Support NeoGAF

[Billy_Pilgrim]

Man, it's so inexplicable why long term progressives think these erstwhile socialists don't care about civil rights or fighting white supremacy! Must be fake news.

It isn't inexplicable. There's a very easy explanation. Much of those crowing about Clinton still are comfortable middle class people who don't necessarily care about the economic situation changing. It's the same the world over. It's far easier for them to give out over race and identity because those are the perilous things for them, not inequality.

 

[El_Tiguere]

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.

In this very post you argued that optics matter in elections. The world coalesced around Bush because of 9/11 and Iraq... and the Democrats ran fucking John Kerry. Optics... we lost.

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.

It's not the only thing, but it is a damn universal thing everyone can rally around (and history shows you how periods of economic inequality are followed by periods of political instability... which is what we have now). It's history, and we are living it, no matter what feelings you have on the Obama administration. Race matters A LOT, but a white rural worker in Pennsylvania will be mostly stressing on how he/she will feed the family until the next paycheck, always waiting for that health/tax/fee/cost/fine catastrophic surprise that will set the family back. Close to 60% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck... so this is their reality (despite race).

You know WHY someone in rural America might be angry about some of the trends after the 2008 crisis? 95% of the income gains from the economy went to the top 1%. They will be looking for someone to blame. Every society does when it gets to this extreme.

For most of its history, the Roman Republic was governed by old political families and reliable power brokers who knew how to keep the masses in line. Elections were held, but they were deliberately designed to give the ruling classes the lion's share of the popular vote. If the Roman aristocracy, which voted first, chose a man for office, officials often would not even bother to count the ballots cast by the lower classes.

On occasion, disgruntled farmers, tavern owners and donkey drivers would rise up and press their rulers for debt relief and a real voice in government, but these revolts were put down quickly with promises of better times ahead and by hiring a few off-duty gladiators to rough up the chief troublemakers. In the late second century BC, the aristocratic Gracchi brothers tried to bring about a political revolution from within only to be killed by the conservative nobility.

Sounds familiar?
.

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.

After Trump adopted Bernie's message on trade deals and corruption in Washington, he fooled people into thinking they were voting for their economic interests. Is what allowed late undecided voters to break for Trump. At least he was fresh blood going to "shake things up". He won with a big percentage of voters in the center-right and independents because he appealed to the crowd that was TIRED of the status quo. Only after Trump got into the White House could the supporters realize that he was packing up his own swamp, not draining it.

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.

Her message would have been checked against the track record of the Clinton Democrats, and it is a BAD record for the bottom 90% of Americans. It's why she had the perception of NOT being genuine. Being concise in saying how we will keep things the same, doesn't change the fact that 70% of Americans wanted a new direction for America.

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.

That's where you are mistaken. 2016 was an indictment of Obama's handling of the recovery. Bailing out of banks? check. Christmas present to pharmaceuticals and health care sector cartels? check. Dodd-Frank legislation that consolidated power to the big banks and crushed competition? check. Boost to big oil cartels while everybody's cost of living rises and wages stagnate? check. Military escapades pushed by neocons that made the world less safe? check. Blame Republican obstructionism all you want, but Obama returned plenty of favors to the wall street/corporate donors that propelled his campaign in 2008 and 2012. People in 2016 outside of the trendy metros were fed up.

 

[Autoignition]

I never said that republican voters couldn't be duped, I specifically said they could and are being duped-

My bad. I must have skimmed over that part of the sentence. You're right; they don't go into the voting booth knowing "this will hurt me," but I also feel like if anyone tried to tell them otherwise, they wouldn't listen or believe anyway.

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.

When I say "cultural change" I don't just mean racial or sexual acceptance of other people in the culture. I also mean things like adapting to technological change and lifestyle change that comes as a result of an ever-developing workforce. It makes them comfier to blame immigrants than to adapt to change enough to get technical degrees and work on the machines that took their jobs in the first place, things like that. Hell, look at how offended they were when Hillary tried to tell them their coal jobs weren't coming back, but she promised to bring solar jobs and wind power to them instead. She may as well have said she was going to kill their first born. Those people didn't want those solar and wind jobs; they wanted their lung-killing, planet-destroying coal, goddamn it! Climate change is a hoax!!!!!!! It's still a cultural message and a resistance to a cultural change.

 

[EatinOlives]

That's where you are mistaken. 2016 was an indictment of Obama's handling of the recovery. Bailing out of banks? check. Christmas present to pharmaceuticals and health care sector cartels? check. Dodd-Frank legislation that consolidated power to the big banks and crushed competition? check. Boost to big oil cartels while everybody's cost of living rises and wages stagnate? check. Military escapades pushed by neocons that made the world less safe? check. Blame Republican obstructionism all you want, but Obama returned plenty of favors to the wall street/corporate donors that propelled his campaign in 2008 and 2012. People in 2016 outside of the trendy metros were fed up.

