US Elections: Never Trust a Man with Orange Eyebrows

[Kalbear]

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You don't have to win over everyone, just the reasonable ones who also happen to be tired of being lumped in with racists because they fall to the right of the political aisle.  That's not a large number bit it doesn't have to be a large number to create a win in this environment.

Better to go after the 47% of the people who didn't vote at all instead of the 25% who actually said 'yes, I think Trump is a good choice'. The latter will almost certainly never switch. Don't even bother.

 

[all swedes are racist]

31 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yes, it says that they had that as a potential strategy. It doesn't say how they did it or even IF  they did it. Hence the question remains - where is the actual evidence that Clinton and their campaign actually did anything like this?

hmmm, chalk it up to "locker room talk"?

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, R'hllor's nasty lobster said:

hmmm, chalk it up to "locker room talk"?

Yeah, something like that.

And @karaddin, I think there's some middle ground here. The reason I wrote my article was to try and not guess at why things happened the way they did but actually at least start making progress towards determining the reason, because my goal is to have a better strategy for the next time. I don't care about blame and I don't think it's useful. I want to make it better.

Some of the things was that Clinton ran a flawed campaign towards the end, where she tried to go big and failed. She spent more in Arizona and Nebraska and Iowa than she did in Wisconsin or Michigan. That's a big, big miss. I get why she did it, but it was a miss. 

At least 2 million and as many as 5 million people who voted Democrat last election stayed home. That would have easily decided the election. Whereas Republicans got less votes than Romney did. To me, that signifies that Democrats have to worry about turning out their vote, and Republicans don't. At all. In addition to that, it likely means Democrats have to worry more about their candidates negatives, and more importantly they have to assume that there is no way that they will ever get Republicans of any real sort to go Democrat. Again, if 90% of Republicans voted Trump, they will vote for anything with an R in front of their name. They will justify it in various ways and reasons, sure, but they'll do it all the same.

And another hard fact is that gender politics don't work in the least. You can be the worst person alive to women and it will not change Republican women's minds in the least, and won't even affect women democrats that much. 53% of white women voted for Trump. 

So yeah, the Pie tape sounded awesome and whatnot but it was totally fucking wrong about alienating the other side. The other side was never, ever, going to vote for Clinton. Ever. They were just waiting for better rationalizations to surface in order to justify their vote for Trump. A great anecdote: I ran into a woman online who voted for Trump because of Clinton's connections to the Rothschilds via the Economist. That's why. That was the most important thing. Do you think reasoned policy discussions are going to fucking sway her? 

This election woke me up, in that white people will vote for progress but as a whole won't do as much about it if it makes them a bit difficult to fight with their conscience, and they'll gladly salve themselves with not voting over helping anyone else that isn't like them. 

[Sivin]

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, something like that.

And @karaddin, I think there's some middle ground here. The reason I wrote my article was to try and not guess at why things happened the way they did but actually at least start making progress towards determining the reason, because my goal is to have a better strategy for the next time. I don't care about blame and I don't think it's useful. I want to make it better.

Some of the things was that Clinton ran a flawed campaign towards the end, where she tried to go big and failed. She spent more in Arizona and Nebraska and Iowa than she did in Wisconsin or Michigan. That's a big, big miss. I get why she did it, but it was a miss. 

At least 2 million and as many as 5 million people who voted Democrat last election stayed home. That would have easily decided the election. Whereas Republicans got less votes than Romney did. To me, that signifies that Democrats have to worry about turning out their vote, and Republicans don't. At all. In addition to that, it likely means Democrats have to worry more about their candidates negatives, and more importantly they have to assume that there is no way that they will ever get Republicans of any real sort to go Democrat. Again, if 90% of Republicans voted Trump, they will vote for anything with an R in front of their name. They will justify it in various ways and reasons, sure, but they'll do it all the same.

And another hard fact is that gender politics don't work in the least. You can be the worst person alive to women and it will not change Republican women's minds in the least, and won't even affect women democrats that much. 53% of white women voted for Trump. 

So yeah, the Pie tape sounded awesome and whatnot but it was totally fucking wrong about alienating the other side. The other side was never, ever, going to vote for Clinton. Ever. They were just waiting for better rationalizations to surface in order to justify their vote for Trump. A great anecdote: I ran into a woman online who voted for Trump because of Clinton's connections to the Rothschilds via the Economist. That's why. That was the most important thing. Do you think reasoned policy discussions are going to fucking sway her? 

This election woke me up, in that white people will vote for progress but as a whole won't do as much about it if it makes them a bit difficult to fight with their conscience, and they'll gladly salve themselves with not voting over helping anyone else that isn't like them. 

Well said, Bear. I wonder if the answer is to go full Marx at this point. I was no fan of Bernard's, but he did seem popular. The contradiction though is that he got kids buzzing but Clinton was still the nominee because of what I have to assume is the moderate branch of the party. Can the two be reconciled?

