“Go to hell Caucasian Nation”
“Republicans are racist. Republicans are sexist.”
“It was the FBI. It was the Russians…it was anyone. But. Clinton.”
“It was Stein. It was white people.”
Everyone keeps talking about how terrible Trump is but there doesn’t seem to be quite as much conversation about how god-awful a candidate Hillary Clinton was. Little to no charisma, enough baggage to fill a railroad train car, and a sense of entitlement that rankled even previously loyal Democrat voters. I don’t look upon this as a referendum on how terrible the Republicans are but more of a referendum on how insanely incompetent and ignorant the Democrats were in structuring their campaign. The average age of the house Republican leadership is 51, the average age of the house Democratic Leadership is 74 and their strategy so far is to basically double down everything they did in the last campaign. Until the Democrats purge the old dragons, lose some of the snotty, superior attitude, and stop s******* on everybody who is not 100% on board with their agenda not much is going to change.
And I say this having voted for Hillary.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Hillary was vastly more experienced, but this wasn’t a job interview - this was an election.
2016 was a bit like 2008 in reverse. In 2008, the Republicans nominated McCain, who had a better resume, but Obama was more charismatic, so Obama won. In fact, the more “experienced” candidate has lost the last three non-incumbent elections - Gore lost in 2000, McCain lost in 2008, and Hillary lost in 2016.
Hillary seemed to see voters as being like employers - “Vote for me because I’m more qualified and experienced.”
As I recall, this is what Democrats were saying during the presidential campaign as well.
Experience isn’t worth much if you refuse to learn from it. She supported regime change in Libya despite fucking up Iraq, and wanted regime change in Syria despite fucking up Libya.
You’d think the Democrats would have learned from their loss to Bush in 2000 and 2004, but they were planning to run Clinton in 2008. Obama came up with a seriously good campaign pretty much ignoring the Democratic party leadership, and won, but since he couldn’t run again in 2016 the Democrats went right back to Hillary. I really wish the Democrats would wake up, but I remember hearing the same line about how the loss in 2000 was going to be a big wakeup call and how those Republicans better look out now.
From which speech Ms Clinton gave after the election? Yes, some of these ideas have been floated. But when did she “double down”?
In fact, when did any Democrat say “Go to hell Caucasion Nation”?
Sure, the Democrats are never stronger than when voters have rejected them, all they need to do to gain power forever is to keep on losing elections.
I think if Trump fails miserably on all of his campaign promises,
and the economy stagnates or crashes, and inflation rises, and people in the rust belt don’t get better jobs, his base will shrink.
Also, if Someone better than Hillary runs.
In this election if any democrat had run besides Hillary, someone that was at least somewhat “likable” against Trump I think they would have won. Breitbart, FBI, Russians had so much material to use against Clinton, she already had been vilified for many years, and they had been building up the stories for decades. And really it was very close, despite Hillary’s un-likability, she really did almost win. If only someone slightly more likable would have won, the Dems would be in office.
Only 25.5% of the population actually voted for Trump So, I am hoping he loses some of that base instead of gaining. I am hoping they are disappointed with him. I am even hoping they are old and they die.
Really it was all so close so if just a few things move in the Dems favor.
Trump is certainly worse for the GOP, but he exposes some problems with the Democrats as well:
-
No longer a workers party but actually a party of well off social/environmentalist liberals
-
Far from “draining the swamp” Democrats have doubled down on the old politics as the best way to get things done. No one will ever believe them again when they run on reducing the “culture of corruption” or when they promise to change the way Washington works.
Charming.
This is the Dems’ last best hope because none of them will ever get old and die in parallel.
Yeah, I suspect this is the kind of thinking the Democratic party is engaging in, which is pretty awful. Hillary was a bad candidate, as were the last two party darlings who lost to Bush. I would not be surprised if the Democrats don’t get an Obama forcing their hand and field someone they think is “somewhat ‘likeable’” because, hey, it was cllose, and those meanies just were unfair to Clinton and she still almost won. The Republicans are awful, keep getting worse (seriously, Trump), but the Democrats work to stay neck and neck with their awfulness and just be a little, marginal bit better to win.
You know what ‘almost winning’ is called by people who aren’t drinking the cool-aid? “Losing”.
Thing is that Obama did also show that rejecting the old establishment (Clinton, no less) did turn to be the winning move.
And along those lines combined with the OP thesis.
Hillary Clinton may have been the best thing to happen to the GOP. And not JUST because of this election.