Yeah no, none of what you mentioned were the primary issues at hand in last year's election. I don't know what reality you lived in, but at no point were Republican voters "angry" about big pharma, military escapades, and bank bailouts. They were angry about Killary's emails, """PC culture""", immigrants tuk our jerbs, and Bring Back Coal. The shit Republicans always beat their drum on.

 

[UFO]

When I say "cultural change" I don't just mean racial or sexual acceptance of other people in the culture. I also mean things like adapting to technological change and lifestyle change that comes as a result of an ever-developing workforce. It makes them comfier to blame immigrants than to adapt to change enough to get technical degrees and work on the machines that took their jobs in the first place, things like that. It's still a cultural message and a resistance to a cultural change.

That's really not fair to say. You can't expect a 40 year old with a family to feed to just put all that on hold in order to go to college, and put themselves in further debt. It's not feasible. And a lot of 20 and 30 year olds did go to college, they listened to that message of adapting and they still can't find a career, can't afford a house or family.

 

[APF]

It's not that they're duped (at least with Trump), it's that cognitive dissonance takes over and racism and incredulity wins.

 

[Autoignition]

That's really not fair to say. You can't expect a 40 year old with a family to feed to just put all that on hold in order to go to college, and put themselves in further debt. It's not feasible. And a lot of 20 and 30 year olds did go to college, they listened to that message of adapting and they still can't find a career, can't afford a house or family.

That's also not entirely fair. Coal's been on its death throes for a long while now, and those people were going to have to find other options for income in the interim either way (even if/when Trump brings back coal, it won't happen overnight). But when you pair it with Hillary's affordable college plan, there was a solution sitting right in front of their faces. Affordable college + new solar jobs/tech jobs = great new career, and this one won't give me cancer!

I know, people want the promise of immediate solutions during presidential campaigns, but right now I'm not talking about the campaign. I'm talking about people's unwillingness to adapt. Republicans are going to lobby for coal for as long as middle America continues to hold off on sending their kids to college because A. it's unaffordable and B. they can get coal/factory jobs without a degree. In the same vein, Republicans will continue to advocate for high college tuition for the same reason.

This is why Democrats will be stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to the Rust Belt moving forward. We advocate for unions, but we also fucking hate coal and want to continue automation and scientific innovation. It's not an easy solution.

I also would like to point out that this is specifically a Rust Belt problem. People in the south and west don't really have this excuse. They're going to lose their healthcare and their welfare benefits if Paul Ryan has any say in the matter. I have no idea why they continue to vote Republican, but they're reliably red and have been for generations. But when I talk to any of my southern friends (and I have more than I expected I would, as someone natively from NJ?), the answer I always get back is, "FUCKING RACISTS BRO I SWEAR" with the occasional "American hegemony" and "guns" so I mean. Take that for what you will.

 

[royalan]

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.

McGovern.

No, fucking seriously, McGovern.

You cannot wax poetic about those shitty moderates and how they've mismanaged the party without talking about McGovern and what happened to the Democrats when we did run a hard Left candidate.

Talk all the shit you want, but those moderates are responsible for all the major Democratic victories we've had of the last two decades.

You so-called progressives want more of a say? Here's a novel idea: start winning.

 

[pigeon]

It isn't inexplicable. There's a very easy explanation. Much of those crowing about Clinton still are comfortable middle class people who don't necessarily care about the economic situation changing. It's the same the world over. It's far easier for them to give out over race and identity because those are the perilous things for them, not inequality.

Who's talking about Clinton?

Also, to be clear, this doesn't explain anything about why people who claim to be progressive socialists are totally okay with people in their group saying race isn't a real problem. If they care about race as well as class, why is it that I'm the only one pushing back against people saying that race isn't a real issue or an important one? It kind of seems like that perspective is totally normalized and accepted in what you folks call "the new progressivism."

I wonder if that's maybe relevant to the downturn in minority youth turnout?

 

[El_Tiguere]

McGovern.

No, fucking seriously, McGovern.

You cannot wax poetic about those shitty moderates and how they've mismanaged the party without talking about McGovern and what happened to the Democrats when we did run a hard Left candidate.

Are you comparing the situation in America in 1972 to extrapolate what would happen in 2016? Based on what?

 

[Autoignition]

Who's talking about Clinton?

Also, to be clear, this doesn't explain anything about why people who claim to be progressive socialists are totally okay with people in their group saying race isn't a real problem. If they care about race as well as class, why is it that I'm the only one pushing back against people saying that race isn't a real issue or an important one? It kind of seems like that perspective is totally normalized and accepted in what you folks call "the new progressivism."

I wonder if that's maybe relevant to the downturn in minority youth turnout?

I'm with you, bro. I've just given up, because every time I try to bring up racial issues or explain this shit in any thread, I always get shouted down with LOL KEEP PLAYING IDENTITY POLITICS or some variation of "b-but the economy though!"

At the end of the day, it's not worth it.

