Support NeoGAF

[Rentahamster]

Got any proof on that? Because I feel the majority of Americans do feel Trump is terrible.

His approval/disapproval rating is generally around 50%

damn

didn't the campaign have a lot of money

what did they do with it

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1311258

 

[water_wendi]

It seemed like that was the implication since you were responding to a post about Trump voters who deserve no sympathy, but if you were talking about voter outreach, then yes, that is correct.

Ah gotcha. Yea i meant voter outreach/party expansion when i wrote "go after." i can see how it can be read as blaming them.

 

[Gattsu25]

Are they counting "I will get American jobs back in order to make America great again" as a policy ad?

Because that doesn't say shit.

 

[Father_Brain]

The "I am with her" was only really used doing the primaries for the general election it was "Stronger together" with still sucked but was better. As for the ads I agree the negative ads were good during the summer but after fall hit they lost there effectiveness and they should of switched to strictly positive ads.

"Stronger Together" wasn't outright terrible like "I'm With Her," but it was still pretty weak. It was presumably meant to imply a message of embracing America's diversity, but it contains no verb and has no real narrative behind it.

I mean... the 9/11 hijackers were "stronger together." The Manson family was "stronger together." Campaign slogans by nature don't traffic in specifics, but if your slogan is so generic that it could describe literally any group of people in history who have worked together on a common goal, it's probably not going to inspire anyone.

 

[ironmang]

I never saw a Hillary ad that wasn't purely about how Trump said bad things. Battleground state. Great explanations of why to vote *for* you, Hillary.

This. It's even worse when Trump was claiming to be different from other politicians and then Hillary doubles down on attack ads.

 

[Elandyll]

She gave Donald trump the election. I hated when she always talked about what she has done throughout her political career.
Her campaign was very bad. The "I'm with her" was horrible. She was more articulate than trump though and by far.

"I'm with Her" was not her main Presidential Campaign message.

Stronger Together was.

Which really is, specially in contrast to Trump, a great message.

She said it at each rally, and each debate.
She won all three debates by any measure, by the way.

Thing is, she might have gone overly negative with her messaging on Trump and thinking that the contrast alone would be enough, but we know very well why she lost the election:

80.000 Fucking Progressives across Wi, Mi and Pa who couldn't be bothered to check the Clinton square, prefering to roll the dice with Trump rather than holding their nose and actually voting progressive.
DNC hack was a factor, her email server debacle, her feud with Bernie, and the last minute letter from Comey too. Obviously, she should have spent some time in the rust belt too, and not tell Coal miners their jobs were gonna go bye bye (which is the truth).

But in the end, we're adults, and it's more than time to accept responsibility.
If you are in a rust belt state, particularly Pa, Wi or Mi, are thinking of yourself as a progressive, and didn't vote for Clinton, then Trump is on You.

Period.

 

[y2dvd]

Feels like the slogan isn't that important compared to the other pitfalls.

I don't know if you've noticed, but MAGA caught on like wildfire. Slogan makes a huge difference.

 

[The Lone Courier]

She couldnt re-adjust and use "I'm With You" because that was Trumps response to "I'm With Her."

Trump had a real drop the mic moment when he pulled that at the RNC.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Valuable teaching moment here, for sure. Hopefully the Democratic party learned. They should hold classes just about this election on a monthly basis for everyone in office or running for office as a Democrat.

 

[Angelus Errare]

She didn't have this tendency. Her tendency, quite clearly pointed out in the original material, was that she didn't tend to explain policies at all, never mind getting detailed.

The OP material is speaking on her failing with ads, I'm speaking on her appearances, town hall meetings, and debates in which her tendencies were very much getting too detailed with policies as if she was speaking to a room full of politicians and not a room full of mom and pops who only know "I don't want to pay more taxes", "how will you help me".

 

[AwakenedCloud]

"I'm with her" was so, so awful.

This whole election cycle felt like Denis Dyack Debcale 2.0, and this phrase all but confirmed this would all amount to a big budget retelling of that GAF classic.

Gaf->US->GAF

 

[water_wendi]

"I'm with Her" was not her main Presidential Campaign message.

Stronger Together was.

