You don’t have to dismiss them. Just stop analyzing them as though they are some highly complex Rubik’s cube that has to be solved if Democrats want to get elected ever again.
It is not that deep. Half the electorate fell for the okeydoke of a populist candidate because half the electorate couldn’t resist what he was promising. A wall to block out immigrants. Yay! A ban on Muslims and other scary types. Right on! Jobs from manufacturers miraculously strongarmed into staying in the US. Yay! Plus all the freedom to say mean and biting things about non-white males without being pilloried for it. Double yay! The other candidate? She didn’t sell the promises he did, and she lost because of it.
Getting hung up on “why don’t they like us?” is taking your eyes off the real problem. Turnout should have been higher among Democrats in the swing states; these voters were not galavanized the way they were in 2008. Why weren’t they? Gee, I don’t know. Maybe because the stakes weren’t made clearer to them by people they’d be inclined to listen to? Maybe because they never got over Bernie’s loss and used this as an excuse to stay home?
Or maybe these nonvoters have their own bit of shit going on their lives. Shit that kept them away from the polls. What kind of shit? I dont know. We’re too busy talking about getting in the minds of rural conservatives to talk about why turnout on our side wasn’t higher.
Why don’t you think we understand the opposition now? Just because we lost this time doesn’t mean we don’t understand them.
I’m sorry; I won’t be able to respond to your whole post right now. I’m very tired.
Your last two sentences tho, I can respond to: I think many people don’t understand what happened because this whole thing was such a shock and surprise to so many people.
If the people who voted for Trump were truly known and understood, their concerns would have been addressed by Mrs. Clinton in a way that appealed to them. Not only did that not happen, apparently quite a few people weren’t even aware that there were huge concerns that a large percentage of the country had that were not being addressed.
The fact that the Democratic Party lost this election is, IMO, sufficient evidence that they did not understand the electorate. It’s that simple.
Really? It seems like what appealed to them was a wall to keep out all those Mexican rapists and drug dealers. That wasn’t exactly a secret. The only surprise is there were more of them than it looked like.
A thought occurred to me reading this… it wouldn’t matter if Hillary understood them well enough to address their concerns or not if their hatred of her was so high they wouldn’t listen. Just like when a kid is on the outs with mom, but will take the same advice from dad.
And another good point is why are we not concerned about low dem turnout? That really should be something that’s on our agenda to improve.
The analysis shows that this election wasn’t won because of voter turnout for Trump but because voters did not turn out for Hillary. Now, people here are saying that the problem is that we didn’t listen to the Trump voters and try to cater to their needs. That’s one way to look at it-that the Democrats should try to be the"big tent" party and cater to everybody and respect the needs and wants of those who don’t agree with them and try to bring them into the fold and that is a great and idealistic option.
However, that’s what we were told to do when we won and you know how it worked out? Obama had the entire Congress on his side but he tried to make a compromise and to please everybody and he got completely screwed over. If the Democrats had used their opportunity and thrown out the filibuster and rammed through what they wanted, then maybe the recovery would have been better and there would be more clean energy jobs and the people in the rust belt would be happier.
Here’s another way of looking at things. There’s an old saying “When people tell you who you are-believe them” and when people go around wearing “Proud to be Deplorable” shirts, celebrating the fact that they are racist and misogynistic and hateful, then maybe we should stop catering to them and tell it like it is. Maybe if Hillary had actually called out Trump more forcefully and had made it clear that this country was being hijacked by an unacceptable ideology then maybe the voters who turned out for Obama would have turned out for her and she would have won, with or without those who voted for Trump.
So-there are two options here and we don’t really know which is better, but we do know one thing. When we tried to take into account the feelings of the opposition, they screwed us over. Now they are saying that we didn’t listen enough. When do we step back and acknowledge that maybe we aren’t the problem? Maybe it is time to admit that listening and empathizing don’t work. Why aren’t the Trump supporters listening to us? When you look at the numbers, they have to realize that if the Democratic enthusiasm gap can be overcome, they are in trouble. Why are they allowed to argue that Democratic ideas don’t need to be listened to and that their opposition doesn’t need to be respected.
Finally, let’s not forget one last thing. There is a time to draw a line in the sand and to say this is where we stop. We will try to listen and try to empathize and try to help but there is a point at which we must say so far and no farther. I will not be Vichy. I will not be Chamberlain. I will stand up and be Churchill.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ― Edmund Burke
Are all of Trump’s supporters evil-of course not. I will let them talk and listen to their concerns. But when their rhetoric is purely irrational bigoted bull, then I am afraid that I will have to write some of them off and simply acknowledge that some cannot be saved and I will concentrate on mobilizing the people who were apathetic this election but do have a will and a desire to do good that can be nurtured.
Exactly. The handwringing over what drove Trump voters is annoying because it is assigning much more depth and nuance to their motivation than is warranted. It’s like asking me to hear and seek understanding from all the fools who threw away money to take stupid Trump U courses. I refuse to waste my time doing that. What is there to hear and understand, really?
