What the fuck does this even mean? We definitely ran a candidate! People had options. Just because you want to tell them it's okay and they're not actually Nazi supporters doesn't make reality go away.
-
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.
Study: Hillary Clinton's ads were almost entirely policy free.
- Thread starter Boney
- Start date
- Status
What the fuck does this even mean? We definitely ran a candidate! People had options. Just because you want to tell them it's okay and they're not actually Nazi supporters doesn't make reality go away.
PdotMichael
Banned
Yeah, somehow getting 114k Trump voters in the four key states would have been only possible with Nazi pandering.
MastaKilla
Member
I think it's clear they expected Donald Trump was so unfit for the presidency that it would guarantee her victory so they focused on it. But unfortunately Donald Trump fed working class Americans what they wanted to hear while she focused on how awful a person he is.
I didn't claim that. You're the one who wrote that people got radicalized into white supremacy by us not giving them options, not me! Take responsibility for your apologism.
Again with the use of "Democrat Party". Amazing how you'd go into all that effort into trying to be a faux-lefty than give up the game by using a term that only show up among the right wing seeking to denigrate the left.
We shouldn't have even had VP nominee Kaine (and I've voted for him every time he's been om the VP ballot!)
Autoignition
Member
I love this new far-leftist revisionist history that people always hated Democrats and Barack Obama's 2008 campaign never happened.
Trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? You can't run the same spineless establishment Corporate Democrat crew and expect different results. If we want to move past the 2016 election, THIS is what we all need to fix:
Democrat Party:
People DO NOT LIKE the Democrat party, and it wasn't just Hillary's and her campaign's shortsightedness of the pain Americans are feeling. It took an "outsider" (Bernie) to bring back passion and hope in a new direction for America, It took an outsider to the right wing to bring back passion and hope in a new direction for America (a horrible direction).
What appeals to rural white voters? jobs and prosperity. What appeals to black voters and hispanics? jobs and prosperity. What appeals to the middle class? jobs and prosperity. What has been lacking for the bottom 90% of Americans outside of wealthy coastal metros? jobs and prosperity. Who are Americans blaming for the lack of jobs and prosperity? the defunct DC parties who have mostly pandered to the top 10% (mostly to the top 1%).
Trump's version of jobs and prosperity is xenophobic nationalistic isolationism. Bernie's version of jobs and prosperity is to restore balance between the oligarchs who own our government, and the workers at the bottom. Clinton's version of jobs and prosperity? empty promises versus a track record of favoring the wealthy. Schumer's and Pelosi's version of jobs and prosperity? empty promises versus a track record of favoring the wealthy. Corporate Democrats like Obama's version of jobs and prosperity? empty promises versus a track record of favoring the wealthy.
If we acknowledge that the Democrat brand is tainted by corruption at this point (because wealth/income inequality is the increasingly crushing daily experience of the majority of Americans), we need to re-brand the party. Progressives are the ones with the ground support right now, while centrist corporate Democrats are the ones with the support of the oligarchs. The oligarchs had their wish in 2016 with Clinton, and we LOST. The corporate Democrats need to increasingly step aside for fresh blood, and that fresh blood is progressive. We need an FDR, not a Bill Clinton. We need a JFK, not a docile corporate puppet like Obama who talks a good game, but turns around and hands favors to the donor class and the neocons.
You make a lot of assumptions in this post.
For starters, progressives don't have ground support right now. They keep losing. Like, this isn't worth arguing. Progressives want to take over the party? Start winning elections. Because nobody is going to gift you shit.
Second, that poll tells you people are unhappy with Democrats (which isn't a surpise, WE LOST), but it doesn't tell you why, and I'd be surprised if the answer is "Not left enough," or even "too full of corruption." In the grand scheme of things, voters don't care about this shit so long as their politicians are speaking to them (didn't we just learn this?), and THAT'S where the problem is. Messaging. Getting out there. Constantly sounding off against Republicans. FIGHTING BACK. Democrats need to do a much better job of this than they currently are.
And no, that's not the job of "progressives," because guess what? Not every Democrat falls under the wishy-washy definition of "progressive." Not every person out there marching and storming town halls is progressive. Some are moderate. Some are actually rather conservative. This is going to take a movement that includes every segment of the Democratic party, and Democratic leadership needs to do a better job acknowledging that movement.
