Support NeoGAF

[noshten]

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.

I said it last year... she can't win over Republicans they would fall in line even if they had Carson as a nominee, even if they had a convicted terrorist as the nominee...

So attacking Trump is an attempt to win over voters who don't vote Republican... by getting into the mud with him, by attacking 3rd parties, by attacking young people, by attacking people who question Hillary all you did was turn people off.
By not focusing on Trump but instead running a positive campaign that just outlines how you plan to actually get people out of poverty - you take away his narrative.

 

[shinra-bansho]

On an absolute scale? No. Do I think someone who voted for Obama is incredibly unlikely to vote for Trump on account of racism alone and nothing else? Yes.

I don't think Bouie is saying it's racism alone. But setting that aside. Why, exactly, to the latter question?

Why exactly are you so adamant that white working class voters, or really any voter, that voted for Barack Obama and not John McCain, or Mitt Romney, means they're essentially incapable of finding racist and xenophobic rhetoric that Trump based his candidacy on appealing enough to vote for him?

 

[Pixieking]

ACLU National Verified account
‏@ACLU

Today we published a full-page open letter in the New York Times to President-elect Trump

https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/797221936665415680

I said it last year... she can't win over Republicans they would fall in line even if they had Carson as a nominee, even if they had a convicted terrorist as the nominee...

So attacking Trump is an attempt to win over voters who don't vote Republican... by getting into the mud with him, by attacking 3rd parties, by attacking young people, by attacking people who question Hillary all you did was turn people off.
By not focusing on Trump but instead running a positive campaign that just outlines how you plan to actually get people out of poverty - you take away his narrative.

1) The negative ads were filled - top-to-bottom - with what Trump said, with people directly afraid of his rhetoric talking. That's legitimately not "getting in the mud with him".
2) "you take away his narrative". The narrative that the media helped play. The Emails were nothing. Comey letter should've been phrased as "This person is breaking the Hatch Act", not "Hillary off the hook with emails" (headline in a UK paper).

What you're missing is that the narrative requires a bi-partisan media to help convey. Did any paper focus on Hillary's mental health policy? What about her renewable energy policy? How can you drive your message, when you're the only party that is driving it? Everything Trump said and did pulled the media in, and pushed Hillary out. That's the real failure of the media - that they could've helped her speak to, say, the WWC, but they were too busy laughing at Trump's word salad, or refusing to call Rudy on his gibberish.

Edit: To that last point, from what I've heard, Morning Joe should hang their heads in shame for their "both sides" false equivalence and normalisation of Trumps words and actions.

 

[dramatis]

There is a certain irony in being arrogant about this loss when someone didn't take loss in the primary so well.

Everyone was wrong about something.

 

[noshten]

1) The negative ads were filled - top-to-bottom - with what Trump said, with people directly afraid of his rhetoric talking. That's legitimately not "getting in the mud with him".
2) "you take away his narrative". The narrative that the media helped play. The Emails were nothing. Comey letter should've been phrased as "This person is breaking the Hatch Act", not "Hillary off the hook with emails" (headline in a UK paper).

What you're missing is that the narrative requires a bi-partisan media to help convey. Did any paper focus on Hillary's mental health policy? What about her renewable energy policy? How can you drive your message, when you're the only party that is driving it? Everything Trump said and did pulled the media in, and pushed Hillary out. That's the real failure of the media - that they could've helped her speak to, say, the WWC, but they were too busy laughing at Trump's word salad, or refusing to call Rudy on his gibberish.

Edit: To that last point, from what I've heard, Morning Joe should hang their heads in shame for their "both sides" false equivalence and normalisation of Trumps words and actions.

Yes the media bares responsibilities they helped Clinton win the primaries - you are totally right

 

[Pixieking]

Yes the media bares responsibilities they helped Clinton win the primaries - you are totally right

What a vacuous comment. Genuinely, without any depth. I mean, I think you're wrong, but you could at least argue your point.

As it is, I'm putting you on ignore, because if you're willing to just push a false narrative in the belief you're right, then you're part of the problem.

 

[Diablos]

There is a certain irony in being arrogant about this loss when someone didn't take loss in the primary so well.

Everyone was wrong about something.