 

[APF]

Way too many folks want to dismiss the transparent racism that was the obvious focus of this election because it's something they don't have an answer for, unlike economic issues which can be endlessly concern-trolled. The problem is that trump ran such a policy-light campaign that even if we accept the "economic anxiety" rationale, the answer appears to be just speaking to the issue--something literally any good communicator can do--not actually dealing with it.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

Way too many folks want to dismiss the transparent racism that was the obvious focus of this election because it's something they don't have an answer for, unlike economic issues which can be endlessly concern-trolled. The problem is that trump ran such a policy-light campaign that even if we accept the "economic anxiety" rationale, the answer appears to be just speaking to the issue--something literally any good communicator can do--not actually dealing with it.

Race baiting only works when economic conditions for the working class are stressed. Bread and circuses are as much a part of politics as they ever were.

 

[royalan]

Race baiting only works when economical conditions for the working class are stressed. Bread and circuses are as much a part of politics as they ever were.

Wow, they just have been stressed since the 60s then!

Race baiting is the reason why the Republicans, whose policies almost exclusively cater to the rich, have won the white working class vote over Democrats for decades now.

 

[pigeon]

Race baiting only works when economic conditions for the working class are stressed.

By this argument economic conditions for the working class have been stressed since 1784.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Race baiting only works when economic conditions for the working class are stressed. Bread and circuses are as much a part of politics as they ever were.

I mean I don't think the only dimension to this election was race but this is blatantly false.

 

[APF]

Race baiting only works when economic conditions for the working class are stressed.

I think the only way you can come to this conclusion is if you read absolutely no conservative "literature;" the extent to which a clash-of-civilizations against western culture (read: white folks) has been held-up even by "responsible" pubs as an existential threat to pure, good-hearted Americans post-9/11 but dramatically moreso post-Obama-elected, is literally incredible. This is the backdrop that allowed both a Tea Party explosion and an alt-right political coup.

 

[Boney]

Yeah no, none of what you mentioned were the primary issues at hand in last year's election. I don't know what reality you lived in, but at no point were Republican voters "angry" about big pharma, military escapades, and bank bailouts. They were angry about Killary's emails, """PC culture""", immigrants tuk our jerbs, and Bring Back Coal. The shit Republicans always beat their drum on.

It's not a conscious indictment, since people are walled off to those institutions and the impact they have in their lives. It's impossible for anybody (and I mean anybody) to make sense of all the contradicting signals. Strangers in Their Own Land is an account of how problems are percieved and internalized by individuals in rural America, where contradictions arise because of how context informs individuals.

This column back in August which does a better job that I ever could at explaining this. But it's no coincidence that radical right political groups are gaining support world wide.
http://m.truthdig.com/report/item/t...per_advocate_chicagos_public_schools_20170311

Richard Rorty in his last book, “Achieving Our Country,” written in 1998, presciently saw where our postindustrial nation was headed.

Many writers on socioeconomic policy have warned that the old industrialized democracies are heading into a Weimar-like period, one in which populist movements are likely to overturn constitutional governments. Edward Luttwak, for example, has suggested that fascism may be the American future. The point of his book The Endangered American Dream is that members of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers—themselves desperately afraid of being downsized—are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.

At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for—someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots. A scenario like that of Sinclair Lewis’ novel It Can’t Happen Here may then be played out. For once a strongman takes office, nobody can predict what will happen. In 1932, most of the predictions made about what would happen if Hindenburg named Hitler chancellor were wildly overoptimistic.

One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. The words “nigger” and “kike” will once again be heard in the workplace. All the sadism which the academic Left has tried to make unacceptable to its students will come flooding back. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet.

Bill Clinton knew that if he did corporate bidding, he'd get corporate money. And he understood that working people would have no choice but to continue voting Democrat. But just give it a few years and people will wise up.

 

[thepotatoman]

So, would it be enough to take Hillary's exact policies, and put it into a whole new package with a candidate that doesn't have the damaged history, is likable, and will proudly promote those policies?

• Lower Medicare age to 55 and add a Medicare buy in option for everyone else
  
• Free Community College and early childhood education for everyone, and free public college for families with income up to $125,000
  
• Overturn Citizens United, and have the government match the donations from small-donors
  
• Ensure a guaranteed 12 weeks medical leave and 12 family leave at 2/3rds wages up to a ceiling, and double the Child Tax Credit
  
• Raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $12
  
• Pass a five-year $275 billion Infrastructure and Jobs bill targeted directly at repurposing communities being left behind by new technology, like coal communities, and fixing things like lead poisoning in wastewater systems
  
• Get rid of tax subsidies for oil and gas and invest $60 billion in grants to states, cities, and rural communities to cut carbon pollution and expand clean energy
  
• Remove tax benefits from companies that outsource labor, add benefits for companies that do not, and oppose bad trade policy like TPP
  
• Create a minimum tax rate of 30% for those making more than $1 million a year along with removal of a long list of tax loopholes and 4% surcharge tax for those making $5 million a year
  
• Give regulators more power to reorganize, downsize, or break apart too big to fail financial institutions, impose a margin or collateral requirement for risky financial transactions, and end taxpayer backed money being used on speculative investments
  
• Require that large financial institutions pay for a portion of major civil or criminal fines from the incentive-based pay of employees and senior executives, end the act of corporations making settlements with prosecutors to not be prosecuted, and broaden the definition of insider-trading to make it easier to prosecute
  
• Increase investment in addiction treatment programs and local programs that appropriately divert drug offenders to treatment programs instead of the criminal justice system
  
• Add LGBT to the list of classes protected by civil rights non-discrimination laws

I mean, fill the government with Hillary Clinton clones that follow through on these promises and it seems to me the US would be pretty damn close to what Sanders voters want. Sure, you can go even further than it, but I don't see how you could argue all that being more of the same and non-impactful. If you kept Sanders' exact same talking points, but substituted these policies with his, most people probably wouldn't even notice.