Which really is, specially in contrast to Trump, a great message.

She said it at each rally, and each debate.
She won all three debates by any measure, by the way.

Thing is, she might have gone overly negative with her messaging on Trump and thinking that the contrast alone would be enough, but we know very well why she lost the election:

80.000 Fucking Progressives across Wi, Mi and Pa who couldn't be bothered to check the Clinton square, prefering to roll the dice with Trump rather than holding their nose and actually voting progressive.
DNC hack was a factor, her email server debacle, her feud with Bernie, and the last minute letter from Comey too. Obviously, she should have spent some time in the rust belt too, and not tell Coal miners their jobs were gonna go bye bye (which is the truth).

But in the end, we're adults, and it's more than time to accept responsibility.
If you are in a rust belt state, particularly Pa, Wi or Mi, are thinking of yourself as a progressive, and didn't vote for Clinton, then Trump is on You.

Period.

That was the Clinton campaigns strategy to alienate those voters. They purposefully courted Republicans at the expense of their base as a conscious plan for victory.

edit: From July 28, 2016:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/438481/chuck-schumer-democrats-will-lose-blue-collar-whites-gain-suburbs

"At least publicly, Schumer has no worries about his party's dwindling fortunes among working-class white voters. ”For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.""

Its a good thing Chuck Schumer is nowhere near leadership.. oh wait.

 

[Boney]

Got any proof on that? Because I feel the majority of Americans do feel Trump is terrible. I think in early November, a lot of voters in the Midwest thought Clinton was a shitty person too, and given her bad messaging and other problems, that is what ultimately did her in. I don't think her campaign realized how generally disliked she was.

Fav/Unfav (Suffolk)

Pence 47/35%
Trump 45/47
GOP 37/48
Media 37/50
Dem Party 36/52
Hillary 35/55
Congress 26/52

suffolk.edu/documents/SUPR…

https://twitter.com/stevekornacki/status/839306502900969472

This showed up on my timeline. The link only is for the appendix of the survey that lists all of the questions results, so I'm not sure how the data was collected.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Trump didn't need attack ads though, he had the media basically working for him.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

His approval/disapproval rating is generally around 50%




http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1311258

interesting thread

thanks for sharing

 

[Josh7289]

Anecdotally, this was a complaint that I had heard about her and her ads.

Since I personally was heavily invested in the election, I knew from my own research the details of her policy proposals, but when I heard other people having no clue exactly what she wanted to do because of the vagueness of her ads, I started to realize there might be a problem here.

What a poor campaign she and her team ran.

 

[phanphare]

Look at the third graph. Actually I'll just repost it.

Zero spending in Michigan and Wisconsin until they realized "oh wait a sec, we're screwed".
It's hard for the "racist protectionism" to not resonate when it's literally the only message circulating.

this is why on one hand I'm proud to have voted for Hillary but on the other hand I hold extreme anger towards her campaign and how it was run. her campaign missed a wide open layup and now we have Trump because of their failure. everything fucked up that happens in Trump's wake reminds me that it shouldn't have been this way and it didn't have to be. I won't go as far as to say she's an awful candidate, I liked the majority of what she stood for even if I had my issues with her record and stances on certain issues, but she ran one of the worst presidential campaigns in modern history. hopefully dems learn the right lessons from this but I'm not too optimistic right now.

 

[Aselith]

Trump didn't need attack ads though, he had the media basically working for him.

Okay?

 

[Phoenix RISING]

His approval/disapproval rating is generally around 50%




http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1311258

Ugh, I had almost forgotten that I live in a country that would not mind if minorities disappeared overnight.

As per this topic, yeah, I literally decided to vote for Hillary the night before first reasons like those explained in the OP. I knew more about what I was voting for rather than what I was voting against.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

Okay?

In an effort as to not appear biased by over reporting all the Trump fuckery, the media would constantly either harp on Hillary miscues or "both sides" the coverage.

It wasn't a straight up attack per se.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Trump didn't need attack ads though, he had the media basically working for him.

Which is what Hillary wanted

Republican Donald Trump, a far-right demagogue who campaigned on a slew of bigoted, xenophobic policies, has won the 2016 presidential election in a shocking victory few people predicted.