Yep. Even top GOP strategists had Hillary at >300 EV's.

I also think people are going to have a really hard time trusting polls for the foreseeable future.

This election turned so many things upside down, it's really hard to figure out how we pick up the pieces. God dammit, Trump.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

There is still time to droppo the oppo. If the Kompromat comes out it might sway the electors.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Yep. Even top GOP strategists had Hillary at >300 EV's.

I also think people are going to have a really hard time trusting polls for the foreseeable future.

This election turned so many things upside down, it's really hard to figure out how we pick up the pieces. God dammit, Trump.

National polls, though, were well within the margin of error for the final result

She's going to win by about 2%. Polls had her at 3-4.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I don't think Bouie is saying it's racism alone. But setting that aside. Why, exactly, to the latter question?

Why exactly are you so adamant that white working class voters, or really any voter, that voted for Barack Obama and not John McCain, or Mitt Romney, means they're essentially incapable of finding racist and xenophobic rhetoric that Trump based his candidacy on appealing enough to vote for him?

Okay, I think you are confusing two different concepts and it is immensely important you do not, so I'm going to try really separating those two concepts.

There is someone we'll call Racist A. Racist A is, at core, racist. There is no a priori reason for their racism. It is a fundamental belief of theirs, that does not depend on any other beliefs. Regardless of any other fact or explanation, they will continue to be racist. It is their sole motivating belief. Racist A did not vote for Obama. The world in which McCain won allowed more racism to occur than the world where Obama won, so they voted McCain. These people are fundamentally moral scum. There is no point in talking to them; they will never, ever vote Democrat.

There is someone we'll call Racist B. Racist B is not, at core, racist. A priori, they are worried about their livelihood, and their children's livelihood. However, someone has come along, and told them that their livelihood, and their children's livelihood, depends on them throwing out the immigrants and keeping the blacks locked up; and they don't exist in a environment that allows them to determine otherwise easily. Their sole motivating belief is that they want the best for their children; they are racist because they think it follows from that. However, if they believed otherwise (that racism did not follow from that), they would vote otherwise. Racist B could very much have voted Obama twice, then voted Trump, because Obama convinced them that the solution to their problems was not racism, and then Clinton failed to do otherwise. These people are morally bad, but they're *not* irredeemable. It is enormously important we talk to them; they can vote Democrat, and more importantly, they can not be racist.

I think that an *enormous* portion of those who supported Clinton want to pretend everyone who voted Trump is Racist A. And don't get me wrong, there are an awful lot of Racist As, and they did vote Trump. But there are also a lot of Racist Bs, and we need to do something about them. Not just for their sake, either - this isn't apologism, what they did was morally wrong - but for our own. Because without persuading them otherwise, minorities are in grave danger.

 

[The Technomancer]

Christ, okay, okay I swear I'm not going to turn this thread into a place to subtweet, but that Bernie poll thread is maddening. This is what we're in for isn't it? We're not going to learn a damn fucking thing

 

[IggyChooChoo]

I think all these endless recriminations over policy and message are a bit silly. If the GOP decides to go big on deficit spending, and we see the economy improve, and he is able to claim that it's because of tax cuts and deregulation, then we are fucked no matter who we run and what our platform is. If instead the GOP goes full Ryan plan and inflicts pain while doing nothing to help the working class, then our message will be absurdly easy. From the people he's surrounding himself with, I think it'll be more the latter.

 

[old manatee]

Christ, okay, okay I swear I'm not going to turn this thread into a place to subtweet, but that Bernie poll thread is maddening. This is what we're in for isn't it? We're not going to learn a damn fucking thing

Yeah, it's frustrating to know that the writing was on the wall and everyone just ignored it.

 

[dramatis]

Yes the media bares responsibilities they helped Clinton win the primaries - you are totally right

That's kind of funny. Did Sanders supporters ever blame themselves or their favored candidate and his campaign when he lost?

 

[The Technomancer]

Yeah, it's frustrating to know that the writing was on the wall and everyone just ignored it.

There's that, and then there's that we're going to spend the next four years arguing about "if Bernie woulda won" instead of moving forward

 

[Coriolanus]

That's kind of funny. Did Sanders supporters ever blame themselves or their favored candidate and his campaign when he lost?

