Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-09-2016, 03:21 AM
joebuck20 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,974

So, where did the Democrats go wrong?


Many people, myself included, assumed this would be a blowout for Clinton. Obviously that turned out not to be the case.
So, what were some of the Democrats' biggest missteps here? Writing off the white working class? Not pushing the Obama administration's successes hard enough? Just an overall failure of messaging?
A commentator on NPR tonight I thought made a good point about Clinton. He mentioned, for example, that when she tried to defend herself for taking Wall Street money, she mentioned that Obama did too, which was a pretty weak defense.
Trump, on the other hand, when confronted with his many weaknesses, simply didn't give shit. He fully admitted to taking advantage of a corrupt system and wondering why anyone wouldn't do so, all while claiming that he would fix said system. Such brazeness, I guess, must have struck a number of voters as refreshing.
  #2  
Old 11-09-2016, 03:22 AM
Rigamarole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 12,115
Choosing the most disliked and unlikable candidate in history is where they went wrong. Duh?

Bernie would have won in a landslide. I have zero doubt about that.
  #3  
Old 11-09-2016, 03:23 AM
DerekMichaels00 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,337
they moved way too far to the left on social issues and Obama really hit the hornets nest of race talk too hard.
  #4  
Old 11-09-2016, 03:30 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by DerekMichaels00 View Post
they moved way too far to the left on social issues and Obama really hit the hornets nest of race talk too hard.
This is a joke, right? Some social issues, like marriage equality, have gone mainstream amazingly quickly. Meanwhile, Obama's avoidance of race-based approaches and statements has been astounding, for all eight years of his presidency.

As for SJWs, sometimes their tactics are counterproductive. But I don't see this as anything deeply tied to the Democratic Party.

The data might show that, had Obama/Hillary/the Dems acted "more black" (whatever that means), a better African-American turnout would have tipped the election to Clinton.
  #5  
Old 11-09-2016, 03:32 AM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,342
They decided on a coronation for a major power in the party, rather than letting the people choose the best candidate to represent them. They ran basically the only person who could've lost to Trump. Their corruption makes them complicit as to why we have an unstable reality star as the most powerful man in the world.

They also pushed the wrong narrative against Trump. They focused on how he's personally an asshole, and what an asshole anyone who supported him was. That made his support dig in, and say fuck it - if you say I'm a racist/sexist/whatever for not liking Clinton, I'm just going to be against you, full bore.

What they should've focused on was how dangerous Trump was. How his position on NATO and Russia and generally cavalier attitude about military and nuclear usage would give us the most dangerous situation we have since the cold war.

They should've attacked his blue collar support base by talking more about how he used the cheap chinese products he claimed were devastating the country. How he ripped off people who worked for him and people who contracted for him as a routine practice all throughout his career. How he wasn't some self-made succesful businessman, and how he'd be worth more if he just invested his father's fortune in an index fund.

Instead of playing identity politics, and alienated the people they were trying to call over in the process, they should've focused on how Trump will be a disaster for his supporters, how the things they believe about him aren't true, and what he really is.

The narrative for the last few weeks shouldn't have been about pussy grabbing, they should've been about how he met with the President of Mexico and curled into a little ball and ran away instead of being the "I'm the dealmaker, I'll walk into a room and get the best deal from every world leader"

Condescending identity politics caused people to dig in, to feel attacked, to feel like they were battling against the great big PC machine that was taking over the country. It invigorated his support. His support should've been swept out from under him by showing that he couldn't do the things he said he'd do, and that he's a fucking dangerous loon.
  #6  
Old 11-09-2016, 03:33 AM
The Universe Lashes Out is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigamarole View Post
Bernie would have won in a landslide. I have zero doubt about that.
This idea might have some traction if it weren't for the fact that Republicans also unexpectedly dominated the Senate races. And incumbents won more than they were expected to. So it wasn't that there was some big outsider/populist wave this year. It's just that the nation's shittiest people all came out to vote.
  #7  
Old 11-09-2016, 03:34 AM
rat avatar's Avatar
rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Continental Divide
Posts: 5,420
IMHO

1) Nepotistic promotion of a tainted candidate just because they had been groomed despite past failures.
2) Misjudging the sexism and bigotry that polling missed which resulted them being overconfident.
3) Ignoring rural needs for decades.
4) Assuming that Americans were more evolved than they are in private.