What was not often acknowledged in Trump’s heated race against Democrat Hillary Clinton, however, was how her campaign fueled his rise to power.

An email recently released by the whistleblowing organization WikiLeaks shows how the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party bear direct responsibility for propelling the bigoted billionaire to the White House.

In its self-described “pied piper” strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new “mainstream of the Republican Party” in order to try to increase Clinton’s chances of winning.

The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee called for using far-right candidates “as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right.” Clinton’s camp insisted that Trump and other extremists should be “elevated” to “leaders of the pack” and media outlets should be told to “take them seriously.”

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the...ed-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/

 

[Aselith]

In an effort as to not appear biased by over reporting all the Trump fuckery, the media would constantly either harp on Hillary miscues or "both sides" the coverage.

It wasn't a straight up attack per se.

That's not a point that's meaningful in the context of this thread.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

That's not a point that's meaningful in the context of this thread.

I agree. Just trying to guess what the poster was saying.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Which is what Hillary wanted



http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the...ed-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/

That is kind of different. She wanted the media to take them seriously. The media was basically negative Hillary news 24/7 with her emails and other bullshit constantly playing. Trump didn't need to play attack ads. Not saying Hillary should have focused on it with her ads, but comparing the two ad campaigns sort of ignores the whole picture.

That's not a point that's meaningful in the context of this thread.

The OP also mentions how Trump ran few attack ads, I was giving context as to why.

 

[Gorillaz]

I'm with her was never a "strong" slogan and people said that during the race as well. If that was Obama's team behind all of this it's shocking they failed to create a good phase

 

[Staccat0]

Campaign commercials these days are more about turnout than anything else so that makes sense to me. Hindsight is 20/20 but for any sane person Trump was a really really good excuse to get off your ass and vote.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That is kind of different. She wanted the media to take them seriously. The media was basically negative Hillary news 24/7 with her emails and other bullshit constantly playing. Trump didn't need to play attack ads. Not saying Hillary should have focused on it with her ads, but comparing the two ad campaigns sort of ignores the whole picture.

That's not what the quoted article says at all.

 

[water_wendi]

That is kind of different. She wanted the media to take them seriously. The media was basically negative Hillary news 24/7 with her emails and other bullshit constantly playing. Trump didn't need to play attack ads. Not saying Hillary should have focused on it with her ads, but comparing the two ad campaigns sort of ignores the whole picture.

i dont think the "take them seriously" in this context was to consider the craziest Right wing nuttery as a threat.

 

[Shake Appeal]

When it comes to appealing to the masses, never assume anything is implied. It's all about tone and relatability. "She's With Me" directly tells people that Hillary is working for them, whereas "I'm With Her" doesn't imply anything about what she's doing for you.

It would have been so, so easy to do "She's With You."

But Hillary Clinton ultimately didn't lose because of bad ads or bad messaging. It was a whole rich stew of factors, with the killer ingredient being the Comey letter.

 

[Trokil]

Campaign commercials these days are more about turnout than anything else so that makes sense to me. Hindsight is 20/20 but for any sane person Trump was a really really good excuse to get off your ass and vote.

Why?

Democrats told people, they don't need them. The moderate Republicans will vote for them, so screw workers and all that riff-raff.

 

[SolidSnakex]

That is kind of different. She wanted the media to take them seriously. The media was basically negative Hillary news 24/7 with her emails and other bullshit constantly playing. Trump didn't need to play attack ads. Not saying Hillary should have focused on it with her ads, but comparing the two ad campaigns sort of ignores the whole picture.

The media took him seriously like she wanted them to, and they were also highly negative of him as well. Especially after the Access Hollywood take leaked. And after every debate he got ripped up while people praised Hillary. I know there this belief that the media was constantly negative on Hillary, but that's really not true. Trump took the brunt of the attacks, and rightfully so.

And I think a key part of Hillary wanting the media to take Trump seriously is that it turned out that she really didn't take him seriously. She wanted him to be the nominee and then did an absolutely atrocious job of running against him.

 

[Elandyll]

That was the Clinton campaigns strategy to alienate those voters. They purposefully courted Republicans at the expense of their base as a conscious plan for victory.

I don't even think that's what happened.

She just took the working middle class, unions in particular, for granted in these states, not realizing what a great job the dual whammy of framing her as a globalist anti-worker and a shady corporatist that can't be trusted the GOP and Trump campaign had done.

Polls were also doing a terrible job at reflecting reality.

Now about the recently released poll on Favorables/ Unfavorables.

It is downright sad that it shows just how fractured Progressives still are, and thanks largely to a scorched earth campaign by Bernie and the Greens, but also evidently by the Trump/ GOP campaign aided by the Russian hacks.

Instead of pulling together, we are more divided than ever, and people who are still trying to tear the Democratic party apart both from within and outside (c.f. TYT) just disgust me.

Does the party need change and to evolve? Yes. Do we need constant infighting, fracturing and dragging a party with a vocation to actually produce electable candidates closer to the middle, to extreme positions?

No.

I know that some hope to repeat what the tea party did with the GOP, but this is not what will happen. If you try to repeat that, and splinter the Dems, what will happen is a split between a moderate party and a "socialist" party, neither being electable on its own, and constantly fighting for domination over the other.

In this case, Progressives will effectively have been relegated to a state of permanent opposition.

Change has got to come from within, and with the acceptance that compromises have to be done to find a midway position that can bring more people to the table.

Bernie could show the way by becoming an actual member of the party he tried to hijack, for a start...

 

[Frank the Great]

Hillary's main problem was that she attacked Trump's weaknesses, not his strengths. I live in NJ but I get all the Philly ads. Here are the two types of ads I was bombarded with:

1. Straight up attack ads on Trump's character

2. Simple, short ads in which Trump spoke to the camera over patriotic music and promised to make America great again by doing X, y, and z. X, y and z were stupid and vague (ie. "crack down on illegal immigrants" or "reduce crime").

If you were a low information voter, this is all you knew of the two candidates. Trump seemed like a "man with a plan" to fix things, with some serious character flaws. You simply didn't know anything about Hillary other than the fact that she had a ton of money to spend on ads and really wanted to be President. The actual policies proposed on Trump's ads did not matter all.

What was important is that he made the ads and it made him APPEAR like a solid choice. To a low info voter, Trump appeared as a great businessman who wanted to clean up Washington but had character issues. That is exactly the image Trump's team was going for.

By not attacking him on his policies or his business bona fides through ads, Hillary only REINFORCED the image that Trump tried to create for himself. He was the great businessman who could fix things, but he happened to be a jokester blurted out whatever was on his mind. Trump embraces that image.

In 2020 we need a candidate who paints Trump as an incompetent buffoon, not a heartless jerk. Go after him on his perceived strengths--his intelligence, business acumen, "stamina," etc. That's the only way to depress his base turnout. And then sell a better alternative and hype up the liberal base.

It's almost like Hillary's campaign were being too clever by trying to appeal to moderate suburban Republicans to make up for Trump's appeal to the working class. If they had just played it simple and traditional by attacking Trump's strengths, rather than his weaknesses, and motivating their own base, she would be President.

 

[Trokil]

It is downright sad that it shows just how fractured Progressives still are, and thanks largely to a scorched earth campaign by Bernie and the Greens, but also evidently by the Trump/ GOP campaign aided by the Russian hacks.

They pretty much only used things against her, Obama already used 8 years before. Was that a scorched earth campaign as well?

 

[Sunster]

cringiest part of Hillary is when people online call her....

Spoiler

Hilldawg

makes me throw up in my mouth.

 

[Particle Physicist]

That's not what the quoted article says at all.

Which one? The OP or Solidsnakes?

Trump, on the other hand, provided explicit policy-based contrasts, highlighting his strengths and Clinton’s weaknesses

The media took him seriously like she wanted them to, and they were also highly negative of him as well. Especially after the Access Hollywood take leaked. And after every debate he got ripped up while people praised Hillary. I know there this belief that the media was constantly negative on Hillary, but that's really not true. Trump took the brunt of the attacks, and rightfully so.

And I think a key part of Hillary wanting the media to take Trump seriously is that it turned out that she really didn't take him seriously. She wanted him to be the nominee and then did an absolutely atrocious job of running against him.

They were highly negative in bursts but they constantly played into his hands. There was a "wordchart" recently about the media coverage of both Trump and Hillary's coverage which was incredibly revealing.


Like i said, I am not saying her strategy of going extremely negative with her ads was correct, just saying that comparing her ad campaign to Trumps is not one-to-one.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

This further solidifies the notion that Hillary didn't actually stand for anything. This vague feeling everyone had that she expected to win based on being a Clinton or simply being of better character than the opponent, but not because of anything she stands for. Turns out that vague feeling can actually be corroborated in the messaging. No policy, just being better than that other guy.

Except that her policies were incredibly detailed and well thought out.
She didn't communicate them well.

She had detailed policies on healthcare, women's rights, climate change and green energy, infrastructure, space exploration, immigration, etc.

 

[water_wendi]

I don't even think that's what happened.

She just took the working middle class, unions in particular, for granted in these states, not realizing what a great job the dual whammy of framing her as a globalist anti-worker and a shady corporatist that can't be trusted the GOP and Trump campaign had done.

Polls were also doing a terrible job at reflecting reality.

Now about the recently released poll on Favorables/ Unfavorables.

It is downright sad that it shows just how fractured Progressives still are, and thanks largely to a scorched earth campaign by Bernie and the Greens, but also evidently by the Trump/ GOP campaign aided by the Russian hacks.

Instead of pulling together, we are more divided than ever, and people who are still trying to tear the Democratic party apart both from within and outside (c.f. TYT) just disgust me.

Does the party need change and to evolve? Yes. Do we need constant infighting, fracturing and dragging a party with a vocation to actually produce electable candidates closer to the middle, to extreme positions?

No.

I know that some hope to repeat what the tea party did with the GOP, but this is not what will happen. If you try to repeat that, and splinter the Dems, what will happen is a split between a moderate party and a "socialist" party, neither being electable on its own, and constantly fighting for domination over the other.

In this case, Progressives will effectively have been relegated to a state of permanent opposition.

Change has got to come from within, and with the acceptance that compromises have to be done to find a midway position that can bring more people to the table.

Bernie could show the way by becoming an actual member of the party he tried to hijack, for a start...

i cant reply to this right now as im off for work but this is not how i see reality.

 

[aeolist]

I don't even think that's what happened.

She just took the working middle class, unions in particular, for granted in these states, not realizing what a great job the dual whammy of framing her as a globalist anti-worker and a shady corporatist that can't be trusted the GOP and Trump campaign had done.

Polls were also doing a terrible job at reflecting reality.

Now about the recently released poll on Favorables/ Unfavorables.

It is downright sad that it shows just how fractured Progressives still are, and thanks largely to a scorched earth campaign by Bernie and the Greens, but also evidently by the Trump/ GOP campaign aided by the Russian hacks.

Instead of pulling together, we are more divided than ever, and people who are still trying to tear the Democratic party apart both from within and outside (c.f. TYT) just disgust me.

Does the party need change and to evolve? Yes. Do we need constant infighting, fracturing and dragging a party with a vocation to actually produce electable candidates closer to the middle, to extreme positions?

No.

I know that some hope to repeat what the tea party did with the GOP, but this is not what will happen. If you try to repeat that, and splinter the Dems, what will happen is a split between a moderate party and a "socialist" party, neither being electable on its own, and constantly fighting for domination over the other.

In this case, Progressives will effectively have been relegated to a state of permanent opposition.

Change has got to come from within, and with the acceptance that compromises have to be done to find a midway position that can bring more people to the table.

Bernie could show the way by becoming an actual member of the party he tried to hijack, for a start...

this is utterly delusional.

the progressive wing of the party has been shut down and excluded at every turn. the centrist establishment dems are still in full control and have shown zero willingness to compromise on leftist issues.

"you should fall in line and vote for candidates you don't like because the other guys are worse" didn't work in 2016 and i don't see it working next year either.

 

[Frank the Great]

Except that her policies were incredibly detailed and well thought out.
She didn't communicate them well.

She had detailed policies on healthcare, women's rights, climate change and green energy, infrastructure, space exploration, immigration, etc.

What good is that if people were unaware?

Campaigns are like a sport. You need to play the game well to win; no one gives a fuck who is better on paper after the fact. Hillary was far better on paper but she got outplayed. Dems need to learn from this and do better in the next campaign.

 

[Boney]

"I'm with Her" was not her main Presidential Campaign message.

Stronger Together was.

Which really is, specially in contrast to Trump, a great message.

She said it at each rally, and each debate.
She won all three debates by any measure, by the way.

Thing is, she might have gone overly negative with her messaging on Trump and thinking that the contrast alone would be enough, but we know very well why she lost the election:

80.000 Fucking Progressives across Wi, Mi and Pa who couldn't be bothered to check the Clinton square, prefering to roll the dice with Trump rather than holding their nose and actually voting progressive.
DNC hack was a factor, her email server debacle, her feud with Bernie, and the last minute letter from Comey too. Obviously, she should have spent some time in the rust belt too, and not tell Coal miners their jobs were gonna go bye bye (which is the truth).

But in the end, we're adults, and it's more than time to accept responsibility.
If you are in a rust belt state, particularly Pa, Wi or Mi, are thinking of yourself as a progressive, and didn't vote for Clinton, then Trump is on You.

Period.

I completely disagree with your premise. If people didn't vote for her, then it's the problem of the platform. How bad Trump may be doesn't mean one has to legitimize a campaign that you are in strong disagreement. Lesser evil is the internalization of having a "non opposition party" and the collapse of all democratic institutions.

As Republicans have become more ideologically intolerant, the Democrats have shrugged off the liberal label and their critical reform-minded constituencies to embrace centrism and footnote the end of ideology. In ceasing to be a genuine opposition party the Democrats have smoothed the road to power of a party more than eager to use it to promote empire abroad and corporate power at home.

Sheldon Wollin eloquently describes this as Inverted Totalitarianism.

While the Nazi totalitarianism strove to give the masses a sense of collective power and strength, Kraft durch Freude (“Strength through joy”), inverted totalitarianism promotes a sense of weakness, of collective futility. While the Nazis wanted a continuously mobilized society that would not only support the regime without complaint and enthusiastically vote “yes” at the periodic plebiscites, inverted totalitarianism wants a politically demobilized society that hardly votes at all.

While the Nazi totalitarianism strove to give the masses a sense of collective power and strength, Kraft durch Freude (“Strength through joy”), inverted totalitarianism promotes a sense of weakness, of collective futility. While the Nazis wanted a continuously mobilized society that would not only support the regime without complaint and enthusiastically vote “yes” at the periodic plebiscites, inverted totalitarianism wants a politically demobilized society that hardly votes at all. Recall the President’s words immediately after the horrendous events of September 11: “Unite, consume and fly,” he told the anxious citizenry. Having assimilated terrorism to a “war,” he avoided doing what democratic leaders customarily do during wartime: mobilize the citizenry, warn it of impending sacrifices and exhort all citizens to join the “war effort.” Instead, inverted totalitarianism has its own means of promoting generalized fear; not only by sudden “alerts” and periodic announcements about recently discovered terrorist cells or the arrest of shadowy figures or the publicized heavy-handed treatment of aliens and the Devil’s Island that is Guantánamo Bay or the sudden fascination with interrogation methods that employ or border on torture, but by a pervasive atmosphere of fear abetted by a corporate economy of ruthless downsizing, withdrawal or reduction of pension and health benefits; a corporate political system that relentlessly threatens to privatize Social Security and the modest health benefits available, especially to the poor. With such instrumentalities for promoting uncertainty and dependence, it is almost overkill for inverted totalitarianism to employ a system of criminal justice that is punitive in the extreme, relishes the death penalty and is consistently biased against the powerless.

Thus the elements are in place: a weak legislative body, a legal system that is both compliant and repressive, a party system in which one party, whether in opposition or in the majority, is bent upon reconstituting the existing system so as to permanently favor a ruling class of the wealthy, the well-connected and the corporate, while leaving the poorer citizens with a sense of helplessness and political despair, and, at the same time, keeping the middle classes dangling between fear of unemployment and expectations of fantastic rewards once the new economy recovers. That scheme is abetted by a sycophantic and increasingly concentrated media; by the integration of universities with their corporate benefactors; by a propaganda machine institutionalized in well-funded think tanks and conservative foundations; by the increasingly closer cooperation between local police and national law enforcement agencies aimed at identifying terrorists, suspicious aliens and domestic dissidents.

