Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 11-11-2016, 06:03 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Her lies were within normal for any Politico, in fact she lied less than any other candidate except Bernie.
Is that based on some PolitiFact tally? She certainly had worse "honest and trustworthy" polling numbers than most.
  #152  
Old 11-11-2016, 06:32 PM
kidchameleon is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cecil's basement
Posts: 5,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Perhaps she believed that she did. Perhaps she was warned of snipers, and being afraid, believed that they could be shot.'
That's even scarier.
  #153  
Old 11-11-2016, 06:44 PM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,240
In this election, I would have voted for Clinton. I don't see her as being much more corrupt than average. I see Trump as less trustworthy given his taxes, history, inconsistency on issues and baiting. But he is a very astute salesman, and very shrewd.

The media and Democrats were pretty smug. Given Trump's aggrandizement, they thought average people would value book smarts and political experience over other skills (when have Democrats reached out to the "poorly educated"?). They lost to rural vote by not making a strong case for trade and globalism, lost many white women who clearly were not unaminously mortified by Trump, did not sufficently mollify the worries of unions or evangelicals. Clinton has some charisma, but advertised poorly and believed flawed polls. She did not do a good job of deflecting email concerns and allowed a small issue to bedevil her. Trump's Republican rivals also believed in the power of Conservative purity tests and traditional paths to the Presidency. Not many people seemed to think Clinton would lose. I am amazed she did not do better with women or minorities, but she did not inspire many of them, did not get voters out in rural areas, did not go to Wisconsin.

American politics has devolved into separate echo chambers, I guess. Trump used simple words, vague policies, repetition and ritual. His rallies were an event, everyone was curious what he would say next, since it was often novel. The media sought "balance" but this is not Trump's forte. Does politics really just boil down to charisma, column inches and water cooler discussions? I know many well educated Canadians (often minorities themselves) who liked Trump for raising certain topics or "having the guts to tell it like it is". With all the obstruction, reforms were needed. Time will tell if this particular reform will have some benefits.
  #154  
Old 11-11-2016, 06:50 PM
computergeek is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Paprika View Post
American politics has devolved into separate echo chambers, I guess. Trump used simple words, vague policies, repetition and ritual. His rallies were an event, everyone was curious what he would say next, since it was often novel. The media sought "balance" but this is not Trump's forte. Does politics really just boil down to charisma, column inches and water cooler discussions? I know many well educated Canadians (often minorities themselves) who liked Trump for raising certain topics or "having the guts to tell it like it is". With all the obstruction, reforms were needed. Time will tell if this particular reform will have some benefits.
If these were normal times, perhaps the better prepared and more normal candidate would have won, and charisma does tend to win the day. But after the 2008 economic meltdown that scared the hell out of everyone and which took years to come back from, people didn't want normal. Similar to Brexit, a good number of people wanted to send a message to the elite to pay attention to their needs and the problems left festering and, in the US's case, that they didn't like that not enough people were punished for the 2008 meltdown, among other things. It was a cry to overturn things or at least rough up the system to pay attention and not enough elites and folks in charge were paying attention to the rebel yell, even after Brexit
  #155  
Old 11-11-2016, 07:38 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by billfish678 View Post

Lincoln wasn't a donkey fan.
I understand that he was a Whig and was in on the beginning of the Republican party.
  #156  
Old 11-11-2016, 09:13 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
And before 11:59 PM. We'll see how long he lasts. Lol.
Indeed we will. The one other time I did something like this, in November 2004, I managed to go nine months without hearing Dubya's voice or seeing his smirking, punchable face. But then I heard through the grapevine after Katrina that his popularity was plummeting, and I got back into the game to watch the GOP's downfall, which played out over the next year and was sweet indeed. This time, though, the election result is not just maddening and frustrating and enraging, it's absurd and criminally irresponsible on the part of the voters. Hard to forgive that one. (I mean, I said well before the election that if Hillary won by less than ten points, I was going to seriously side-eye all the Republican voters.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Paprika View Post
The media and Democrats were pretty smug. Given Trump's aggrandizement, they thought average people would value book smarts and political experience over other skills (when have Democrats reached out to the "poorly educated"?). They lost to rural vote by not making a strong case for trade and globalism, lost many white women who clearly were not unaminously mortified by Trump, did not sufficently mollify the worries of unions or evangelicals. Clinton has some charisma, but advertised poorly and believed flawed polls. She did not do a good job of deflecting email concerns and allowed a small issue to bedevil her. Trump's Republican rivals also believed in the power of Conservative purity tests and traditional paths to the Presidency. Not many people seemed to think Clinton would lose. I am amazed she did not do better with women or minorities, but she did not inspire many of them, did not get voters out in rural areas, did not go to Wisconsin.
I just can't accept this kind of normalization of this election, as though it were a relatively ordinary (D) vs. (R) battle. Hillary should have been able to run a "Rose Garden campaign", not even doing anything, and won by a landslide. Not because she's so awesome (although I like her quite well), but because Trump is so manifestly unfit for the office and she's not. I think we get numbed to the usual litany, so let's mix it up a bit and mention just one of his outrages that quickly got passed by: this is a guy who bragged to Howard Stern that he used his status as owner of beauty pageants to play Peeping Tom. And teenage girls as young as 15 confirmed this:

Quote:
"I remember putting on my dress really quick because I was like, 'Oh my god, there’s a man in here,'" Mariah Billado, former Miss Vermont Teen USA, told Buzzfeed News.

