|
Mixodorian posted:What other married pair of politicians have made 130 million in less than a decade on speaking fees? She was focused on jobs and economics talk, that was a big focus of her stump. The problem is she wasn't willing to lie to the voters and promise impossible things. When the media lets Trump get away with saying he'll bring the factories back and no details required, how can anyone trying to be realistic win?
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:28 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Hatred of free trade is wrong and bad and we should not be encouraging it. They will pick the wrong policy as long as you don't provide a better one that also aligns with their interests! Ending free trade is obviously bad, so how about focusing on outlining a policy of mutual accountability in worker protection and environmental standards instead of putting forward a candidate who supports the full TPP one day, rejects it entirely the next, then ends up in some indeterminate quantum state, and in the end makes the orange man look like the one with a plan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:She was focused on jobs and economics talk, that was a big focus of her stump. The problem is she wasn't willing to lie to the voters and promise impossible things. When the media lets Trump get away with saying he'll bring the factories back and no details required, how can anyone trying to be realistic win? No but you see we have to promise people policies that are impossible or would be disastrous and that the Republicans can too but also with racism because they have no principles. Magically we will somehow win on these terms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
Mixodorian posted:Real talk, Bill and Hillary destroyed the democratic party. People need to come to terms with this. Ah yes if only we could return to the Democratic Party of the 1980s before the Clintons "destroyed" it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:They will pick the wrong policy as long as you don't provide a better one that also aligns with their interests! Also in your previous response to me you said that racism was the sole problem, so which is it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:The presidential candidate is the standard bearer for the platform. If she can't articulately sell the platform, she hosed it up. Hillary had no big ideas, no understandable policy positions. When asked what she stood for shed launch into rambling thirty second long policy wonk speeches that just do not connect. Donald Trump would say 'build the wall' or 'bring back jobs' or even just 'make America great again'. All of those are easy to grasp aspirational goals, even if they dont loving *mean* anything. I mean Obama won with 'Forward' and 'Yes We Can'. What the gently caress do those even mean? Nothing but they sound like good goals. But we're talking about depressed turnout from Democratic voters, not increased Republican voters. Trump did terrible in voter turnout too. If left wing people objected to Hillary, who cares, it isn't worth sulking about the primaries if it means Trump wins. Mixodorian posted:What other married pair of politicians have made 130 million in less than a decade on speaking fees? Does it matter? It's their salable quality and it's something famous people and politicians do all the time. Even Donald Trump has been paid to speak at events. I just don't think it matters if they did it more than others.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:She was focused on jobs and economics talk, that was a big focus of her stump. The problem is she wasn't willing to lie to the voters and promise impossible things. When the media lets Trump get away with saying he'll bring the factories back and no details required, how can anyone trying to be realistic win? Haven't you heard? This is entirely Hilary's fault. It's not like NYT engaged in conspiracy theory baiting for months or a state actor was interfering with the election or the FBI was doing unprecedented things that probably impacted the election... As the presidential candidate she should have expected all of these things to happen and should have been able to roll with it. Her not being able to was shameful and therefore that means Trump deserves to be president because frail selfish duplicitous Hillary couldn't save us and it couldn't possibly have been because the orange man promised to deport people and stop muslim immigration. They're ~economically stressed~ delicate snowflakes who had their feelings hurt by Hillary pointing out David Duke and anti-semites were supporting Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:They will pick the wrong policy as long as you don't provide a better one that also aligns with their interests! People would still choose no TPP because of spite. Why should they trade with the people who stole their jobs. You're saying we should indulge that kind of thinking. steinrokkan posted:Also in your previous response to me you said that racism was the sole problem, so which is it. Racism is the problem. There's no economic populism platform we could run that the Republicans couldn't outdo us on by promising racist poo poo too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:She was focused on jobs and economics talk, that was a big focus of her stump. The problem is she wasn't willing to lie