If you know that nothing good will come of the discussion, why engage in it?

 

[Pixieking]

@ Crab

Absolutely. Bookmarking your post, because it really breaks it down simply, and it is so important to the discussion.

Also, for a thread that is trying to argue that Sanders purity tests would screw the Democrats over, arguing that the Trump voter is a single homogeneous racist block is cognitively dissonant.

 

[noshten]

That's kind of funny. Did Sanders supporters ever blame themselves or their favored candidate and his campaign when he lost?

I don't know, I'd preferred Warren I think she could have totally crushed Clinton because she would not have held back when attacked - she was also more well known so the media would have taken her a lot more seriously - thus she would have had a lot more media coverage

Bernie is my compromise - I honestly did see all the "problems" you guys were talking about but I didn't think anything outside of him looking like a 90 year old would actually hurt him. Also I though it would be a nice contrast to Trump once it was clear he would be the nominee.

If you read my post history I said that Clinton is Bernie's biggest test and trying to argue with me that Bernie would not beat Trump is something you are going to spend a lot of time doing if you really see it that way.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I think that an *enormous* portion of those who supported Clinton want to pretend everyone who voted Trump is Racist A. And don't get me wrong, there are an awful lot of Racist As, and they did vote Trump. But there are also a lot of Racist Bs, and we need to do something about them. Not just for their sake, either - this isn't apologism, what they did was morally wrong - but for our own. Because without persuading them otherwise, minorities are in grave danger.

I mean for all intents and purposes you're echoing that the two baskets sentiment.
And we've talked about this before though, I'm sure.

Really even racist A, while he may be a horrible unredeemable racist now, is actually a product of his environment and cultural upbringing. There are rare cases like Robert Byrd disavowing their past, but the only thing to prevent less racist A's from developing is better education.

With racist B. I agree. It may not be the true underlying motivator. It's been talked about at length that they have faced significant economic problems due to globalisation - I agree with this, and this means that minorities and social progress are an easy mark. This progress has coincided with their decline.

Where we diverge is on how reachable racist B is even with a much better candidate, even with a clone of Obama, if the GOP continues down this path now that Trump has shown that it can be successful.

Because I don't think it's necessarily saying that everyone is racist A, but rather that whether racist A or B, these voters have shown themselves as highly receptive to this type of bigotry as a "solution." And they will easily remain so. That is my pessimistic concern and expectation.

That leaves the Democrats with either trying to find some amazing candidate that can overcome this new deficit sufficiently, or finding a new way to build a workable coalition with different blocs and different states, or fundamentally changing the pluralistic philosophy of the party with regard to minorities. My other pessimistic concern is how easily people have talked about the last.

We already agree that something needs to be done to help these people regardless of what approach eventually finally gets the Democrats back in office.

 

[Aurongel]

Christ, okay, okay I swear I'm not going to turn this thread into a place to subtweet, but that Bernie poll thread is maddening. This is what we're in for isn't it? We're not going to learn a damn fucking thing

Thank god I'm not he only one.

It's been a few months since we've had a consistent flow of "Bernie Sanders wins key poll" clickbait.

 

[Coriolanus]

Where we diverge is on how reachable racist B is even with a much better candidate, even with a clone of Obama, if the GOP continues down this path now that Trump has shown that it can be successful.

Because I don't think it's necessarily saying that everyone is racist A, but rather that whether racist A or B, these voters have shown themselves as highly receptive to this type of bigotry as a "solution." And they will easily remain so. That is my pessimistic concern and expectation.

The counter-argument there would be related to poll attendance. Had it spiked, sure, you'd have quite a bit more reason to see things through that pessimistic prism. Attendance was, however, down for both sides, and quite a bit more for democrats, which, i'd say, indicates that those people can be reached and motivated to show up, as obama has done before.

Fwiw now that democrats once again have an Enemy in the WH, propaganda should be considerably easier.

 

[thehypocrite]

Christ, okay, okay I swear I'm not going to turn this thread into a place to subtweet, but that Bernie poll thread is maddening. This is what we're in for isn't it? We're not going to learn a damn fucking thing

Some people need to get it out of their system. I agree we should move on, but everyone has their I told you so moment. The goal here is to establish a dialogue that facilitates transitioning from that to doing something about the challenges in our way to desarticulate the GOP from power.

 

[Pixieking]

Trump's influence on the future of clean energy is less clear than you think

Hopeful article, kinda

For all the “war on coal” rhetoric, US coal’s biggest problem was never Obama, nor would it have been Hillary Clinton. It is cheap natural gas first, cheap renewable power second and flat electricity demand third. With endless shale gas and aging plants, the economics of US coal will continue to worsen, and individual states will continue to pursue action on reducing emissions.

In oil and gas, removing regulations on fracking and opening up US national parks and federal lands to exploration might reduce costs, but not by much. The real threat to US domestic production is low global oil and gas prices, which look like they will be with us for some extended time.

Although he portrays himself as a master dealmaker, Trump is a political novice and a divisive one. To abolish the EPA he would need the support of Congress. While both houses are controlled by Republicans, they do not have the 60 votes in the Senate needed to avoid a Democrat filibuster and act unilaterally. When it comes to the trillion dollars Trump promised to spend on roads and other infrastructure, he will face stiff opposition from fiscally conservative Republicans.

There's more, but shouldn't C&P too much.

 

[Totakeke]

The counter-argument there would be related to poll attendance. Had it spiked, sure, you'd have quite a bit more reason to see things through that pessimistic prism. Attendance was, however, down for both sides, and quite a bit more for democrats, which, i'd say, indicates that those people can be reached and motivated to show up, as obama has done before.

Fwiw now that democrats once again have an Enemy in the WH, propaganda should be considerably easier.

What are you basing your argument that attendance is down on?

 

[Diablos]

People forget that Bernie wasn't subjected to enduring constant attacks from the right in a general election campaign. These polls showing him beating Trump are a bit of a fantasy. I don't know if he could have won.

 

[Totakeke]

Trump's influence on the future of clean energy is less clear than you think

Hopeful article, kinda



There's more, but shouldn't C&P too much.

Problem isn't with Trump, we know he doesn't really have a political alignment. It's with the people that's surrounding him.

 

[Coriolanus]

What are you basing your argument that attendance is down on?

since you quoted me, imma go out on a leg and guess that more stuff came out since tuesday and it wasnt?

anyway.

 

[dramatis]

If you know that nothing good will come of the discussion, why engage in it?

It's mostly a rhetorical question.

But I imagine there are people who are probably also sandwiched between the fury of the Sanders faction and the irritation of those who supported Hillary's campaign wholeheartedly. What I want people to remember is that hypocrisy springs from everywhere, and that the domain of the purists is really not that pure.

The most immediate objective right now isn't actually gunning for rural whites. It also isn't unity with Trump. It's unity within the party.

PoliGAF has more or less moved past the stages of grief and gotten onward to discussing how to message—specifically, trying to analyze how successful Kander was. But there are repeatedly people who, four days after the general election, are still trying to relitigate a primary half a year ago, and who are buried in hypotheticals and self-convincing falsehoods rather than looking at the future. The sooner they get out of that rut the sooner we can proceed forward, and the progress won't be dictated by the people who are also losers. It has to be done through unification.

The model to look to for a future presidential candidate isn't Sanders, no matter how much they rant and rave about it. Because Sanders, contrary to what people think, didn't excite the Democratic base; they voted for Hillary. In short, the model for the Democratic Party in the future is still Obama, who excited the base and appealed broadly to moderates/rural whites whatever people would like to say is the group that decided the election.

It's weird to say it this way, but what the next candidate should have is actually something like a marriage of Hillary and Sanders (not literally) in terms of appeal, plus 'charisma'. Because neither of them were actually charismatic.

 

[Totakeke]

since you quoted me, imma go out on a leg and guess that more stuff came out since tuesday and it wasnt?

I havent seen any new confirmed data since it was clear that turnout in 2016 is higher than 2012.

 

[zethren]

Someone who voted for Trump may not be "actively racist", but they certainly voted for a man who is. And that in and of itself is enabling racism.

I don't understand why that's so tough to grasp.

 

[dramatis]

If you read my post history I said that Clinton is Bernie's biggest test and trying to argue with me that Bernie would not beat Trump is something you are going to spend a lot of time doing if you really see it that way.