Last edited by rat avatar; 11-09-2016 at 03:35 AM.
  #8  
Old 11-09-2016, 03:36 AM
DerekMichaels00 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
This is a joke, right? Some social issues, like marriage equality, have gone mainstream amazingly quickly. Meanwhile, Obama's avoidance of race-based approaches and statements has been astounding, for all eight years of his presidency.

As for SJWs, sometimes their tactics are counterproductive. But I don't see this as anything deeply tied to the Democratic Party.

The data might show that, had Obama/Hillary/the Dems acted "more black" (whatever that means), a better African-American turnout would have tipped the election to Clinton.
1. Marriage equality did go fast nationally, but given that some places resisted it more than others, he and Democrats should've cooled it on the transgenders. I support measures to protect them from violence, but you don't need to start putting them on the national stage as Obama did, Vanity Fair did, or at the DNC for that matter.

2. Obama didn't avoid race based approaches; he butted into Zimmerman/Martin before the facts were known. He butted into the Redskins faux "controversy" and his party, Hillary included, followed him.

3. Stop being blind! Whites are still the majority of this nation, and working class whites still can affect elections. Also, Trump lost the black vote by less than Romney and McCain, as well as the Hispanic vote.
  #9  
Old 11-09-2016, 03:37 AM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,403
Part of it is that the Democratic candidate has gathered animosity for a quarter century*. Also, she does not inspire trust among significant portions of the electorate. I can remember her being coy about her New York carpetbagging even though it was obvious what she intended to do. I also noticed that her efforts to get on the video game moral panic bandwagon were obviously fake. With the Dem candidate seeming so fake/cagey, it became easier for Trump to play the "Sure, I'm a scumbag but I'm honest about it" card.

The schtick of the fake sophisticate vs genuine rube is not new. Think of Hans Gruber vs John McClane, the New York urbanite vs salt of the earth farmer, British villain vs Magical Negro.

The Democrats should have gone with a personable white man who was on the right wing of the Democratic party. Kinda like Bill Clinton was in 1992.


* Whether that's fair is beside the point. She put herself forward and was chosen with the full knowledge that she has.
  #10  
Old 11-09-2016, 03:38 AM
Rigamarole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 12,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
They decided on a coronation for a major power in the party, rather than letting the people choose the best candidate to represent them. They ran basically the only person who could've lost to Trump. Their corruption makes them complicit as to why we have an unstable reality star as the most powerful man in the world.

They also pushed the wrong narrative against Trump. They focused on how he's personally an asshole, and what an asshole anyone who supported him was. That made his support dig in, and say fuck it - if you say I'm a racist/sexist/whatever for not liking Clinton, I'm just going to be against you, full bore.

What they should've focused on was how dangerous Trump was. How his position on NATO and Russia and generally cavalier attitude about military and nuclear usage would give us the most dangerous situation we have since the cold war.

They should've attacked his blue collar support base by talking more about how he used the cheap chinese products he claimed were devastating the country. How he ripped off people who worked for him and people who contracted for him as a routine practice all throughout his career. How he wasn't some self-made succesful businessman, and how he'd be worth more if he just invested his father's fortune in an index fund.

Instead of playing identity politics, and alienated the people they were trying to call over in the process, they should've focused on how Trump will be a disaster for his supporters, how the things they believe about him aren't true, and what he really is.

The narrative for the last few weeks shouldn't have been about pussy grabbing, they should've been about how he met with the President of Mexico and curled into a little ball and ran away instead of being the "I'm the dealmaker, I'll walk into a room and get the best deal from every world leader"

Condescending identity politics caused people to dig in, to feel attacked, to feel like they were battling against the great big PC machine that was taking over the country. It invigorated his support. His support should've been swept out from under him by showing that he couldn't do the things he said he'd do, and that he's a fucking dangerous loon.
Well said.