Some segment of the population will always be susceptible to hustlers who tell them what they want to hear. To ignore this bug in the design of humanity because it’s hard to accept so many could be so gullible…look, I get it. It’s painful to accept. But being in denial about the obvious is not going to help anybody.
While I think that blaming it all squarely on the polarizing comments from the left is not correct, I do think it had a certain degree of responsibility.
I remember an article, months ago (from The Guardian, I think) where a British writer expressed how Hillary would lose the election since the moment she said her “basket of deplorables” speech, because he had just seen it fail spectacularly with Brexit.
Instead of saying something that was seen as an insult to middle America, dismissing their fears and worries, legitimate or not, she should have addressed them, and giving reasonable solutions (more reasonable than building giant walls or stopping all trade, at least, which wouldn’t be at all difficult)
Your idealism is clouding your sense of reason. It’s perfectly possible to know exactly what voters want yet be unable to promise them those things. Trump could do it only because he is so shameless at lying, and he won because of that.
It’s unfair to blame Hillary for not being a con man.
It’s literally the second half of the “deplorables” comment. Is reading comprehension and searching for context that difficult of a thing in our political atmosphere anymore?
And just to inject some more meme busting facts into this thread:
The numbers show that it was not an outpouring of “angry white racists” that put Trump over the top. In fact, Trump got fewer votes than either Romney or McCain in their loses to Obama. Specifically, in 2012 the Romney ticket got 60.6 million votes, Trump has 60.0 million - roughly 1% less. Guess where the real difference was? Hillary drew 60.5 millionvotes while Obama in 2012 drew 65.4 million - an 8% decline in Democratic turnout. That 8% is the difference between the expected rout and a painful loss.
I think the more detailed number analysis we’ll see over the next week or so will show no real difference in the demographics of Republican and Democratic voters. What is clear is that team Hillary simply did not get the voter turnout they (and the media and the pollsters) expected. The interesting thing will be to try and figure out why Dem voters stayed home in droves. Overconfidence? Didn’t like the nominee? The Sanders effect? Who knows, but therein lies the key.
It’s always best to wait for the data before reacting…
oh, who cares - there are a SHIT TON of angry white racists in this country - and the millions of “nice” people who voted for Rump apparently are OK with that.
Those who wish to change the outcome next time. Who doesn’t care? Those who only wish to bitch. Choose your side wisely, or become very proficient at bitching.
It feel like I am in real horrible Star Trek episode and we’re about travel into an unknown planet and having no idea what will be waiting for us once we step out of the ship ! Will everyone have orange skin and hair like Trump ! :eek:
Allow me to take another swing at this from a different angle.
Ask WHO what they need help with? The Democratic party ran a primary which was designed in advance to weed out “unacceptable” candidates, and the GOP didn’t. I don’t mean Wasserman-Schultz’ shenanigans, I am talking about super delegates. Wouldn’t Bernie have won if there weren’t 500+ super delegates with their thumbs on the scale? Didn’t Democratic primary voters express what they wanted help with, namely the kinds of solutions Bernie was offering, and the DNC patted them on the head, said, “that’s nice, honey, now run along and vote for Hillary”? Maybe that right there is the answer to low voter turnout for the Democrats.
Because it turns out the 500 or so votes of those super delegates could cast in the general didn’t amount to didly squat, and Trump won instead. He may be a buffoon, but at least that is who GOP voters said they wanted.
[Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago
The silver lining for Clinton supporters. You all get to be the 2 old guys in the balcony in the Muppet Show. The ones who can bitch and complain and say I told you so if things go south. And if things go well, you can say it would have been better if my guy/gal won. I’ve been in the balcony. There’s no pressure, its all on the other side to perform. Maybe that’s not enough to make you feel better, but if you play it right you can learn to enjoy it a bit.
The attitude that turns off so many people about liberals is what I highlighted earlier. You dismiss out of hand any criticism of Obama as arising from racism, ignorance or stupidity, thereby simultaneously insulting people with legitimate complaints and preventing those complaints from being heard. When a candidate comes along who takes their complaints seriously he wins.
Continue to demonize people who disagree with you at your own peril.
Was kinda with you until the bolded part, then I had to snort. Please explain how the president elect took their complaints seriously - with emphasis on the serious part.
Really? Trump is set to nominate a climate-change denier as head of the EPA. This will surely please plenty of Trump supporters and those on the right, but the fact remains that climate change denial is a counter-factual position. Pretending it isn’t happening and making policy that ignorantly does not take into account the reality of this phenomenon will ultimately cause far more problems than it solves.
Is it your view that, in every case, informed people pointing out the ignorance that underpins many right-wing positions is “condescension”? Not that your point is not well-taken- I voted Hillary myself, but I agree that the accusations of racism can get shrill and excessive and beside-the-point sometimes. OTOH, there are plenty of right-wing positions that are simply counterfactual, a simple thing for an educated person to notice and point out. When these positions get enshrined as policy (not so much out of ignorance in this case but rather as a demagogue pandering to the ignorant), how do you propose those who understand the issue go about pointing that out to those who don’t?