The one who is trying to argue the primaries again and again aren't us, we were onto chatting Kander.

So why not move on?

 

[Pixieking]

Problem isn't with Trump, we know he doesn't really have a political alignment. It's with the people that's surrounding him.

If the "both sides" stay-at-homes had been motivated to vote down-ticket, Trump would be effectively neutered. Let's remember that we only need two Senate seats flipped in 2018, or 2 Republicans to cross the aisle before then, and we're better.

Someone who voted for Trump may not be "actively racist", but they certainly voted for a man who is. And that in and of itself is enabling racism.

I don't understand why that's so tough to grasp.

No doubt it's enabling racism. But enabling racism and actively being racist are two different things (even if the end-result is the same). Anyone who doesn't call out Farage in the UK for what he says is enabling racism, but that doesn't mean the entire country is racist.

 

[Coriolanus]

It's weird to say it this way, but what the next candidate should have is actually something like a marriage of Hillary and Sanders (not literally) in terms of appeal, plus 'charisma'. Because neither of them were actually charismatic.

ehh.....

sure, could argue that once the pinko commie stuff started, that might've dropped, but still, going out on a leg.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Really even racist A, while he may be a horrible unredeemable racist now, is actually a product of his environment and cultural upbringing. There are rare cases like Robert Byrd disavowing their past, but the only thing to prevent less racist A's from developing is better education.

I agree. It's too late for almost anyone who is racist now, but we an prevent the next generation of them with care and effort.

With racist B. I agree. It may not be the true underlying motivator. It's been talked about at length that they have faced significant economic problems due to globalisation - I agree with this, and this means that minorities and social progress are an easy mark. This progress has coincided with their decline.

Where we diverge is on how reachable racist B is even with a much better candidate, even with a clone of Obama, if the GOP continues down this path now that Trump has shown that it can be successful.

Because I don't think it's necessarily saying that everyone is racist A, but rather that whether racist A or B, these voters have shown themselves as highly receptive to this type of bigotry as a "solution." And they will easily remain so. That is my pessimistic concern and expectation.

Okay, but where now? If you genuinely don't think we can ever recapture these voters, we may as well just disappear for 20 years until they're outnumbered. Right now, the Democrats have genuinely nothing to lose - they have no political power at all. So... why not try what Sanders is selling? If you're wrong, we get power back. If you're right, and nothing changes, well, at least we didn't lose anything - there's nothing more to be lost.

 

[thehypocrite]

I mean for all intents and purposes you're echoing that the two baskets sentiment.
And we've talked about this before though, I'm sure.

Really even racist A, while he may be a horrible unredeemable racist now, is actually a product of his environment and cultural upbringing. There are rare cases like Robert Byrd disavowing their past, but the only thing to prevent less racist A's from developing is better education.

With racist B. I agree. It may not be the true underlying motivator. It's been talked about at length that they have faced significant economic problems due to globalisation - I agree with this, and this means that minorities and social progress are an easy mark. This progress has coincided with their decline.

Where we diverge is on how reachable racist B is even with a much better candidate, even with a clone of Obama, if the GOP continues down this path now that Trump has shown that it can be successful.

Because I don't think it's necessarily saying that everyone is racist A, but rather that whether racist A or B, these voters have shown themselves as highly receptive to this type of bigotry as a "solution." And they will easily remain so. That is my pessimistic concern and expectation.

That leaves the Democrats with either trying to find some amazing candidate that can overcome this new deficit sufficiently, or finding a new way to build a workable coalition with different blocs and different states, or fundamentally changing the pluralistic philosophy of the party with regard to minorities. My other pessimistic concern is how easily people have talked about the last.

We already agree that something needs to be done to help these people regardless of what approach eventually finally gets the Democrats back in office.

They vote, they have shown that when engaged with a correct message they can vote for the Democrats. Obama went to parking lots, factories and McDonald's, you had Sarah Palin going to a farm and we laughed at it, however rural America does vote, quite consistently, we have just neglected them all as a voting block. The results of the elections and what's happened at the local/state level prove that this was an incorrect strategy in the context of electoral rules and voting restrictions. We either acknowledge this issue or there's no winning anything back.