Trump supporters loved the pussy grabbing thing. They ate that shit up.

Now he's going to be grabbing America by the pussy. Brace yourselves.
  #11  
Old 11-09-2016, 03:40 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
They decided on a coronation for a major power in the party, rather than letting the people choose the best candidate to represent them. They ran basically the only person who could've lost to Trump. Their corruption makes them complicit as to why we have an unstable reality star as the most powerful man in the world.

They also pushed the wrong narrative against Trump. They focused on how he's personally an asshole, and what an asshole anyone who supported him was. That made his support dig in, and say fuck it - if you say I'm a racist/sexist/whatever for not liking Clinton, I'm just going to be against you, full bore.

What they should've focused on was how dangerous Trump was. How his position on NATO and Russia and generally cavalier attitude about military and nuclear usage would give us the most dangerous situation we have since the cold war.

They should've attacked his blue collar support base by talking more about how he used the cheap chinese products he claimed were devastating the country. How he ripped off people who worked for him and people who contracted for him as a routine practice all throughout his career. How he wasn't some self-made succesful businessman, and how he'd be worth more if he just invested his father's fortune in an index fund.

Instead of playing identity politics, and alienated the people they were trying to call over in the process, they should've focused on how Trump will be a disaster for his supporters, how the things they believe about him aren't true, and what he really is.

The narrative for the last few weeks shouldn't have been about pussy grabbing, they should've been about how he met with the President of Mexico and curled into a little ball and ran away instead of being the "I'm the dealmaker, I'll walk into a room and get the best deal from every world leader"

Condescending identity politics caused people to dig in, to feel attacked, to feel like they were battling against the great big PC machine that was taking over the country. It invigorated his support. His support should've been swept out from under him by showing that he couldn't do the things he said he'd do, and that he's a fucking dangerous loon.
That's pretty accurate.
  #12  
Old 11-09-2016, 03:43 AM
Mosier is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Vegas
Posts: 7,612
It turns out Democrats don't like fake primaries. Go figure.
  #13  
Old 11-09-2016, 03:46 AM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by joebuck20 View Post
So, where did the Democrats go wrong?

Many people, myself included, assumed this would be a blowout for Clinton. Obviously that turned out not to be the case.
So, what were some of the Democrats' biggest missteps here? Writing off the white working class? Not pushing the Obama administration's successes hard enough? Just an overall failure of messaging?
(post shortened)

The Democrats/Hillary worshippers only listened to Democrats/Hillary worshippers. Surprise!

The polls were wrong.

The LSM was wrong.

The Democrat collective spent most of it's time telling each other what they wanted to hear. People who disagreed with the Democrat collective's groupthink were shouted down, harassed, insulted, ignored, and ridiculed. It's hard to correctly handicap a race when you close your mind to what the other sides are actually saying.

I'll suggest that Trump supporters, conservatives, independents, anti-Hillary voters lost interest in what the DNC, LSM, and the Democrat collective were saying and made up their own minds. As a result, Hillary lost. Again.
  #14  
Old 11-09-2016, 03:47 AM
Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Their corruption makes them complicit as to why we have an unstable reality star as the most powerful man in the world.
That's a bullshit argument that people use to deflect blame. The blame, or credit, for a Trump Administration lies with Trump and those who chose to support and vote for him, not with those who didn't do enough to stop him.
  #15  
Old 11-09-2016, 03:50 AM
Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Universe Lashes Out View Post
This idea might have some traction if it weren't for the fact that Republicans also unexpectedly dominated the Senate races. And incumbents won more than they were expected to. So it wasn't that there was some big outsider/populist wave this year. It's just that the nation's shittiest people all came out to vote.
I think this deserves addressing when discussing this issue.
  #16  
Old 11-09-2016, 03:53 AM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot Arm View Post
That's a bullshit argument that people use to deflect blame. The blame, or credit, for a Trump Administration lies with Trump and those who chose to support and vote for him, not with those who didn't do enough to stop him.
In general, I agree with your sentiment. I hate when people say "third party voters are responsible for ___ being president!" - the reality is that the people who voted for that candidate are most directly responsible for it, obviously.

However, the democratic party circumvented the democratic process in a corrupt, nepotistic way. They did a disservice to their voters in order to push an established party power. They directly increased the chances of a Trump presidency through corrupt means. As such, they are quite complicit in this result.
  #17  
Old 11-09-2016, 04:05 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
Beat me to starting the thread.

I've got some ideas, some more grounded than others, but here goes:

1) First I'll say what's it's not. Liberalism. Progressivism. Moving to the left, what have you. THere's nothing inherently wrong with liberalism. There's nothing inherently wrong with conservatism too. There are well functioning liberal states and well functioning conservative states. There have been good liberal Presidents and good conservative Presidents. The Democrats did not lose because they are too liberal.

2) That being said, expressing positions that are quite liberal without an attempt at persuasion is a recipe for disaster. Clinton and many other Democrats seemed to assume that the progressive era had begun, that they could run as staunch progressives and would win by turning out that base. It might sound like I'm contradicting my point #1, so let me explain: there's nothing wrong with being liberal, even as liberal as Sanders and Warren. There is something wrong with failing to make a case for liberalism. When Ronald Reagan ran as a conservative in 1980. a lot of effort in his campaign was selling conservatism as well as selling Ronald Reagan. Clinton neither sold liberalism nor sold Hillary Clinton.

3) The Obama coalition is Obama's and Obama's alone. The Obama coalition is a recipe for a permanent Democratic majority. Except it came a decade or two early because of Obama. It is now clear that this coalition is not there for other Democrats.

4) This is as much Obama's fault as anyone's. He promised change, but he represented politics as usual. If anything, Democrats doubled down on politics as usual. Any reform agenda they once had for cleaning up Washington went out the window in favor of "getting things done".

5) This last item was a big problem for both candidates, in a huge way, but it's easy to see in hindsight why it hurt Clinton more: she's dirty. The election is over, it's just time to admit it. A good portion of the allegations against her were completely true. She's dishonest, self-aggrandizing, and would take any political position she had to to win an election. Was Trump better? Hell no. But he had something she didn't, or more accurately her supporters had something her supporters didn't: self-awareness. Many Clinton supporters were aware that she was severely flawed, but a lot more Trump supporters knew exactly who he was and decided to support him anyway. This was a rare case where Republicans were more realistic than Democrats: they understood the real issues around Trump and were able to explain why they felt he should be supported anyway. Many Democrats also did, but many others insisted it was all a plot. Now imagine individuals on social media trying to persuade their friends and family. Who makes the better argument? "Yeah, I know Trump says really bad things and I know he treats women like dirt, but we need change in DC and we need to put America first." as opposed to, "Clinton will be great, they just make up lies about her!"

6) Plans. Clinton's plan was better, objectively. Just one problem: which of the 479 detailed items was she going to try to do first? Almost all of Trump's supporters can tell you what Trump plans to do first: build a wall. Or perhaps renegotiate trade deals. Trump's plans may have been half-baked, but it was clear what his priorities were. I still have no idea what Clinton was going to do once she took office.

7) Scandalmongering. We covered this, but I have to revisit this in one aspect and explain it in a way that everyone can understand: It is vitally important that a candidate start a campaign with a clean slate. Of COURSE mud will always be thrown, that's how campaigns work. But it's a lot easier to convict a candidate in the court of public opinion who already has a record of sleaziness that was well known long before they decided to run than a fresh face, or someone with a long record of public service that has been free of serious scandal. The second the email story came out, followed not long after by the Clinton Foundation sketchiness, Democrats should have said, "Oh hell no, not this shit again!" and considered other candidates. This one I place at the feet of the DNC more than individual followers though. The DNC made it clear they did not welcome any serious challengers to Clinton, even after the email and Clinton Foundation stories broke. The Republicans had a crowded field, there would have been little advantage lost in quietly letting it be known that other big name Democrats were welcome to enter the race. Joe Biden, who really seemed to want to do it, got no encouragement from the DNC, and active discouragement from the President's inner circle.

Obviously, many of these lessons apply to Republicans too. And winning should not mean we can just ignore the very real mistakes that were made by nominating Trump. The GOP may have won the battle, but lost the war by winning this election. You can practically write the "Why Republicans lost thread" for 2020 right now. That doesn't mean they WILL lose in 2020. The great thing about seeing a looming train wreck is that you can change course. Republicans need to change course in a big way, right now, whether Trump wants to go along with it or not.
  #18  
Old 11-09-2016, 04:07 AM
Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
However, the democratic party circumvented the democratic process in a corrupt, nepotistic way. They did a disservice to their voters in order to push an established party power. They directly increased the chances of a Trump presidency through corrupt means. As such, they are quite complicit in this result.
I don't see how it's corrupt. It's their party* and they get to write the rules however they like. If they want to have superdelegates, they can have superdelegates.

Now, they may very well want to change the nominating process for the next cycle. Competition improves the breed, so they say. Abide by the will of the people in the primaries and you should get a candidate who can attract the will of the people in the general.



* And they'll cry if they want to.
  #19  
Old 11-09-2016, 04:09 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
The process is fine. But this idea that you DON'T want a bruising campaign or a serious competition for the nomination is seriously flawed. You probably don't want a 16 candidate clown car like the GOP had which allowed Trump to clearly differentiate himself from the field, but a 2008-type field, with 2 or 3 clear frontrunners and several quality dark horses isn't a bad goal.
  #20  
Old 11-09-2016, 04:10 AM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,788
Hillary Clinton reminded everyone of the teacher who would assign extra homework on a three day weekend. Her speeches were cringeworthy. She was ethically compromised and a cartoon version of everything that's wrong with the DC power elite. Why did she insist on running? Biden would have crushed Trump.
  #21  
Old 11-09-2016, 04:11 AM
Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
4) This is as much Obama's fault as anyone's.
Bullshit, for the same reason SenorBeef blaming Democrats was bullshit.

It's kinda fascinating, though. It's like everyone knows Trump will be a disaster and they're already trying to avoid taking any responsibility for him.
  #22  
Old 11-09-2016, 04:14 AM
Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Borgia View Post
Hillary Clinton reminded everyone of the teacher who would assign extra homework on a three day weekend.
You mean the one who actually knew her subject and got her students to learn it? Phew, dodged a bullet there; we don't want someone like that in a position of authority.
  #23  
Old 11-09-2016, 04:16 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
Republicans will reap the full measure of what they've sown, of that you should have no doubt. But that's for later. Tonight the Democrats got crushed across the board, and that really, really shouldn't have happened.

There's one thing you can definitely pin on Obama: not translating his wide base of support into something that went beyond his person. Even to the end, he spoke to many of his supporters as if it was all about him. As if they were supposed to do him a personal favor and vote.

And of course the "change" vote, even if it amounted to just 0.5% of voters who voted for Obama going to Trump, that's on him too. It made a difference. He shouldn't have marketed himself as something he wasn't to win an election. Such choices have consequences.
  #24  
Old 11-09-2016, 04:17 AM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot Arm View Post
You mean the one who actually knew her subject and got her students to learn it? Phew, dodged a bullet there; we don't want someone like that in a position of authority.
Look, I voted for her and am upset as anyone else that she lost. But part of being a politician is being able to get dumb people to like you. She should have realized she couldn't do that and given the chance to someone else.
  #25  
Old 11-09-2016, 04:20 AM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigamarole View Post
Choosing the most disliked and unlikable candidate in history is where they went wrong. Duh?

