PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented

Status
Not open for further replies.
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
The first three months of Hillary's ads against Trump were "Trump outsources all of his businesses."

Come the fuck on, guys. They were annoying (because they were dumb) and frequent and they certainly happened.
Click to expand...
I think this is where it largely boils down to authenticity. Hillary has a 30-year record and is linked to both NAFTA and TPP and felt phony when trying to downplay trade. It doesn't help when McAuliffe is going "don't worry she's just lying to get votes".

This is one of the big advantages of running a young candidate, since they don't have that kind of record or baggage. Obama tried to get the US involved in two different trade agreements but could largely be more protectionist when campaigning because he was a first-term senator with no real record. Though he probably also won points in that crowd for the auto bailout.
 
It's not a purity test, it's just the fact of the matter that focusing on the white working class isn't the answer. What about the black working class?

We need to energize progressives and get them to vote. I admit we clearly picked the wrong candidate, though she was unfairly covered by the press, but we don't need to drastically change direction. We need a more open Democratic party, and an appeal to convince young voters to vote. I say we fight for voting rights and eliminating the electoral college so that everyone's vote is worth the same.
 
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
This was the ad that Hillary ran more than any other ad they produced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dtk1eX7UBE

(Trump is in the right here which makes it fucking irritating)
Click to expand...

Yep, lets just face the fact that Trump won because of name recognition, celebrity status, simple campaign slogans that stoked fears, and he ran against a candidate who fairly or unfairly was not well liked.

Pissed off people do dumb shit.
 
Bernie Supporters and Bernie better learn how to talk to black and brown people if they want to win the party. Working class pocs, southern pocs.


Even the pocs supporters. That wake up sheeple shit ain't flying. Because many of us believe the system will never do right by us.


This is where the "neoliberals" keep beating them.
 
Bonen no Max'd said:
I think this is where it largely boils down to authenticity. Hillary has a 30-year record and is linked to both NAFTA and TPP and felt phony when trying to downplay trade. It doesn't help when McAuliffe is going "don't worry she's just lying to get votes".

This is one of the big advantages of running a young candidate, since they don't have that kind of record or baggage. Obama tried to get the US involved in two different trade agreements but could largely be more protectionist when campaigning because he was a first-term senator with no real record. Though he probably also won points in that crowd for the auto bailout.
Click to expand...

Sure, I don't disagree with any of this. Hillary's opposition to trade was phony and probably the phoniest thing about her candidacy. Having a long track-record is tough because so much can change so fast.

But one thing I would say is that free trade may be very popular in 2020 if a Trump trade war destroys the economy so we should be considering Senators and Governors who don't have a long history on trade so they can take the most popular position in 2020.
 
Bonen no Max'd said:
I think this is where it largely boils down to authenticity. Hillary has a 30-year record and is linked to both NAFTA and TPP and felt phony when trying to downplay trade. It doesn't help when McAuliffe is going "don't worry she's just lying to get votes".

This is one of the big advantages of running a young candidate, since they don't have that kind of record or baggage. Obama tried to get the US involved in two different trade agreements but could largely be more protectionist when campaigning because he was a first-term senator with no real record. Though he probably also won points in that crowd for the auto bailout.
Click to expand...

Not directing at you, but this is where all this introspection is getting silly. We start with an actual cause and then link it to every little single thing that the Hillary campaign did or didn't do and look for something exactly the opposite. For some people this ends up becoming an optics and purity test.
 
whyamihere said:
What if we just focus on the working class and not just the WWC.
Click to expand...

This too. I got attacked last night for suggesting Bernie meant WWC, but he's made it clear that's what he means (I know staffers run his twitter, but he's responsible for his account's message)
 
Plinko said:
So democrats are already hinting they'll sparingly use the filibuster? Come on.
Click to expand...

Not the time to freak out about this.

1. No one knows what Trump is going to do. Dems should try to work with him on infrastructure, maybe 'amending' and not replacing Obamacare etc. Its right for the country and would fracture the GOP base.

2. The most important thing is keeping the filibuster in place. If its pulled out before the session even starts the Dems can't do anything. They have to say this stuff now to stay in the game.
 
