thehypocrite
Member
Explain the house, the senate and the Governors problem that democrats have if they have these fabled access to the dominant coalition. The problem is more systemic.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
Explain the house, the senate and the Governors problem that democrats have if they have these fabled access to the dominant coalition. The problem is more systemic.
The Guardian Opinion: It was the Democrats' embrace of neoliberalism that won it for Trump
Funny. Neoliberalism is exactly what they're going to get with this presidency.
soundscream
Member
We couldnt turn out the vote because the Hillary is a liar/corrupt/evil narrative was stronger then we all thought. There were people who honestly saw her as a worse option than trump. It didnt matter that she was the most qualified out of any of the people running she wasn't able to overcome the image she has been stuck with over the last 30 years because she isnt a natural politician.
I dont think Bernie would have won either because he had his own issues that would have been exploited. Biden had the best chance at holding the Obama coalition but he didn't run, and even if he did odds are he would have lost to Hillary, because non of us expected the disdain for her to be as strong as it was.
I said it a lot before the election but now I can say with 110% certainty: Obama nominating Comey as head of the FBI is the dumbest fucking thing he ever did as President. He had to know in the back of his mind that Hillary was basically a shoo-in for the 2016 nomination for his party and, given the partisan witch hunt against her, selecting a Republican to head the FBI was a huge risk. He should have picked a Democrat.
I think a lot of the issue is polarization. That explains why "red states" shifted towards the party that most clearly represented their social norm. But I can't explain why blue states elect red politicians other than the fact that the left just doesn't give a shit.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Pretty much. Let's give Clinton exactly enough votes to swing the Rust Belt. She still doesn't control the Senate. She still doesn't control the House. The Republicans still have complete control of 25 state houses, and huge amounts of influence in about 11 others. You're the ones always complaining that the Green Party and the Libertarian Party seem to overrate the Presidency and don't focus on the downballet. Where's your downballet? What was a crippled and hapless Clinton even going to do, except wield the veto again and again and again? Not that that's bad in and of itself - I'd rather Veto Clinton than Total Control Trump - but even a Clinton win wouldn't have vindicated the current state of the Democratic party.
metalslimer
Member
You're right on this. It disgusts me that we have to get these people on our side that I know would probably send me to the gas chamber if some charlatan told them it was a good idea and we ran a bad candidate.
While I don't think democrats have a systemic problem at the presidential level and this was a complete rejection of Democrats there, the systemic problems at the state level will prevent any progress at the presidential level even if we win.
soundscream
Member
NJ democratic goveners do crazy shit. Its probably the lack of fluoride in the water.
The Democrats have a shitty local game. I don't dispute that. Again, I don't think the answer to that problem is shifting to appeal to the voter open to Trump's message more than it is stronger effort to turn out voters open to OUR message.
I mean, I'm from California, the "liberal" state that's about to give Hillary her biggest margins, but who still occasionally sneaks in Republican governors and some goddamn awful state legislation.
Less national focus, more local focus. That does not have to mean playing for the Trump voter. We need to recognize, coddle, and protect OUR house. Because it's bigger.
Agreed, the aim is not just to narrowly win the presidency anymore.
But there were like 6 million Trump voters who WERE Obama voters. We have to coddle our own damn coalition. The lesson to learn is that Hillary didn't so they went somewhere where they were coddled. Yes, + racism, which they were receptive to and deserve to be condemned for.
I disagree with the "neoliberal" stuff. Trump IS an elite. Clinton IS an elite. They are all elites, but Trump's plan was explicitly neoliberalism dressed as populism (people think he's for regulation? for non-austerity?????) whereas Clinton was the opposite.
I disagree with the "neoliberal" stuff. Trump IS an elite. Clinton IS an elite. They are all elites, but Trump's plan was explicitly neoliberalism dressed as populism (people think he's for regulation? for non-austerity?????) whereas Clinton was the opposite.
Like his voters would care.
shinra-bansho
Member
I mean the House is gerrymandered to all hell. Are you talking about state legislatures though? All voters turnout less in midterms. The Democratic voting blocs don't turnout in midterms. This is particularly bad for minorities and younger voters.
The GOP picked up nine governorships in between the 2008 and 2012 elections.
The two Senators per state thing is looking pretty ass.
-----------------
Also, since, we're still in throw ideas out there mode regardless of feasibility. Why has the idea of taking the Sun Belt been abandoned now?
Texas was closer than Iowa.
Georgia and Arizona were closer than Ohio.
The GOP picked up nine governorships in between the 2008 and 2012 elections.
The two Senators per state thing is looking pretty ass.
-----------------
Also, since, we're still in throw ideas out there mode regardless of feasibility. Why has the idea of taking the Sun Belt been abandoned now?
Texas was closer than Iowa.
