Venom Snake posted:

Hello and welcome to the Venom "Punished" Snake autopsy thread were I attempt to lay out what went wrong. I make this post by popular request. I am 100% aware I am going to get brutally owned shortly after making this post

To set the tone: Bernie and the Progressive wing of the party are in a Germany circa 1944 situation were operation Valkyrie was successful except but the Allies have refused any offers of peace. What do we do next? We have to do something or were hosed and our ability to hold them back is being lessened by the hour. It's 1942 and Stalingrad has fallen. The enemy is inside the gates. Stalin has fled the county and Germany has no interest in peace with what remains the USSR. Whats the plan now Marshal Zhukov?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoQxqi6XkGM

Clinton was defeated because the campaign was operating in another world were the democrats were winners, not losers. Obama won right? If we do what he did we will win right? The campaigns were almost entirely the same people. Except America is not the America of 2008, or 2012. How good the economy was doing did not matter. Obama's approval rating did not matter. All the progress made these past 8 years did not matter. Why did these not matter? Because for lower to middle class white American things didn't get better and to the rest of America Trump was a bad joke that could never ACTUALLY be elected RIGHT? Time and time again I (and others) dismissed incompetence within the Dem party as growing pains. Turns out those growing pains were actually late stage cancer.

The Clinton Campaign put to much trust in polls and far, far to much trust in older data experts/theory crafters who were looking to build an optimized spreadsheet instead of a movement. Ultimately Clinton herself is a smart, good women but she is hamstrung by outdated loyalty to people who hate her. She was scared of being overtly left wing and turned off voters and it crippled her attempt to build a message. They say If your explaining then your losing and 2016 was one giant explanation of EMAILS!. The Campaign tried to disenfranchise Republicans and forgot in the process that they think she is the devil. Just because old failed Neocons flipped to our side means that the GOP was as split as we thought it to be. Meanwhile the democratic party is weaker than it has ever been before and not at all prepared to offer any resistance to the GOP.

Another huge problem was overreaching. Instead of defending strongholds the democratic party over extended itself and got annihilated. If we would have kept the firewall we would have won by a slim margin but we would have won. Instead we chased idiotic dreams of blue Georgia/North Carolina and Arizona. Everyone in the campaign wanted to believe that dem strong holds would remain so no matter what. Resources were not allocated properly. My camp often fought to push resources towards Florida but the National campaign pushed back hard. Nobody actually took the idea that traditionally dem states could be in play seriously for a second. The Obama team brought on to give us another 2012 or 2008 gave the dems a 2000 instead. Right now from the little I still hear they are in a state of disbelief or have just given up. 8 years of hell and Obama will be handing the keys to a man who thinks he's a kenyan muslim traitor.

Disconnection between the National campaign and local campaigns was also a problem looking back on it. Many local offices went underfunded as more and more money was diverted to winning the ad and communication war.

Clinton had supporters. Trump had followers. Clinton was careful about what she said. Trump was willing to say anything to anyone. Clinton had the support the Dems who held a minority in both the senate and congress with less than 30% of governors and state legislators. Trump had the support of majority's in both the house and senate as well as governorship's of several blue states. Clinton said she was going to raise taxes. Trump said he would cut the most taxes of anyone ever bigly.

Diagnoses: Trump and Obama had a movement. We had fear. Fear of Trump was never going to be enough to win. We needed a candidate who energized the base and appealed to what people want not don't. Would Bernie have won? It isn't my right to say. After all I was wrong all along lol

To people who supported Hillary like me: We blew it. We can't give up though because the party needs a new direction and it would be wrong to give up now. Whoever steps up to lead in the aftermath should have our support.
To people who supported Bernie: It's your show now if you want it. Unite people behind your banner. Alienating them like we did will get you the same fate that befell us.
To Dems in general: We either unite now and try and rebuild or were hosed.

Ill answer any and all questions to the best of my ability. Ill write more as it comes to me.

RENEGADE CUCKSKY posted:

FYI, I can say with nearly 100% certainty that this is happening right now because the DNC is practically begging the AFL-CIO to not abandon them going forward.

The AFL-CIO and all of the major labor unions in this country are strongly considering dropping their de-facto support of the DNC every election. We spent an absolutely insane amount of money this election alone on GOTV operations for D candidates nationwide... money we could have used to hire several thousand organizers and ran issue based/local referendum campaigns in all 50 states.

There's very much a mindset of "what, exactly, have we gotten the past ~30 years from the Democratic party? they take our support for granted."

A lot of people in the labor movement consider Obama not going to Wisconsin during the Walker stuff nearly as damaging to our cause as Reagan and the Air Traffic Controllers.

mastershakeman posted:

yea it's loving hilarious. she didn't want an Obama 2.0 and completely wrecked the party apparatus with help from Kaine and dws

Oh Snapple! posted:

they got mad at loving everything, it was honestly pretty amazing.

never think for a second that this forum wasn't half neolibs who vote democrat solely because it's in their own personal interests instead of any sense of broad empathy

HannibalBarca posted:

Fuckin Dayum

https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/796825797323526145

mrmcd posted:

Let's start by primarying loving Cuomo.

Oh Snapple! posted:

as much as this owns, boy there's a lot of folks replying to that that are 100% The Problem

Condiv posted:

MJ12 posted:

Nobody is saying to try to go and do another run solely on those issues unless it turns out like, Trump is literally loving Hitler at which point maybe 100% racial identity politics is the correct answer because gently caress Hitler. But the Hitler comparison makes me think. Hitler got where he was at least in part because he used economic distress and perceived international unfairness to legitimize overt racism and genocide. It might be easier to sell 'we need less identity politics and more genuine inclusive socialism' to minorities when you're selling it as a way to prevent a Hitler figure from hijacking legitimate grievance and turning it against minorities as a weapon.

Because we don't just have to sell this to the voters, we have to sell it to the party base as well, and minorities with a strong concern for minority rights are part of that base too.

NecroMonster posted:

Burnie wouldn't have won because Burnie was no more willing to tell lies and sell dreams than Hillary was.

the only way to win is to lie to white people

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

I wonder how the Board of Directors at Planned Parenthood feel about endorsing Hillary during the primaries now.

gently caress.

Terror Sweat posted:

if you want to see some clintonista salt go to https://www.reddit.com/r/Enough_Sanders_Spam/
its hilarious how they refuse to look inward

mrmcd posted:

Uhh don't you know white working class voters love poisoned soil and leaded drinking water?? You don't want to look like you're anti jobs to working class voters!!!

Atrocious Joe posted:

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/10/28/what-crock-clinton-breaks-dapl-silence-statement-says-literally-nothing


"all voices should be heard"

the spokesperson released very little during the campaign and was possibly chosen because her name sounds indigenous

The Remote Viewer posted:

I guess you could say we're the 'real racists'?

radical meme posted:

Not at all; I'm merely pointing out that there is a difference between progressive ideology and socialism. We don't need to be shouting for socialism, eat the rich, at every level of the government. It's looking an awful lot like Hillary lost a fair share of Obama voters because of both parties full embrace of globalism and Trump was the only one saying he was going to protect everybody's job; he's not but that's beside the point.

edit; plus, socialism has just never taken hold here and there were plenty of times in our history that were more favorable to its rise.

Grondoth posted:

They have no power anymore.

A Winner is Jew posted:

this

also, sup powercrazy... you were also one of those i was a massive douche to

MJ12 posted:

I think these two posts are interesting together because I want to say that there's no contradiction between progressive, leftist policy and not being anti-business. A lot of progressive policy is good for companies and investors if they can get their heads out of their asses and look at the long term.

Universal healthcare means your workers spend less time roughing it and more time working as healthy, productive workers than miserable fucksticks! Working conditions that don't suck poo poo mean you have healthy productive workers who spend a longer time working rather than guys who keel over at 50 from black lung! Stable economic policy rather than 'lol let the markets decide' means you're less likely to run face-first into a recession when you're unprepared and lose everything! Environmentalism is a job opportunity-and it's kind of hard to spend your money when your financial centers are literally underwater due to rising sea levels. Etc.

I don't think it's impossible to sell the majority of the democratic establishment on non-incrementalist progressive platforms. And you don't need to convince all of them, just convince enough that the rest quietly get out of your way and don't work against you.

Lastgirl posted:

Powercrazy, watch the racism chat if you're going to be inflammatory about it, thanks in advance.