Seems to me the problem with establishment democrats isn't they policies the support, but their fear of proudly and repeatedly promoting them, and getting voters to trust them to pass these things if they gain the power to do so. Pretty much every single one of those bullet points on that list could individually make a fairly detailed and easy to understand policy ad that most people will agree with, especially if targeting the right policy ads at the right markets.

 

[royalan]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kGSqTx3JeVo

It ran everywhere.

Saying, "I have 30 years of experience," is not saying "vote for me because I'm a Clinton."

Like...this is completely dumb. Sorry.

 

[Autoignition]

So, would it be enough to take Hillary's exact policies, and put it into a whole new package with a candidate that doesn't have the damaged history, is likable, and will proudly promote those policies?

Yes, I certainly think so. Hillary's main problem was trouble with cutting through the noise and, in a lot of cases, adding to it. And this was a noisy campaign.

I mean, hell, if only she'd have made herself more accessible to the press during the campaign, that might've been enough to get her the few tens of thousands of votes she needed. Trump was ridiculously accessible despite constantly brow-beating the media, but Hillary (very understandably and for good reason) avoided them at all cost. At most, she would do the occasional phone interview, but even those didn't go well because she was always so guarded. I still cringe when I think about her phone interview with Anderson Cooper shortly after the whole pneumonia thing. He wasn't even being his usual top-tier, balls-out, no-BS self, either. Yeesh.

 

[royalan]

Yes, I certainly think so. Hillary's main problem was trouble with cutting through the noise and, in a lot of cases, adding to it. And this was a noisy campaign.

I mean, hell, if only she'd have made herself more accessible to the press during the campaign, that might've been enough to get her the few tens of thousands of votes she needed. Trump was ridiculously accessible despite constantly brow-beating the media, but Hillary (very understandably and for good reason) avoided them at all cost. At most, she would do the occasional phone interview, but even those didn't go well because she was always so guarded. I still cringe when I think about her phone interview with Anderson Cooper shortly after the whole pneumonia thing. He wasn't even being his usual top-tier, balls-out, no-BS self, either. Yeesh.

This is a very real and valid critique of the Clinton campaign that's not based on alt-right bullshit or people still butthurt over the primaries.

Hillary spent more time running from the media than engaging them head-on. Unfortunately, this was aided by the fact that she was surrounded by staff who had previously worked for her, knew her, cared about her, saw how unfairly the press regarded her, and wanted to protect her from that. But you can't protect a nominee for the presidency.

Everyone who follows politics knows, and even acknowledges, that the media double standard for Hillary Clinton has been insane from almost the moment she stepped into politics. It's completely unfair and, frankly, disgusting. But it is what it is, and by dodging that reality, the Clinton campaign ceded vital media coverage to Trump.

I don't blame the campaign for the strategy they chose. It was well thought-out and logical. But it was the wrong strategy, all the same.

I think, moving forward, how to handle the media will be the most important lesson Democrats need to learn from the failure of the Clinton campaign. Because this problem is bigger than Clinton. Democrats as a whole have had a problem with messaging since the 90s.

 

[MIMIC]

Exception not the rule. I've talked to far more people that were voting against Trump than for her.

Besides, had she run against a sane republican rather than Trump, she probably would have lost the popular vote along with the EC and be looked at a even more of a failure than she is now.

We all have our anecdotal evidence now don't we. Anything other than that to bear out your assertion? If not please forgive me if I don't believe it.

Not exactly "more voting against Trump than for Hillary," but the sentiment can be felt: 41% against vs. 57% for. And when you compare that to Gore and Obama, it's even more palpable.

Bernie couldn't even win the damn primary. How was he meant to win a general?

Besides, you haven't seen the opposition research on Bernie. He wouldn't have won. At best, he would've gotten as close as Hillary did.

Matchups.

Just like any contests.

That doesn't make any sense. If Bernie was matched against Hillary, who was a weaker candidate than Trump, and he lost... how does Bernie then go on to beat Trump?

I don't understand how people can even keep saying this. Do you watch sports? If Team A beat them B, and then goes on to lose against Team C, that in and of itself says absolutely nothing about how Team B would have fared against Team C.

Like entremet said: it's all about match-ups. The things that make you weak and at a disadvantage against one player can turn out to be advantages against another. Bernie had weaknesses against Hillary, but those same weaknesses aren't automatically weaknesses against Trump.