to the voters and promise impossible things. When the media lets Trump get away with saying he'll bring the factories back and no details required, how can anyone trying to be realistic win? Not enough, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The difference is that Obama is a brilliant orator and public speaker and apparently all Americans give a poo poo about is pretty speeches and soundbites. Hillary didn't even go out and give speeches tho, Trump gave 12 times as many, and Obama gave tons in 2008. So again, Hillary ran a lovely campaign. Trabisnikof posted:She was focused on jobs and economics talk, that was a big focus of her stump. The problem is she wasn't willing to lie to the voters and promise impossible things. When the media lets Trump get away with saying he'll bring the factories back and no details required, how can anyone trying to be realistic win? Hillary was focused on "Trump is a sexist racist lunatic, vote for me instead". Like everything about her campaign, including "I'm with her". That has to be the most vacuous slogan ever. She ran on "Not Trump" first and foremost. The media definitely deserves a ton of blame for normalizing the crazy poo poo Trump said though, I'm fully in agreement with you on that. At the same time, wasn't Trump one of Hillary's Pied Pipers? e: Black people have been getting lied to by Democrats forever. If she couldn't figure out an appealing way to state her policies, then she should've lied to the white fucks like Bill lied to our community all through the 90s. Mixodorian fucked around with this message at 09:51 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
Mixodorian posted:Hillary was focused on "Trump is a sexist racist lunatic, vote for me instead". Like everything about her campaign, including "I'm with her". That has to be the most vacuous slogan ever. She ran on "Not Trump" first and foremost. Oh okay, so you didn't actually listen to any of her speeches then.. it probably couldn't have been because the media never covered her substantive speeches.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
Mixodorian posted:Hillary didn't even go out and give speeches tho, Trump gave 12 times as many, and Obama gave tons in 2008. So again, Hillary ran a lovely campaign. Trump is also an atrocious orator. Hillary is actually a pretty average speaker imo. Trump got by on volume, immense amounts of free coverage, and spouting whatever fascist poo poo his rally attendees wanted to hear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Not enough, obviously. Or alternatively, the Democrats could have pounded on jobs, paid leave and minimum wage til the cows come home and it doesn't matter if the audience doesn't want to listen. Mixodorian posted:Hillary didn't even go out and give speeches tho, Trump gave 12 times as many, and Obama gave tons in 2008. So again, Hillary ran a lovely campaign. Did you ever listen to her stump speeches? They certainly are nothing like you describe. However you describe the media coverage of her campaign to a tee.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
Mixodorian posted:Why did Obama win the rust belt states as a black man??? What was a big difference he campaigned on between him and Hillary? Obama is a charming as gently caress and a master orator who can summon folksy wisdom at the drop of a hat. Also Joe Biden was Joe Biden. Obama gave rust belters 'hope and change', which was more than McCain or vulture capitalist Romney had on offer so they voted for him. Hillary is an abysmal public speaker who tries to maintain a facade of kindly grandma instead of just saying shes gonna kick rear end and take names, and consequently comes off as fake. Also shes the definition of a sneering coastal liberal elite, and theres a lot of antagonism between rural America and city dwellers (see this entire loving thread). And of course her loving campaign didnt even schedule a stop in Wisconsin so they could spend more money chasing idiot fantasies like blue Georgia and Arizona. They're racist, sure, but they'll still vote for a black man who shows them respect and tries to talk to them over a white guy who does not give a gently caress. This time around it was an orange fascist who showed them respect and talked to them over a white woman who did not give a gently caress. Fake edit: Also if youre sick of being shat on by city dwellers who routinely call you racist and uneducated and generally just want you to go away and die, theres no better middle finger than voting for a brash rear end in a top hat loathed by Hollywood, the political elite and city dwellers in general, even if he is a billionaire new yorker. Basically every ad showing how much Lena Dunham hated Trump made him more attractive as the ultimate gently caress you to people who treat 'flyover country' like poo poo
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 09:55
|
|
|
I still don't understand what's so complicated about this problem tho: Democrat: We're gonna make fair trade deals that protect workers! Republicans: we're gonna tax cheater Chinese goods so they can't outcompete you! Which one will white people pick every single time?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 09:55
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I still don't understand what's so complicated about this problem tho: Yeah but don't you know the Democrats have a coastal affection...