Lastly. Yes, everyone wants jobs. But Democrats will NEVER win on a job's message alone if Republicans continue to play the race card unchallenged. So long as Republicans can go to their largely white constituency and say, "Hey everyone! All those things you don't have? You'd have them if it weren't for all those brown people and immigrants!"
That's why a billionaire who is always in court for screwing over the little guy could win an election against a woman with an actual legislative record protecting jobs and the US economy, running as the nominee of the party that has always stood for these things (don't give me any lies bullshit about Clinton, it's childish at this point. Do your homework).
The election was not about jobs. It was about race, and Trump's remarkably consistent ability to weaponize it by just saying what no other politician before him would dream of saying.
El_Tiguere
Member
Winning by millions in places like California or New York doesn't help much in winning the rest of the country. Don't be complacent in counting on that sound bite to win in 2018/2020. It's just that... a sound bite.
Autoignition said:
The 2008 Crisis also happened. You know what hasn't happened? An economic recovery for the bottom 70-80% of Americans. Who do you think they might blame for that?
royalan said:
I can google about all the surging wins of progressive Democrats, but I would like to hear your sources for the ground support for the old corrupt corporate Democrats. I would love to hear their support for all the resistance movements springing up across the US.
royalan said:
So they get in front of people more to deliver the message. What message is that exactly? Trump bad? that was the plan for 2016 and it FAILED. Again, what message do you think the 90% at the bottom of our growing class divide would like to hear more?
royalan said:
Here is where you might be influenced by your own tunnel vision of the world. Trump mobilized more independents and moderates because of jobs and prosperity. The 30% racist electoral base that fears brown people? there is economics of jobs behind that too. Republicans play the race card against poor brown people? show the poor white person how that rich GOP asshole in DC, including Trump, is duping them to fight for scraps while they have their hands in all of our pockets. Show them how the GOP has instilled unwarranted FEAR on them, as authoritarian autocrats need an "enemy" to scare their serfs into compliance. Show them how the true enemy is internal, it's the oligarchs and their political puppets (Trump included), and they will perhaps help in toppling Trump and the GOP.
I don't have time for quoting by the sentence, so I'll hone in on this point.
The gall to accuse anyone of suffering from tunnel-vision. You want proof of ground support for establishment Democrats? Look at the woman who beat your candidate for the nomination. This isn't a revelation. This is obvious to everyone except those who make the CHOICE to ignore. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have the three highest vote tallies of any Democratic primary candidate, and Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by millions of votes, and it don't get much more establishment than that. Like, did you think about this question before you asked it?
Nancy Pelosi, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, the list goes on. These are all establishment Democrats who are all, you guess it, popular. They have support. People like their brand of politics.
Coincidentally, these are all Democratic congressman who have spoken up in support of the movements over the last few weeks? You really didn't know that?
The gall to accuse anyone of suffering from tunnel-vision. You want proof of ground support for establishment Democrats? Look at the woman who beat your candidate for the nomination. This isn't a revelation. This is obvious to everyone except those who make the CHOICE to ignore. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have the three highest vote tallies of any Democratic primary candidate, and Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by millions of votes, and it don't get much more establishment than that. Like, did you think about this question before you asked it?
Nancy Pelosi, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, the list goes on. These are all establishment Democrats who are all, you guess it, popular. They have support. People like their brand of politics.
Coincidentally, these are all Democratic congressman who have spoken up in support of the movements over the last few weeks? You really didn't know that?
Autoignition
Member
Troll confirmed. Stop feeding it, people.
Good point.
JesseEwiak
Member
Yes, all those giant progressive wins like Russ Feingold becoming Senator - oh, wait. Well, at least Colorado passed single pay - oh wait, it lost by 30 points. Hey, at least we got rid of that terrible DNC Chair Debbie - oh right, she won her primary easily.
LOLCats
Banned
What? Most educated voters actually care about policy. One of the reasons she lost in my opinion is she didnt focus enough on policy contrasts between her and trump.
Trump chose a few hardline policies to focus on and them rode them home.
While hillary did everything possible to avoid discussing policies to try and cater to a larger audience, that she is just better than trump. Because shes a clinton and "been doing these things for 30 years"
Trumps an idiot and Hillary is a door mat.
People chose the idiot over something that gets walked all over.