Billado said that Trump said something along the lines of, "Don’t worry, ladies, I’ve seen it all before," when he walked into the room.

As Buzzfeed News noted, girls as young as 15 competed in the pageant, and contestants told Buzzfeed that the dressing rooms were typically open spaces without barriers shielding them while they changed clothes.
You could leave out every single one of the scores, or hundreds, of outrages he is guilty of, and this alone should be utterly disqualifying. Beyond disqualifying. But pretty much the entire group of voters who backed Romney four years ago shrugged and voted for him anyway. Except, that is, Romney himself--and many other Mormons, who as Bill Maher noted turned out to be the only members of the Religious Right to have any integrity.

--------
NB: As of Friday, Nov. 11, 2016 at 11:59 p.m. CST, I'm unsubscribing from all political threads and will no longer participate in discussions in the Elections board, nor in political discussions in the Pit or MPSIMS. If you reply to a political post of mine after that point, I will not see it; please do not PM me to try to pull me back in to the debate. Thanks!
  #157  
Old 11-12-2016, 04:18 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,043
Some Democrats still don't really understand why the white working class doesn't like them. Ed Kilgore explains:

Quote:
Progressive “populists” often fell into their old habit of condescendingly telling white working-class voters their most fondly cherished beliefs were just neurotic symptoms of their “real” economic class grievances. And as Hillary Clinton’s unfortunate gaffe about the “deplorables” showed, centrists often had little to say to cultural traditionalists other than “Please, hurry up and die off.”
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...-politics.html

Last edited by adaher; 11-12-2016 at 04:18 AM.
  #158  
Old 11-12-2016, 05:37 AM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by KAndre View Post
Yes, thank you Ramira. And in looking at that graph, the Democrats doesn't really need the "deplorables" - they need to really make sure their base can and does turn out .
I do not know if these numbers are "your base" from the perspective of the political party or ideology - that is making assumptions that may or may not be true. What is clear is that unlike under the two Obama campaigns, despite his blackness and funny name, your party attracted many millions more voters. Many millions more.

This does not say "base" to me in a rational analysis, but it says "variable voters" who can be attracted by some good charismatic candidate and a good charismatic campaign as Mr Obama clearly did very well with, he was always clearly nice and likable and clean.
  #159  
Old 11-12-2016, 06:33 AM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
From the Oxford University paper, a reflection that is interesting, useful I think as not American; Was tuesday night really an upset

Quote:
...To begin with, there are two ways to think about a politician doing better in a race than is expected. The first is as the candidate winning an upset, but the second is as the polls having a miss, and this latter interpretation is much closer to reality. Trump did not especially overperform, but actually received fewer votes than any Republican as far back as George W. Bush’s first run in 2000, which is especially pitiful considering that the pool of eligible voters grew by twenty million over the intervening span.

Rather, Trump’s victory came decidedly from Hillary Clinton’s weaknesses, which evidently were not sufficiently understood prior to the election. Perhaps some of the blame for this nearly nationwide myopia can be assigned to the prevailing model of political punditry, which seeks to explain polls with electoral factors, rather than using electoral factors to predict results. .... Investigations into the minds of voters, the trends on the ground, and the actual issues at stake in the race all took second billing to running horse-race backup. Is it any wonder that they got it so wrong?
and
Quote:
One of the most obvious warning signs was Clinton’s ability to blow huge leads in Clinton in both the 2008 and 2016 Democratic primaries. Both times, she lost due to a lack of personal magnetism and an inability to capture the “change” vote. Perhaps we forgot at some point this cycle, but all one needs to do to realize the charisma gap between her and the last two winning Democrats, Obama and Bill Clinton, is watches clips of their speeches side by side.
and
Quote:
So the question could have been framed as, “will 2016 have turnout that’s higher or lower than usual?” .... With both candidates less popular than any since polling began, two-party turnout dropped dramatically, to 51%. It had been 57% in 2012 and 59% in 2008. ...

The final warning sign was the enthusiasm gap in the Democratic and Republican primaries. Democratic turnout fell by a third from 2008, the last year there was a competitive primary. Republican turnout increased by half. In a bruising, dirty election with depressed turnout, it should have been clear that Republicans would be likely to stick around to vote at a higher rate.
  #160  
Old 11-12-2016, 09:02 AM
KAndre is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston, TX y'all!
Posts: 147
Ramira, you have a point - I probably am biased in the fact that I want to think that the Democratic base normally includes those "variable voters" that like charisma in a good person - that the "good" part is the primary trigger since they didn't turn out to vote for a bad charismatic.