Again, I have no issue with Bernie Sanders himself or his tweets in a vacuum. But I don't think he realizes the effects his tweets have on the rhetoric that's occurring down here. This is a dumb argument and we know it.
 
Toxi said:
Where did Sanders campaign during the primary?

Where did Clinton campaign during the primary?

We're in this awkward position where the Democratic party has trouble actually reaching all its constituency.
Click to expand...

No, we're not. We were in a position where two incredibly flawed candidates doubled down on their easiest base instead of doing what previous candidates did: go directly to people who didn't trust them and win them over. Sanders didn't put any work in with the black community, before the primaries when it mattered the most; instead he showed up during the primary with Cornell fucking West and Killer Mike, thinking that was enough. Likewise Clinton didn't put much effort into going to rural areas and figured blatantly lying to people's faces about TPP was going to work.

If you want people's votes you have to go to them. Writing people off almost never works. Bill Clinton didn't magically become trusted/liked by black voters, he had to go into black neighborhoods as a white southern governor and relate to people. Similarly Obama had to go into rural white neighborhoods as a black liberal and relate to people. They managed to do it because they're great politicians. Sanders and Hillary are not, and got caught unprepared.
 
One thing to note about an infrastructure plan is that Trump will likely steal a huge portion of the money because we have no idea what he is or isn't invested in.

This would be politically beneficially if we can monitor his theft, but no moves should be made until the theft and corruption can be followed.
 
ampere said:
It's not a purity test, it's just the fact of the matter that focusing on the white working class isn't the answer. What about the black working class?

We need to energize progressives and get them to vote. I admit we clearly picked the wrong candidate, though she was unfairly covered by the press, but we don't need to drastically change direction. We need a more open Democratic party, and an appeal to convince young voters to vote. I say we fight for voting rights and eliminating the electoral college so that everyone's vote is worth the same.
Click to expand...
Eliminating the electoral college is a terrible platform to run on. It's impossible to actually do and it only appeals to major population centers that already vote Democrat because of our policies.

Plus, it comes across like being sore losers.
 
Kid Kamikaze10 said:
Bernie Supporters and Bernie better learn how to talk to black and brown people if they want to win the party. Working class pocs, southern pocs.


Even the pocs supporters. That wake up sheeple shit ain't flying. Because many of us believe the system will never do right by us.


This is where the "neoliberals" keep beating them.
Click to expand...
as a bernie supporter I 50000000% agree.
 
Cesare Borgia said:
No, we're not. We were in a position where two incredibly flawed candidates doubled down on their easiest base instead of doing what previous candidates did: go directly to people who didn't trust them and win them over. Sanders didn't put any work in with the black community, before the primaries when it mattered the most; instead he showed up during the primary with Cornell fucking West and Killer Mike, thinking that was enough. Likewise Clinton didn't put much effort into going to rural areas and figured blatantly lying to people's faces about TPP was going to work.

If you want people's votes you have to go to them. Writing people off almost never works. Bill Clinton didn't magically become trusted/liked by black voters, he had to go into black neighborhoods as a white southern governor and relate to people. Similarly Obama had to go into rural white neighborhoods as a black liberal and relate to people. They managed to do it because they're great politicians. Sanders and Hillary are not, and got caught unprepared.
Click to expand...
I think we agree on what the Democrats need to do.
 
Kid Kamikaze10 said:
Bernie Supporters and Bernie better learn how to talk to black and brown people if they want to win the party. Working class pocs, southern pocs.


Even the pocs supporters. That wake up sheeple shit ain't flying. Because many of us believe the system will never do right by us.


This is where the "neoliberals" keep beating them.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Bernie's racial tone-deafness was his biggest issue for sure
 
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
One thing to note about an infrastructure plan is that Trump will likely steal a huge portion of the money because we have no idea what he is or isn't invested in.

This would be politically beneficially if we can monitor his theft, but no moves should be made until the theft and corruption can be followed.
Click to expand...

The NYT and WaPo are going to be allllll over this. As soon as anything passes with a monetary value attached to it, they'll follow the money and FOIA request everything.