El_Tiguere
Member
I'm talking more like these...
https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...-election-but-their-ideas-are-winning/382559/
https://news.vice.com/story/this-gr...s-to-their-first-big-election-win-under-trump
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/st...icking-candidate-congressional-seat/98776790/
http://www.roanoke.com/news/politic...cle_11c8c4cb-db1a-5962-9b7c-6d65f93b5745.html
There are many more indicating the movements of progressives starting resistance movements, while Democrats in DC have their focus groups on what empty messages they need to campaign with (while not rattling their corporate cages). Keep hoping you can just run another Hillary in 2016 and win.
Trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? You can't run the same spineless establishment Corporate Democrat crew and expect different results. If we want to move past the 2016 election, THIS is what we all need to fix:
Democrat Party:
People DO NOT LIKE the Democrat party, and it wasn't just Hillary's and her campaign's shortsightedness of the pain Americans are feeling. It took an "outsider" (Bernie) to bring back passion and hope in a new direction for America, It took an outsider to the right wing to bring back passion and hope in a new direction for America (a horrible direction).
What appeals to rural white voters? jobs and prosperity. What appeals to black voters and hispanics? jobs and prosperity. What appeals to the middle class? jobs and prosperity. What has been lacking for the bottom 90% of Americans outside of wealthy coastal metros? jobs and prosperity. Who are Americans blaming for the lack of jobs and prosperity? the defunct DC parties who have mostly pandered to the top 10% (mostly to the top 1%).
Trump's version of jobs and prosperity is xenophobic nationalistic isolationism. Bernie's version of jobs and prosperity is to restore balance between the oligarchs who own our government, and the workers at the bottom. Clinton's version of jobs and prosperity? empty promises versus a track record of favoring the wealthy. Schumer's and Pelosi's version of jobs and prosperity? empty promises versus a track record of favoring the wealthy. Corporate Democrats like Obama's version of jobs and prosperity? empty promises versus a track record of favoring the wealthy.
If we acknowledge that the Democrat brand is tainted by corruption at this point (because wealth/income inequality is the increasingly crushing daily experience of the majority of Americans), we need to re-brand the party. Progressives are the ones with the ground support right now, while centrist corporate Democrats are the ones with the support of the oligarchs. The oligarchs had their wish in 2016 with Clinton, and we LOST. The corporate Democrats need to increasingly step aside for fresh blood, and that fresh blood is progressive. We need an FDR, not a Bill Clinton. We need a JFK, not a docile corporate puppet like Obama who talks a good game, but turns around and hands favors to the donor class and the neocons.
I fully agree with this post. The only path forward is socialism.
Show me one ad that does this. One. Then show me the states it ran in.
Go on. I'll wait.
JordanN
Banned
South Park nailed what was so wrong with Hillary's campaign.
Trump already put in all the work that he was awful. It was no secret, he sucked. But on Hillary's side, she was sending messages like "I'm with Her" or "Trump's team is a basket of deplorables".
How do you expect to win a presidency after that? It was like she was gambling on the idea that Trump being so horrible meant no one would ever vote for him, hence why she even once said she stopped thinking about him. But that train of thought became ridiculous once he did make it past the primaries.
Trump already put in all the work that he was awful. It was no secret, he sucked. But on Hillary's side, she was sending messages like "I'm with Her" or "Trump's team is a basket of deplorables".
How do you expect to win a presidency after that? It was like she was gambling on the idea that Trump being so horrible meant no one would ever vote for him, hence why she even once said she stopped thinking about him. But that train of thought became ridiculous once he did make it past the primaries.
Unknown Soldier
Member
One of the biggest issues within the left was the perception that the entire Hillary candidacy was a just a coronation and the entire thing was a carefully managed stage play with a pre-determined result. The whole YASS QUEEN nonsense played right into that perception and made a lot of Democrats stay home resulting in the turnout collapse. Everyone felt like the result was already planned out so why waste the effort to go to the polling station? That backfired in a big way too, like everything else in the campaign.
I think his point is not that the progressives are taking over the party, it's that the centralist oligarchs who control the party (the ones winning elections and who wanted Clinton) are hurting the party. Which we see by the fact that the Democrats lost the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives this year. It's also telling when the party puts forward 3 primary candidates (Clinton, O'Mally-lol, Sanders- who they didn't want to) versus the 12 or so the Republicans had.
Prof. Bathtub
Member
Disheartening that this discussion is about 16 pages long, where every scandal, corruption or Russia lead gets piled on with Nervous Onion Man and NothingWillComeOfThises. It's important to learn from mistakes, but unfortunately neither election strategy nor treason/sedition investigation are advanced much through forum chatter.