[Castel]

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Democrats need to stop crying in their beer and need to start bringing awareness to Ryan's plan for privatizating Medicare. They seriously fucked themselves in this election, but they need to take their case for keeping Medicare as it is to the people. If Medicare goes down, then Social Security will most certainly be next.

It's actually the one thing with bipartisan support; even Republicans don't like his plan. 

But I'm sure they'll figure out a way.

[karaddin]

@Kalbear oh I don't think Presidential elections are unwinnable, they very much are and I wouldn't be surprised if Trump/Pence only get one term (I also won't be surprised if they get two). I don't even think the Senate is unwinnable, although the prospects for 2018 are very poor. What I do think is that the House is essentially unwinnable, and all the gerrymandered advantage is going to be used to the fullest extent possible. I think SCOTUS is legitimately fucked for a very long time if one of the 4 'liberal' justices or even Kennedy die or retire. And more than any of these the prospects of a government that can function without holding both houses of congress and the presidency are fucked.

There is nothing that will turn the GOP base off voting for them, and thus they cannot ever be more than marginally punished electorally regardless of how much harm they're doing. The system is broken and if its not radically repaired its going to lead down a very dark path. That constitutional convention Scot loves so much needs to happen, or other radical reforms that don't require changing the constitution need to be done. I guess everyone adopting the voting model Maine just did can be done since it happens at the state level, and FPTP is definitely one of the problems. Voter turnout full stop being so low is really a major issue as well though and no idea what could be done to fix that since compulsory voting clearly isn't on the table.

[karaddin]

7 minutes ago, Sivin said:

Well said, Bear. I wonder if the answer is to go full Marx at this point. I was no fan of Bernard's, but he did seem popular. The contradiction though is that he got kids buzzing but Clinton was still the nominee because of what I have to assume is the moderate branch of the party. Can the two be reconciled?

If the Bernie supporters had hailed the outcome of the primary as a massive win for the ideology in the US (which it was) and gotten on board the party platform I think that would have gone a long way to being able to put up another candidate of similar ideology and perhaps better across the board appeal next time. Instead it was treated as an unfair defeat and major wedges were driven between the factions, so its a lot harder than it could have been as there is now deep resentment on both sides of the equation. I'm sure it can be done, and mending these divides is some of the important work to be done over the next 2-4 years.

I also think one of the big problems that needs addressing is the nihilistic withdrawal from the political process. The whole "the system is rigged, there is no point voting" is one I have sympathy for, but at that point the only way to progress is outright burning the entire thing down and starting over, and I don't like the prospects for minorities in the short term in such a world even if the long term results were there. One of the few positives from this election to me was showing that money can be overcome, advertising actually has a fairly minimal impact now if there is passion in the people to get out there and vote. Obama sold that line, and the failure to deliver meaningful change in the first two years has really driven people off the political process, but it needs ongoing commitment and engagement.

[DireWolfSpirit]

I'm wondering if Kaine as VP was a good choice? That tag as a "Right to Work Governor" was immediately bitched about in Union halls across the upper Midwest. They needed Virginia pretty bad, but i'm thinking it probably cost them elsewhere with that pick.

[A True Kaniggit]

8 minutes ago, karaddin said:

@KalbearI think SCOTUS is legitimately fucked for a very long time if one of the 4 'liberal' justices or even Kennedy die or retire.

I wonder how likely that would be. I'm sure if a justice was completely nonpartisan they would retire no problem. But if a justice really believed their side is right and needs them, how likely is it they would retire knowing the other side would gain a seat?

[karaddin]

Just now, A True Kaniggit said:

I wonder how likely that would be. I'm sure if a justice was completely nonpartisan they would retire no problem. But if a justice really believed their side is right and needs them, how likely is it they would retire knowing the other side would gain a seat?

I think it highly unlikely, but poor health could force it. Ginsberg sure as hell aint retiring though, she refused to even consider it with Obama appearing like he'd get to do the replacement because she's too passionate about the job and has fought too hard for too long to stop.

[DireWolfSpirit]

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/SupremeCourt.html

^^^Scotus birthdates and who appointed, 3 of them were born during the FDR administration. So Trump has a pretty scary chance to not only pick the Scalia vacancy but also if one of these succumbs to illness. I have little doubt the Orange shit stain will auction at least one of the picks in a "pay to play" scheme. So maybe the Left could get some Soros type to buy us a new Justice or two? Since were in this new world of Billionaires and all.

[Altherion]

10 minutes ago, karaddin said:

If the Bernie supporters had hailed the outcome of the primary as a massive win for the ideology in the US (which it was) and gotten on board the party platform I think that would have gone a long way to being able to put up another candidate of similar ideology and perhaps better across the board appeal next time. Instead it was treated as an unfair defeat and major wedges were driven between the factions, so its a lot harder than it could have been as there is now deep resentment on both sides of the equation. I'm sure it can be done, and mending these divides is some of the important work to be done over the next 2-4 years.