Bernie would have won in a landslide. I have zero doubt about that.
Unlikely. He couldn't manage to win the primary. Once the GOP started hitting him for being a commie, I doubt he'd fair as well.
  #26  
Old 11-09-2016, 04:23 AM
Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Republicans will reap the full measure of what they've sown, of that you should have no doubt.
I do have doubts. The crime rate could go up and Trump will tell people how much safer they'll be. The economy could tank and Trump will tell people how soon they'll all be prospering. Believe me. As I said in another thread, all I ask for in the next few years is that Trump be judged on his true record, not on the image that he can sell to people.
  #27  
Old 11-09-2016, 04:26 AM
m30wc0w is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 27
A big mistake was the characterization of the Americans voting for Trump as 'deplorables' rather than individuals who felt disenfranchised. There's a pathos present in those who vote for Trump, and, frankly, the democrats were not very sympathetic to it.

Take the song below:

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

Look at the comments. Isn't it interesting how a song about the South after the Civil War isn't totally rife with people calling those who fought for or belonged to the Confederacy bigots (and, interestingly, the song was written by a Canadian of Native American heritage)? Sadly, popular discourse on the notion of belonging to the Confederacy isn't so sympathetic. A similar phenomena occurred with how Democrats spoke of those who supported Trump. SAD!
  #28  
Old 11-09-2016, 04:26 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
He will be. He's not a very good salesman. People were just desperate for real change. Not the fake, typical politician change promises that are always forgotten the second the election is over.
  #29  
Old 11-09-2016, 04:28 AM
Rigamarole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 12,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
Unlikely. He couldn't manage to win the primary.
The primary did not reflect the will of the people. TPTB in the DNC conspired for Hillary to win from day 1, like her or not. And nobody liked her.
  #30  
Old 11-09-2016, 04:30 AM
rat avatar's Avatar
rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Continental Divide
Posts: 5,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by m30wc0w View Post
A big mistake was the characterization of the Americans voting for Trump as 'deplorables' rather than individuals who felt disenfranchised. There's a pathos present in those who vote for Trump, and, frankly, the democrats were not very sympathetic to it.

Take the song below:

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

Look at the comments. Isn't it interesting how a song about the South after the Civil War isn't totally rife with people calling those who fought for or belonged to the Confederacy bigots (and, interestingly, the song was written by a Canadian of Native American heritage)? Sadly, popular discourse on the notion of belonging to the Confederacy isn't so sympathetic. A similar phenomena occurred with how Democrats spoke of those who supported Trump. SAD!
OH ya...because the south's treatment of race worked out so well?

IIRC, things only really started to improve once people were called out for what they were, which was bigots. And that didn't start for a century and is still a major issue.

So why should we copy that broken method again?

Last edited by rat avatar; 11-09-2016 at 04:31 AM.
  #31  
Old 11-09-2016, 04:39 AM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigamarole View Post
The primary did not reflect the will of the people. TPTB in the DNC conspired for Hillary to win from day 1, like her or not. And nobody liked her.
That's utter nonsense. The leaks show people bitching. In private. Not somehow rigging the election.

If you want to know where Dems went wrong, it's by passing around that goofy conspiracy theory because making Hillary seem bad made Bernie seem better.

Take the Nevada caucus, a normal floor vote is taken and everyone loses their shit. To this day people bitch about how it was Clinton stealing votes. The fervor in service of Bernie, and the causal acceptance of conspiracy theories to paint Hillary as a bad-guy are what the Dems did the most wrong.
  #32  
Old 11-09-2016, 04:47 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,255
Americans wanted major change - upheaval.

Hillary and the Democrats said, "Status quo."
  #33  
Old 11-09-2016, 04:51 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
If you had to name one factor, that would be it.
  #34  
Old 11-09-2016, 04:55 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
If I had to point to one thing, I'd say not working the refs more.

The republicans have been drumming the "THE PRESS IS BIASED" drum since the 90s, with increasing fervor, and the press has, as a result, been more and more willing to just let them get away with batshit insanity. The press has been unwilling to call a spade a spade for the most part, and have allowed the overton window to shift to the point where "President Donald Trump" doesn't sound completely fucking insane, and they should be fucking flogging themselves raw for that.

The democrats need to start doing that too. Sure, it sucks for democracy and in the long term is a toxic strategy, but the press needs to start feeling that pressure from both sides of the aisle, not just the side constantly benefitting from it (which also happens to be completely fucking crazy). They need to hear a more explicit call-out from the left when they pull shit like the Commander in Chief forum, and need to hear more bitching from high-ranking democratic politicians when they spend more time on a fake Clinton scandal than on all the issues combined.