 

[Y2Kev]

I don't get why AMERICA WORKS is a bad idea. I really like it. Look, if you lose while you are genuinely talking to people with no teeth, tractors, trailers, etc. (sorry crab) then at least you can say that it IS racism. But come on-- it worked for Obama! What corrupted them in eight years?

I allow for the possibility that eight years of a black president radicalized them. I really do. But on the whole I remember Joe Biden summarizing Obama in two clauses: General Motors is alive, and Osama Bin Laden is dead. Seriously that's it. That message is for the Rust Belt.

Granted some of his appeal was enhanced by Mitt Romney being genuinely awful. The guy was Hillary Clinton with a penis when it comes to talking to people with tractors, trailers, and no teeth. But do I think racists were like, "omg this guy is black but so what"?

I think Racist B is a pretty big group.

What I don't know how to do is how to still keep racial justice issues front and center. Going to take a very skilled politician honestly. I don't think I'd mention it at all if I were in wisconsin but I can see why that would fundamentally repel someone like Pigeon.

I was thinking today that what if white voters are declining overall but white people with no teeth were increasing while white liberals were decreasing? That would mean this whole cycle could have another 20 years in it.

Anyway I joined the GOP today and got my little sticker. WHERE'S MY TAX CUT and I LOVE REINCE!!!

btw Reince as CoS is scary. The guy knows how to work congress. I'd rather it be bannon and watch as he fucks around doing nothing for four years.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I agree. It's too late for almost anyone who is racist now, but we an prevent the next generation of them with care and effort.

Okay, but where now? If you genuinely don't think we can ever recapture these voters, we may as well just disappear for 20 years until they're outnumbered. Right now, the Democrats have genuinely nothing to lose - they have no political power at all. So... why not try what Sanders is selling? If you're wrong, we get power back. If you're right, and nothing changes, well, at least we didn't lose anything - there's nothing more to be lost.

I don't know where the DNC will go, and they may well, go with what you're proposing and trying to take back these votes. And I would actually love to be wrong on this.

Where I would take issue though, is if this at any point means that, the voters that have carried the party, that have stuck with it, that voted like their lives literally depended on it, are essentially doubly punished by these voters going for Trump, by first having to live with the outcome, and then in the quest to regain this bloc become second class considerations.

I guess one issue to test this idea is immigration reform. Does this new Democratic Party still pursue this, given it's likely now anathema to these voters, and has been knocked back before by the union movement from memory.

 

[dramatis]

ehh.....

sure, could argue that once the pinko commie stuff started, that might've dropped, but still, going out on a leg.

Favorability isn't a measure of charisma though. Unless it has become such in the age of social media.

Because I'm remembering back to DNC night one (how nostalgic...), where the lineup of speakers were Booker, Michelle, Warren, then Sanders. The person people raved about the next day were neither Warren nor Sanders, it was Michelle.

Hillary and Sanders had what I guess someone earlier said was 'niche charisma', where their manner appealed in a specific way, but when stood next to real charisma, they aren't quite as good.

btw Reince as CoS is scary. The guy knows how to work congress. I'd rather it be bannon and watch as he fucks around doing nothing for four years.

Let them fight

Also Kev, use your mod powers to make Persona 5 come out faster, I need a good game in my life right now

 

[Diablos]

I was thinking today that what if white voters are declining overall but white people with no teeth were increasing while white liberals were decreasing? That would mean this whole cycle could have another 20 years in it.

Ughhh don't say that. 20 years. 😬

 

[Pixieking]

I don't get why AMERICA WORKS is a bad idea. I really like it. Look, if you lose while you are genuinely talking to people with no teeth, tractors, trailers, etc. (sorry crab) then at least you can say that it IS racism. But come on-- it worked for Obama! What corrupted them in eight years?

I allow for the possibility that eight years of a black president radicalized them. I really do. But on the whole I remember Joe Biden summarizing Obama in two clauses: General Motors is alive, and Osama Bin Laden is dead. Seriously that's it. That message is for the Rust Belt.

Granted some of his appeal was enhanced by Mitt Romney being genuinely awful. The guy was Hillary Clinton with a penis when it comes to talking to people with tractors, trailers, and no teeth. But do I think racists were like, "omg this guy is black but so what"?

I think Racist B is a pretty big group.