Clinton sucked as a candidate. Both by definiton because she lost. But also because many people thought she was bad to start with and I think more and more are coming around to idea that it is obvious she was (even though at the time they did not think so…the ole Emperor has no clothes story line).
So, Hillary not on only lost the election. She probably emboldened/embiggened the opposition. She also bummed out the people that didn’t want her to start with. And now post election she bummed out the people she let down (both those that have now seen the light and those that have not).
So, one aspect of this next election. The Democratic party has to recover from a race they know they should have never lost.
Another aspect. If the Democratic machine chooses anything that remotely resembles a Hillary 2.0 (or even a mild Obama 2.0)…well, IMO that will most likely go very badly next election UNLESS Trump just royally fucks up.
So, what would a candidate that does NOT look like a Hillary 2.0 and/or an Obama 2.0 look like? AND ALSO not look like a Republican (or a Trump that has not fucked up).
I have a hard time imagining that. I have even a harder time imagining who that actually is (though I will admit my knowledge of background political types is very low).
It looks to me like the Democratic party might be stuck with nominating a “stinker” that reminds the populace of Obama/Hillary (and one could say this election reflects a rejection of both) or some new person/type that almost has to be a Republican light.
So, the voters may well have a choice between someone they didn’t vote for this time around or someone who is much like the current president in 2020, in which case, if Trump doesn’t suck donkey balls, why would they vote to switch?
For point 1, I think the modern democratic party is a mix of social/environmental liberals, but also the disadvantaged. Oppressed minorities (blacks, latinos, immigrants) as well as the actual poor. The dems have been losing the white working class for a while. In 2008 the GOP presidential candidate won the WWC by 14 points, then it was about 26 points in 2012, then it was 39 points in 2016.
A major flaw of democrats is that they support programs that help the poor, but we don’t do much for the near poor. The poor get medicaid, the near poor get expensive high deductible insurance plans. Stuff like that.
However, if the rejection of the dems by the WWC is cultural, there isn’t much we can do about it. Blacks are a strong component of the dem coalition (making up 1/4 of dem voters). Democrats aren’t going to abandon black people fighting against police brutality to do slightly less worse among the white working class. Also the white working class faces economic competition from latino immigrants, and the dems want a path to citizenship.
It is difficult really to rectify the cultural and economic needs of the white working class with modern dem policies. Certain dem policies like unions, health care subsidies, etc. would help them. But apparently it isn’t enough.
As for point 2, you are right. Obama ran as the change candidate, and when he didn’t pull through all that energy that went into Obama went into Sanders in 2016. People like Sanders and Warren are who the dems look for for change.
Which begs the question, when will the US public become ok with the establishment again? What would it take? Both parties are very anti-establishment now, but all they do is elect candidates who talk a big game (Trump, Obama) then fill their cabinets with establishment people. But at least Obama moved the country in the right direction economically, even if it wasn’t as far as people wanted. Trump is going to make economic life harder for the masses.
Its a mess.
Sorry, *Your *Guy is the one who ran on “draining the swamp.” (I know you claim not to have voted for Trump, but he’s your party’s choice.) His cabinet choices show just how well he’s fighting corruption. Surely, they reveal the Republicans as The Workers’ Party.
Oh, and somebody upthread linked to a source showing Democratic politicians’ contempt for Caucasions. Except the source was Samantha Bee.
Tulsi Gabbard is my pick. I don’t agree with all her political positions, but I think she could be a genuinely good President.
What you miss is that a lot of the items that are considered crucial or important by the plurality of Americans that voted for the Democrat will not be amused. Trump will royally fuck up those. (And really, there is a significant number of conservatives that will not be happy either by the “monkey wrench tossers to their own government departments” in the Trump cabinet)
Just add a few that will find out that a lot of what he promised to the rust belt will not take place, and minorities realizing that there is little to fear in the next election * and that to me tells me that Trump’s reelection is not a done deal.
- Personal note: virtually all the relatives and minorities I had contact in Arizona were weary of voting in election day because of the pumped up fears of violence or challenges at the polls. We voted early and now I do realize that a good number of the ones that did not show up in election day were because of those fears.
*So, I heard that you voted
So, I heard that you voted
And this is the end
They say you really mean it
This guy’s the one that makes you feel
So safe, so sane and so secure
And baby if he’s not Hillary
And baby if he’s not Hillary
Maybe it’s the best thing
Maybe it’s the best thing for Dems
But it’s the worst that could happen to US.
*