We should call for political capital instead, starting obviously with progressive control of the dnc as the left wanted when DWS kept shooting them down

Venom Snake posted:

I loving hate Saudi Arabia

loquacius posted:

When does Bill Gates get his biopic anyway, is the problem that he's not as much of a douchebag as Zuck or Jobs?

comedyblissoption posted:

licking the boot of wall st and not criminally indicting ANYONE for the 2008 crisis or the loving robo-foreclosure scandal is entirely on obama and the democrats. you can't loving fall back and try to blame the republicans here.

there were loving criminal cases there. federal judges were publically appalled when the obama doj and sec were just going after fines for mass fraud and wondered why they weren't going after criminal charges based on the cases for the fines.

people are loving pissed about it and the wall st financial institutions are one of the most unpopular institutions in the united states if not the most unpopular

and then you push a candidate who is funded gigantically by wall st and got millions of dollars of in giant bags of money of personal enrichment raining down on her head and put her at the top of the ticket

just lmao at anyone crying over the dems losing

FuriousxGeorge posted:

Well, can you imagine a future where a party might nominate someone party loyalists love but independents hate, costing them the general? That would be a huge mistake. Better to nominate someone independents are also willing to get behind, which is why a fairly run primary that gives them a voice is a strength.

Pick posted:

No one ever explained to working class America why immigration is good, economically.

mrmcd posted:

Has there been any study on whether party switching in order to gently caress with the other side's pick is actually a thing?

Because that seems like something that they're unlikely to care about and conspire to do in groups of 10,000 - 1,000,000 primary voters, but seems like something they would individually decide to do because they like the other side's candidate.

Zikan posted:

more epic Clinton campaign failure

https://twitter.com/jimtankersley/status/797492671631790084

im gonna get off the internet and smoke now

Raskolnikov38 posted:

i'm the single ad buy in lubbock texas

mrmcd posted:

Hey remember when Clinton had pneumonia and instead of being like "OK I got sick because I've been working so hard gonna rest up and be back in a week" they were evasive and put out a bunch of bullshit about "dehydration" and launched a million stupid brain cancer conspiracy theories because they have to micromanage every single loving think in the dumbest way possible without ever showing human vulnerability?

Then we were all "This is fine. I'll put this fire with the other fire."

Justin Tyme posted:

Not if they ditch stupid poo poo like identity politics and gun control and start pushing legitimate working class legislation. Less celebrities, more New Deal.

Face it, gun control is never gonna happen and there are a ton of midwest independents that would be warm to economically leftist ideas if you promise not to take their guns. It's such a stupid loving plank at this point that does nothing but alienate people. If Clinton flat out had a Republican stance on guns would dyed in the wool Democrats vote Stein?

bump_fn posted:

whoa whoa whoa

are you saying....

no war but class war????????

NumberLast posted:

The only umbrage I take with identity politics is when it subsumes progressive economics.

There is no social justice without economic justice.

punk rebel ecks posted:

Is this true?


The List goes:

1. My Imaginary Girlfriend
2. A Winner is Jew
3. fishmech
4. Mitt Romney
5. Obdicut

Only 2 of these posters I have seen recently.

jackofarcades posted:

Mitt Romney was around in the 2012 election so I doubt he was just some CTR shill?

Al! posted:

im sure ill make the next draft

Shark Sandwich posted:

I haven't been following the c-spam awards thread. Is there an award for most corncobbed?

punk rebel ecks posted:

How did the Democrats gently caress up THIS BAD!?

Not just this year, but pretty much how it snowballed into this.

Why didn't the alarms ring after 2010?

Gene Hackman Fan posted:

Tim Canova ain't too big on Ellison for DNC chair.

I don't know how to feel about this -- in the MTP clip he linked, he doesn't really address Chuck Todd's question on whether the Clinton "brand" had become tainted, instead focusing on Trump.

On one hand, to hell with Chuck Todd, but on the other, I honestly don't know if taking the diplomatic road w/r/t how badly Clinton blew it like an egg fart in an elevator is a bad idea.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

bump_fn posted:

yeah i think its posturing to be able to say "hey this guy didnt do anything he promised"

logikv9 posted:

y'all lusting for blood (which is understandable) but it's silly because all your supposed enemies literally bent the knee without you having to do anything. barring an act of god or keith ellison having a secret human trafficking operation in his basement, the progressives are going to own the DNC from the top down

this is the worst civil war i've ever seen. D+