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
I find it interesting how many people are jumping to defend Clinton. Her campaign was weak the entire time. Her "killer" ads repeated Trump's horrible poo poo with stylish and emotional editing. Trump was being lampooned publicly his entire election. Spending poo poo loads of money on these ads simply repeating his offensive as hell bigotry didn't sway anyone that needed to be swayed. Trump had crazy attacks all the time, but had a positive (racist implications, bullshit nostalgia) "Make America Great Again" as a core message. Less taxes. Less regulations. More jobs (unfounded). What positive message was with Hillary? "I'm with Her"? Vague and uninspiring.l for a historically hated candidate GOING IN to the primaries, well before the main event. She represented the establishment and received millions from assholes corporations and rich turds both personally and politically. She whitewashed her email "scandal" for months instead of just owning up and saying she hosed up and things will change. She gave a half asses apology way too late. Her foreign policy is alienating to most Democrats. She is a war hawk despite her ability to make treaties. She's in bed with the military-industrial complex and represented more proxy wars via airstrikes and drones. She would fair well against Putin's demagoguery, but in the Middle East and Asia she would use more military force than people in the left want. She received millions from banks for speeches in the years DIRECTLY BEFORE a presidential bid and accepted money from them as political donations. People have been super pissed at the financial sector for almost a decade, and Trump spoke against them without a single word from Hillary. She did almost nothing to inspire voter confidence. The changes people wanted were voiced in Trump. He paired with horrendous racism and misogyny, but enough people cared more about giving the establishment the finger than about racism which is perceived by many whites, even in progressive circles, to be on the decline and not a big deal. The historic inertia since the civil rights movement means that it seems inevitable to reverse 50 years of slow but steady progress. Hillary was a fundamentally flawed, corrupt, and loser candidate. I say corrupt not in the same sense as Trump's legitimate corruption links and banana republic poo poo, but she IS bought by corporate interests. TPP and globalizing efforts were supported by her without enforcing basic human and worker rights and environmental protections. It's not 100% sure Bernie would have won, but it has to be close to 99% against Trump. His head to head polls put him 15 goddamn points ahead Trump. My lifelong Republican voting mom said tonight she would have voted for Bernie, even though she thought he was a little extreme to the left. The entrenched hatred for Hillary was real, she despises her, but was also scared of a Trump presidency. People saying the attacks on Bernie would have destroyed him are doing wishful thinking. He had a highly public and motivated base, and would have been able to respond to Trump's attacks don't know poo poo. He has been legitimately fighting corporate, outsourcing assholes for decades and would have shut down Trump's populist appeal. He would have had racists still, but his crushing loss would probably have shoved out white nationalist wing into a dark corner where they would die a slow, corncobbing death that takes years longer than we are comfortable with. Instead the DNC and media pushed Hillary as the D candidate super hard. It's not conspiracy, go back 18 months and examine the media coverage of the primaries. Watch Hillary get huge amounts of airtime with Bernie's surprising rise get downplayed constantly. We pretended this didn't happen. We said the dread abuela was the better candidate and the people had spoken to that. "Berniebro's" warnings of her being the wrong choice against Trump and that she was almost handed primary are not crazy talk. I expect that we will ultimately realize how terrible of a choice Clinton was a la Dukakis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
Skanker posted:But we're talking about depressed turnout from Democratic voters, not increased Republican voters. Trump did terrible in voter turnout too. If left wing people objected to Hillary, who cares, it isn't worth sulking about the primaries if it means Trump wins. Yeah, no, you arent understanding this. Low turnout is Hillary's fault. She hosed up. It was her job to motivate voters, and she failed at it. You dont get voters to the polls by pointing at your opponent and yelling about how bad he is. You need to give them something motivational to vote *for*, and Hillary completely failed to do that. Voters didnt fail the democratic party. The democratic party failed voters. Until you understand that the Dems are destined to keep on losing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Yeah, no, you arent understanding this. Low turnout is Hillary's fault. She hosed up. It was her job to motivate voters, and she failed at it. You dont get voters to the polls by pointing at your opponent and yelling about how bad he is. You need to give them something motivational to vote *for*, and Hillary completely failed to do that. Democrats are never going to win office again if Republicans do a good enough job with voter suppression. Discussions of hypothetical Democratic recoveries are mostly academic at this point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:So