Beyond that, something needs to be done about the right-wing media bubble. I don't know what. I don't know how you fix this. Once someone goes down that insane fucking rabbit hole, how do you pull them back out? They're essentially innoculated against news sources that aren't fucking batshit crazy, and there's literally no reason for any person involved to change course - Breitbart is phenomenally successful pitching insane conspiracy theories and constantly lying; why should they do anything differently? Even if they lie, anyone who could call them out on it is just a "librul shill" who can't be trusted. What possible way is there for reality to break through here? How do you deal with half the country essentially being turned into conspiratorial nutbags who reject any news that runs against their preconceived notions?
  #35  
Old 11-09-2016, 04:59 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
I don't think it's ever safe to attribute election results to a public departing from reality. People have their reasons and they are usually valid, at least in the aggregate. They wanted change. Happened in 2008 as well. Arguably, it's been every election since 2008 except for 2012, and that's only because Obama has an army behind him. But no other Democrat does.
  #36  
Old 11-09-2016, 04:59 AM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
If you had to name one factor, that would be it.
I don't think steady incremental change is status quo.

Of course if we had a sensible country, even status quo would be more amenable than 180 turn and gunning the engine.
  #37  
Old 11-09-2016, 04:59 AM
Kevbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,924
Well for starters, conservatives had a 30 year head start on ginning up hate for the Clintons. But that doesn't account for the lack of progressive enthusiasm.

It is as simple as the fact that Hillary Clinton isn't likable. (Yes I voted for her in the general, because I'm not an idiot.)

Obama, (Bill) Clinton, Carter are the Democrats that have gotten elected in my lifetime. They are all that uncle or neighbor you are happy to see, and disappointed when they leave.

Hillary is the Aunt that talks a little too loud and can't quite remember the joke but tries to tell it anyway, and you have to laugh because she is your mom's sister, and she's a good person. But no, I'm not wearing the hideous sweater she gave me for Christmas. She smiles without being happy.

She is the female version of John Kerry or Michael Dukakis. Hillary only did as well as she did because A)Trump is a con man and a four fingered asshole, and B) First Woman president....Yay!

The republicans seem to be able to win with less charisma. (Regan being an obvious exception). H.W. Bush and Nixon were fairly creepy, and W. Bush is the Deacon you don't let little Bobby go fishing with...not a child molester, but he always forgets something and nearly sinks the boat.

You have to go one step farther back to LBJ to find a Democrat who was not really likable winning, and I'm not sure he counts, as Goldwater was scarier than even Trump.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
-Never tell a politician they are a two-bit whore, unless you want to be beaten silly with their bag of quarters.
  #38  
Old 11-09-2016, 05:02 AM
Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
He will be. He's not a very good salesman. People were just desperate for real change.
Are you serious? Trump is the most brilliant fucking salesman on the planet. Blue collar people are fed up with the influence that rich people (like billionaire real-estate developers, for example) have on politics. Trump managed to sell 50 million of them on the idea that a billionaire real-estate developer cares about them and will fix it.
  #39  
Old 11-09-2016, 05:05 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
I don't think steady incremental change is status quo.

Of course if we had a sensible country, even status quo would be more amenable than 180 turn and gunning the engine.
Reform of the system, not steady incremental policy changes. There was nothing the public got from electing Barack Obama that they couldn't have gotten from Hillary Clinton. Why bother?
  #40  
Old 11-09-2016, 05:06 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
I don't think it's ever safe to attribute election results to a public departing from reality. People have their reasons and they are usually valid, at least in the aggregate. They wanted change. Happened in 2008 as well. Arguably, it's been every election since 2008 except for 2012, and that's only because Obama has an army behind him. But no other Democrat does.
Well okay, how would you convince the average Breitbart reader that crime has not sharply spiked in the inner cities over the last two years? How would you convince someone who reads The Daily Caller that we should care about climate change? How do you explain to someone who has Conservapedia bookmarked that you can't just stage a surprise attack on a major population center and triage tens of thousands of troops overnight? How do you convince someone who listens to Alex Jones to stop fucking listening to Alex Jones?