Georgia and Arizona were closer than Ohio.
metalslimer
Member
In order to win local elections again we need some of his voters because things are so gerrymadered. This is also the result of giving states like ND as much power in the senate as California and NY.
Unfortunately as much as I despise this I'm more and more realizing we don't have a choice unless we want to wait for his voters to die off.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think as y2kev pointed out (going by memory, apologies if it wasn't you), Hispanic voters aren't mobilized along their racial identity the way black voters are/have to be. The Hispanic vote did go Democrat... but Trump did better with it than Romney, and English speaking Hispanics who also identified as white were damn near to being a Republican win (41% by Latino Decisions, with the obvious Crosstab Warning). I feel like it's a moving target: every presidential election, the longest resident Hispanics are more integrated and more likely to vote R consequently. It doesn't feel like the trend is especially consistent.
If immigration remains at the present rate, new potential D voters turn up faster than they transition to R. But a) there's no guarantee of that happening under President Trump, and b) even at current trends, I think it's a few generations yet. Something for 2032, maybe.
Welcome to being corrected by someone with better demographic knowledge of Texas or whatever.
Frank the Great
Banned
I mean, you live in Jersey. Corzine was fucking despised here, and Christie ran as a Democrat-lite. The left is easily fooled.
thehypocrite
Member
Let's call it polarization. I would posit that these polarization has come because the DNC has punted trying to engage some of these voters that could be voting for the democrats and (they did before Obama and with Obama) we aren't trying. The focus is limited to college towns and more dense population areas. Which is a good thing but isn't enough. The party needs to do more to win more elections.
Is not shifting away from the base, is bringing more into the fold to make the base even stronger for all. This is politics, social compromise is implied. This is something that Obama gets too much and we don't get enough.
newshinycd
Member
Romney got 60,933,504 votes. Trump currently has 60,072,551 votes. Now as a percentage of those that voted, then number 4 would be wrong.
We don't have access to that coalition. For whatever reason, Democrats don't turnout to vote. But it's not just that. Democrats are letting the GOP run uncontested seats, especially at state legislature levels.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
There are significantly more votes to count. Cohn points out that Trump can be predicted to finish well above Romney.
People give the slow-but-steady move towards liberal issues a lot of stick, but think of the population. A woman born 100 years ago voted for Clinton, and she will have lived through so much that was once socially acceptable but isn't anymore. She may have some lingering racial or sexual issues, but she still voted for Hillary. Go back 40 years and you had segregated diners - no doubt some of the people who found desegregating those places distasteful are still alive and voting today.
It's easy to think that because we're in 20-fucking-16, the voting population is either liberal or racist, but the truth is it's a gradual shift, and Trump being elected shows that.
Just be wary of Guardian Opinion pieces. That famous Jonathan Freedland "But Are Games Art?" article was a Guardian Opinion piece.
I think they'll care if those magical jobs that he promised doesn't come. Care enough to kick him out of office? Who knows..
He's just going to blame democrats somehow. I'm sure it's Nancy Pelosi's fault. Bitch!
I think that may account for the Bush population who saw him in the running as a joke.
My experience in TX, I ran into many people who would fall into that line of thought.
So educate people. Get out there! What do local offices and the DNC actually do? Bloody hell! It shouldn't be hard to walk into a below-poverty-line household in rural Michigan and say to the man of the house, "You voted for this guy based on better jobs. If you and your friends don't have better jobs, then punish the Fat Cats in Washington with your vote in 2018." Lay it out for him in a colorful leaflet with "Make America Great Again" on one side, and photo of his local community on the other.
metalslimer
Member
I will say while I won't oppose an infrastructure bill if it actually helps because it's so desperately needed, I think it will give a lot of leeway. We can't say we tried to pass infrastructure and Republicans blocked it for 8 years. Of course this requires Trump getting that bill pass McConnell and Ryan
On the other hand if he doesn't start mass deporting people and building the wall maybe some of these idiots will just stop voting.
On the other hand if he doesn't start mass deporting people and building the wall maybe some of these idiots will just stop voting.
It's the anti-trade & $1 trillion jobs program thing. Right nationalists dislike international connections and don't mind government spending so long as it's focused on the Volk, since they view capitalism as a degenerate (((cosmopolitan))) system that doesn't primarily benefit the people but the (((elites))), though they like it better than socialism since they could still get rich. Most of Trump's supporters probably don't understand fascist economics but he sure has a bunch that do.
newshinycd
Member
"There are no excuses for the GOP now that they have the House, Senate and Presidency." Talk radio has been echoing this to their listeners now that Trump won. Which makes me wonder how their listeners will react. Some are already getting pissy because Trump is backing down off some of his promises.
This is exactly the reason why I think the Senate keeps the filibuster. They need that scapegoat.
shinra-bansho
Member
The outsized power of small states isn't just in the Senate.
