things you mentioned are state level things, and when you go down to state level things you lose people's interest when you're running a national campaign, as opposed to Trump telling everyone in his rallies "you're the smart people and the media is keeping you down".

 

[soundscream]

Why? This isn't some exogenous factor. She's not just disliked as a fundamental force of nature. She was disliked on account of her message. As everyone on here was so keen on pointing out, as Secretary of State she had really high approval ratings. Then they tanked as she ran and people saw that she had nothing to say to them. If Biden runs on the same platform? Biden would also be disliked.

What? People honestly feel she is the devil. I knew she wasnt well liked going in, but I wasn't aware by how much she was despised. Voters hated Trump, but they hated her more.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

What the democrats need is a trudeau,obama or notley like candidate. Not a sanders like candidate. Trudeau, obama and notley are moderate enough to appeal to moderates while being able to appeal to people on the left. The democrats should seriously look at what trudeau or notley did to win their elections in 2015.

Trudeau's Liberal party is in the basic stages of putting forward basic income. That's not moderate.

I think some of you have a bit of a strange conception of what economic leftist populism looks like. It's not flying the red banner, singing the Internationale, and talking about the alienation of the proletariat from the means of production leading to the entrenched hegemony of the capitalist class. Nobody gives a shit about that. You end up with Orwell:

One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words ‘Socialism’ and ‘Communism’ draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.

What you want instead:

To the ordinary working man, the sort you would meet in any pub on Saturday night, Socialism does not mean much more than better wages and shorter hours and nobody bossing you about.

I actually agree with everyone in this thread Sanders talking about socialism was worse for his individual efforts than if he had not done so (although I disagree about the margin). What you want isn't the words of socialism, so tainted with academia and a culturally alien to the people who need it. It's the shape. It's someone who says: this country is rigged. You are being ripped off the by the 1%. Rich men's cheap goods from China is killing your jobs. There was dignity in manufacturing. You deserve healthcare. Your way of life is important.

Sadly, I think there's a lot of resistance to this idea, not because it wouldn't work or win, but because

Perhaps this class-breaking business isn't so simple as it looked! On the contrary, it is a wild ride into the darkness, and it may be that at the end of it the smile will be on the face of the tiger. With loving though slightly patronizing smiles we set out to greet our proletarian brothers, and behold! our proletarian brothers — in so far as we understand them — are not asking for our greetings, they are asking us to commit suicide.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

This is something that's hard to convey to you, because you're in the UK, and we're not. Just please, trust us on this one. We've lived it, we know what people think- this has been an issue with her for eons dating back to the Clinton admin and the failed Health Care bill.

You'll have to forgive me some dark laughter at this point, because you didn't know what people thought a week ago. Do you want me to find your post history on Clinton as a candidate?

 

[Chumley]

And I think he's the only one who could have....

I agree. I don't think Bernie would have pulled it off but Biden would have been untouchable.

 

[HariKari]

I actually agree with everyone in this thread Sanders talking about socialism was worse for his individual efforts than if he had not done so (although I disagree about the margin). What you want isn't the words of socialism, so tainted with academia and a culturally alien to the people who need it. It's the shape. It's someone who says: this country is rigged. You are being ripped off the by the 1%. Rich men's cheap goods from China is killing your jobs. There was dignity in manufacturing. You deserve healthcare. Your way of life is important.

States and cities are passing progressive wage and worker related legislation. Hell, in fairly red AZ we just passed mandatory sick leave and a minimum wage raise + the stipulation that it automatically goes up with inflation. People are waking up to the reality that we can't keep going with minimal protections for workers. If you look at young voters, they reject American exceptionalism and look to the successful European countries that have very favorable policies towards individual workers and enjoy tremendous productivity as a result. This is important to remember when deciding future policy positions.

The aftershock of 08 is ultimately going to be felt for the next fifty years in this country. It's responsible for a large part of Sanders support. The party needs to embrace that rather than try to bury it under various explanations.

 

[excelsiorlef]

You'll have to forgive me some dark laughter at this point, because you didn't know what people thought a week ago. Do you want me to find your post history on Clinton as a candidate?

We always knew dude, we just didn't think it would matter much as it did.

We were wrong and that fucking sucks.