Also, a lot of assuming that Poligaf's Adam is somehow the average Clinton supporter/voter.
Also, a lot of assuming that Poligaf's Adam is somehow the average Clinton supporter/voter.
El_Tiguere
Member
If by that you mean Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Canada, New Zealand, etc (and the end of corporate socialism)... then sure, why not?
Literally these are articles about progressives fighting for and campaigning for the Democratic Party, so the mental effort required to turn this into a condemnation of the Democratic Party is really impressive.
Yes, exactly like that.
I think you're right that people just want to live decently. Good jobs, or at least have what they need taken care of (health care, housing, etc.) if jobs don't exist for them (and that will increasingly be the case because of automation).
I don't see any other way to set up a society that meets those needs than to emulate what's done in social democracies in much of the rest of the western world.
El_Tiguere
Member
Sorry double post.
Mentioning that a massive economic crisis and the recovery (or lack thereof) from the crisis affects voters' behaviors makes someone a troll now? Good god the level of discourse on this site has plummeted.
Here are some facts:
Since the "moderates" got control of the party in 1992, Democrats have controlled the House and Senate for only four years. And, those four years only came after the
Republicans were implicated in foreign policy disasters (Iraq), failed responses to natural disasters (Katrina), major scandals involving their congressional leadership (Tom Delay), and a massively unpopular scheme to privatize Social Security.
Yet, just four years later, Republicans managed to sweep Democrats out of power in a massive wave election - before widespread gerrymandering. Just how the fuck did not they manage to do that?
Maybe it had something to do with Democrats telling their grassroots, both "netroots progressives" and labor, basically to go fuck themselves time and time again, letting party infrastructure rot, and spending massive amounts of political capital to enact responses to the 2008 crisis and recession that were heavily tilted towards shoring up corporate interests.
The "moderates" got everything they wanted over the past 20 or so years up to and including the nomination of Hillary Clinton. And what do the Democrats have to show for it in terms of electoral success? They are now the minority party in both houses of congress; they lost the executive branch to a reality TV star who is despised by most of the country and is probably on the take from Putin; and the hold less seats in state governments since the fucking 1920's.
And yet, the same people who spent the entire goddamn primary droning on about how Hillary Clinton was this uniquely brilliant candidate whose crack analytic team inherited from the Obama campaign was going to run this brilliant campaign that was going to sweep the Republicans from power because "demographics" and "coat-tails" are still trying to lecture people who actually want to accomplish things about winning elections. Its fucking sad and hilarious.
I don't care if a some progressive candidates and initiatives lost at time when progressives had but a few months to build serious infrastructure because lord knows they weren' t getting any help from the Democratic party itself, when the Democratic party was actively running against some of them and the person at the top of the ticket and de-facto head of the party was more interested in courting moderate Republicans in the suburbs than bringing out the Democratic base , and Democrats everywhere fucking lost, moderate and progressive alike. Being a disunited party with an unpopular person at the top of the ticket will do that.
I'm not saying that running progressive candidates, in itself, is a surefire ticket to victory. But, good god, the constant tired arguments and refrains on here in light of the long history of failure is tiresome.
Here are some facts:
Since the "moderates" got control of the party in 1992, Democrats have controlled the House and Senate for only four years. And, those four years only came after the
Republicans were implicated in foreign policy disasters (Iraq), failed responses to natural disasters (Katrina), major scandals involving their congressional leadership (Tom Delay), and a massively unpopular scheme to privatize Social Security.
Yet, just four years later, Republicans managed to sweep Democrats out of power in a massive wave election - before widespread gerrymandering. Just how the fuck did not they manage to do that?
Maybe it had something to do with Democrats telling their grassroots, both "netroots progressives" and labor, basically to go fuck themselves time and time again, letting party infrastructure rot, and spending massive amounts of political capital to enact responses to the 2008 crisis and recession that were heavily tilted towards shoring up corporate interests.
The "moderates" got everything they wanted over the past 20 or so years up to and including the nomination of Hillary Clinton. And what do the Democrats have to show for it in terms of electoral success? They are now the minority party in both houses of congress; they lost the executive branch to a reality TV star who is despised by most of the country and is probably on the take from Putin; and the hold less seats in state governments since the fucking 1920's.
And yet, the same people who spent the entire goddamn primary droning on about how Hillary Clinton was this uniquely brilliant candidate whose crack analytic team inherited from the Obama campaign was going to run this brilliant campaign that was going to sweep the Republicans from power because "demographics" and "coat-tails" are still trying to lecture people who actually want to accomplish things about winning elections. Its fucking sad and hilarious.