Also:

https://twitter.com/TheHilliverse

Hilliverse Clinton
@TheHilliverse

What is happening in the alternate timeline where Hillary won the 2016 Election? Inspired by the @TheMiliverse, run by the less funny @georgiacobrien
Click to expand...
Hilliverse Clinton ‏@TheHilliverse Nov 12

In a parallel universe, Hillary sets Michelle Obama's Vogue cover to be her phone background.
Click to expand...
 
Cesare Borgia said:
No, we're not. We were in a position where two incredibly flawed candidates doubled down on their easiest base instead of doing what previous candidates did: go directly to people who didn't trust them and win them over. Sanders didn't put any work in with the black community, before the primaries when it mattered the most; instead he showed up during the primary with Cornell fucking West and Killer Mike, thinking that was enough. Likewise Clinton didn't put much effort into going to rural areas and figured blatantly lying to people's faces about TPP was going to work.

If you want people's votes you have to go to them. Writing people off almost never works. Bill Clinton didn't magically become trusted/liked by black voters, he had to go into black neighborhoods as a white southern governor and relate to people. Similarly Obama had to go into rural white neighborhoods as a black liberal and relate to people. They managed to do it because they're great politicians. Sanders and Hillary are not, and got caught unprepared.
Click to expand...

How does one "like" or "fave" a post on Neo Gaming Age Forums dot com
 
like the lesson that we need to learn is that you can't count on "you better vote for this candidate that doesn't reach out to you or else" because as it turns out either people will choose else or at best become a depressed vote
 
whyamihere said:
How does one "like" or "fave" a post on Neo Gaming Age Forums dot com
Click to expand...
1f612.png
 
ampere said:
It's not a purity test, it's just the fact of the matter that focusing on the white working class isn't the answer. What about the black working class?

We need to energize progressives and get them to vote. I admit we clearly picked the wrong candidate, though she was unfairly covered by the press, but we don't need to drastically change direction. We need a more open Democratic party, and an appeal to convince young voters to vote. I say we fight for voting rights and eliminating the electoral college so that everyone's vote is worth the same.
Click to expand...

This is roughly how I feel. Our message is a winning one. We won the popular vote handily even with depressed turnout and voter suppression efforts. What we need to work on is getting dems to vote in midterms and backing candidates that are exciting and inspiring. Our mistake this election was running Hillary because we thought people would be jazzed about her on-the-job training. Obviously, no one gave a shit about that. Instead, they elected the first president to have never held public office or serve in the military. So from now on, NO ONE IS allowed to tout experience as an objectively beneficial quality when assessing candidates. Experience is nearly valueless in terms of electability.

If there's a lesson for 2020, I think it's this: run a candidate the base actually cares about.
 
Odrion said:
like the lesson that we need to learn is that you can't count on "you better vote for this candidate that doesn't reach out to you or else" because as it turns out either people will choose else or at best become a depressed vote
Click to expand...

I also would like to "fave" this post.
 
OrangeGrayBlue said:
This is roughly how I feel. Our message is a winning one. We won the popular vote handily even with depressed turnout and voter suppression efforts. What we need to work on is getting dems to vote in midterms and backing candidates that are exciting and inspiring. Our mistake this election was running Hillary because we thought people would be jazzed about her on-the-job training. Obviously, no one gave a shit about that. Instead, they elected the first president to have never held public office or serve in the military. So from now on, NO ONE IS allowed to tout experience as an objectively beneficial quality when assessing candidates. Experience is nearly valueless in terms of electability.

If there's a lesson for 2020, I think it's this: run a candidate the base actually cares about.
Click to expand...

Just because the other side didn't care about experience doesn't mean the side that voted for her don't.
 
Ziltoidia 9 said:
What yall want to bet the middle and lower level income earners hardly get a tax cut but magically the 1% gets their taxes moved down to 25%.
Click to expand...

I'm the one who posted that thread on Trump's tax plan. I have a family of 6 on a lower-middle income and I am getting a $1000 tax hike. It's crushing to our budget.

If the income-based repayment plan and PSLF gets repealed, I may eventually have to file for bankruptcy.
 