And off on something of a tangent, I have to admit to feeling a bit of hypocrisy from the Trump supporters, who are watching protesters that hate them and their candidate in the street, because of "feels" rather than "facts". It was fine for the Trump people to go "I don't care about facts, I like the lies or shit that hasn't yet better because they feeeeeeeel right." You all showed these idiots that truth doesn't matter; you claimed questioning the process was your right; well, look what you accomplished - you've managed to get the Democrats their own version of the Tea Party.
  #161  
Old 11-12-2016, 10:14 AM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by KAndre View Post
.....And off on something of a tangent, I have to admit to feeling a bit of hypocrisy from the Trump supporters, who are watching protesters that hate them and their candidate in the street, because of "feels" rather than "facts". It was fine for the Trump people to go "I don't care about facts, I like the lies or shit that hasn't yet better because they feeeeeeeel right." You all showed these idiots that truth doesn't matter; you claimed questioning the process was your right; well, look what you accomplished - you've managed to get the Democrats their own version of the Tea Party.
(post shortened)

These protestors are protesting against democracy.

A free and open election was held. All sides had their say. Many campaign promises were made. Some events were spun/twisted in order to promote the political biases of both (all?) sides. Votes were cast. The votes were counted, and a winner declared.

These protestors reject the results of that free and open election. Some of them chose to reject the results in a violent manner. Do these assholes expect the U.S.A. to hold another election in order to end the violence, protests, and terrorism? Will they then expect repeated elections until the terrorized voters select the candidate of the protestor's choice.
  #162  
Old 11-12-2016, 10:21 AM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by billfish678 View Post
Yep.

Lincoln wasn't a donkey fan.
I seem to remember that ol' Abe liked donkeys. It was those racist, asshole Democrats that Lincoln didn't approve of.
  #163  
Old 11-12-2016, 10:34 AM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Perhaps she believed that she did. Perhaps she was warned of snipers, and being afraid, believed that they could be shot.'
Not even close.

She (ol' Hillary) said when she arrived in Bosnia on March 25, 1996, "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

But news video footage of her arrival at Tuzla shows Clinton, then the first lady, calmly walking from the rear ramp of a U.S. Air Force plane with her daughter, Chelsea, then 16, at her side. Both Clintons held their heads up and did not appear rushed.

The video shows Clinton spending several minutes talking with the group, including an 8-year-old Bosnian girl who presented her with a poem, and later greeting U.S. troops.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/...rap/index.html

Apparently, 16-year-old Chelsea, and an 8-year-old Bosnian girl, were able to dodge the non-existing sniper fire while enjoying the spectacle that Hillary.
  #164  
Old 11-12-2016, 10:52 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened)

These protestors are protesting against democracy.

A free and open election was held. All sides had their say. Many campaign promises were made. Some events were spun/twisted in order to promote the political biases of both (all?) sides. Votes were cast. The votes were counted, and a winner declared.

These protestors reject the results of that free and open election. Some of them chose to reject the results in a violent manner. Do these assholes expect the U.S.A. to hold another election in order to end the violence, protests, and terrorism? Will they then expect repeated elections until the terrorized voters select the candidate of the protestor's choice.
You are saying that there were no protests against the Obama presidency? Or are you saying that it is only okay when your side does it?

I'll completely agree with you about violence and riots, and join you in condemning them, but protests are in fact a part of our democracy.
  #165  
Old 11-12-2016, 11:22 AM
jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened)

These protestors are protesting against democracy.

A free and open election was held. All sides had their say. Many campaign promises were made. Some events were spun/twisted in order to promote the political biases of both (all?) sides. Votes were cast. The votes were counted, and a winner declared.

These protestors reject the results of that free and open election. Some of them chose to reject the results in a violent manner. Do these assholes expect the U.S.A. to hold another election in order to end the violence, protests, and terrorism? Will they then expect repeated elections until the terrorized voters select the candidate of the protestor's choice.
Wrong. The protestors are not denying the results of the election (that's what Trump would have done). They're protesting the implications of the election. They're saying, "You may have won, but your odious policies will never be implemented. We will not stand for the harassment and abuse of women and minorities."
  #166  
Old 11-12-2016, 11:52 AM
ataraxy22's Avatar
ataraxy22 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,564
The Election isn't over yet; the protesters are merely lobbying the members of the Electional college, as is provided for in the Constitution since the Electoral College is supposed to serve as a check on any rash whims of the electorate.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
  #167  
Old 11-12-2016, 12:15 PM
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor's Avatar
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Dogpatch/Middle TN.
Posts: 31,155
Why did Trump win?
It is Rural America, screaming "STOP IGNORING US & OUR NEEDS!"

And, as everything else has failed, they try to smash the plate glass window, by electing Trump.

Seriously.
The Mainstream GOP screwed them by promising things they never intended to deliver, & the Democrats, their greatest strength in the cities, couldn't care less about them.

Quote:
THE ALGEBRA :
Let REPUBLICANS = VALUE X PLUS
Let DEMOCRATS = VALUE Y PLUS
Therefore, TRUMP = VALUE X MINUS
My conclusion :
Trump is a non-Democrat, but, at least to the voters, is an Anti-Republican.
__________________
“The four characteristics of humanism are curiosity, a free mind, belief in good taste, and belief in the human race.”
– E.M. Forster
  #168  
Old 11-12-2016, 12:23 PM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
Strange pseudo math presentations are... strange. Yes you have that feeling.

That does not say very much about the actual data that is available.
  #169  
Old 11-12-2016, 12:36 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
You are saying that there were no protests against the Obama presidency? Or are you saying that it is only okay when your side does it?

I'll completely agree with you about violence and riots, and join you in condemning them, but protests are in fact a part of our democracy.
Did I mention that there were no protests against the Obama Presidency? Maybe you're thinking of some other poster?

Did I say it is only okay when my side (Bernie, then Trump, supporter) does it? You must be using a different internet than I am.

These protestors are objecting to the results of a democratic free, and open, election. These protestors reject the results of a democratic free, and open, election.

These protestors are protesting democracy. There attempts to terrorize the public won't fair any better than the attempts by the Occupy thugs, or the only Black Lives Matter morons.
  #170  
Old 11-12-2016, 12:46 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
Did I mention that there were no protests against the Obama Presidency? Maybe you're thinking of some other poster?

Did I say it is only okay when my side (Bernie, then Trump, supporter) does it? You must be using a different internet than I am.

These protestors are objecting to the results of a democratic free, and open, election. These protestors reject the results of a democratic free, and open, election.

These protestors are protesting democracy. There attempts to terrorize the public won't fair any better than the attempts by the Occupy thugs, or the only Black Lives Matter morons.
Then did you condemn the Tea Party for attempting to terrorize the public?

If you did, good for you. I still don't agree that exercising the first amendments right to peaceful assembly is protesting democracy, but at least you would be consistent, and we could agree to disagree on the finer points of acceptable public discourse.

If you did not condemn the Tea Party for their protests, then you are just against democracy when it is not in your favor, and that's not cool.
  #171  
Old 11-12-2016, 12:58 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Then did you condemn the Tea Party for attempting to terrorize the public?

If you did, good for you. I still don't agree that exercising the first amendments right to peaceful assembly is protesting democracy, but at least you would be consistent, and we could agree to disagree on the finer points of acceptable public discourse.

If you did not condemn the Tea Party for their protests, then you are just against democracy when it is not in your favor, and that's not cool.
Refresh my memory, when did the Tea Party smash windows, block streets, or attack police officers?

Protesting is a 1st Amendment right. These protestors are protesting democracy.

What I find especially amusing is that these protestors seem to be terrorizing the residents of states where the majority actually voted for Hillary.
  #172  
Old 11-12-2016, 01:05 PM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
For more data of what was done wrong in not having Trump, I found the discussion of the
538 on the polling and where the divergences and the late deciding was, in some interesting graphics,
it does not look like the variance is about rural as Bosda shouts about, it is about the MidWest old industrial production areas of the USA that are in long term employment decline by reason of both the technology and the trade.
this suggests that Mrs Clinton failure was not only about her lack of charisma, but also the themes that were misfocused, focusing on the cultural politics and not on the working class economics politics.
  #173  
Old 11-12-2016, 01:13 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
Refresh my memory, when did the Tea Party smash windows, block streets, or attack police officers?

Protesting is a 1st Amendment right. These protestors are protesting democracy.

What I find especially amusing is that these protestors seem to be terrorizing the residents of states where the majority actually voted for Hillary.
If you look just a coupla posts above, you would see that I join with you in condemning any violence.

You are talking about protesters, the vast, vast majority of which have been peaceful, as being against democracy.

If you want to talk about violence, then don't talk about protests, talk about violence. Your current rhetoric is mixing them up, as if they are the same thing. If you continue to mix them up, after you have been made aware of the issues with your rhetoric, then I will assume that you are doing so intentionally.
  #174  
Old 11-12-2016, 02:06 PM
kidchameleon is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cecil's basement
Posts: 5,322
At least the protesting is less violent compared to when the Democrats rioted after the first Republican was elected.
  #175  
Old 11-12-2016, 03:59 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Some Democrats still don't really understand why the white working class doesn't like them.
This is the right answer and the Democrats are stupid for not taking the easy opportunity to fold them in. There are slight changes to their platform that they could make that would attract a huge number of moderate Republicans and also solidify moderate Democrats.

A few tweaks to the platform:

1) Recognize that Islam has been radicalized, and assert a willingness to work with Muslims and non-Muslims to ensure that the religion becomes, once again, a religion of peace. Jesus, the Republicans got a huge burst from that Democrats refused to say "radical Islam", which, even as a Democrat it pains me the lengths to which we twist ourselves up to try to pretend Islam is exactly the same as Mormonism with regard to violence at this moment in history.

2) Favor affirmative action as a method to include people of all backgrounds. One does not need to walk away from race based affirmative action, which I believe is actually a good thing for everyone. But, it's also a good thing for everyone to include people from all backgrounds. Poor white kids are sick of being called privileged, which segues into 3...

3) Back off on the labeling. I get what you mean when you say that whites have an inherent privilege. It isn't wrong, entirely. But, when that poor white family hears how privileged they are, it pisses them off, and they're not wrong to be pissed off. They are having a hard time, maybe we should help them out too. Maybe we should have some nuance here, and acknowledge this kid's struggle. Which links in to number 2, because this kid is now not only "privileged" but gets lumped in with all the other actual "privileged" people based solely on the color of his skin; he looks at the kids he has way more in common with socioeconomically who ARE getting a leg up, and is rightfully pissed. He genuinely needs a leg up, and let's be the party to give it to him.

4) Cool your jets with being offended, and lets stop pretending every instance of offense is legitimate. Some are, no doubt. And those should be minimized, and I'll be with you there on those. But we love being offended. We fucking LOVE it. Every time a college holds genuine meetings to address the horrible travesty of someone chalking "Trump 2016" on a campus, you lose voters. Hell, you're losing me, and I'm on your side! Ask yourself if you're actually offended before making an issue. When someone says "all lives matter", you might actually have a lot in common with their opinion, so stop shitting on them reflexively.

5) Drop gun control for now. It's a loser of an issue. It sucks that we can't have a rational debate on this, but this is where we are.

6) Acknowledge that you have reservations on abortion. You aren't removing a tonsil. It's not the same thing, and it's not just a clump of cells. I'm pro-choice, but I cringe when other people on my side are so cavalier about it. Being pro-life is a very understandable position to take, and when we act like we are 100% right on this issue, it makes us look like the chasm between us and them is way bigger than it is (similar to when they pretend that they have no problems with victims of rape and incest being forced to take a baby to term).


Now, yes, in the general scheme of the issues facing America, these are not terribly vital. Compared to global warming and the proper tax structure, these issues are relatively trivial. But, Trump voters, at least the big chunk of non-deplorable ones, said they were scared of Muslims, and sick of PC. They aren't entirely wrong. Let's figure out what we are doing wrong and correct it.

Or, we become the pure, 100% "right" and powerless party. We ask why they vote against their economic self interest, and the answer appears to be that no one votes based on economic issues, but every day issues like these.
  #176  
Old 11-12-2016, 04:13 PM
DerekMichaels00 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,337
Read this piece, Democrats (and yes a conservative wrote it. Time to stop only reading things that fit your echo chamber):

Quote:
In other words, even as Obama left the Democrats with ideological and political detritus, he also had established an electoral calculus built on his own transformative identity that neither had coattails nor was transferrable to other candidates. Indeed, his hard-left positions on redistribution, social issues, sanctuary cities, amnesty, foreign policy, and spending would likely doom candidates other than himself who embraced them.

The Bernie Sanders candidacy was the natural response, on the left, to Obama’s ideological presidency. But the cranky socialist septuagenarian mesmerized primary voters on platitudes that would have proven disastrous in a general election—before meekly whining about Clinton sabotage and then endorsing the ticket. What then has the Democratic Party become other than a hard left and elite progressive force, which without Obama’s personal appeal to bloc-voting minorities, resonates with only about 40 percent of the country?

The Democratic Party is now neither a centrist nor a coalition party. Instead, it finds itself at a dead-end: had Hillary Clinton emulated her husband’s pragmatic politics of the 1990s, she would have never won the nomination—even though she would have had a far better chance of winning the general election.
  #177  
Old 11-12-2016, 04:20 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,861
Ms. Clinton's lead, by the way, currently reports as larger than would fit in the city of Albuquerque and could very well end at half a percentage point in the final tally. So where the Ds went wrong was obviously complacency and failure to properly target strategic states.
  #178  
Old 11-12-2016, 04:20 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Ms. Clinton's lead, by the way, currently reports as larger than would fit in the city of Albuquerque and could very well end at half a percentage point in the final tally. So where the Ds went wrong was obviously complacency and failure to properly target strategic states.
We should stop thinking about it as "targeting strategic states" and start thinking about it as "appealing to people".
  #179  
Old 11-12-2016, 04:25 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
We should stop thinking about it as "targeting strategic states" and start thinking about it as "appealing to people".
She had appeal to nearly 600K (0.45%) more people. They were just not strategically located.
  #180  
Old 11-12-2016, 04:28 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
She had appeal to nearly 600K (0.45%) more people. They were just not strategically located.
Right. She didn't appeal to enough people. Those people are largely outside of urban areas. They voted for Trump. Many are racist assholes, we aren't going to reach them, and we don't want to. Most aren't. Targeting them is opportunistic. Appeal to them.
  #181  
Old 11-12-2016, 05:51 PM
furt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: College Park, MD
Posts: 9,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
She had appeal to nearly 600K (0.45%) more people. They were just not strategically located.
Problem is, the loss of the presidency is only one part of the picture. The Pubs also control both houses of congress, and the large majority of governorships and state legislatures. Yeah, if Hillary had a couple hundred thousand more strategically-located votes she'd have won the White House ... and faced the same intransigent congress that has kept Obama from doing anything except via Executive Orders (to be repealed in 2020 or 2024, just as Obama's will be in 2016).