 

[excelsiorlef]

States and cities are passing progressive wage and worker related legislation. Hell, in fairly red AZ we just passed mandatory sick leave and a minimum wage raise + the stipulation that it automatically goes up with inflation. People are waking up to the reality that we can't keep going with minimal protections for workers. If you look at young voters, they reject American exceptionalism and look to the successful European countries that have very favorable policies towards individual workers and enjoy tremendous productivity as a result. This is important to remember when deciding future policy positions.

The aftershock of 08 is ultimately going to be felt for the next fifty years in this country. It's responsible for a large part of Sanders support. The party needs to embrace that rather than try to bury it under various explanations.

It needs to work with Sanders but not kowtow to him.

 

[HariKari]

It needs to work with Sanders but not kowtow to him.

You say that as if he is an other, or not part of the party. After the election, he is. Taking his recommendation for Ellison - one of the few that took Trump seriously - is probably a good idea at this point. There's momentum there.

You need to restore faith in the party before you do anything else. More of the same is a sure path to irrelevance for the next eight years.

 

[Pixieking]

There is an insane and absolutely mortifying push over the last days to normalize Trump's racist/bigot/sexist base and see them as people we need to respect, that their total intolerance towards minorities and non-white people is something we need to tolerate and even love. There was a very awkward moment on Morning Joe the other day when Michael Moore made sure to draw a fine line between the hard working people who voted for him out of pain, and the ones who voted for him out of racism and hatred. Joe basically clammed up because he's the one leading the charge on MSNBC for normalizing them or downplaying them completely.

I am absolutely against normalising Trump's words and actions. The bolded is the part we have to go down, and this is not appeasement, this is understanding and realising that white working class people have different concerns to the West Coast, for example. When people are under threat from, for example, a heroin epidemic, and someone campaigns on getting rid of the Mexican drug dealers, you appeal to the people who don't understand that drug prevention and rehabilitation is the only proven route. "War on Drugs" resonates better than "Understand your addict sister"... Until your addict sister dies of an overdose.

This isn't an answer.

I've said: what do you do?

You've said: there's no magic wand.

Well, like sure, there's no magic fucking wand. There never is in politics. But there are still things you can do. I and other posters have talked about some of them - infrastructure projects, subsidizing manufacturing to make it profitable, making big investments in manufacturing productivity so that manufacturing can compete with cheap labour due to better capital, improved transport links. They're complicated, difficult, but they're a start. But you've gone from: there's no magic wand -> therefore we don't do anything. So you are implicitly saying: let them die.

Uneducated voters didn't get that Hillary's message of retraining and pushing renewable energy would've helped them. It's not an easy message (which is why she lost), but it's what needs to happen. Republicans won't run infrastructure projects, subsidize manufacturing or improve transport links, due to ideological differences in economics. Democrats understand that these things are only a part of it. Japan shows that you can't build yourself out of a depression. But, again, the Republican message is easier to understand, so it wins.

The past 20 years of being a GOP target.

This is something that's hard to convey to you, because you're in the UK, and we're not. Just please, trust us on this one. We've lived it, we know what people think- this has been an issue with her for eons dating back to the Clinton admin and the failed Health Care bill.

That she was blamed back then - and still blamed during this campaign - for her husband cheating on her shows how absolutely fucked her life is politically. If Hillary were someone's sister or daughter, people would have empathy for her every situation. But she's been vilified by the GOP for decades, and Benghazi and Emails are the logical conclusion to what started in the 80s/90s. People saying Hillary is universally disliked need to really read up on her life and political endeavors.

Vaguely related to the above: Those who say that Hillary felt entitled to winning this election have a point, but not in the way they think.

Literally the most experienced candidate ever.
Understands policy.
Religious, but not crazy.
A mother.
A lawyer who worked on behalf of family and children's rights.

She saw Aung San Kyi. She saw Angela Merkel. She saw the United States loving an African American President, and she thought it could accept a female President.

She was wrong.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Crab, your "America Works" for the Rust Belt is also terrible and doomed to failure. And they're not going to want it.

Now what?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Crab, your "America Works" for the Rust Belt is also terrible and doomed to failure. And they're not going to want it.

given you don't have any other ideas, how about we try it? You had your turn, and we held our nose and voted. Perhaps you could return the courtesy?

 

[excelsiorlef]

You say that as if he is an other, or not part of the party. After the election, he is. Taking his recommendation for Ellison - one of the few that took Trump seriously - is probably a good idea at this point. There's momentum there.