Totakeke said:
Just because the other side didn't care about experience doesn't mean the side that voted for her don't.
Click to expand...


Sure, there are people for whom a candidate having held office at some point in their life is important, but that's largely the extent of it. The duration or breadth of that experience seems unimportant. If anything, Hillary having been deeply involved in some of the most prestigious political offices for the last 25 years actually hurt her. The newer someone is to the game, the better. People seem to get the sense that if you've been in politics for over a decade, you should've fixed things already. A stupid notion, sure, but Trump seemed to exploit that feeling about Hillary pretty well.
 
Totakeke said:
Just because the other side didn't care about experience doesn't mean the side that voted for her don't.
Click to expand...

Yeah, absolutely this... If I could've voted for her I would've, and it would've been a vote for her, at least partially based on her experience (also, her values, her policies, and her being a policy wonk).

The worst thing we can do is assume that people are simple beings, with just one fixed reasons for doing something, especially when it's voting.

OrangeGrayBlue said:
Sure, there are people for whom having held office at some point in their life is important, but that's largely the extent of it. The duration or breadth of that experience seems unimportant. If anything, Hillary having been deeply involved in some of the most prestigious political offices for the last 25 years actually hurt her. The newer someone is to the game, the better. People seem to get the sense that if you've been in politics for over a decade, you should've fixed things already. A stupid notion, sure, but Trump seemed to exploit that feeling about Hillary pretty well.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the thing - it's an exploit about how people feel. Look at Trump - Obama (and possibly Hillary) are essentially going to take him under their wings in some form, because he has no experience.

The voting public needs to learn that you can't have a good President without having experience. Hillary's met double-digit numbers of world leaders. Trump's met one. Angela Merkel alone is going to roast him alive and pick her teeth with his bones.

Just because the voter wants something, doesn't mean it's right or good. Look at bloody Brexit.
 
ampere said:
It's not a purity test, it's just the fact of the matter that focusing on the white working class isn't the answer. What about the black working class?

We need to energize progressives and get them to vote. I admit we clearly picked the wrong candidate, though she was unfairly covered by the press, but we don't need to drastically change direction. We need a more open Democratic party, and an appeal to convince young voters to vote. I say we fight for voting rights and eliminating the electoral college so that everyone's vote is worth the same.
Click to expand...

1. Eliminating the electoral college is a dead end. Can't/won't happen, makes people sound whiny, etc.

2. I agree voting rights should be focused on, but my guess is it is also a non-starter. People will just say, "Well, everyone can vote."
 
Plinko said:
I'm the one who posted that thread on Trump's tax plan. I have a family of 6 on a lower-middle income and I am getting a $1000 tax hike. It's crushing to our budget.

If the income-based repayment plan and PSLF gets repealed, I may eventually have to file for bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

It would also screw up my plan, as I am also going with IBR and PSLF, Add that with the fact you can't wipe out school debt in a bankruptcy, freaking hell. I'm hopeful they don't toach the program because I think Bush started the PSLF program...we will see.
 
Ziltoidia 9 said:
It would also screw up my plan, as I am also going with IBR and PSLF, Add that with the fact you can't wipe out school debt in a bankruptcy, freaking hell. I'm hopeful they don't toach the program because I think Bush started the PSLF program...we will see.
Click to expand...

You actually can wipe out school debt in a bankruptcy if you can prove undue hardship. Also, Chapter 13 bankruptcy can drastically reduce payments.
 
Pixieking said:
Yeah, absolutely this... If I could've voted for her I would've, and it would've been a vote for her, at least partially based on her experience (also, her values, her policies, and her being a policy wonk).

The worst thing we can do is assume that people are simple beings, with just one fixed reasons for doing something, especially when it's voting.
Click to expand...

The prior governing experience of the last two people to ascend to the presidency, combined, is one senate term. People don't care about experience as much as they do convictions and ideas. 61% of people who voted for Trump didn't even think he was fit for office. I'm just saying, going forward when we're weighing the strength of primary candidates, don't put much stock in their having been in office for 20+ years. If it personally excites you, cool, but don't conflate that with it being an asset in the general election.
 