For instance: "I'm going to vote for Hillary over Bernie because she is more experienced in government." Is that same weakness against Hillary going to automatically be a weakness against Trump?

Hillary and Trump are two completely different people and Bernie losing to one doesn't automatically mean he would lose against the other.

 

[kame-sennin]

I gotta say, it's kinda preposterous that the people whose strategic outlook lost America the election are now back telling us how it really is.

Like, why should anyone trust you not to fuck it up again?

It's amazing, really.

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.

Nader also says democrat party. It was started by conservatives, but it's used by anyone who hates libdems.

I love this new far-leftist revisionist history that people always hated Democrats and Barack Obama's 2008 campaign never happened.

People thought Obama was going to steer us away from neoliberal polices, but he didn't.

 

[EatinOlives]

It's not a conscious indictment, since people are walled off to those institutions and the impact they have in their lives. It's impossible for anybody (and I mean anybody) to make sense of all the contradicting signals. Strangers in Their Own Land is an account of how problems are percieved and internalized by individuals in rural America, where contradictions arise because of how context informs individuals.

This column back in August which does a better job that I ever could at explaining this. But it's no coincidence that radical right political groups are gaining support world wide.
http://m.truthdig.com/report/item/t...per_advocate_chicagos_public_schools_20170311


Bill Clinton knew that if he did corporate bidding, he'd get corporate money. And he understood that working people would have no choice but to continue voting Democrat. But just give it a few years and people will wise up.

I think you may have copied the wrong URL.

At any rate, there's two things to this:

1) This isn't the first time El_Tiguere has attempted to attack Obama specifically and it won't be the last.

2) Moderates will be beholden to corporate interests regardless of their political affiliation or country of office. This isn't really to peddle some kind of "necessary evil" narrative, but I'm saying it to focus on the fact that Trump's rise to power really doesn't have much to do with this. Give any government enough time and you'll have populist jackasses peddling race-to-the-bottom mentality about "kicking out them there people at the guvment", "we know better than them", "all these years in office and they got nothing**** done", etc., etc. It's part of a cyclical tendency for people to "kick the other guys out" because "they're not working for us". Literally every election and re-election pivots onto this point.

Trump's "core base" was largely driven by far-right populism, having percolated for 8 years by increasingly insane far-right and alt-right maniacs. The very thin margin that proved the tipping point was a mixture of both far-right populism and listening to Trump's lip service about blue-collar jobs (that were never coming but that's moot because Clinton never even set foot in these states; Trump's message in this region "won" by default by virtue of having nothing to oppose it).

People hoping this is the "opening" for true socialism, far-left progressivism, and the death of "corporate moderates" are in for a big, big disappointment in 2020/2024. People saying this is an "indictment" of Obama's failures that really only deeply bothered far-left citizens are not grounded in reality.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Not exactly "more voting against Trump than for Hillary," but the sentiment can be felt: 41% against vs. 57% for. And when you compare that to Gore and Obama, it's even more palpable.

That chart is a key that people chose to ignore during this election. Republicans absolutely despise Clinton's. So right away the they had an advantage because they had someone nearly the entire party despises to rally against. So Democrats chose a candidate that had a complete lack of charisma which meant that she really couldn't change peoples views on her. Obama was hit with far more garbage than Clinton was when he was running in 08 but he could actually engage people in way so that it wouldn't stick.

 

[APF]

People thought Obama was going to steer us away from neoliberal polices, but he didn't.

Given he explicitly ran as someone who would work with Republicans and create compromise solutions, this only lends credence to the idea that the style of communication is more important than actual policies.

Obama was hit with far more garbage than Clinton was when he was running in 08 [...]

How many foreign governments interceded to work against him both in the primaries and in the general election?

 

[Ishan]

Given he explicitly ran as someone who would work with Republicans and create compromise solutions, this only lends credence to the idea that the style of communication is more important than actual policies.


How many foreign governments interceded to work against him both in the primaries and in the general election?

Charisma sways opinions . Many ppl including republicans have a good opinion of Obama the person . Hate his policies / liberal viewpoints . I would imagine bias against or for a person affecting our judgement of their words etc is well studied / documented . Clinton they didn't like as a person or as a policy message

 

[SolidSnakex]

Given he explicitly ran as someone who would work with Republicans and create compromise solutions, this only lends credence to the idea that the style of communication is more important than actual policies.


How many foreign governments interceded to work against him both in the primaries and in the general election?

Obama is biracial and had to fight against accusations that he hated white people because of Jeremiah Wright. That alone would've killed most presidential campaigns. Think about that. The right wing was pushing hard on the Wright story and how it proved that Obama secretly hated white people. Yet, that didn't stick. As that poll shows, very few were actually voting against Obama. He had to fight against accusations of terrorist involvement because of Bill Ayers. You of course had his last name being one letter off from the most notorious terrorist in the world and Republicans would repeatedly "accidentally" call him by Osama.