I don't care if a some progressive candidates and initiatives lost at time when progressives had but a few months to build serious infrastructure because lord knows they weren' t getting any help from the Democratic party itself, when the Democratic party was actively running against some of them and the person at the top of the ticket and de-facto head of the party was more interested in courting moderate Republicans in the suburbs than bringing out the Democratic base , and Democrats everywhere fucking lost, moderate and progressive alike. Being a disunited party with an unpopular person at the top of the ticket will do that.
I'm not saying that running progressive candidates, in itself, is a surefire ticket to victory. But, good god, the constant tired arguments and refrains on here in light of the long history of failure is tiresome.
LOLCats
Banned
El_Tiguere
Member
Thank you, hopefully more and more people will get the point.
Here is a good article that everyone should read:
They abandoned the 90 percent: How the Reagan Revolution and Third Way politics led America to ruin
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/23/america_has_abandoned_the_90_percent_partner/
there is absolutely no way this will happen. if anything congress is going to swing further right.
Ah yes, the "out party always sweeps congress in mid-terms argument". That "rule" only hold true if you look at U.S. political history post 1992 and, even then, you need to include the "9/11" caveat ...... 1998 didn't fit the pattern either.
There is a trend that the president's party tends to lost seats in congress, but its never been as pronounced as its been since 2008.
Besides, if political behavior were that fixed, then it wouldn't matter whether Democrats ran "moderates" or "progressives", and most of these debates would be pointless.
There is a trend that the president's party tends to lost seats in congress, but its never been as pronounced as its been since 2008.
Besides, if political behavior were that fixed, then it wouldn't matter whether Democrats ran "moderates" or "progressives", and most of these debates would be pointless.
But, but.. Hey look over there. it's the racists! *runs away*
elrechazado
Banned
Yeah most people don't realize that the Republican wave of 1994 was break of multiple decades of the Democrats owning Congress.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
The party in power losing seats in midterms is normal political behavior and has been for much longer than the past three decades, the number of seats lost and whether or not a house of Congress flips is 100% not decided though and to think the Democrats are guaranteed a sweep into the house is lunacy.
Midterm backlash is definitely a thing and has been for decades, the severity of it is up for question.
The Democrats lost 15 house seats and 3 senate seats in 1978, 4 house seats in 62, and in 66 lost 47 house seats and 3 senators.
Midterm backlash is definitely a thing and has been for decades, the severity of it is up for question.
if racism is the only thing needed to win total political power in america then we should all shut up and embrace the end of civilization because it's not like republicans are going to move away from white supremacy
itt people posting things to me that I've BEEN saying
Unknown Soldier
Member
I fully expect the Democrats to find a way to achieve a net loss of seats in 2018. You read it here first.
The truth hurts, but here it is. Great post.
Also I feel like we should be more clear about our terminology.
I am a progressive.
"Socialists" who don't believe in civil rights and are okay with white supremacy are not progressives.
I'm not sure what word is appropriate. Tankie, maybe? Know Nothing? You guys can figure it out.
I am a progressive.
"Socialists" who don't believe in civil rights and are okay with white supremacy are not progressives.
I'm not sure what word is appropriate. Tankie, maybe? Know Nothing? You guys can figure it out.
Autoignition
Member
No, it was the asinine way that it was brought into the conversation that smacked me of trolling. Anyone who continues to insist that every election revolves solely around money and economics is an idiot. Bush got re-elected in 2004 because the hot button issue was national security, not economics. The US was a war-hungry country back then, and Democrats are notoriously tepid when it comes to foreign affairs.
Fast forward four more years. People were genuinely excited about Barack Obama in 2008, and to say that the housing crisis was the only reason why is revisionist history. By this point in our nation's history, people were tired of war, and Obama ran on a platform of pulling troops out of Iraq and opening diplomacy with places like Iran. African American voting engagement spiked up because they were finally seeing their place in history among American leadership. Obama also had the virtues of being an effective communicator and an attractive young man that people wanted to see as the face of this country, whereas McCain was still beating the drums of war and looked like a tired old man next to his rival. Optics matter. That's why he chose Sarah Palin of all people as his running mate.