You need to restore faith in the party before you do anything else. More of the same is a sure path to irrelevance for the next eight years.

As will the purity tests that are permeating his followers...

They want people like John Lewis, Howard Dean, etc... thrown out of the party.

Ellison is great if he resigns his seat and does it full time. Bluntly though Sanders track record for who he endorses sucks, one of his endorsements won a seat (and she was endorsed by a lot of folks), most didn't make it out of the primary, he decided crazy weirdo Tim Canova because of his grudge against DWS

You keep saying more of the same.... no one is saying that... I just object to the idea that the obvious solution is to just give Sanders and his followers the keys to the party and say it's yours now which is essentially what folks have been demanding...

 

[shinra-bansho]

given you don't have any other ideas, how about we try it? You had your turn, and we held our nose and voted. Perhaps you could return the courtesy?

I had no turn in this and neither did you. And the weird glee you, and others, seem to be taking in this outcome is incredibly unbecoming. People genuinely fear for their ability to live in their country safely.

I think things like assistance and retraining into new economy jobs is the way forward, but it can't be sold properly to these voters. And you consider this handouts anyway. So really, now what?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I think things like assistance and retraining into new economy jobs is the way forward, but it can't be sold properly to these voters. And you consider this handouts anyway. So really, now what?

You keep saying this but it blatantly isn't true. Why did the Democrats win in '12 and '08 if nobody could sell this to these voters?

EDIT: Also, I chose not to respond initially, but actually, I will. There's no glee here and I think it's disgusting you would say that. There's anger. I just had to watch one of my homes being ripped from a union of friends on a wave of xenophobia and nationalism; and then watch another of my homes electing a man who induces in me an unimaginable sickness, who will worsen the lives of nearly every person in America. I've not lived in Germany, or France, or but I am what Theresa May would call a citizen of nowhere. And I am watching them too suffer. And I'm angry about that. I'm furious about that. It is incredibly important that we do not commit the same mistakes again.

 

[shinra-bansho]

You keep saying this but it blatantly isn't true. Why did the Democrats win in '12 and '08 if nobody could sell this to these voters?

I don't know. I don't have the memory for what Obama's actual policies on using education to reinvigorate economies is, if there even was one. Someone posted some old ads about NAFTA, so there's the option of lying to them like Trump.

And we're back to looking at 2012, against an opponent like Romney, and 2008 a period immediately following two unpopular wars and the brink of an economic crisis, and I guess lies about being able to bring back manufacturing by being anti-trade.

EDIT: Also, I chose not to respond initially, but actually, I will. There's no glee here and I think it's disgusting you would say that. There's anger. I just had to watch one of my homes being ripped from a union of friends on a wave of xenophobia and nationalism; and then watch another of my homes electing a man who induces in me an unimaginable sickness, who will worsen the lives of nearly every person in America. I've not lived in Germany, or France, or but I am what Theresa May would call a citizen of nowhere. And I am watching them too suffer. And I'm angry about that. I'm furious about that. It is incredibly important that we do not commit the same mistakes again.

There are myriad post-mortems and mistakes to choose from, so snidely telling people that they "lost, lost, lost" because they have a different view of what those mistakes were doesn't seem the best way to express said anger.

 

[kirblar]

You'll have to forgive me some dark laughter at this point, because you didn't know what people thought a week ago. Do you want me to find your post history on Clinton as a candidate?

2 weeks ago Clinton likely had the margins to win.

Clinton being a bad option doesn't mean that Sanders was a less bad one. I voted Obama in '08 because of her issues. Those issues were still there, but I didn't have a plausible alternative.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I just think this was a really weird election cycle where neither side threw out anyone particularly palatable and in that situation the GOP gets a built in advantage. I really don't see how Biden would have lost, though.

As far as people diablosing about the future of the country,
I'm struggling to think of how Trump could even do something worse than the last republican dude who started a foreign war for no actual reason and the SCOTUS has been reliably conservative as long as I can remember.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I just think this was a really weird election cycle where neither side threw out anyone particularly palatable and in that situation the GOP gets a built in advantage. I really don't see how Biden would have lost, though.

As far as people diablosing about the future of the country,
I'm struggling to think of how Trump could even do something worse than the last republican dude who started a foreign war for no actual reason and the SCOTUS has been reliably conservative as long as I can remember.

It's soft Con.

Kennedy likes to swing liberal in landmark cases that voting against would stain his legacy.

It's why he voted to legalize gay marriage (sexy ruling)

But was ok gutting the VRA (no one cares because it doesn't hurt white folk)

I mean seriously the VRA gutting was nary a mention in this election.

 

[Pixieking]

I just think this was a really weird election cycle where neither side threw out anyone particularly palatable and in that situation the GOP gets a built in advantage. I really don't see how Biden would have lost, though.

As far as people diablosing about the future of the country,
I'm struggling to think of how Trump could even do something worse than the last republican dude who started a foreign war for no actual reason and the SCOTUS has been reliably conservative as long as I can remember.

Look at Pence. Look at his attitudes to abortion and LGBTQ. Look at the Neo-Nazi Trump children and Bannon. Look at what's probably going to happen to the Paris Agreement.

The reason I say "probably", there, is because after Trump has said that he may just amend ACA not repeal it, I'm convinced Obama sat Trump down and schooled him for 90 minutes a couple of days ago. Trump looks a shell of his former self in the press photo following that meeting. If he even follows through on his words about ACA amendments, and maybe pushes Garland, he's okay. Otherwise...

It's soft Con.

Kennedy likes to swing liberal in landmark cases that voting against would stain his legacy.

It's why he voted to legalize gay marriage (sexy ruling)

But was ok gutting the VRA (no one cares because it doesn't hurt white folk)

I mean seriously the VRA gutting was nary a mention in this election.

Again, I want to start a non-partisan organization that can focus on things that if the Democrats said them would be buried by the media, or would have the GOP saying "Lies!".

 

[HariKari]

most didn't make it out of the primary, he decided crazy weirdo Tim Canova because of his grudge against DWS

Was he wrong about DWS or how he was treated? Do you really want DWS as part of the solution going forward? I hope not. I like Donna Brazile but her credibility is shot as well.

You keep saying more of the same.... no one is saying that... I just object to the idea that the obvious solution is to just give Sanders and his followers the keys to the party and say it's yours now which is essentially what folks have been demanding...

It's hard to drum up genuine enthusiasm. I don't really need to say that to a Clinton supporter, but it's worth remembering. It'd be far easier to throw Sanders and that bloc a few bones and get them passionate again than it would be to further alienate them with certain decisions. Policy can always be tweaked later. He's not going to run, so the party has plenty of time to pick someone appropriate, with input from all sides.

There just isn't much worth saving at this point. It doesn't need to be burnt to the ground and a great purge doesn't need to be performed, but some humility needs to be shown. I'm not really seeing it. People will continue to be disengaged until the party takes complete responsibility for what happened.

There will always be an opponent. You need to have your own house in order. Clinton didn't.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Was he wrong about DWS or how he was treated? Do you really want DWS as part of the solution going forward? I hope not. I like Donna Brazile but her credibility is shot as well.



It's hard to drum up genuine enthusiasm. I don't really need to say that to a Clinton supporter, but it's worth remembering. It'd be far easier to throw Sanders and that bloc a few bones and get them passionate again than it would be to further alienate them with certain decisions. Policy can always be tweaked later. He's not going to run, so the party has plenty of time to pick someone appropriate, with input from all sides.

There just isn't much worth saving at this point. It doesn't need to be burnt to the ground and a great purge doesn't need to be performed, but some humility needs to be shown. I'm not really seeing it. People will continue to be disengaged until the party takes complete responsibility for what happened.

There will always be an opponent. You need to have your own house in order. Clinton didn't.

Right now around here anyway its give us everyone we want and throw everyone else out, that's not a bone that's the whole skeleton.

DWS was going to win her race, Tim Canova is a crazy person.... lesser of two evils. DWS needed out of the DNC it was a waste of time and resources to get behind Tim Canova.

That to me shows questionable judgment.... alongside ya know bringing in Cornel West to the platform committee.

I want a working party not a leftist purity party... It's fucked up ya know, Sanders is definitely closer to me ideologically speaking but I don't fully believe in him, trust his judgment on who to support, and I found his campaign to be distastefully run.

I want him involved in the party, I want him to have influence, but I don't want him in the driver's seat and I think the calls to just hand it over to him reeks more of an actual coronation than what some folks accuse the DNC of doing for Clinton.

I don't believe the Sanders groups fully understands what the core base of the Democratic party is, or at least his supporters don't.

 

[kirblar]

Right now around here anyway its give us everyone we want and throw everyone else out, that's not a bone that's the whole skeleton.

DWS was going to win her race, Tim Canova is a crazy person.... lesser of two evils. DWS needed out of the DNC it was a waste of time and resources to get behind Tim Canova.

That to me shows questionable judgment.... alongside ya know bringing in Cornel West to the platform committee.

I want a working party not a leftist purity party... It's fucked up ya know, Sanders is definitely closer to be ideologically speaking but I don't fully believe in him, trust his judgment on who to support, and I found his campaign to be distastefully run.

Both Sanders and Clinton have serious problems with overvaluing loyalty.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Both Sanders and Clinton have serious problems with overvaluing loyalty.

Agreed.

 

[Pixieking]

So we're just going to forget WikiLeaks and Russia helped Trump?

In the excitement — some might say panic — surrounding Donald Trump's upset victory, many people are forgetting what helped propel him there.

Again, it's being swept under the rug because the Dems are the only ones who really really care, and anything they say is now coloured by being both the Dems, and the losers.

 

[excelsiorlef]

So we're just going to forget WikiLeaks and Russia helped Trump?



Again, it's being swept under the rug because the Dems are the only ones who really really care, and anything they say is now coloured by being both the Dems, and the losers.

Nope the narrative now is Clinton lost it all on her own, no one else has responsibility.

2020 is gonna be ugly if that's the only takeaway

 

[Pixieking]

Nope the narrative now is Clinton lost it all on her own, no one else has responsibility.

2020 is gonna be ugly if that's the only takeaway

We literally have to do everything we can to fight that narrative, because fuck that revisionism!

 

[Oblivion]

Does anyone know how 2000's gerrymander compared to 2010's? Was it less worse?

 

[Totakeke]

I just think this was a really weird election cycle where neither side threw out anyone particularly palatable and in that situation the GOP gets a built in advantage. I really don't see how Biden would have lost, though.

No one could see how Clinton would lose until she did. Same complacency and being boxed in by the entire media being wrong. It's so easy to infer something with hindsight. Why do we believe Biden would run a better campaign than Clinton? How did he do in 2008? We're just projecting personalities of candidates here now.

 

[noshten]

Clinton did lose it on her own, if the DNC wasn't tipping the scales what exactly would the Russian had leaked to wikileaks?
If Clinton focused on policy on her message on positive advertisement rather than raising money, doing fundraiser after fundraiser, concentrating on Russians trying to influence the election, doing attack ads against Trump, Johnson and Stein.

2016 was the most negative GE campaign in History and the money that was spend to make it negative was mostly coming from Clinton. Had she used that money to air a positive message, had she actually campaigned in States she lost, had she actually taken her unfavorable seriously and picked a better VP we might be in a totally different situation.

Continuing to blame things on outside factors when Hillary had full control over everything from 2014 perhaps even earlier - to run a campaign based on a positive message instead of jumping in the mud with Trump. I said it in August of last year... you guys chose to ignore the warning signs and sling mud to a greater degree than even the Clinton campaign. A lot of the posts/narratives in these threads were directly lifted from Clinton Super Pac sites and campaign emails. You continue to attack people and wonder why they don't want to do anything with you or those "great" superdelegates that didn't do their job and allowed the weakest candidate into the General election.

No one did attack ads on Johnson and Dr whogivesafuck. Also, are you actually suggesting that superdelegates should have overturned the winner of the primary, really?

Sure they didn't... what exactly is the narrative that "voting third party = voting Trump" going to achieve? What is running attack ads via a Super Pac going to achieve?

“We’ll be launching a multimillion-dollar digital campaign that talks about what’s at stake and how a vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for Donald Trump, who is against everything these voters stand for,” said Justin Barasky, a strategist for Priorities USA Action.

If they had any sort of idea about the reality of the situation and how much of a risk Clinton running in this General Election would be I would hope they would have acted differently.

The capacity of the left to end up blaming everything at themselves is impressive indeed. You don't generate messages in a vacuum. It's partly influenced by what the media latches on and Trump's insane rhetoric was what that was driving ratings. It's the same insanity as the thing called as post-debate analysis. Hillary would talk some semblance of policies during the debate, while Trump babble incoherencies, yet media (and people on this forum too) was happy to call the debates a fucking tie as if this was some game.