I'm not saying that Hillary had it easy. But Obama was fighting one hell of an uphill battle and just shrugged shit off like it didn't matter. Hillary couldn't do that.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Obama is biracial and had to fight against accusations that he hated white people because of Jeremiah Wright. That alone would've killed most presidential campaigns. Think about that. The right wing was pushing hard on the Wright story and how it proved that Obama secretly hated white people. Yet, that didn't stick. As that poll shows, very few were actually voting against Obama. He had to fight against accusations of terrorist involvement because of Bill Ayers. You of course had his last name being one letter off from the most notorious terrorist in the world and Republicans would repeatedly "accidentally" call him by Osama.

I'm not saying that Hillary had it easy. But Obama was fighting one hell of an uphill battle and just shrugged shit off like it didn't matter. Hillary couldn't do that.

It's something I've posted before and was scoffed at for saying. Politicians (and people in general) either have the innate charisma needed to pull off massive public adoration or they don't. Obama did in gratuitous quantities, so did Bill Clinton. Hillary and John Kerry did not. Poor Al Gore could have skated by if he had stuck with his massively more charismatic President instead of running away from him.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

Not exactly "more voting against Trump than for Hillary," but the sentiment can be felt: 41% against vs. 57% for. And when you compare that to Gore and Obama, it's even more palpable.

To quote myself a bit later on the subject

Not to worry. I'm not going to use my majority status to erase and belittle your stance and concerns on the matter even if I am a corporate shill, neo-liberal, 3rd way democrat. But should we ever lose that majority I hope that you can do me the same favor.

I'm not trying to erase the sentiment or concern that some people don't like the Democratic Party. Just the idea that I'm some minority or that I and my opinions don't exist because I'm young, black, gay, like Hillary Clinton and the Democrats and am pro business.

As far as Team A vs B and so on. Bernie and Hilary are far more alike than any of us would like to admit. The only argument that Trump ever leveled against Hilary that wouldn't work on Sanders is the Wall Street thing. Everything else I can think of applies to him too. He's no outsider. Why hasn't he done it in 30 years he's been in the game so on and so forth. Hell because of his age even the Stamina thing could still apply even though many saw that to be a sexist attack.

 

[kame-sennin]

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.

Given he explicitly ran as someone who would work with Republicans and create compromise solutions, this only lends credence to the idea that the style of communication is more important than actual policies.

No doubt. I knew what Obama was, but a lot of people got swept up in "hope and change".

 

[El_Tiguere]

Way too many folks want to dismiss the transparent racism that was the obvious focus of this election because it's something they don't have an answer for, unlike economic issues which can be endlessly concern-trolled. The problem is that trump ran such a policy-light campaign that even if we accept the "economic anxiety" rationale, the answer appears to be just speaking to the issue--something literally any good communicator can do--not actually dealing with it.

No matter how important it is to many of us, it WAS NOT the focus of the election, It was the economy. Let's glance at the data:

Economy and terrorism are top issues for voters in 2016
http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/4_1-2/

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/md2e4kuayu61e9drktxqoa.png"]

It was the economy. The data is there. It was an indictment on the status quo, and the status quo lost ultimately for both sides. Bernie would have won on the economy alone.

 

[APF]

But Obama was fighting one hell of an uphill battle and just shrugged shit off like it didn't matter. Hillary couldn't do that.

I love Obama, but what the fuck world do you live in? Hillary has faced DECADES of the literal worst shit Republicans could come up with not to mention FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS interceding against her and the FBI coming out ~A WEEK before the election with an October Surprise. And what's the most famous image of her reaction to being forced to put up with mountains of insane garbage?

 

[pigeon]

No matter how important it is to many of us, it WAS NOT the focus of the election, It was the economy. Let's glance at the data:

Economy and terrorism are top issues for voters in 2016
http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/4_1-2/

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/md2e4kuayu61e9drktxqoa.png"]

It was the economy. The data is there. It was an indictment on the status quo, and the status quo lost ultimately for both sides. Bernie would have won on the economy alone.

And yet for voters who said the economy was the most important issue Hillary won by 8 points, as well as winning the poor by a significant percentage. It's almost like your "racism isnt a thing" narrative is self-serving trash designed to absolve people for voting for a white supremacist.

 

[kame-sennin]

McGovern.

No, fucking seriously, McGovern.

You cannot wax poetic about those shitty moderates and how they've mismanaged the party without talking about McGovern and what happened to the Democrats when we did run a hard Left candidate.

Talk all the shit you want, but those moderates are responsible for all the major Democratic victories we've had of the last two decades.

Lol. Dems are the worst. The dems lose one election with a morally defensible platform and they're like "fuck it!". Yeah, George McGovern losing 40 years ago means we should tolerate neoliberal bullshit until the inevitable fascist backlash destroys our society.

The funny thing is, libdems always ignore the fact that McGovern gave Obama his victory (as well as the supposed demographic firewall). He built the women and minorities coalition that brought Obama into office. But yeah, fuck that guy.

Imagine if Reagan had that attitude after Goldwater lost.

 

[royalan]

No matter how important it is to many of us, it WAS NOT the focus of the election, It was the economy. Let's glance at the data:

Economy and terrorism are top issues for voters in 2016
http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/4_1-2/

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/md2e4kuayu61e9drktxqoa.png"]

It was the economy. The data is there. It was an indictment on the status quo, and the status quo lost ultimately for both sides. Bernie would have won on the economy alone.