I'm just tired of the progressive wing of the left trying to shove economics down everyone's throats as though the economy is the only thing that matters in the country or in an election. And, like I keep screaming over and over again and no one ever listens to me, if "corporate interests" and "snubbing the grassroots" were really something that turned off American voters, no one would ever vote Republican. The GOP has been big money and big oil for over thirty years, and yet they keep getting voted into power. Why is that? Because they hide behind things like traditionalism and patriotism in order to push their corporate agenda. They found creative ways to make their corruption not matter anymore -- mostly by claiming that it's "the American way." Note that I'm NOT saying that Democrats should do this, I'm just saying that sitting here and screaming "corporate shills" is missing the point. There will always be a huge swath of people in this country who are so adamant about resisting cultural change that they vote against their own economic interests all the time. This is what Trump tapped into in order to win. Race matters. Culture matters.
We're living in an era in American history where civil rights are bubbling back up to the surface, and there's a backlash from white America as a result. Hillary tried tying her message to that, but she was an awful communicator, so it failed. If she'd been a little bit more concise and cohesive when she spoke and campaigned, she would have won.
What the Democratic party needs is an effective communicator who can also bring economic prosperity to the lower half of society. Obama was that person, but even he admitted that change is slow, and that his administration would only be the start of something great. Anyone who honestly expects economic recovery to come even half as quickly as the time it takes for everything to fall apart is deluding themselves. It always takes longer to build something than it does to knock it down. Hillary could have continued his work and made it into something better, but she was a shit tier communicator and couldn't bring it home in the end. If we can get a better spokesman in 2020 who can not only elevate themselves but the party's message as a whole, we'll take back control.
That's how elections work.
jack_package_200
Banned
Well said
Atom Heart Mother
Banned
barbarism 2020
Big Baybee
Member
Americans really don't want this. I mean, how do you convince people in the Midwest to accept single payer healthcare? How do you present tax hikes to a community of people who absolutely are not having it? That's the problem.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Let's just skip Barbarism and go straight to Despotism in 2020, Trump is already making his moves there. America needs a strong leader. We need A Man Like Putin.
Autoignition
Member
Oh god this song is going to be in my head for the next five years. I'm so salty at John Oliver for putting it there to begin with.
In what part did he "insist that every election revolves solely around money and economics"? I can't find it.
And what's your source for this?
You sound like you just want to completely ignore the economic component of this election and go back to blaming the racist whites. Nobody ever votes against they're own interests. Ever. You can say they were tricked into voting against their interests, that's fine, but there is nobody that hates a group so much that they will knowingly vote against their own interest.
Autoignition
Member
Every single post he's made in this thread and other PoliGAF threads harps only on economics and no other part of government, campaigns, or electoral strategy.
REPUBLICAN VOTERS. You know, the ones that CNN keeps falling over themselves to interview, who live in tiny towns in Nowhere, USA, who were duped into thinking that Trump was going to bring their factory and coal mining jobs back, when even the smallest bit of research would've told them otherwise? The ones who heard Trump constantly say, "Repeal and replace Obamacare" and didn't think he meant them? The ones who think that Trump's Muslim Ban is the way to keep America safe, even though it objectively makes us less safe and also hurts the economy? The ones who honestly believe that it was illegal immigrants and the Mexican government, not automation, that took their jobs? The ones who think that Black Lives Matter is a terrorist organization? The ones who deny climate science and discriminate against the LGBT and mock people for believing in evolution? Those people?
Like, are you shitting me right now? You think middle America voted Republican because they were informed voters? They voted Republican because the GOP promised that they would bring back "traditional America" and make things go back to the way they were. They want to believe this to be true, so they do. They don't want their bubbles burst. They don't want to hear that "the times are changing." They don't want to hear that they have to adapt to the new reality of automation and technology in order to make it in today's world. They would rather scapegoat immigrants and "liberal elites" for undermining their "wholesome traditional American values" than accept change.
Every election cycle, the GOP sells a cultural message blanketed as an economic one so that it's harder to criticize them for it. The Democratic platform has the objectively better message. Our problem is that we have the hardest time finding good messengers, because brevity is a skill, and our policies are nuanced.
I never said that republican voters couldn't be duped, I specifically said they could and are being duped-
What you said is "a huge swath of people in this country who are so adamant about resisting cultural change that they vote against their own economic interests all the time" and I'm saying NO, these people vote for what they believe is in they're interest- jobs, money, safety. They're not voting for less jobs and less money (i.e. voting against they're interests- what you say they're doing) because they're so against cultural change. The republicans promise these people prosperity, and the democrats don't.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked