|
Squinty posted:Polling shouldn't be the first and last indication of popular opinion. Really, Occupy Wallstreet should have been the first red flag. Bernie the second, Brexit the third, and Trump's success over establishment republicans the last. At some point the democratic party became the party of corporate America and the financial sector instead of the poor and working classes, and when we were all bragging about how Hillary was outspending Trump 2:1 in every state, no one stopped to think about where that money was coming from and how hosed that is. All told that's why voting Hillary was doing a "hold my nose and vote for who smells less bad" situation. My criticism of Hillary even before this election was that she is still a Wall Street candidate. Same with Oblammo, really; neither of them were in a position to go after Wall Street. That's the main thing that needs to happen; corporate greed needs to be reined in. I was hoping for Bernie but eh...that didn't happen. Granted Clinton did at least shift her platform and Bernie has very obviously caused a shift in the Democratic party but really it's a case of too little, too late. The DNC just flat out dismissed him other than that. The basically responded with a pat on the head and "that's nice kid, now go play the adults are talking." And look where it got us. President Trump. All hail the pumpkin king! Really our best hope is that the Republican Congress just says "your ideas are loving crazy knock it off" and refuses to vote his policies in. We're basically guaranteed a huge reduction in taxes, federal spending cut to the bone, and an end to the inheritance tax. Granted I think that is what Trump's main goal is; his platform is mostly impossible. I really think that this is a means to an end and little else. I really wonder if Trump will even bother to run again when his term is up, if he doesn't end up in jail. We'll probably see Congress poo poo all over LGBT and minority rights while dicking over poor people for at least two years but really, this is Donald Trump we're talking about. He probably won't have a lot of interest in actually doing the job. The other side of it is that it's apparent that America is loving furious right now. If the GOP fucks things up too much that Congressional majority won't last.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
Hillary Clinton sure was a lousy candidate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
quote:This is my confession - and explanation: I - a 51-year-old, a Muslim, an immigrant woman "of colour" - am one of those silent voters for Donald Trump. And I'm not a "bigot," "racist," "chauvinist" or "white supremacist," as Trump voters are being called, nor part of some "whitelash." ... looooorf
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Crazy Joe Wilson posted:The bigger question is what do the Dems do to win state elections and governments, because they currently only hold what, 10 governorships? Not letting the Hillary Victory Fund siphone money for the national campaign and the dnc, leaving the states and local parties in a state where they can't afford to compete and all the big donors are too maxed out to help them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
Identity Politics destroyed our party and our country, and it appears you will never learn.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Alternate take: not enough time to undo damage from Comey letter Hmm. It's a possibility, but I'm not sure. As others said, the e-mail thing had already been paraded left, right and center. I wonder if this is not just correlation with undecided or silent people finally hardening their choice in the last few days, instead of causation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:There is no need to beg sanders has already put forward keith ellison to run for dnc chair dean fits all of the characteristics of a trojan horse to trick the progressives: 1. from a time that is associated with victory (50 state strategy which payed incredible dividends in 2006 and 2008) 2. was the progressive option in 2004 until he lost to john kerry 3. firebrand speaking style 1. worked as a pharma lobbyist 2. with newt gingrich at the same firm 3.  he could work strategy but shouldn't lead the dnc imo
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:its really disturbing/disappointing seeing all the people try to act like the election was just the result of some campaign mismanagement. hillary lost millions of democratic votes because they didn't show up. trump was historically bad, underperforming romney too. but those two things don't come from the same place. I've seen you been saying this for months and being ridiculed in the worst ways for it. Now that it's all come true it falls on deaf ears. They won't learn. porfiria posted:Hmm, I somewhat agree, but at the same time the polls were what they were. Absent those you're more or less relying on intuition. Maybe the clear enthusiasm for Trump, for example, should have been more of a warning...but he actually underperformed Mitt Romney. It's also worth pointing out the way in which the polls wrong--the general election polls, and polls in many states, were fairly accurate as far as these things go; they ended up being catastrophically wrong in precisely the battleground states that Hillary needed to win. I agree with this. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:postmortem saying Trump camp thinks Comey delivered rust belt to them Purge all of these fucks. Purge them, seriously. They will never learn, Especially since they benefit from the neoliberal ideology that the Dems tout. Squinty posted:At some point the democratic party became the party of corporate America and the financial sector instead of the poor and working classes, and when we were all bragging about how Hillary was outspending Trump 2:1 in every state, no one stopped to think about where that money was coming from and how hosed that is. A gently caress ton of people did. gently caress, this was literally Bernie Sanders's core message. This was a HUGE conversation during the primaries but anyone who brought it up was dismissed as a "Bernie Bros." punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Stack the court. It's an elitist institution working against the American people. Populism will return us to power and we will use it All this is bullshit that was literally designed the way they were to keep the people out of power. It's time to change them. Dems need to stop being pussies and crying "gerrymandering!" when they should be focused on core changes that aren't the symptom but the disease.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:This is true. The small and non-term limited Supreme Court, the electoral college, FPTP, the lack of proportional voting. This. The system has become rotten.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Honestly I think what it comes down to is that Hillary didn't offer something to vote for that was genuinely exciting. Hillary's campaign basically presented a vote for her as a vote for four more years of Obama. The problem is that the last four years of Obama have been marked by Congress doing jack poo poo, Obama complaining about Congress doing jack poo poo, and just in general jack poo poo getting done except through the Supreme Court. Nobody is going to get excited about voting for four more years of the same old poo poo with nothing getting done, especially when there are a huge fuckload of problems that need to be addressed. What needed to happen is that Hillary needed to show why people should vote for her instead of against Trump. I think there's a couple of approaches she could have taken: 1) Spend more time playing up the fact that she would have been the first woman president. I mean yeah, it was obvious without her needing to say it, but in all honesty she never really used it as a major issue. Making it a central part of her campaign that it's time for a woman to lead, or that she would be a voice for women in the government that they've never really had, would have probably increased enthusiasm among female voters. Granted, I don't know if it would have caused a backlash from men, but most of the men who viscerally hate the idea of a woman president were probably voting for Trump anyway. 2) Incorporate more of Bernie's platform into her own, or even make him her VP. People made the argument that Hillary's platform was the most leftist campaign platform in recent memory, but she could have gone further, especially considering that Congress was never going to pass anything even in her actual platform anyway. This was the same mistake Obama made as president, using the moderate reforms he wanted as the starting point for negotiations, rather than starting from further to the left and making the "truth in the middle" something that was still a decent improvement (even if Congress was never going to pass it). People wanted big changes to the status quo, and Hillary wasn't offering any. I don't know if either of these would have won her the election, but given how slim the margin was, I don't think either approach would have hurt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:Incorporate more of Bernie's platform into her own The fact that you think she didn't is probably indicative of the larger problem of her not actually talking about her platform. Doesn't matter if the platform was literally just copy-pasted from Bernie Sanders if every rally is "look at Trump"
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Stack the court. It's an elitist institution working against the American people. Populism will return us to power and we will use it punk rebel ecks posted:This is true. The small and non-term limited Supreme Court, the electoral college, FPTP, the lack of proportional voting. Pollyanna posted:This. The system has become rotten. um, really? you guys actually want a supreme court that is more politicized than the current one? that doesn't give a poo poo about stare decisis and starts going back and forth on key constitutional questions from administration to administration? where the justices don't have the freedom to say "gently caress you" to the administration that appointed them, and the ones that come after that? where the "American People" includes nearly 50% of the country that affirmatively voted for a guy who promised to attack the freedom of the press? all this "populism" stuff sounds wonderful until you realize that politically (rather than ideologically) motivated judges could start literally ripping the bill of rights to shreds. yes, way loving more than it's been hobbled already. I mean, maybe this is just hyperbole or trolling or whatever, I'm sorry, I'm not a D&D regular and I've probably said more than my piece. I just think all this talk of "get rid of the supreme court" is loving idiotic when all it would have taken to fix things for a generation or two is for a contingent of self-professed Democrats/liberals, people who voted for Obama, to take a few minutes out of their day to vote for sanity. the system didn't fail because it's anti-populist (in this case), it failed, apparently, specifically because the populace was too loving dumb to get out and vote for what they specifically claimed to want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:Nah, laugh. Ignorance is no excuse, they should have known better. I'm going to be there to gloat over these motherfuckers when they are all homeless or their lives are ruined. No sympathy for my fellow Americans from here on out, I am done with that. Yeah that's great we all know Trump is not a jobs wizard and cannot bring manufacturing back like he promised but what were WE going to do for them? What can WE do for them? What can WE offer them? We need to find something and we need to find it fast because at this point we have lost them. They were dying on the bit, got tired of being strung along, and loving bucked us. We gotta find a way to help them and win them back. These people don't want to hear or accept the truth. That their way of life is dying. That manufacturing here is uneconomical and mostly dead. That coal is wasteful and antiquated and dead. They don't want to hear that they'll have to adapt and change with the times. That they'll have to learn a new trade and take another gamble when the jobs might not even be there for them once they retrain. And if they're 40+ they probably can't retrain. And that's not even addressing the cost of education and/or trade schools which is a hurdle all in itself for these people who are built off of generations of poverty or near poverty. So what the gently caress can we do for these people? Any ideas? I'm loving serious here. Infrastructure will help but will it be enough? We need more ideas. If you have them share them please.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
FYI the polling was basically within the margin of error and wasn't actually bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Turns out hailing people like Lena Dunham and Lady Gaga as the ~voice of the people~ and then telling everyone outside the big cities "gently caress you you don't matter" isn't much of a winning strategy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:Honestly I think what it comes down to is that Hillary didn't offer something to vote for that was genuinely exciting. Hillary's campaign basically presented a vote for her as a vote for four more years of Obama. The problem is that the last four years of Obama have been marked by Congress doing jack poo poo, Obama complaining about Congress doing jack poo poo, and just in general jack poo poo getting done except through the Supreme Court. Nobody is going to get excited about voting for four more years of the same old poo poo with nothing getting done, especially when there are a huge fuckload of problems that need to be addressed. What needed to happen is that Hillary needed to show why people should vote for her instead of against Trump. I think there's a couple of approaches she could have taken: Yeah I agree. For whatever reason be it obstructionism or whatever after 8 years with Obama the economy is still just 'meh'. That's a tough load for Clinton to have to carry. Also Obamacare wasn't doing too well at just the wrong moment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Yeah I agree. For whatever reason be it obstructionism or whatever after 8 years with Obama the economy is still just 'meh'. That's a tough load for Clinton to have to carry. The US economy is actually doing really well for an economy of its size and is by far the best performer among advanced economies (it's adding roughly a Switzerland's worth of GDP each year) but your average joe isn't seeing benefits from it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
One question I have thought about in recent days is that who else could the democrats have possibly run in TYOL 2016? Likewise who might step up to the table in 2020. Bernie was maybe a little too "far left" and had some perception issues with minority voters that caused him to lose in the primary. Not to mention the democratic party as a whole probably preferred Clinton who despite her flaws actually was and remains a democrat, rather than technically an independent like Bernie who wasn't exactly on the insider track within the Democrat Party. However he did fire up "Progressives" and young voters and as mentioned before his campaign seemed to dig in to the same populist streak Trump had, except from the left instead of right. Anyway rambling aside, one person I was hoping would run at the start of this slogging campaign was Elizabeth Warren, she has some progressive chops like Bernie and I think the few speeches she gave tapped into the rage that alot of people had with establishment politics. Unlike Bernie she could still play the angle of "First Female President" for historical precedent. Importantly she at least appears to have less baggage and scandal than Hilary, she hasn't had her name dragged through the mud for decades at this point. TLDR: Warren 2020
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:TLDR: Warren 2020 Another septagenarian career politician? Genius! Elizabeth Warren is cool and all, but I don't think she's the answer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Jenner posted:Yeah that's great we all know Trump is not a jobs wizard and cannot bring manufacturing back like he promised but what were WE going to do for them? What can WE do for them? What can WE offer them? We need to find something and we need to find it fast because at this point we have lost them. They were dying on the bit, got tired of being strung along, and loving bucked us. We gotta find a way to help them and win them back. The only answer is probably Soviet/Chinese style state industries that are constantly producing at a loss, but merely exist to give people a paycheck and a place to be. It sounds ridiculous, but we live in ridiculous times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:How can we engage young people disillusioned with the political system? I think there are more good options out there for the Dems to run than you think. Looking at the actual election results, this was insanely close. I think that even Hillary herself still could have won if she focused on campaigning in her rust belt firewall and not wasted so much of her campaign's energy on putting down Trump. Warren would be a more popular candidate, assuming she changes her mind and decides to run.