what you're saying is if they can throw enough poo poo at a woman long enough it doesn't matter how untrue it is, we shouldn't run them. No, what I'm saying is that the party was far too glib about things she was involved with. None of these people bought into Benghazi or emailgate; they were pissed about DWC, the implicit support Hillary was clearly getting from the establishment, and a lot of legitimate issues that the party seemed to treat with an air of, "that was yesterday guys, stop crying and line up to support Hillary now please. It's her turn" I think dems sincerely underestimated how much they pissed off their base in swing states and rust belt. Dems expected to shove an awful candidate full of recent drama and shady behavior down people's throats, treated a large part of their progressive base with scorn, and then were surprised when people didn't show up in obama numbers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Trump is also an atrocious orator. Hillary is actually a pretty average speaker imo. Trump got by on volume, immense amounts of free coverage, and spouting whatever fascist poo poo his rally attendees wanted to hear. No, Trump is actually a good orator, just not one you like. Hes good at small sentences and repetition. He describes his goals in short, easily repeated phases. He knows how to use chants. Hes an idiot but that makes it easier for idiots to follow along, and his pacing can be weirdly hypnotic. Say what you want, but Trump can command a room with one of his rambling speeches for hours. Don't knock your opponents capabilities just because you dont like him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:01
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Democrats are never going to win office again if Republicans do a good enough job with voter suppression. On the plus side we can always just wait for apathy to take over and I'm sure a Democratic nominee will slip through. It's bound to hit the Republicans just as hard sooner or later.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:01
|
|
|
this election has reaffirmed how much i hate white people, on both sides of the political spectrum
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:02
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:this election has reaffirmed how much i hate white people, on both sides of the political spectrum
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
Meow Tse-tung posted:No, what I'm saying is that the party was far too glib about things she was involved with. None of these people bought into Benghazi or emailgate; they were pissed about DWC, the implicit support Hillary was clearly getting from the establishment, and a lot of legitimate issues that the party seemed to treat with an air of, "that was yesterday guys, stop crying and line up to support Hillary now please. It's her turn" Lots of people bought into Benghazi and emails.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Yeah, no, you arent understanding this. Low turnout is Hillary's fault. She hosed up. It was her job to motivate voters, and she failed at it. You dont get voters to the polls by pointing at your opponent and yelling about how bad he is. You need to give them something motivational to vote *for*, and Hillary completely failed to do that. I'm not even saying she was a good campaigner. I'm saying it's absurd to me that in America people just won't show up to the polls if they dislike the leader. The party's platform is totally irrelevant if they have some grievance with the leader. I know she was a failure as a candidate, but I don't see why a potential Trump victory isn't enough of a motivator to Democratic voters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:They will pick the wrong policy as long as you don't provide a better one that also aligns with their interests! There is no better policy we can pitch to them because any policy that's tolerable to us involves helping brown people, which is a complete non-starter. White people will poo poo all over their own plate and happily eat it up as long as they get to make nonwhite people do it too. LOL thanks for the cropped anime porn av, racist piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Yeah, no, you arent understanding this. Low turnout is Hillary's fault. She hosed up. It was her job to motivate voters, and she failed at it. You dont get voters to the polls by pointing at your opponent and yelling about how bad he is. You need to give them something motivational to vote *for*, and Hillary completely failed to do that. She made that argument again and again in ads, interviews and campaign speeches. She convinced a majority of voters but failed to do so for a few states. So it isn't as if she failed to get her positive message out, but that it didn't get to enough of the Rust Belt audience or alternative Latinos in AZ/FL. That's her fault along with a bunch of other factors that may place those rust belt states on long term Republican trends. The idea that she ran purely against Trump and never positively is based not on the campaign but on the media and maybe arguing with supporters online too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