Debate... what about her whole 700 million war chest.. what message did she spread with that money - how much did she spend in the Rust Belt? Was it mainly talking about how awful Trump is or was it presenting a vision people could latch onto and put their hope in...

But yes continue blaming outside factors.

 

[shinra-bansho]

No one did attack ads on Johnson and Dr whogivesafuck. Also, are you actually suggesting that superdelegates should have overturned the winner of the primary, really?

Meanwhile, the Jamelle Bouie article that's probably already been posted is pretty interesting. The idea that racism is over, or you can't be racist and vote for a black person, or that there's no white privilege or fragility, among those who chose Trump, while formerly choosing Obama is essentially, the Presidential version of "but I have black friends" and "one of the good ones".

 

[Totakeke]

The capacity of the left to end up blaming everything at themselves is impressive indeed. You don't generate messages in a vacuum. It's partly influenced by what the media latches on and Trump's insane rhetoric was what that was driving ratings. It's the same insanity as the thing called as post-debate analysis. Hillary would talk some semblance of policies during the debate, while Trump babble incoherencies, yet media (and people on this forum too) was happy to call the debates a fucking tie as if this was some game.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Yes the lesson of the election is more infighting. We thought Trump was going to destroy the GOP instead it may happen to Democrats.

Actually both thoughts are hyperbole. After every general election media will say that one party has to deal with a reckoning and what not.

Everybody is forgetting that Hillary will still be winning the popular vote. Dems will still will the more votes in house races.

If running an populist was going to with them Feingold would have won. If running a centrist would have worked then bayh should have won. There is no one reason, a combination of reasons.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

No one did attack ads on Johnson and Dr whogivesafuck.

Meanwhile, the Jamelle Bouie article that's probably already been posted is pretty interesting. The idea that racism is over, or you can't be racist and vote for a black person, or that there's no white privilege or fragility, among those who chose Trump, while formerly choosing Obama is essentially, the Presidential version of "but I have black friends" and "one of the good ones".

It's a dumb article.

Somehow:

1. You are racist.
2. There is a more racist candidate (McCain)
3. There is a less racist candidate (Obama)

Leads to:

4. You vote for the less racist candidate, because it allows you to be more racist by holding it as a shield, even if the racist policies you don't want get to happen.

When the alternative was:

4. You vote for the more racist candidate, because you get to be more racist when racism is normalized, and you also get all the racist policies you actually wanted in the first place.

That's just dumb. I can't believe anyone who sit down and thought it through properly for a moment, and didn't just want to have a paper thin way to explain away reality, finds that article convincing. If the level of mental hi-jinx we're having to go to try and explain why Obama could possibly have won the white working class vote, we're not winning.

 

[Pixieking]

Clinton did lose it on her own, if the DNC wasn't tipping the scales what exactly would the Russian had leaked to wikileaks?
If Clinton focused on policy on her message on positive advertisement rather than raising money, doing fundraiser after fundraiser, concentrating on Russians trying to influence the election, doing attack ads against Trump, Johnson and Stein.

2016 was the most negative GE campaign in History and the money that was spend to make it negative was mostly coming from Clinton. Had she used that money to air a positive message, had she actually campaigned in States she lost, had she actually taken her unfavorable seriously and picked a better VP we might be in a totally different situation.

Continuing to blame things on outside factors when Hillary had full control over everything from 2014 perhaps even earlier - to run a campaign based on a positive message instead of jumping in the mud with Trump. I said it in August of last year... you guys chose to ignore the warning signs and sling mud to a greater degree than even the Clinton campaign. A lot of the posts/narratives in these threads were directly lifted from Clinton Super Pac sites and campaign emails. You continue to attack people and wonder why they don't want to do anything with you or those "great" superdelegates that didn't do their job and allowed the weakest candidate into the General election.

Absolutely reductive and revisionist.

Comey, not once, not twice, but three times. Including an unprecedented-for-the-FBI "She didn't do anything wrong, but she did something unwise".
Trump word salad about Benghazi.
Trump pushing Bill as sexual predator.

These were all outside her control.

Hillary (and her campaign) made the mistake of thinking that if she pushed how awful Trump was, then people could never vote for someone who raped his first wife, sexually assaulted women and bragged about it, pushed for Russia to hack American emails (which it did), called women ugly and pigs, was a failed businessman, and was blatantly racist towards a vast number of the population.