What is at stake, then, is nothing less than the attempted transformation of a tolerably free society into a variant of the extreme regimes of the past century. In that context, the national elections of 2004 represent a crisis in its original meaning, a turning point. The question for citizens is: Which way?

And look at how people are mobilized now, if democrats had at least half a brain they would build up on that since yesterday by supporting community activism and offering a platform for where to rally from.

 

[theignoramus]

If Democrats choose again to run against Trump the individual versus Trump and his shitty Republican policies they will lose.

 

[Frank the Great]

this is utterly delusional.

the progressive wing of the party has been shut down and excluded at every turn. the centrist establishment dems are still in full control and have shown zero willingness to compromise on leftist issues .

That is not even remotely true.

And your attitude just encourages centrists to never compromise, because they don't get credit unless they give 100% so why try at all.

 

[TurnipFritters]

this is utterly delusional.

the progressive wing of the party has been shut down and excluded at every turn. the centrist establishment dems are still in full control and have shown zero willingness to compromise on leftist issues.

"you should fall in line and vote for candidates you don't like because the other guys are worse" didn't work in 2016 and i don't see it working next year either.

The progressive wing not getting everything it wants immediately isn't the same thing as being excluded at every turn.

And look at how people are mobilized now, if democrats had at least half a brain they would build up on that since yesterday by supporting community activism and offering a platform for where to rally from.

Yes, because as the Democrats learned in 2016, "Donald Trump is bad and I don't like him" was am effective message that got people to get out and vote.

 

[old manatee]

Politicians who run attack ads are really underestimating how irritating even positive political ads are.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

this is utterly delusional.

the progressive wing of the party has been shut down and excluded at every turn. the centrist establishment dems are still in full control and have shown zero willingness to compromise on leftist issues.

"you should fall in line and vote for candidates you don't like because the other guys are worse" didn't work in 2016 and i don't see it working next year either.

I love how the progressive champion has been in DC politics for decades, not doing much of anything and not even considering himself as a member of the Democratic Party but the problem is 'establishment' Dems. The use of the term 'establishment' is the worst.

 

[Neoweee]

That is not even remotely true.

And your attitude just encourages centrists to never compromise, because they don't get credit unless they give 100% so why try at all.

Now might be a good time to point out that the Green party margin exceeded Hillary's loss in the three close states that swung the election, and that the margin between the Green Party's performance in 2004, 2008, and 2012 compared to what it was in 2016 was about enough to throw the election.

If the progressive movement in America wants to have a hissy fit meltdown every 16 years, there's absolutely no limit to the elections we can throw.

 

[Calamari41]

"I'm With Her" sounds like "I'm With Dear Leader"

Trump killed "I'm with her" when he said "My opponent makes her followers recite a pledge, saying 'I'm with her.' Well I'm here to tell you that I'm with *you*, the American people" or whatever the exact wording was. It was over for the phrase at that point. But she kept using it as if nothing had happened. It was so weird.

 

[The Technomancer]

I love how the progressive champion has been in DC politics for decades, not doing much of anything and not even considering himself as a member of the Democratic Party but the problem is 'establishment' Dems. The use of the term 'establishment' is the worst.

Yes this is actually pissing me off this morning. Bernie has done what, ever, exactly?

 

[Particle Physicist]

this is utterly delusional.

the progressive wing of the party has been shut down and excluded at every turn. the centrist establishment dems are still in full control and have shown zero willingness to compromise on leftist issues.

"you should fall in line and vote for candidates you don't like because the other guys are worse" didn't work in 2016 and i don't see it working next year either.

That is absolutely not true. Hillary adopted a huge amount of Bernie's policies into her general campaign, more than any other candidate in the past ( adopting the policies of the primary loser )

Perez, after winning the DNC chair, made Ellison deputy chair. He made him his right hand man. Perez is pretty damn liberal as well.