Out system of government was specifically designed to distribute power geographically and to limit the power of large urban populations. At this point, both parties have become deeply toxic outside their rural/urban core constituencies; but owing to the design of the system, that divide leaves the Pubs with a relatively stronger hand. If the Dems continue to be the Urban Party, they'll do fine in presidential elections, but they're putting themselves on the short end of the stick everywhere else. They need geographic diversity, and they will need to tolerate some ideological diversity to acheive it.

The other mistake the Dems are making is thinking that changing demographics inevitably favor them. They don't.

For one thing, while the fact that 90% of African-Americans vote Democratic is the good news, the bad news is that there's nowhere for that number to go but down (and the same is mostly true with Hispanics and others). If the Pubs can manage to get even 25% of blacks and 40% of Hispanics, they win a landslide (and having a New Yorker as the face of their party, as opposed to someone with a Buford Pusser accent, is a good step towards that).

The other problem is the assumption that Democrats will keep getting 40% of the white vote, even as the country gets more non-white. But if they keep doubling down on racial-identity politics, minority-preferences, and call-everyone-who-disagrees-a-racist, they'll keep driving away lower-class whites. There's no reason to think we can't reach a point where Democrats have 80% of nonwhites, plus the yuppie progressives who live alongside them in the cities, and the pubs are getting the other 80% of whites (who will still be the majority for several decades). That's exactly what the harsher elements of the Alt-right want, and there is evidence that's where things are headed (https://newrepublic.com/article/1382...ntity-politics). And won't that be a lovely place to be living.


Listening to the suggestions from people like Fiveyearlurker would be a good idea. Though to judge by the talk of nominating Keith Ellison as DNC chair, they're not listening.

Last edited by furt; 11-12-2016 at 05:55 PM.
  #182  
Old 11-12-2016, 05:58 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
She had appeal to nearly 600K (0.45%) more people. They were just not strategically located.
Could we strategically locate them the people then?

You could build a city on the tristate border of north dakota, south dakota, and montana. If it's metropolitan area was a couple million, that would overpower the populations of those states, flipping 6 senators, 3 representatives, and at 9 electors. More really, as the population increase would likely give them another rep or two each.
  #183  
Old 11-14-2016, 09:47 AM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Could we strategically locate them the people then?

You could build a city on the tristate border of north dakota, south dakota, and montana. If it's metropolitan area was a couple million, that would overpower the populations of those states, flipping 6 senators, 3 representatives, and at 9 electors. More really, as the population increase would likely give them another rep or two each.
Hahahaha. You could build a city on the tristate border. Why expect anyone else to do your work for you? You should also lead the effort to force the relocation of millions of voters to K9bfriender City. Tell them it's for the children. That one never gets old.
  #184  
Old 11-14-2016, 09:49 AM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidchameleon View Post
At least the protesting is less violent compared to when the Democrats rioted after the first Republican was elected.
Hehehehe. Good one. Post of the day!
  #185  
Old 11-14-2016, 09:59 AM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
for historical reference -
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
Refresh my memory, when did the Tea Party smash windows, block streets, or attack police officers?

Protesting is a 1st Amendment right. These protestors are protesting democracy.

What I find especially amusing is that these protestors seem to be terrorizing the residents of states where the majority actually voted for Hillary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
If you look just a coupla posts above, you would see that I join with you in condemning any violence.

You are talking about protesters, the vast, vast majority of which have been peaceful, as being against democracy.

If you want to talk about violence, then don't talk about protests, talk about violence. Your current rhetoric is mixing them up, as if they are the same thing. If you continue to mix them up, after you have been made aware of the issues with your rhetoric, then I will assume that you are doing so intentionally.
Refresh my memory, when did the Tea Party smash windows, block streets, or attack police officers?

You're free to make any assumptions you chose. You're also free to make any demands as to what other posters may, or may not, post. Your biggest challenge may be enforcing your edicts.
  #186  
Old 11-14-2016, 11:22 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
Refresh my memory, when did the Tea Party smash windows, block streets, or attack police officers?
The "Tea Party" was an astroturf farce that ultimately became a fleecing scam.

They did not protest the 2012 election because there was zero amount of controversy to foment protest.

And if you want equivalencies, there were more than one stochastic terrorists in the RW, ready to stir up the angry masses if Hillary had won. Not quite equivalent, though – worse, really.
  #187  
Old 11-14-2016, 12:50 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
for historical reference -




Refresh my memory, when did the Tea Party smash windows, block streets, or attack police officers?
.
http://ftrradio.com/2012/12/reporter...ivated-attack/

There are many other instances where Tea Partiers attacked counter-protesters or carried guns during their protest rallies. They also blocked streets.