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:Everyone wants a super easy way out with no room for self reflection or critique of their lives. Baby Boomers are the absolute worst about this but millennials are not much better either. Our society is full of people who can only think about themselves and those close to them. We are not a forward thinking species, we cannot plan for the future or think ahead more then 5 minutes and it is going to lead us to ruin. I would say that it is the default human condition, and that any political platform which does not harness it or at least account for the fact that most people won't care about more than the people and things that are immediately around them is probably a platform doomed to slowly be strangled to death. Lamenting that people don't care won't help. You just have to find ways to make them care.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:How can we engage young people disillusioned with the political system? ... The same young people who went nuts over the 70 year old jewish socialist who's been in politics for 40 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:... The same young people who went nuts over the 70 year old jewish socialist who's been in politics for 40 years. The question isn't their age, race, gender or how long they have been in politics, but how reliably they can get people on the margins motivated. Yes including people who maybe be poorly educated and crude.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Likewise who might step up to the table in 2020. Robert Reich?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
america isn't electing a 4'11 man to the presidency
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The fact that you think she didn't is probably indicative of the larger problem of her not actually talking about her platform. Right on the mark. You posted it before I could. Just putting something on your platform is not enough; you have to sell it. Either the campaign was afraid it'd be seen as shrill and too liberal if she started spouting actual labor talking points (though we have just learned how much media tut-tutting actually matters), or they stuck them in there just to mollify the Bernistas and were happy to never bring it again in the future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Manifisto posted:um, really? you guys actually want a supreme court that is more politicized than the current one? that doesn't give a poo poo about stare decisis and starts going back and forth on key constitutional questions from administration to administration? where the justices don't have the freedom to say "gently caress you" to the administration that appointed them, and the ones that come after that? where the "American People" includes nearly 50% of the country that affirmatively voted for a guy who promised to attack the freedom of the press? I guess we realized that if the GOP wants to try to prevent us from making changes through stacking the system, Why not do the same?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
1) Hillary's campaign got cannibalized by disenfranchised Bernie supporters and Wikileaks - resulted in low turnout, worse than Trump 2) Typically blue Michigan and Wisconsin ended up being in play - Trump had a message about restoring manufacturing in Michigan. Politics have been strange the past several years in Wisconsin. Trump is a strange populist and doesn't fit within the definition of red and blue 3) Internet mattered a lot this election probably. Pollsters often are using weighing heavier on traditional methods of surveying folks. Trump had the best memes and largest social media following.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:One question I have thought about in recent days is that who else could the democrats have possibly run in TYOL 2016? Likewise who might step up to the table in 2020. Bernie was maybe a little too "far left" and had some perception issues with minority voters that caused him to lose in the primary. Not to mention the democratic party as a whole probably preferred Clinton who despite her flaws actually was and remains a democrat, rather than technically an independent like Bernie who wasn't exactly on the insider track within the Democrat Party. However he did fire up "Progressives" and young voters and as mentioned before his campaign seemed to dig in to the same populist streak Trump had, except from the left instead of right. There's a lot here, but I'll point out Joe Biden would've run roughshod over Trump in the rust belt if he had any semblance of an economic message.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
I disagree that you can't win off minorities. Clinton did not perform as well as Obama did in 2012 when it came to a lot urban areas for the states that decided this thing. A lot of Obama voters stayed home, and while Republican turnout was also poor, it's pretty bad when you consider the huge GOTV effort by the Clinton campaign. People did not like Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
rum sodomy Rainbow Dash posted:I disagree that you can't win off minorities. Clinton did not perform as well as Obama did in 2012 when it came to a lot urban areas for the states that decided this thing. A lot of Obama voters stayed home, and while Republican turnout was also poor, it's pretty bad when you consider the huge GOTV effort by the Clinton campaign. People did not like Clinton. THAT IS ONLY RACISM TALKING NOTHING ELSE