Odrion said:
What do you think Hillary is going to do with the campaign money?
Click to expand...

She's going to buy a White House. Or maybe two.

Seriously, who knows. Doesn't it have to be returned to the donors? Or can it be funneled into DNC House/Senate races?

If it's just hers to keep, she'll probably donate a large part of it to charitable causes.

OrangeGrayBlue said:
The prior governing experience of the last two people to ascend to the presidency, combined, is one senate term. People don't care about experience as much as they do your convictions and your ideas. 61% of people who voted for Trump didn't even think he was fit for office. I'm just saying, going forward when we're weighing the strength of primary candidates, don't put much stock in their having been in office for 20+ years. If it personally excites you, cool, but don't conflate that with it being an asset in the general election.
Click to expand...

I think it's risky to buy into this, but *shrugs* Hopefully it won't be too much of an issue. And to be fair, I was arguing a few days ago that Kander was a good shot for 2020. So what do I know? :p
 
Cesare Borgia said:
No, we're not. We were in a position where two incredibly flawed candidates doubled down on their easiest base instead of doing what previous candidates did: go directly to people who didn't trust them and win them over. Sanders didn't put any work in with the black community, before the primaries when it mattered the most; instead he showed up during the primary with Cornell fucking West and Killer Mike, thinking that was enough. Likewise Clinton didn't put much effort into going to rural areas and figured blatantly lying to people's faces about TPP was going to work.

If you want people's votes you have to go to them. Writing people off almost never works. Bill Clinton didn't magically become trusted/liked by black voters, he had to go into black neighborhoods as a white southern governor and relate to people. Similarly Obama had to go into rural white neighborhoods as a black liberal and relate to people. They managed to do it because they're great politicians. Sanders and Hillary are not, and got caught unprepared.
Click to expand...

It does seem like the 50 state strategy was a mistake and rural areas with uneducated people didn't get reached. I definitely agree with that.

OrangeGrayBlue said:
If there's a lesson for 2020, I think it's this: run a candidate the base actually cares about.
Click to expand...

Yup. While Bernie got me excited at the start of the primary I'm not sure he was the right candidate either, but Hillary definitely wasn't.

Ugh, it's a painful lesson to get slapped in the face with by losing an election that seemed in the bag.
 
OrangeGrayBlue said:
This is roughly how I feel. Our message is a winning one. We won the popular vote handily even with depressed turnout and voter suppression efforts. What we need to work on is getting dems to vote in midterms and backing candidates that are exciting and inspiring. Our mistake this election was running Hillary because we thought people would be jazzed about her on-the-job training. Obviously, no one gave a shit about that. Instead, they elected the first president to have never held public office or serve in the military. So from now on, NO ONE IS allowed to tout experience as an objectively beneficial quality when assessing candidates. Experience is nearly valueless in terms of electability.

If there's a lesson for 2020, I think it's this: run a candidate the base actually cares about.
Click to expand...
While I agree with most of your sentiments, somehow people always mess up in the last line.

Base cared about Hillary, otherwise she wouldn't have won. When your side loses by not only delegate numbers but also millions of actual vote, I'm pretty sure you don't get to say the base didn't care about the winning candidate.
 
Plinko said:
You actually can wipe out school debt in a bankruptcy if you can prove undue hardship. Also, Chapter 13 bankruptcy can drastically reduce payments.
Click to expand...

Take what path is best for you, if moving back in with parents is possible you can always do that a year and put all your extra money towards your debt, its what I'm doing now. I know its probably really hard with kids though, but a lot of families are consolidating back in these days because of all the hardships.

Do you rent or have a mortgage?

Dubbedinenglish said:
Which funds? The DNC should be able to pull from it, they will need it.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the Hillary Victory Fund ones.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT13| For Queen and Country
386 387 388 389 390
19K
2M
Magni replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT15| Orange is the New Black
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
The Technomancer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT11| Well this is exciting
393 394 395 396 397
20K
1M
sc0la replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT12| The last days of the Republic
397 398 399 400 401
20K
1M
StoOgE replied
Top Bottom