But he couldn't even win the primary, tho...

Oh wait, that's right, rigged, corruption, DWS, debate schedule, etc...

Lol. Dems are the worst. The dems lose one election with a morally defensible platform and they're like "fuck it!". Yeah, George McGovern losing 40 years ago means we should tolerate neoliberal bullshit until the inevitable fascist backlash destroys our society.

The funny thing is, libdems always ignore the fact that McGovern gave Obama his victory (as well as the supposed demographic firewall). He built the women and minorities coalition that brought Obama into office. But yeah, fuck that guy.

Imagine if Reagan had that attitude after Goldwater lost.

This is the strangest post I have ever read.

First off, minorities aren't in the party because of fucking McGovern.

Second, sooo...the platform McGovern ran on was "morally defensible" but the platform Hillary ran on wasn't? Despite being leagues more progressive? Ok.

 

[kame-sennin]

No matter how important it is to many of us, it WAS NOT the focus of the election, It was the economy. Let's glance at the data:

Economy and terrorism are top issues for voters in 2016
http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/4_1-2/

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/md2e4kuayu61e9drktxqoa.png"]

It was the economy. The data is there. It was an indictment on the status quo, and the status quo lost ultimately for both sides. Bernie would have won on the economy alone.

Y'all are talking past each other. Poor and working-class whites have been conditioned over the last 400 years to see race as an economic issue. Whites have always been conned into believing that slaves, free blacks, Mexicans, Chinese immigrants etc. are their economic competitors, and that keeping these people out and/or oppressed was in the economic interests of whites.

So racism and the economy were both primary issues because to whites, they're the same thing.

 

[SolidSnakex]

I love Obama, but what the fuck world do you live in? Hillary has faced DECADES of the literal worst shit Republicans could come up with not to mention FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS interceding against her and the FBI coming out ~A WEEK before the election with an October Surprise. And what's the most famous image of her reaction to being forced to put up with mountains of insane garbage?

I think you're just proving my point. She never could convince people that the accusations against her were false in the same way that Obama was able to do it. And that's because people believe Obama while they didn't believe her. It's because Obama was engaging to listen to while Hillary isn't. Charisma and likability matter. Despite being accused of being a racist that "pals around with terrorist", he came out clean as can be. And those are some very serious accusations. Especially the terrorism links given the political climate at the time.

As far as that gif goes, that's really just her supporters trying to make it important like the Obama gif from one of his older rallies. The difference is that it was true in the case of Obama. He really didn't just brush things off with ease. Hillary never could.

 

[kame-sennin]

You cannot wax poetic about those shitty moderates and how they've mismanaged the party without talking about McGovern and what happened to the Democrats when we did run a hard Left candidate.

Talk all the shit you want, but those moderates are responsible for all the major Democratic victories we've had of the last two decades.

Second, sooo...the platform McGovern ran on was "morally defensible" but the platform Hillary ran on wasn't? Despite being leagues more progressive? Ok.

 

[Autoignition]

I think you're just proving my point. She never could convince people that the accusations against her were false in the same way that Obama was able to do it. And that's because people believe Obama while they didn't believe her. It's because Obama was engaging to listen to while Hillary isn't. Charisma and likability matter. Despite being accused of being a racist that "pals around with terrorist", he came out clean as can be. And those are some very serious accusations. Especially the terrorism links given the political climate at the time.

As far as that gif goes, that's really just her supporters trying to make it important like the Obama gif from one of his older rallies. The difference is that it was true in the case of Obama. He really didn't just brush things off with ease. Hillary never could.

Fox News certainly didn't let it go for the first 3-4 years of Obama's administration. The claim that this simply "went away" and he came out "clean" is false. And comparing the two things isn't exactly fair or accurate, either. Obama had to beat back an ugly story from one dude in his past that he hadn't spoken to in decades, but that was it.

Hillary had to tout around Bill's baggage, because it was her job, apparently, to answer for her husband's administration, despite her not holding office at the time. She always looked guilty by association because of what he did. Hillary was packaged as "The Clintons," and so many people conflated what Bill's presidency did with her own achievements.

There is sexism in that. And when you tie that ugly bow on that ugly package, it gets dirty and personal. The problem wasn't that Hillary couldn't "shake off" scandal -- it was that no one would ever let her. She said over and over again that she wasn't Bill's handler and that his administration was not hers, and nobody cared because she never did her wifely duty to step in and stop him. Hillary didn't have the luxury of going, "I haven't talked to him in years" the way Obama did.

I'm not entirely sure that even an extremely charismatic woman could've just dropped all of her husband's baggage, just like that. Especially not a woman with a 30-year GOP smear campaign behind both her and her husband. People on the very young end of the Millennial spectrum (under 25) don't remember the 90s and didn't realize that a lot of what she was being dragged for were Bill's administrative decisions and scandals, not hers. I mean, hell, Sarah Palin was originally seen as a very, very charismatic woman, and even Republicans tore her to shreds. (Deserved, maybe, but not in the way it happened. Being labeled as a "stupid woman" is always disgusting.)