What I don't know how to do is how to still keep racial justice issues front and center. Going to take a very skilled politician honestly. I don't think I'd mention it at all if I were in wisconsin but I can see why that would fundamentally repel someone like Pigeon.

I was thinking today that what if white voters are declining overall but white people with no teeth were increasing while white liberals were decreasing? That would mean this whole cycle could have another 20 years in it.

Remember social geography - people generally congregate in large towns and cities in order to get work. New York, San Francisco, Seattle, etc. These places (and smaller ones too) are generally liberal, because of the younger/higher skill set demographic. I think the issue is that jobs have dried-up in the rural areas, and socially progressive causes don't flourish in those areas. Add in uneducated voters who don't understand that automation has irrevocably changed the jobs market, and you're where we are now.

I think - though it will antagonise people like Pigeon - that you don't mention socially progressive issues in certain areas. Not every area will be repelled by LGBTQ rights, but some almost certainly will, especially with the scare-mongering that the GOP do about the issue. It's not a step-back, because you can still sell that message in Seattle, but it's just pausing it in certain places.

Favorability isn't a measure of charisma though. Unless it has become such in the age of social media.

Because I'm remembering back to DNC night one (how nostalgic...), where the lineup of speakers were Booker, Michelle, Warren, then Sanders. The person people raved about the next day were neither Warren nor Sanders, it was Michelle.

Hillary and Sanders had what I guess someone earlier said was 'niche charisma', where their manner appealed in a specific way, but when stood next to real charisma, they aren't quite as good.

I think this is a bit dorky, but I think of Hillary as a real-life Daria Morgendorffer. And this appeals to me (and people like me), because we admire strong, intelligent, independent women. We find them attractive and easy to respect.

So, yes, "niche charisma" is a good way of describing it.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I couldn't possibly imagine the violent riots if the EC ever decided to not elect Trump. It would be a crisis.

 

[The Technomancer]

Remember social geography - people generally congregate in large towns and cities in order to get work. New York, San Francisco, Seattle, etc. These places (and smaller ones too) are generally liberal, because of the younger/higher skill set demographic. I think the issue is that jobs have dried-up in the rural areas, and socially progressive causes don't flourish in those areas. Add in uneducated voters who don't understand that automation has irrevocably changed the jobs market, and you're where we are now.

I think - though it will antagonise people like Pigeon - that you don't mention socially progressive issues in certain areas. Not every area will be repelled by LGBTQ rights, but some almost certainly will, especially with the scare-mongering that the GOP do about the issue. It's not a step-back, because you can still sell that message in Seattle, but it's just pausing it in certain places.

This is exactly why a 50 state strategy, or something like it, is critical in 2018. Because if you can get regional Democrats into power who don't have to campaign on LGBTQ rights in rural PA and they do well and are popular they bring momentum into 2020 that helps smooth over the regional differences when a national candidate does have to run on a coalition platform

 

[Pixieking]

This is exactly why a 50 state strategy, or something like it, is critical in 2018. Because if you can get regional Democrats into power who don't have to campaign on LGBTQ rights in rural PA and they do well and are popular they bring momentum into 2020 that helps smooth over the regional differences when a national candidate does have to run on a coalition platform

And it's why Kander has the "wow" factor - Democrat running for Senator, and he comes straight out and says he respects gun rights. Oh, he respects other things too, but gun rights, bam!

 

[thehypocrite]

I don't know where the DNC will go, and they may well, go with what you're proposing and trying to take back these votes. And I would actually love to be wrong on this.

Where I would take issue though, is if this at any point means that, the voters that have carried the party, that have stuck with it, that voted like their lives literally depended on it, are essentially doubly punished by these voters going for Trump, by first having to live with the outcome, and then in the quest to regain this bloc become second class considerations.

I guess one issue to test this idea is immigration reform. Does this new Democratic Party still pursue this, given it's likely now anathema to these voters, and has been knocked back before by the union movement from memory.