It was an unfair defeat. Surely now that Clinton is no longer running for president even her supporters can acknowledge this? Clinton and her campaign operatives used their connections in the DNC and the media to cheat. There is no question about whether they cheated or not -- the only question is about the extent to which they cheated and how much it helped them. And then, to add insult to injury, they spread a narrative labeling people who complained about the primary being unfair to Sanders as sexists. (Yes, I'm still bitter about it even if Sanders himself says that he is not.)

Also, a massive win for which ideology? Neoliberalism? Thanks, but no thanks.

[karaddin]

12 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It was an unfair defeat. Surely now that Clinton is no longer running for president even her supporters can acknowledge this? Clinton and her campaign operatives used their connections in the DNC and the media to cheat. There is no question about whether they cheated or not -- the only question is about the extent to which they cheated and how much it helped them. And then, to add insult to injury, they spread a narrative labeling people who complained about the primary being unfair to Sanders as sexists. (Yes, I'm still bitter about it even if Sanders himself says that he is not.)

Also, a massive win for which ideology? Neoliberalism? Thanks, but no thanks.

You're barking up the wrong tree with this reply, Bernie was my preferred candidate and I would have voted him if I were American. My point is that despite all of that you had an openly socialist candidate getting far closer to winning the primary than anyone would have thought possible 6 months previously. If Bernie had started the primary believing he could win it, and with sufficient funding to get organisation off the ground, I think he would have actually taken it. The victory I am talking about is showing that open socialism (by American standards) is acceptable in the US now, to me that is a huge deal and much bigger than this one election. You've gotta take that success and build the movement.

[ummester]

13 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Also, a massive win for which ideology? Neoliberalism? Thanks, but no thanks.

And that's the crux.

If Trump does stay true to his word and assert nationalist and protectionist policy, then the only way the Democrats will be able to compete in 4 years is by putting their own version of anti-neolibralism forward.

[DunderMifflin]

A Bernie type candidate WILL be the next Democrat candidate. And most likely will win, if not in 4 years, definately in 8. So that's something to look forward to, if you are into that.

[felice]

1 hour ago, Sivin said:

I wonder if the answer is to go full Marx at this point.

Sounds good to me 8) A genuinely left wing candidate standing for radical change might convince some of the current abstainers (a far, far bigger pool than the subset of Republican voters who might switch allegiance) that it's worth voting.

[ummester]

10 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

A Bernie type candidate WILL be the next Democrat candidate. And most likely will win, if not in 4 years, definately in 8. So that's something to look forward to, if you are into that.

I have read a few internet posts claiming that their Trump vote was out of retaliation for Bernie being taken away.

[Altherion]

6 minutes ago, karaddin said:

You're barking up the wrong tree with this reply, Bernie was my preferred candidate and I would have voted him if I were American. My point is that despite all of that you had an openly socialist candidate getting far closer to winning the primary than anyone would have thought possible 6 months previously. If Bernie had started the primary believing he could win it, and with sufficient funding to get organisation off the ground, I think he would have actually taken it. The victory I am talking about is showing that open socialism (by American standards) is acceptable in the US now, to me that is a huge deal and much bigger than this one election. You've gotta take that success and build the movement.

My apologies, I misunderstood where you are coming from. However, I have a very hard time seeing the outcome of the Democratic primary as a win for any ideology except neoliberalism. Socialism, even in the totally tame version adopted by Sanders, lost by a significant margin among the people one would expect to be most receptive to such an ideology. It was utterly defeated among Democrats with power (compare the endorsements and large donations that Sanders received to those that Clinton received) which was perhaps not unexpected. Worse, it was soundly defeated among voters by a margin of slightly over 12%. Had Clinton won, most people would have remembered only that Sanders failed and even moderate socialism will go nowhere in the US. It's only in light of Trump's victory that Sanders' performance begins to look even moderately encouraging.

[mormont]

2 minutes ago, ummester said:

I have read a few internet posts claiming that their Trump vote was out of retaliation for Bernie being taken away.

Anyone who would vote for Trump because they couldn't vote for Sanders, never really understood who Sanders is and what he stands for. I strongly suspect that such voters would have found some excuse to switch to Trump even if Sanders had been the nominee.

[Altherion]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

Anyone who would vote for Trump because they couldn't vote for Sanders, never really understood who Sanders is and what he stands for. I strongly suspect that such voters would have found some excuse to switch to Trump even if Sanders had been the nominee.

This is certainly possible. However, it is also possible that some people are capable of thinking more than one step ahead. Do you think Sanders or his ideas would be anywhere near as influential as he is right now had Clinton prevailed in the general election?