Fun?
Fact.
Because there are 19 solid red states and only 8 solid blue states, the GOP essentially starts the Presidential race with 22 EV advantage that doesn't reflect their population, since the EVs of a state are decided based on the number of Senators and Congresspeople.
Edit: wrong on DC. Would still get 3.
It's probably part of why the divergence between the popular vote and electoral college will continue to happen in GOP wins.
Fun?
Depressing? Angering?
Because there are 19 solid red states and only 8 solid blue states, the GOP essentially starts the Presidential race with 22 EV advantage that doesn't reflect their population, since the EVs of a state are decided based on the number of Senators and Congresspeople.
Edit: wrong on DC. Would still get 3.
It's probably part of why the divergence between the popular vote and electoral college will continue to happen in GOP wins.
gutter_trash
Banned
faceplam
Pretty much this, the true example of Neoliberlisim is Reaganomics and Thatcherism, Reagan was no Liberal.
UK newspapers have completely lost credibility anyway after what happened this summer
cartoon_soldier
Member
The election results are being over analyzed, similar to 2008 and 2012.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Part of why the DNC chair becoming a politicized position is so terrible is because it makes coordinating the kind of message we'll need for 2018 and 2020 a lot harder. We need to be able to say one thing to the rust belt and another to the coasts, which is tough if every decision the party chair makes is put under a public microscope. How do you get away with saying "Look, Trump failed to bring back your jobs, vote for us we'll do it" to Joe Machinist while simultaneously talking up renewables to the Sun Belt and high-tech to the blue-ing south?
We also need to start making those overtures NOW, so if Bernie could kindly STFU and let the process roll out quietly that would be great.
We also need to start making those overtures NOW, so if Bernie could kindly STFU and let the process roll out quietly that would be great.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I don't really know what neoliberalism is; I've written about this before. I think in this context y2kev probably means laissez-faire, and I don't think that's right. Most genuine laissez-faire ideologues I know detest Trump and his conception of the market. They think the kind of corporate charity that allowed Trump's business to survive bankruptcy after bankruptcy is sickening; that allowing a bank CEO to be in charge of banking is a wolf to the sheep. Trump isn't a neoliberal in the sense of someone embracing laissez-faire, Friedmanite economics; and I say that as someone who thinks most laissez-faire doctrine is a pile of harmful nonsense. He's a corporatist. He's hidden it as the opposite, but his ideology is the fusion of corporate and governmental power. His markets aren't free, they're controlled by monopolies and oligopolies that express themselves in the state as well.
sphagnum/benji this is where you quote Mussolini
i know its a misattribution but its so true
i know its a misattribution but its so true
Admittedly, I do think there exists a "soft" Trump voter who voted for him for a mix of factors (caught up in Trump's populist fervor, too turned off by Clinton baggage, Comey, etc), and could vote Democratic under the right circumstances.
But looking at the vote totals, looking at the margins, I don't believe that demo is large enough to risk turning off the members of the Democratic coalition who WOULD be turned off by a more direct appeal to that group.
I mean, I think it's time to accept WHY Trump got a lot of his vote. Maybe it's an easier cord for me to cut because I'm black...and gay...and a feminist. But there's too much of the Trump vote that's ideologically opposed that what the Democratic party stands for. It's a bigger risk, in my mind, to focus on extending our coalition to them, than it is to explore the reason why we couldn't rally our own troops, because there were major problems there.
And yes, despite being a card-carrying member of #TeamYAASSSQUEEN, I can admit that probably came down not just to Hillary's deficiencies as a candidate, but a campaign that was all too willing to shield her from the parts of campaigning she didn't like. The "1 major campaign event a week (IF that)" strategy was horrible. It contributed to her message not breaking through, and allowed campaign misteps to fester in the news cycle. You can hate campaigning all you want, but get the fuck over it, you're running for goddamn president, get your ass out in them streets.
I'm just quoting from Klein's trashpiece.
Yup yup yup... This is why I'm in here and on Twitter being more openly politically active than I've ever been.
(Yeah, it's not much, but still... What else can I do?)
I think the Racist A and Racist B stuff is a little more nuanced. I think there's also room for Racist C -- they resonated with Trump's populism, but not specifically because of the racism. Clinton let Trump own populism in this election. She's seen as corrupt, in bed with bankers and the political elite, etc, so her attempt to speak to that populism fell flat. For people like us, we could see through Trump's bullshit, know how dangerous that racist rhetoric is, and reject it. For some people, racism does feel like a thing of the past so it's easier for them to not take Trump's rhetoric seriously. I've been amazed at how many people (mostly non voters or third party voters) think Trump was all talk, won't be as bad, will moderate himself now that he doesn't have to appeal to that crowd, etc. They weren't cheering on the demise of muslims, immigrants, black people, and the LGBTQ community -- they were just not taking the threat seriously because they don't believe racism is a serious issue anymore and can't imagine an America that goes back to jim crow etc (which is basically the limit to their understanding of racism).