Like it or not, a large portion of the electorate has departed from reality. Completely. My fucking grandmother shared a link about how wikileaks proved that Clinton ordered the attack on the Benghazi facility to murder ambassador Stevens. These kinds of insane conspiracy theories don't account for all of Trump's support, but I'm willing to bet they account for quite a bit of it.
  #41  
Old 11-09-2016, 05:08 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
Trump didn't win because of the Breitbart readers. He won Florida due to the Cuban vote. We have no idea what the Jewish vote was yet(anyone have info on that?) He won the Midwest in all likelihood due to trade. It wasn't Breitbart that told us Clinton was lying about trade. Her own surrogates did that(Thanks Terry Mac!).
  #42  
Old 11-09-2016, 05:11 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
BTW, one thing it's WAY past time for Democrats, from the top to the bottom, to do? Ditch the prime time comedy news show approach to looking at your opposition. Enough with the self-satisfied derision of your political opposition. All that is fine for the half hour it's on, but there's a reason we don't talk like professional wrestlers once WWE Raw is over. Democrats shouldn't talk like Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert/John Oliver in real life.
  #43  
Old 11-09-2016, 05:12 AM
Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,628
So is it an indication of how people see this election that nobody seems to be offering any reason why Trump won, only why Clinton lost?
  #44  
Old 11-09-2016, 05:13 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
This was always going to be more about who lost than who won. Both candidates were unacceptable to the majority of voters. yet they had to choose and they decided to choose change.
  #45  
Old 11-09-2016, 05:18 AM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Reform of the system, not steady incremental policy changes. There was nothing the public got from electing Barack Obama that they couldn't have gotten from Hillary Clinton. Why bother?
What on Earth makes you think Trump will reform the system, other than massively extending the power of the Executive?

Trump doesn't want to change anything systemic, he just wants his policies enacted.
  #46  
Old 11-09-2016, 05:21 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
Since Trump is a liar, I have no idea. But he did run making some pretty specific promises like ending the revolving door between Congress and a lucrative lobbying career.
  #47  
Old 11-09-2016, 05:28 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Since Trump is a liar, I have no idea. But he did run making some pretty specific promises like ending the revolving door between Congress and a lucrative lobbying career.
Even if he really, earnestly believes this, he won't get it unless he goes full Jan Brewer and vetoes everything.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 11-09-2016 at 05:29 AM.
  #48  
Old 11-09-2016, 05:34 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
... Tonight the Democrats got crushed across the board ...
Really? That is not what I heard. The Rs lost a few house seats and did not gain a supermajority in the Senate. If that is correct, "crushed across the board" is far from accurate. They may not even be able to repeal the ACA if there is a filibuster.

Last edited by eschereal; 11-09-2016 at 05:36 AM.
  #49  
Old 11-09-2016, 05:41 AM
Memnon is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: London, UK
Posts: 943
Where did the Democrats go wrong? Well, I think their main mistake was forgetting that these days, politics isn't seen as Serious Business. It's consumed as entertainment, where people root for their party like they root for their football team. This blindingly obvious political reality having somehow escaped them, they decided to nominate perhaps the least charismatic candidate to ever walk the Earth - a preternaturally inauthentic woman who habitually focus-grouped her every 3rd sentence and whose idea of humour was "I'm trying to get them to have Pokemon Go-To-The-Polls" - and put her up against a professional showman.

I think we can all agree that this was a tactical error.
  #50  
Old 11-09-2016, 05:47 AM
Salvor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Really? That is not what I heard. The Rs lost a few house seats and did not gain a supermajority in the Senate. If that is correct, "crushed across the board" is far from accurate. They may not even be able to repeal the ACA if there is a filibuster.
Stop it. They lost the presidency to Trump, and failed to take the Senate. It's a total cluster fuck and disaster.
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 03:49 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