It's true they havent attacked a police officer yet.
  #188  
Old 11-14-2016, 12:52 PM
jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Ms. Clinton's lead, by the way, currently reports as larger than would fit in the city of Albuquerque and could very well end at half a percentage point in the final tally. So where the Ds went wrong was obviously complacency and failure to properly target strategic states.
Backing this up is a startling fact I heard on NPR yesterday:

Bernie won the Wisconsin Democratic primary handily, by something like 20%.

You would think that this would cause someone in the Clinton campaign to sit up and take notice? Maybe we don't have as many fans in Wisconsin as we think? Maybe they're a bit...restive...and we need to appeal to them?

You would be wrong. Hillary made ZERO trips to Wisconsin, assuming they were part of the Blue Wall.
  #189  
Old 11-14-2016, 01:07 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
http://ftrradio.com/2012/12/reporter...ivated-attack/

There are many other instances where Tea Partiers attacked counter-protesters or carried guns during their protest rallies. They also blocked streets.

It's true they havent attacked a police officer yet.
Hahahaha. You're a hoot. Did you even read the article you linked, or did you just jump on the first headline you thought backed up your position? You couldn't have been more wrong. Better luck next time.

According to the article you linked -

And scene.

That’s how I believe the main stream media and lefty websites would have reported the left wing violence and racism that transpired at the right-to-work protests if it had been perpetrated by the Tea Party–and not left wing union activists.

But it wasn’t the Tea Party.

Fox News contributor Steven Crowder was assaulted by a left wing union activist.

It was Americans for Prosperity’s tent. It was destroyed by violent, left wing union activists.

Clint Tarver’s equipment was destroyed by a mob of mostly white, violent, racist, left wing union activists. As if that wasn’t bad enough, they hurled racial slurs at Tarver as he tried to pick up what was left of his catering equipment.

In just one afternoon, the events in Lansing demonstrated what conservatives have known for a long time: If violence and racism is not the whole of the extreme left wing, it is in its heart. It has been seen in the Occupy movement when their protests have turned violent. It can be seen daily on Twitter, as rabid left wing lunatics attack Michelle Malkin with the kind of venom and racism that would make the late Senator Robert the Exalted Cyclops Byrd blush even in his KKK prime.
  #190  
Old 11-14-2016, 02:24 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
Hahahaha. You're a hoot. Did you even read the article you linked, or did you just jump on the first headline you thought backed up your position? You couldn't have been more wrong. Better luck next time.

]
I thought it was funny. Didn't you?

But yes, there have been fights with counter-protesters and Tea partiers did carry guns.

However, yes, they are not very violent, as a rule.
  #191  
Old 11-15-2016, 12:30 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,266
What Did the Democrats do wrong? Well, they lost Wisconsin, for example, by only 27000 votes. TEN TIMES that number of voters were turned away at the polls due to new Voter ID laws.

The election was rigged. Jim Crow laws rigged it.
  #192  
Old 11-15-2016, 05:35 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,043
Reports of Wisconsin voters being turned away are anecdotal and inconsistent with Wisconsin's voter ID law requirements. The 270K-300K is not a measured number, but a pre-election estimate by anti-voter ID activists.

Actual Wisconsin turnout was fairly high, 68%.

http://www.electproject.org/2016g

That is a drop from 2012, which was 72%, but not the kind of drop you'd expect if voter ID was causing big problems, since national turnout was down by a similar percentage:

http://www.electproject.org/2012g

Since anti-voter ID advocates will not accept anecdotal stories as proof of anything, they have to provide more than anecdotes themselves to prove their arguments.

Last edited by adaher; 11-15-2016 at 05:36 AM.
  #193  
Old 11-15-2016, 04:00 PM
Frankenstein Monster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 794
This link says Bill Clinton had the same explanation as some posters here, and had it before the day of the election. It also this says Bill and Hillary had a huge fight over it.

Days before losing the election Hillary and Bill had a screaming match over who to blame for her flagging campaign (Daily Mail article)

Quote:
During the campaign, Bill Clinton felt that he was ignored by Hillary's top advisers when he urged them to make the economy the centerpiece of her campaign.

He repeatedly urged them to connect with the people who had been left behind by the revolutions in technology and globalization.

'Bill said that constantly attacking Trump for his defects made Hillary's staff and the media happy, but that it wasn't a message that resonated with voters, especially in the rust belt,' the source explained.

'Bill always campaigned as a guy who felt your pain, but Hillary came across as someone who was pissed off at her enemy [Trump], not someone who was reaching out and trying to make life better for the white working class.'

Last edited by Frankenstein Monster; 11-15-2016 at 04:02 PM.
  #194  
Old 11-15-2016, 04:10 PM
furt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: College Park, MD
Posts: 9,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankenstein Monster View Post
This link says Bill Clinton had the same explanation as some posters here, and had it before the day of the election. It also this says Bill and Hillary had a huge fight over it.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if she refused to do it specifically because he suggested it. Someday, maybe in a couple years but more likely after both Bill and Hill are dead, there are going to be some amazing books about their marriage/career. Greek tragedy.
  #195  
Old 11-15-2016, 04:28 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Reports of Wisconsin voters being turned away are anecdotal and inconsistent with Wisconsin's voter ID law requirements. The 270K-300K is not a measured number, but a pre-election estimate by anti-voter ID activists.

