|
Fulchrum posted:And when it gets completely and totally ignored yet a loving gain But it's been successful.
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 16:07 |
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:As we keep telling you. Obama won these people over because he promised "hope" and "change". He promised them jobs and an increase of quality in their lives. Trump won these people over by promising to "make America Great Again" as he campaigned on bringing back their lost industry and dropping disastrous trade deals. It's not that difficult to connect. Right but this doesn't work in the context of 'uh how could they vote for Obama if they were bigoted  ', that's the problem. Trump's brand of populism is nothing new, it's actually pretty standard Republican. A historically pretty conservative group went republican, this isn't shocking.punk rebel ecks posted:Literally NOONE is saying this. Nobody. I haven't heard anyone in this thread say this at all what so ever. What's the point of making sure we know that any attempt to talk about the bigotry that motivated his voters needs to stop as we focus on how they're all just economic victims, then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
if anyone lives in a small tx town with a broom (maybe it was ladders?) factory heres a hint its not reopening
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Literally NOONE is saying this. Nobody. I haven't heard anyone in this thread say this at all what so ever. And literally NOONE here is saying that we need to drop economic populism entirely from the platform either. I think we can run on both and win, but you also have to understand that given the history of our country, the Democratic party, who has power, and who is more vulnerable, deemphasizing social issues as a takeaway from the handwringing about how we've failed to appeal to a certain demographic is a real danger to a lot of people. Note that I'm not calling out anyone in this thread and accusing them of anything; I think it's a fear within the Democratic party given the sort of leadership we've had to date, and I hope it changes. If you want me to just come out and say I don't think Hillary ran an effective campaign on economic issues, that's absolutely true. She didn't. Didn't on social issues either. What she said wasn't bad, but she didn't say enough of it. speng31b has issued a correction as of 02:12 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
eonwe posted:if anyone lives in a small tx town with a broom (maybe it was ladders?) factory heres a hint even if it did the job would suck because they're not magically going to be union.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:But it's been successful. Are you seriously going to try and claim that Hillary was actively oblivious to any economic problems being faced by people in the rust belt, and not a single one of her plans and policies had anything to do with helping these towns? Or is this just the return of "Well she didn't really MEAN it" fallacy? speng31b posted:And literally NOONE here is saying that we need to drop economic populism entirely from the platform either. I think we can run on both and win, but you also have to understand that given the history of our country, the Democratic party, who has power, and who is more vulnerable, deemphasizing social issues as a takeaway from the handwringing about how we've failed to appeal to a certain demographic is a real danger to a lot of people. Historically, there's never once been a point in time where a party has said that we could try both economic populism to appeal to whites AND minority issues and rights" and ever actually kept the second part. Fulchrum has issued a correction as of 02:14 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Right but this doesn't work in the context of 'uh how could they vote for Obama if they were bigoted Tatum Girlparts posted:What's the point of making sure we know that any attempt to talk about the bigotry that motivated his voters needs to stop as we focus on how they're all just economic victims, then? You are trying to start an argument that nobody is even making. This is the equivalent of me arguing with people in this thread that we have to cozy up and support Putin's regime in order to defeat ISIS. It's a random imaginary position that nobody has presented. speng31b posted:And literally NOONE here is saying that we need to drop economic populism entirely from the platform either. I think we can run on both and win, but you also have to understand that given the history of our country, the Democratic party, who has power, and who is more vulnerable, deemphasizing social issues as a takeaway from the handwringing about how we've failed to appeal to a certain demographic is a real danger to a lot of people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Deciding the 'main reason' a candidate won is obviously stupid, but Trump never gets out of the primary without being the most aggressive and focused white nationalist on the stage. Economic anxiety is real but so is racism, and that's the truth no matter what the optics look like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
@punk and the others, let me try to be clearer with this. If you're saying 'we can focus on economic AND social justice' with one side of your mouth and then with the other saying 'bigotry wasn't a major factor in Trump voters' then many people hearing you won't believe that first part was genuine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
She said a lot of the right things but 1) 25 years of a grand conservative conspiracy have made people doubt her every utterance and 2) no matter what she said, she represented the establishment and 3) she had bad optics and no central message the poorly educated could get behind
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:@punk and the others, let me try to be clearer with this. Again, nobody is saying this. Everyone recognizes that large portions of Trump voters are racist. What people ARE saying is that there are also another large share of Trump voters, specifically those in the rustbelts, in which their primary concern was economic, hence why they switched from Obama to Trump. Trump promised economic change, Hillary didn't. To get these people back on our side, just do what Obama did. It's that simple. You can focus on economic and social justice to win a portion of Trump voters because Democrats did precisely that four years ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Nobody is saying we should deemphazie social issues in any way, shape, or form. No, you're just saying that economic issues definitely had a larger role to play than anything else, which I think is an overreach. You're also forgetting to note the history of the matter, where - as another poster pointed out above - when the Democrats claim to run on both economic and social issues, the latter tends to get dropped at every turn, and the same people suffer for it over and over again. This isn't speculative, it's happened again and again, and will continue to happen unless we take stands against it at every turn. It's preventative because it's happened before and pretty much everyone knows it's going to happen again if we let it. We're not attacking or strawmanning YOU for suggesting it, just pointing out that the Democratic party - if left to its own devices, if not pushed kicking and screaming towards social progress - will leave it in a ditch for dead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Again, nobody is saying this. Everyone recognizes that large portions of Trump voters are racist. What people ARE saying is that there are also another large share of Trump voters, specifically those in the rustbelts, in which their primary concern was economic, hence why they switched from Obama to Trump. Trump promised economic change, Hillary didn't. To get these people back on our side, just do what Obama did. It's that simple. well no people are saying that, that's in fact the entire reason these arguments start, when someone needs to run in and say 'uh excuse me you can't say trump's support came from bigotry' when it did, in one major component. As for 'just do what obama did', it's not at all that simple. Obama had an insane coalition behind him, do you think there's ANY party with just a roster of Obama's ready to deploy every 8 years? A combo of being a serious black candidate and being young and charismatic as gently caress as well as a platform that was pretty robust on both economic and social issues was what got him a lot of areas. You can do some of those easy, most importantly the platform issues, but no we'll probably never be able to 'just do what Obama did' 100%