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The only answer is probably Soviet/Chinese style state industries that are constantly producing at a loss, but merely exist to give people a paycheck and a place to be. It sounds ridiculous, but we live in ridiculous times. That or there has also been talk of establishing a universal basic income. Both have their merits though I think the Soviet/Chinese style state industries would be better because of our "bootstraps bitch" culture. Reagan successfully demonized the poor subsisting on the system with his welfare queens myth and now a lot of people view not working/the inability to work, regardless of the situation, very negatively. As such, most people would prefer to go to a job where they are doing something and can have the illusion of productivity over being paid to stay at home and do jack poo poo. But I don't think we can, or could ever, afford either of these options. Even if we super taxed the rich and super gutted military spending and who knows what else. I just don't think we have the tax base/financial capital/investment to support that kind of system. We'd most likely have to keep racking up debt to support it until we could no longer pay down our interest payments and then gently caress. I mean, look at social security/disability. For awhile it was drat good but then the people getting paid out started to outnumber the people paying in and now social security is in danger and we've had to increase the age of enrollment several times to try to stem the tide. (Throwing our elderly under the bus and forcing them to work well into their late 60s when they just might not be able to.) One of the questions the last debate was how to save social security. A question Donald Trump dodged and didn't really answer but that Hillary Clinton tried to answer to. And now it's just measures of kicking the can down the road and hoping for a better economy/things to change. I don't want to get off on a social security derail but I'm pretty sure it is ultimately hosed. Which is really tragic because people should not have to work until they die. My point is we don't have the capital for something like this, even though it would obviously help and be immensely helpful/beneficial. We could not maintain it over the long term. Anyway I'm pretty defeatist about this whole thing. I know we can make things better for the blacks, the Latinos and religious minorities because we can improve their lives in small and incremental ways. But I'm not sure what we can do for working and middle class whites who need big change now. We need them to win elections and we can't get them if we can't help them. Perhaps convincing some companies to move out/expand out of the cities, set up in rural/suburban areas and hire the locals? Perhaps we could look over their numbers, do so math with them, wheel and deal a bit to accept a less obscene profit margin and lower executive pay outs at the expense of helping America and Americans? So anti-capitalist but... maybe they'd care? Maybe they'd be willing to tighten their belts a little bit for the sake of everybody? They can probably more easily/readily afford to in comparison to the working/middle class who we've been squeezing for generations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...6ddc27?ka603sorHillary Clinton’s Vaunted GOTV Operation May Have Turned Out Trump Voters posted:Volunteers for the Clinton campaign in Pennsylvania, Ohio and North Carolina have reported that when reminding people to vote, they encountered a significant number of Trump voters. Anecdotal evidence points to anywhere from five to 25 percent of contacts were inadvertently targeted to Trump supporters Robby Mook and everyone who reported to him should be put sent to Saint Helena. Jesus christ what a loving shitshow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
disjoe posted:There's a lot here, but I'll point out Joe Biden would've run roughshod over Trump in the rust belt if he had any semblance of an economic message. I agree I don't think Biden would have been a terrible choice for running either. Rent-A-Cop posted:How can we engage young people disillusioned with the political system? Hmm I actually was surprised on this, I honestly thought she was younger than 67. Also I didn't realize Trump is the oldest person elected to the presidency. Regardless when looking at the democrats bench, I think she is a reasonable option. Jack2142 fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I guess we realized that if the GOP wants to try to prevent us from making changes through stacking the system, Why not do the same? our constituency had not just a chance but almost a mathematical certainty of making positive changes via the system, but were too stupid/petulant/"disaffected" (lol) to vote. time to burn it down! e: this car doesn't go anywhere when i put maple syrup in the gas tank, time to shove it off a cliff! Manifisto fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Extensive Vamping posted:Obviously Russian hackers and voter fraud stole the election. Prove me wrong. Bushiz posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...6ddc27?ka603sor
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Was the main Clinton campaign not told of this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
Bushiz posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...6ddc27?ka603sor 25 is bad, but I'm pretty sure GOTV operations wouldn't find the 5% to be very unusual
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:44
|
|