Actual Wisconsin turnout was fairly high, 68%.

http://www.electproject.org/2016g

That is a drop from 2012, which was 72%, but not the kind of drop you'd expect if voter ID was causing big problems, since national turnout was down by a similar percentage:

http://www.electproject.org/2012g

Since anti-voter ID advocates will not accept anecdotal stories as proof of anything, they have to provide more than anecdotes themselves to prove their arguments.
Tighter Restrictions Are Losing In The Battle Over Voter ID Laws
Quote:
In 2012, my boss Nate Silver found that the academic literature on this question was in broad agreement: Voter ID laws “seem to decrease turnout by about 2 percent as a share of the registered voter population.”

Indeed, a 2014 Government Accountability Office report, one of the most cited pieces of research on this topic, looked at two states (Kansas and Tennessee) that added voter ID requirements, compared with a handful of states that did not. It found, essentially, that the requirements depressed turnout somewhere between 2 and 3 percentage points.
Quote:
. A paper forthcoming in the Journal of Politics, titled “Voter Identification Laws and the Suppression of Minority Votes” and written by a trio of political scientists, finds that, in the presence of strict ID laws, the predicted gap in participation between black and white voters in general elections increases from 2.9 points to 5.1 points, and in primaries increases from 2.5 points to 11.6 points. A similar result holds for the gap between Latino and white voters. More starkly, they find “that voter ID laws skew democracy toward those on the political right.”

Last edited by CarnalK; 11-15-2016 at 04:31 PM.
  #196  
Old 11-16-2016, 02:12 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,043
That's better, although it's far from proof, given that in this particular election it looks like Wisconsin saw turnout decreases on par with other states.
  #197  
Old 11-16-2016, 04:37 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
She had a fucking five percentage point lead two weeks out. Then that FBI guy dropped his bombshell. The decline was gradual, but just enough. She had no effective response. And, of course, we will probably never hear another word about whatever was on Huma Abedin's computer, unless some agent makes a big noise about how there was nothing there.
Uh, we already heard before the election that there was nothing there. The problem is whether those who voted for Trump heard it. If you didn't hear it, that seems unlikely.

As for the topic of this thread, I'm reminded of why I was worried about Clinton early on. I said before that, in my lifetime, the more charismatic candidate has always won. Now, granted, I don't understand Trump's mirror-universe version of charisma, but it did at least make him more charismatic than Clinton.

So I agree that we need to never run a non-charismatic candidate again.

I also agree with bringing up the job issue. Since I didn't watch any political ads (as I knew who I was voting for), I just assumed she was making that appeal, too. Not that I think knowing that she wasn't would have done me any good.

I do not think changing tactics about calling out racism and sexism is a viable way forward. We lost some of the minority vote to not voting. No need to go further. No need to compromise what Democrats stand for in that way.

I do think there is a need for the anti-bigoted cause to actually use our political correctness with the actual racists and sexists out there. But I don't think that's really something that changed the election. That's just a way forward in general.
  #198  
Old 11-16-2016, 06:00 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,965
Excellent post, BigT -- I agree with every word.
  #199  
Old 11-16-2016, 06:23 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
So I agree that we need to never run a non-charismatic candidate again.
Such candidates are rare. I don't think there's ever been a race with two, and most races feature none. An intelligent campaign can also make a charismatic but empty candidate look simply slick. All things being equal, charisma is a good thing, but beware of John Edwards types.
  #200  
Old 11-16-2016, 08:09 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,664
"Don't call Clinton a weak candidate: it took decades of scheming to beat her:
Years of Republican plots, an opponent deified by television, and FBI smears stood in her way – and she still won the popular vote by more than Kennedy did"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ns-trump-comey

Quote:
It’s impossible to disconnect the seething, irrational emotionality from misogyny, and the misogyny continues. Since election night, I’ve been hearing too many men of the left go on and on about how Clinton was a weak candidate. I’ve wondered about that word weak, not only because it is so often associated with women, but because what they’re calling her weakness was their refusal to support her. It’s as if they’re saying, “They sent a pink lifeboat and we sent it back, because we wanted a blue lifeboat, and now we are very upset that people are drowning.”

Or, as my brilliant friend Aruna d’Souza put it Wednesday: “At some point soon we need to discuss whether Sanders would have been able to win, but helpful hint: today, it just sounds like you’re saying: ‘The Democrats should have cut into Trump’s lead in the misogynist vote and the whitelash vote by running a white man.’ Let’s come to terms with the racism and the misogyny first, before analyzing the what-ifs – because otherwise we’re just going to replicate it forever. And if you think that the angry anti-establishment vote won (hence Sanders would have fared better), let me remind you that patriarchy and white supremacy are the cornerstones of the Establishment.”
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017