Meow Tse-tung posted:No, what I'm saying is that the party was far too glib about things she was involved with. None of these people bought into Benghazi or emailgate; they were pissed about DWC, the implicit support Hillary was clearly getting from the establishment, and a lot of legitimate issues that the party seemed to treat with an air of, "that was yesterday guys, stop crying and line up to support Hillary now please. It's her turn" And yet white progressives still decided all that dumb poo poo mattered more than minority rights. THAT is the sin of white voters. The message of this election is FYGM, my economic and racial concerns matter more to me than your physical well being. Democrats will suffer severely in minority turn out in 2020 if we try and shift hard towards being a white progressive party and we won't out message Republicans either because they can just use open racism as a tool. Voter suppression will murder us. We threw our future away in a hissy fit because we didn't like Hillary. There is no second chance to redeem this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Democrats are never going to win office again if Republicans do a good enough job with voter suppression. Well looks like the democrats are reaping the rewards of letting republicans get away with disenfranchising black voters then, huh?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Democrats are never going to win office again if Republicans do a good enough job with voter suppression. Yeah, which is why its baffling that Dems chose to run a dogshit candidate in this critical election, or allowed Hillary to clear the field of everyone but an old socialist jew (who she almost lost to, lol) and a few party hacks. You need white votes even more in the next election, because suppression is going to amp up. You need a strategy that includes white voters. Obama could do it. Dont think anyone else you have on deck besides Bernie could, and Bernie is getting old
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:05
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:There is no better policy we can pitch to them because any policy that's tolerable to us involves helping brown people, which is a complete non-starter. Yeah, right, sure, you are so enlightened and smart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Yeah, which is why its baffling that Dems chose to run a dogshit candidate in this critical election, or allowed Hillary to clear the field of everyone but an old socialist jew (who she almost lost to, lol) and a few party hacks. What is your strategy to convince white voters that being not racist is the best option? Again: what can we offer that's better than republican lies combined with open racism?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:this election has reaffirmed how much i hate white people, on both sides of the political spectrum Your sneering distaste is the reason the Republicans win. Also you can't do anything on the national stage without the white vote. And not just the white vote. The white rural vote. City dwellers isn't enough anymore. Adapt or get used to a thousand years of darkness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Yeah, which is why its baffling that Dems chose to run a dogshit candidate in this critical election, or allowed Hillary to clear the field of everyone but an old socialist jew (who she almost lost to, lol) and a few party hacks. Lol if Bernie ran again we would be hosed worse than Dukakis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:07
|
|
|
You also can't expect to win on demographic change, if Latinos are morphing into whites lite, as shown this year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:this election has reaffirmed how much i hate white people, on both sides of the political spectrum
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:07
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Again, if they were actually more concerned about economic prospects and were informed enough to be running that kind of calculation.. then Hillary's policies should have won them. Hillaries policies? It was neoliberal policies that caused the rust belt. Why the hell would they choose more of the same?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Yeah, right, sure, you are so enlightened and smart. Hundreds of years of them doing exactly that supports this. The entire reason poor white communities exist in the middle of bumfuck nowhere is because they ran the gently caress away from black people moving into cities, built factories, and then got to eat poo poo when automation killed the labour needs of a bunch of industries or got those jobs shipped overseas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:28 |
|
|
Considering the number of Trump supporters who voted based on 'I don't like him but I just can't vote for KILLARY and her emails/foundation/benghazi', this is not the election that supports the point of 'Clinton just had to offer voters hope and positivity instead of attacking the opposition which is why she lost'Not a Step posted:Fake edit: Also if youre sick of being shat on by city dwellers who routinely call you racist and uneducated and generally just want you to go away and die, theres no better middle finger than voting for a brash rear end in a top hat loathed by Hollywood, the political elite and city dwellers in general, even if he is a billionaire new yorker. Basically every ad showing how much Lena Dunham hated Trump made him more attractive as the ultimate gently caress you to people who treat 'flyover country' like poo poo I agree that this was a baffling dumb strategy, like what kind of mythical voter is there who respects the opinion of Lena Dunham but is leaning towards Trump or even undecided
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:07
|
|