Absolutely any other Republican candidate would've been sunk on any one of those issues. Russia even stopped pushing Wikileaks to leak, because they thought Trump would remove himself from the race.

Were there too many negative ads? Yes. But that doesn't mean her central campaign strategy was wrong.

The capacity of the left to end up blaming everything at themselves is impressive indeed. You don't generate messages in a vacuum. It's partly influenced by what the media latches on and Trump's insane rhetoric was what that was driving ratings. It's the same insanity as the thing called as post-debate analysis. Hillary would talk some semblance of policies during the debate, while Trump babble incoherencies, yet media (and people on this forum too) was happy to call the debates a fucking tie as if this was some game.

Yup. That stupid CNN picture where it was "Hillary has to smile more during the debate, Trump has to push policies". How on God's Green Earth do you counter that, either as a candidate or as a campaign?

Edit: Also, interesting to note that pre-RNC, NeverTrumpers were pushing "Vote with your conscience", to have a candidate that wasn't Trump.

I wonder what would have happened to the Republican base if the political elite did what people wanted the DNC to do with Sanders. Both cases revolved around listening to a group that thought itself "better" than the regular voters, and everyone thought that if the GOP didn't choose Trump, they would've lost the base that voted for him during Primaries. Can someone tell me why the same wouldn't have happened with the Democrats, if Bernie had been chosen over the democratically chosen Hillary?

 

[noshten]

Absolutely reductive and revisionist.

Comey, not once, not twice, but three times. Including an unprecedented-for-the-FBI "She didn't do anything wrong, but she did something unwise".
Trump word salad about Benghazi.
Trump pushing Bill as sexual predator.

These were all outside her control.

Hillary (and her campaign) made the mistake of thinking that if she pushed how awful Trump was, then people could never vote for someone who raped his first wife, sexually assaulted women and bragged about it, pushed for Russia to hack American emails (which it did), called women ugly and pigs, was a failed businessman, and was blatantly racist towards a vast number of the population.

Absolutely any other Republican candidate would've been sunk on any one of those issues. Russia even stopped pushing Wikileaks to leak, because they thought Trump would remove himself from the race.

Were there too many negative ads? Yes. But that doesn't mean her central campaign strategy was wrong.



Yup. That stupid CNN picture where it was "Hillary has to smile more during the debate, Trump has to push policies". How on God's Green Earth do you counter that, either as a candidate or as a campaign?

Perhaps when you get into the mud don't complain to me about being muddy... even spending time talking about Trump was a mistake and I said it months and months ago

 

[shinra-bansho]

It's a dumb article.

Somehow:

1. You are racist.
2. There is a more racist candidate (McCain)
3. There is a less racist candidate (Obama)

Leads to:

4. You vote for the less racist candidate, because it allows you to be more racist by holding it as a shield, even if the racist policies you don't want get to happen.

When the alternative was:

4. You vote for the more racist candidate, because then racism is normalized - and you also get all the racist policies you actually wanted in the first place.

That's just dumb. I can't believe anyone who sit down and thought it through properly for a moment, and didn't just want to have a paper thin way to explain away reality, finds that article convincing. If the level of mental hi-jinx we're having to go to try and explain why Obama could possibly have won the white working class vote, we're not winning.

If you like, really read the article you'd figure out that he doesn't say they didn't vote for Obama just to use it as a shield. But he was still preferable to the alternative, even though he was black, and that doesn't mean that the voter can't still be racist. Especially when the alternative option was not explicitly decrying the pluralism that America has become.

Whereas when presented with someone that actually let's this genie out of the bottle i.e. Donald Trump, and presents an overt bigotry to make America great again for them, against someone who can't speak to them well and still represents a multicultural society.

I mean, is it really your proposition that someone cannot be racist if they voted for Obama?
I'm pretty sure you're at least agreed that these people were either perfectly comfortable with or outright supporting his bigotry in voting for Trump, but maybe I misremember.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I mean, is it really your proposition that someone cannot be racist if they voted for Obama?

On an absolute scale? No. You can still be ignorant, or you could be racist in that smalltown fear-of-strangers way but reluctantly go with the guy who brings the jobs. Do I think someone who voted for Obama is incredibly unlikely to vote for Trump on account of racism alone and nothing else? Yes.

 

[Coriolanus]

Bobby Jindal to be part of Trump administration?

Bobbeh movin' on up in the world

One wonders what mister J had to do to get the job. One shudders.