You could use this as an argument as to why maybe Hillary shouldn't have run, but you can't say that "charisma" is the reason why she couldn't convince people that she was innocent. Charisma would've helped, but those ghosts from the past would've haunted her for the rest of her political life no matter what.

 

[royalan]

If there's an inconsistency here, it's in the arguments "progressives" use to attack Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is not a moderate, but the poster I responded to has labeled her one. Labeling Clinton a moderate seems to be the popular thing to do these days.

The platform Hillary ran on? The most progressive in the history of the party. I mean, you know, you could always read the damn thing. It's public.

 

[aeolist]

nobody believed she actually wanted to implement that platform

hell she was on record saying she had public beliefs and private beliefs

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

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.

This is the dumbest thing I've read in ages. The only reason people turned to those FILTHY MODERATES was because they were losing BIG again and again and again. Between 1972 to 1992, Jimmy Carter was the only Democrat to win and he barely won anything. Meanwhile, the only reason Democrats had "control" of the Senate and/or House was because of a bunch of southern Dems who hadn't switched parties yet.

Read a fucking history book or wikipedia page. Maybe this generation needs two terms of Trump and a Pence kicker on the end to go crawling back to a Bill Clinton type like they did back then because they were so desperate to win.

 

[royalan]

nobody believed she actually wanted to implement that platform

hell she was on record saying she had public beliefs and private beliefs

Based on what? Her wishy-washy voting record? Oh, wait...

 

[EatinOlives]

No matter how important it is to many of us, it WAS NOT the focus of the election, It was the economy. Let's glance at the data:

Economy and terrorism are top issues for voters in 2016
http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/4_1-2/

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/md2e4kuayu61e9drktxqoa.png"]

It was the economy. The data is there. It was an indictment on the status quo, and the status quo lost ultimately for both sides. Bernie would have won on the economy alone.

There's the economy, then there's """the economy""". Bernie ran on the former, Trump on the latter. Trump's idea of "economy" was "dey tuk our jerbs", "bring back coal", "fuck China, make everything US made", etc, etc. None of it grounded in reality, none of it actually nuanced discussion on economics or policy.

It was generic far-right rhetoric, populism, xenophobia and racism with no actual basis on the economy. You might think Bernie was going to fare better but the reality is that Bernie and Trump were not having the same conversation.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

But he couldn't even win the primary, tho...

Oh wait, that's right, rigged, corruption, DWS, debate schedule, etc...



This is the strangest post I have ever read.

First off, minorities aren't in the party because of fucking McGovern.

Second, sooo...the platform McGovern ran on was "morally defensible" but the platform Hillary ran on wasn't? Despite being leagues more progressive? Ok.

I'm not sure why I feel the need to defend McGovern here but the 72 platform including dismantling the military industrial complex, single payer health care, full employment via a federal job guarantee, equalizing school funding, and a bunch of other stuff that would be absolutely crazy if it made it into the platform now. McGovern was far enough to the left that Democrats were going on the air to talk about supporting Nixon and the need for Democrats to support Nixon. I guarantee you that Hillary had no interest in dismantling the military industrial complex. That's not even a knock on her, I don't think Bernie really would either! But to be like "actually Hillary ran to the left of McGovern" is insane.

This is the dumbest thing I've read in ages. The only reason people turned to those FILTHY MODERATES was because they were losing BIG again and again and again. Between 1972 to 1992, Jimmy Carter was the only Democrat to win and he barely won anything. Meanwhile, the only reason Democrats had "control" of the Senate and/or House was because of a bunch of southern Dems who hadn't switched parties yet.

Read a fucking history book or wikipedia page. Maybe this generation needs two terms of Trump and a Pence kicker on the end to go crawling back to a Bill Clinton type like they did back then because they were so desperate to win.

Carter and Dukakis weren't even lefties, both are much closer to Clinton ideologically than to the New Dealers.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

No one will buy your socialism if they think blacks and mexicans are going to be getting handouts from their taxes. This is what Trump has that the left doesn't seem to understand.

It's why Obama had to run like Mr. Vanilla Moderate and still had labels thrown at him.

Carter and Dukakis weren't even lefties, both are much closer to Clinton ideologically than to the New Dealers.

When did I call him a leftist? I said he barely won as a southern Democrat right after Watergate. That's how much the country was unwilling to go left.

 

[aeolist]

Based on what? Her wishy-washy voting record? Oh, wait...

based on what i just said and the fact that her camp pushed back as hard as possible to keep the platform from moving left at the convention?

 

[GetLucky]

nobody believed she actually wanted to implement that platform

hell she was on record saying she had public beliefs and private beliefs

A very simplistic version of what she actually said, but nuance seems to be dying so I guess your take is accurate of how the voting public felt.

based on what i just said and the fact that her camp pushed back as hard as possible to keep the platform from moving left at the convention?

Oh never mind, it seems you just like to make up stuff.