I don't think you need to sacrifice one over the other. Advertising tools are getting more targeted by the minute. You can have local offices handling local ads, state campaigns, regional campaigns and national campaigns. You also need to reach out personally to them. We know where they are, so let's engage. A good party needs to do both well enough to win. If you destroy your base while pursuing the margins your strategy was wrong. However all of these is known to the GOP so you must execute better and capitalize on their mistakes.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

And it's why Kander has the "wow" factor - Democrat running for Senator, and he comes straight out and says he respects gun rights. Oh, he respects other things too, but gun rights, bam!

It's something the GOP has been doing forever. Appeal to the single issue voters with their single issue and nobody cares the other stuff you tack onto your policy.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I don't know where the DNC will go, and they may well, go with what you're proposing and trying to take back these votes. And I would actually love to be wrong on this.

Where I would take issue though, is if this at any point means that, the voters that have carried the party, that have stuck with it, that voted like their lives literally depended on it, are essentially doubly punished by these voters going for Trump, by first having to live with the outcome, and then in the quest to regain this bloc become second class considerations.

I guess one issue to test this idea is immigration reform. Does this new Democratic Party still pursue this, given it's likely now anathema to these voters, and has been knocked back before by the union movement from memory.

Yeah, and I think we saw this in the primaries. I've seen a lot of people say that Sanders didn't reach out to the minority community. I don't think that's true for a moment. His racial rights programme was extensive and transformative. The problem is just one of trust. pigeon is never going to trust Racist B even when they're on his side because he'll always know it is conditional - the alliance depends on mutuality rather than being unilateral and unconditional. And that's a rough bone to swallow when the issue is the very right to existence for minorities. But I don't think there's any way around that. At least, I can't see one.

A leap of faith for us all, I think.

 

[JP_]

I guess one issue to test this idea is immigration reform. Does this new Democratic Party still pursue this, given it's likely now anathema to these voters, and has been knocked back before by the union movement from memory.

I think it's a mistake to assume Trump's views are suddenly mainstream majority views. GAF can be over-focused on policy when it's clear that personality (with populism) is key to elections.

Just earlier this year, more REPUBLICANS favored a path to citizenship over a wall, 2/3rd of US against deportation: http://www.gallup.com/poll/193817/republicans-favor-path-citizenship-wall.aspx

And if those numbers have shifted since then, it still suggests they're very malleable.

 

[royalan]

I think that, in these discussions, there are some important points to keep in mind that keep getting lost in the shuffle.

1) Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.
2) Over 46 million people, a hefty chunk of the electorate, did not vote.
3) Tens of thousands of people who DID vote, did not vote for the top of the ticket.
4) At the end of the day, Trump will have gotten less support than Romney.
5) The rust belt states that Hillary needed to win were lost by razor thin margins.

We can discuss the flaws of Hillary Clinton as a candidate (I mean, clearly). We can even discuss the plight of the Trump voter. But I think it's absolutely silly for Dems to start thinking that the keys to the White House lies in the Trump voter. It absolutely does not. Column A or column B racist, really who the fuck cares. It's a fun exercise to explore how Trump was able to turn them out, but Dems still have access to the dominant coalition.

What we should be focusing our energies on, is why we couldn't turn them out this time around. Not how to appeal to the voter who doesn't want to be appealed to by us when there is a guy on the right willing to directly appeal to them.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

4 isn't true for a start, royalan.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I don't get why AMERICA WORKS is a bad idea. I really like it. Look, if you lose while you are genuinely talking to people with no teeth, tractors, trailers, etc. (sorry crab) then at least you can say that it IS racism. But come on-- it worked for Obama! What corrupted them in eight years?

Well it went awfully in that show...
I just don't really know how it's paid for, not that I expect like actual costings or anything since even the campaigns don't bother with this.
And I don't get what they're making if it's manufacturing.
And I don't know how automation factors into this, is it limited to ensure greater employment.
And I don't know where these goods are actually even going, since they're not being made for any real purpose.
And I don't know whether people with no teeth and so on, actually want to work for the government.
Actually, also I don't even know if this takes the form of subsidies whether or how it violates existing trade pacts.

I was thinking today that what if white voters are declining overall but white people with no teeth were increasing while white liberals were decreasing? That would mean this whole cycle could have another 20 years in it.

Racial proportions were actually pretty close to the projected eligibility proportions, at least based on exits.

Exit polls also indicated a more educated electorate - but again I don't know how solid this data is given the problems that have happened with nonresponse.