It’s partially the campaign and partially the way Democrats have been behaving for years. (We’ll ignore some of the craziness going on college campuses and the very far left as not really being apropos to the results.) Perhaps somewhat on the SDMB, but definitely on sites like Daily Kos, has been this belief that demographics is destiny. That the Republican party is a dead party walking, because as the minority population in the country grows and becomes eligible to vote, they will definitely vote Democratic because “No way they’ll vote Republican”. Of course, this clearly hasn’t worked very well. Yes, it worked in 2008 and 2012, but the Democrats got crushed in 2010 and 2014 and now 2016.
Similarly, because their eventual domination is pre-ordained (demographics again), there is no need to work with, understand, or try to help their political opponents. Now, to be fair, the Republicans do this just as much or even more, and Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter With Kansas? is still valid, as is his new Listen, Liberal. And there’s something to be said for Republicans, and voters in Republican states, not wanting to work at all with Democrats or any programs put forth.
So the Democrats concentrate on minority voters. They concentrate on LGBT issues and real or perceived misogny. All very well and good, but it’s delivered in an often holier-than-thou style which offends the opposition and can annoy their allies. Social Justice Warrior may be a cliche and somewhat of a strawman, but it’s got some of the ring of truth.
The Democrats made this election about identity politics and also about the identities of the candidates. But what they forgot is that there are still a lot of voters out there who may not generally vote. They may feel so disillusioned that they don’t bother, don’t answer polls, and don’t get picked up in likely voter screens. And in an election where they’re made to feel like a minority, where they are constantly attacked for who they are and what they believe, it’s not surprising that they finally came out and voted like a minority bloc. And it turns out that there are still a majority overall, out in the flyover country and backwoods and rural areas that people from the city never think about or go to. It’s Chicago vs. downstate. NYC vs upstate. The little islands of blue in the seas of red. Sure, there are more voters per square mile in the cities, but there’s still population out there in the suburbs and the exurbs and the rural areas and the Democrats have forgotten this at their peril.
“We’re not going to have anything more to say tonight,” Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta said. Speaking briefly onstage at Clinton HQ in New York City, he encouraged supporters to go home and “get some sleep” because the votes were still being counted.
“We are so proud of you, and we are so proud of her. She has done an amazing job and she is not done yet,” Podesta said.
Yeah… as a pretty ideologically liberal white male, who is nonetheless disenfranchised and upset about all the anti-white male rhetoric (and the belief gaining traction that blatant discrimination against white males is not only acceptable, but desirable), I give big props to Spice Weasel. She gets it.
Thank you, Spice Weasel, for your informative and eloquent reply. I see what you mean now.
There is no easy solution. Every one of us needs to be made more aware of our subconscious biases – minorities, too – and identity politics does often reach a place of self-destructiveness.
But I agree it’s unhelpful to start a conversation with accusations of racism. Better to address the real fears of social and economic dislocation. BUT…they must be addressed using FACTS, not incoherent pipe dreams and anti-science (including anti-economics, the “dismal science.”)
Part of the problem is is that America is so polarized and so divided (it’s the same thing here in Canada too, but to a lesser extent). It’s getting to the point where people assume extreme liberals are the norm of liberals in general. In my experience, that hasn’t been the case (though it does seem like it, based off of what the media tells us about which debates are going on in our society. I go to a very liberal university in a very liberal city, and I do see the extreme liberalism that tries to do away with gendered pronouns, or what have you.).
I identify as centrist. And I find myself suaded by liberal candidates more often than not, though I don’t feel like I have very strong ideals. So perhaps that biases my perspective, as I may not recognize how much of ideologues liberal politicians are (with the exception of Justin Trudeau).
We have already seen all of her tax returns and many more emails. Why don’t you just untie those goal posts from those pogo sticks.
Better yet, just give your double standards a nice, long vacation.
That’s going to be one ray of pleasure. One. But it’s not over yet. And remember, all the results will have to be checked in case of fraud or rigging, right?
Thanks, too, to asterion. I hadn’t read your post when I wrote mine just now, but I think my response is appropriate to your interesting one which complements Spice Weasel’s.
Both the House and Senate are called as Republican now and the Presidency will probably be too as as soon as they can stomach it. It is going to be interesting to see how a Republican Congress can try to learn to work with Trump now that they have full control of all three. Thank goodness Congress has the real power.
I would categorize most of the people in my alumni network as extreme liberals of this type – highly educated advocates with a very specific ideology and a very specific idea about how that ideology is best executed. I’m not trying to throw Saul Alinsky under the bus or anything. I believe advocacy is critical to social change, but it must be executed strategically. I don’t think we really have a cohesive strategy right now. I truly believe that extremists are necessary to push the narrative forward – I have a robust respect for iconoclasts and their role in shaking up the system – but to me it feels like the extremists are dominating the narrative. There is too much rhetoric and not enough reasoned, strategic problem-solving.
Let’s say you and I have a disagreement. Are we EVER going to reach any form of compromise if I call you a deplorable? People in a democracy need to compromise and work with each other. If we get at each other in a nasty way how are we going to be able to work together? With an audience of 300 millions some people are going to take the pejoratives personally.