You can rightfully call them ignorant, but I think it's these people that Obama was able to reach. Obama positioned himself as the hope candidate with a populist message that was supposed to break through the left/right divide. Obama didn't focus on specifics like white supremacy, he kept it more generally positive. Bernie was taking after Obama (and you'll still see them mention it, just not as an explicit focus -- they mostly keep their message more general). They understood the need for larger coalitions and that for a lot of people, white supremacy doesn't feel real, and focusing on it can be off-putting -- normally, I think this group would show indifference toward that message, but if these people feel like they're struggling to survive, putting the focus on white supremacy can feel like a distraction that doesn't address their own concerns or even a threat ("forced down our throats"). This country has a lot of land mass and we're still dealing with the consequences of white flight, which means you have a lot of people that are ignorant of racism because they're isolated from having to think about it. They don't have enough friends that share experiences about it with them. So while a lot of Trump supporters are obviously overtly racist, there are some that you might call ignorantly complacent racists, and it's those people that "you lost because you called us racist" might have some truth to it as they pivoted from Obama to Trump or didn't bother voting. I don't think you have to appeal to racism to attract these voters.
edit: also, I think it's worth listening to the Trumpocalypse Now episode of The Weeds by Vox where they try to parse what happened: http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/voxs-the-weeds/e/48198571
You can rightfully call them ignorant, but I think it's these people that Obama was able to reach. Obama positioned himself as the hope candidate with a populist message that was supposed to break through the left/right divide. Obama didn't focus on specifics like white supremacy, he kept it more generally positive. Bernie was taking after Obama (and you'll still see them mention it, just not as an explicit focus -- they mostly keep their message more general). They understood the need for larger coalitions and that for a lot of people, white supremacy doesn't feel real, and focusing on it can be off-putting -- normally, I think this group would show indifference toward that message, but if these people feel like they're struggling to survive, putting the focus on white supremacy can feel like a distraction that doesn't address their own concerns or even a threat ("forced down our throats"). This country has a lot of land mass and we're still dealing with the consequences of white flight, which means you have a lot of people that are ignorant of racism because they're isolated from having to think about it. They don't have enough friends that share experiences about it with them. So while a lot of Trump supporters are obviously overtly racist, there are some that you might call ignorantly complacent racists, and it's those people that "you lost because you called us racist" might have some truth to it as they pivoted from Obama to Trump or didn't bother voting. I don't think you have to appeal to racism to attract these voters.
edit: also, I think it's worth listening to the Trumpocalypse Now episode of The Weeds by Vox where they try to parse what happened: http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/voxs-the-weeds/e/48198571
... fuck Comey? Why did this error happen this time and not the previous elections?
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
The only people who are going to get what they want out of this administration are those that want to see minorities get some black eyes.
So you are saying neoliberalism has absolutely no fault? Zero?
Well, first, define what neoliberalism is.
thehypocrite
Member
I agree with what you have said. Where I differ somewhat is on the fact that we've made any appeal at all. We've not made any direct appeal whatsoever and votes aren't free. In this country you win votes by winning people over. In an extremely poor country like the one I come from you give money outright.
Is it messy? Yes. it always is when conflicting interest are needed to come together for a greater goal.
This is one of the reasons a lot of people don't vote or participate by the way. Because politics is dirty and not everyone is willing to put up with it and get in the mud to stand for something better than what they get from their politicians already.
First that comes to mind is liberalization, ecoomical liberalization, free trade such as NAFTA, the TPP, deregulation of the public sector.
What is the difference between 'liberalization' and 'economical liberalization', and what does 'liberalization' actually mean?
Stop throwing around buzzwords.
The credit that I DO want to give to Hillary, and why I don't necessarily follow the comparisons to Obama's run (and even Bernie's run), is that I really don't know, even now, how you run a positive campaign against someone like Trump. Lets not act like Hillary WANTED to run a negative campaign. Despite the delicate feelings of the Bernie diehards, Hillary spent very little time attacking Bernie (hell, she ignored him for the final half of the primaries). And there were several moments in the general where you could see the Clinton campaign trying to shift away from Trump. But when the sole focus of your opponent's campaign is attacking you, and you're dealing with a media less focused on your policy and more focused on the latest thing Trump said about you, how do you counter that? How do you not make white supremacy a focus when the cornerstone of your opponent's strategy is stirring up the alt right?
This is not the kind of battle Sanders, or Obama had to wage. So I don't want to credit them with doing some obvious thing that Hillary simply neglected. Well, other than actually doing more visible campaigning.
The only thing I can think of is getting a candidate with a lot less hooks for a reckless opponent like Trump to hang attacks on.
- Status