So we lie to them, like republicans do?

It baffles me that anyone following politics would ever ask something like that.

Or do you think hills thought for even a milisecond that any of that was getting through a republican congress?

 

[thehypocrite]

This is another thing I've noticed too.

We are acting like we lost in a landslide, Hillary won the popular vote by over 1 million (maybe 2 when its all done). Hillary's message was not the problem, part of the problem was that she made mistakes as secretary of state, and that just confirmed the picture Republicans worked hard to paint of her for the last 30 years in the eyes of many voters from both sides.

We don't need to radically change our message, because our message is good and will help all Americans, we just need a candidate that can deliver that message in 2020.

Look at the house and the senate and governors. Even if you can win the white house by turnout you are still losing the war cause you have an obstructed government.

What the democrats need is a trudeau,obama or notley like candidate. Not a sanders like candidate. Trudeau, obama and notley are moderate enough to appeal to moderates while being able to appeal to people on the left. The democrats should seriously look at what trudeau and notley did to win their elections in 2015.They do also need fix their midterm problem.

No we don't. We also need a bunch of grinders at the local level that can connect with their constituency and develop the GOTV infrastructure in these areas.

So we're just going to forget WikiLeaks and Russia helped Trump?



Again, it's being swept under the rug because the Dems are the only ones who really really care, and anything they say is now coloured by being both the Dems, and the losers.

Welcome to the global stage. This is the new normal and isn't going away. Plus, the USA does it too better than most in the past, not as good anymore.

 

[Pixieking]

Perhaps when you get into the mud don't complain to me about being muddy... even spending time talking about Trump was a mistake and I said it months and months ago

I don't understand this. Trump is and was an aberration. His first wife swore under oath in deposition that he raped her. He has no clue about policy. He literally verbally abused Hillary on a televised debate, with the "nasty woman" comment. Does anyone think that someone like that would've got through the Primaries even four years ago?

And yet, you're saying that she got muddy by showing how bad he was? Hillary was flustered though the debates repeatedly, because she came in preparing to debate policy, and he literally just ranted. Literally.

Her campaign's negative ad strategy was a solid play, barring lingering too long on it during October. There's no way you don't do what she did, 99% of the time.

 

[Diablos]

The DNC is in such bad shape and Democrats have such a narrow if not nonexistent field of inspiring candidates that I really think Trump can get re-elected if he's smart.

Don't trash Medicare, leave the popular parts of Obamacare intact, do some kind of infrastructure bill that adds jobs for 3 years (the negative effects felt by the end of the project would likely not be until after the next election), appease conservatives with ultra right wing court picks... yeah, he could do it.

Everyone blaming Clinton is a stupid idea. Does she deserve some blame? Absolutely. She made some critical mistakes. But outside factors playing a role in an election at a level never before seen is hard to overcome. Wikileaks, Russia, the partisan with hunt, fucking Comey violating the Hatch Act (as far as I am concerned) and inserting himself into the election with 11 days to go with a vague letter about Clinton's e-mails that turned out to be nothing but it was too late. She passed out on 9/11 on live television. So much stuff happened to her that she really couldn't control. She could have dealt with it better but when your back is up against the wall that much, it's hard.

On the other hand Donald Trump's words, actions, various scandals and... history still allowing him to be so successful is defying every norm of Presidential politics and utterly staining the process. It's heartbreaking. He won by speaking to the worst aspects of our society, lied so much he was probably lying to himself, incited violence. If you can win an election doing what Trump did how can ANY legit politician ever run a Presidential campaign as we knew them again? Is the future of Presidential politics emulating Donald Trump's tactics? And the fact that he could get away with SO MANY SCANDALS but omg Clinton nothingburger emails is infuriating as it is disturbing.

When I see people arguing about if WWC or minorities need to be more of a priority, I start to get worried. The simple truth is the party needs to figure out a way to appeal to everyone.

I can't see the Dems being a viable party again until they fix their shit at the state and local level. That is going to take time. They won't be able to figure it out by 2018, in fact I am not even confident they will be able to figure it out by 2020.

Really, though, the DNC failed Obama. The writing was on the wall after 2010 and then especially after 2014 and they didn't do shit. We are now paying the price by essentially being shut out nationwide with only several exceptions. Left-leaning policy is dead for quite some time, and if Trump gets re-elected especially, it's probably dead for the rest of our lives.