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
The democrats will leave anything in the ditch for dead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:The democrats will leave anything in the ditch for dead. vince foster deserved it
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:vince foster deserved it It wasn't enough to kill Vince Foster, Hillary's bloodlust made her want to kill the whole country by enabling a Trump presidency.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:The democrats will leave anything in the ditch for dead. and hell, same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Are you seriously going to try and claim that Hillary was actively oblivious to any economic problems being faced by people in the rust belt, and not a single one of her plans and policies had anything to do with helping these towns? Or is this just the return of "Well she didn't really MEAN it" fallacy? hello, please tell me two of her plans and policies that would have positively affected dying factory towns without checking her campaign website tia
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:vince foster deserved it I can't believe he committed suicide. I can not believe he committed suicide. How could he have done that? How could he have committed suicide?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
if bernie sanders is all the dems have then they're grade A hosed. obama's 8 years allowed the rot of the dem establishment to stay hidden and hide the fact that hey you can't have obama forever this probably clears the way for cory booker though because some dems might just see him as obama 2.0, although you might have luck tying a progressive agenda to him, lol if you wanted ideological purity
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:well no people are saying that, that's in fact the entire reason these arguments start, when someone needs to run in and say 'uh excuse me you can't say trump's support came from bigotry' when it did, in one major component. Hell, for all intents and purposes Hillary was doing what Obama did. Improving on all his policies and saying that they would continue the successes of the last 8 years. How do you run on "everything needs to be burned down and changed" when your party has been in the white house for 8 years?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Hell, for all intents and purposes Hillary was doing what Obama did. Improving on all his policies and saying that they would continue the successes of the last 8 years. well no, she didn't do what Obama did, she completely hosed up the ground game she should have aced, Obama expanded and made huge jumps in ground game, that's a pretty major difference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Constantly. She spent way more time on him stuffing his employees contracts - she even had a story in the debates about her father's business and how he once got stiffed by a rich rear end in a top hat like Trump and how it made them all feel. She should have told the story in 3 emojis or less, would have really clinched those millenial votes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:well no, she didn't do what Obama did, she completely hosed up the ground game she should have aced, Obama expanded and made huge jumps in ground game, that's a pretty major difference. I am suprised she didnt give more focus to the Midwest given how being defeated by Bernie should have provided a clue about her campaign weakness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
lol Hillary ate so much poo poo for lines like that when her opponent was blasting winners like "no puppet, no puppet" and "nasty woman"
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
etalian posted:I am suprised she didnt give more focus to the Midwest given how being defeated by Bernie should have provided a clue about her campaign weakness. pretty much, you'd think losing most of a region in the primary would be a clue that maybe you need to give your networks a second look and make sure everything's rock solid for the general. Or maybe send some people to a burnt out trailer park, gently caress it
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:hello, please tell me two of her plans and policies that would have positively affected dying factory towns without checking her campaign website tia Opiod addiction focus and rehabilitation to affect poverty cycles, and heavily subsidizing green energy factories in those same towns to manufacture lithium batteries, solar panels, windmills, and so on. Oh, I'm sorry, was this supposed to be some dumbass rhetorical question because you were so sure these things couldn't exist?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
theflyingexecutive posted:lol Hillary ate so much poo poo for lines like that when her opponent was blasting winners like "no puppet, no puppet" and "nasty woman" trumped up trickle down sounds like it was written by committee, much like everything she said and or did
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
hillary over-relied on the polling which was completely off the mark, while obama's polling (generally polling during 2008, 2012 overall) was actually on the money if the polls reflected what actually happened you would have seen money flow into those states that she lost. not saying that it was 100% the polls fault, but they had a faulty map guiding a well-tuned machine more or less and they were so confident in their map and their machine that they didn't bother to look up
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Hell, for all intents and purposes Hillary was doing what Obama did. Improving on all his policies and saying that they would continue the successes of the last 8 years. You don't. You say "we need to recalibrate our policies, but these fucksticks on the other side of the aisle are in our way." Which is 100% true. Unfortunately the message is badly delivered because the Dems lack any sort of spine or fighting spirit. They think they've elevated themselves above the vulgar blood sport that is politics. But they haven't; they just suck rear end at it. In politics, you need to destroy your enemies, employing hyperbolic rhetoric if necessary. "When they go low, we go high" was the most pathetic, milquetoast poo poo ever lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
etalian posted:I am suprised she didnt give more focus to the Midwest given how being defeated by Bernie should have provided a clue about her campaign weakness. So if through a miracle Bernie had won he should have put all his resources in safeguarding California and New York?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:pretty much, you'd think losing most of a region in the primary would be a clue that maybe you need to give your networks a second look and make sure everything's rock solid for the general. Instead she trusted computer program to make big strategic decisions for her campaign. Makes me laugh how she tried to have a more high tech campaign than Obama's but ended up face planting due to forgetting the human element.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
every line by every other political campaign was designed by committee, it's only more immediately apparent when you compare it to a campaign run by the seat of somebody's pants
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:hillary over-relied on the polling which was completely off the mark, while obama's polling (generally polling during 2008, 2012 overall) was actually on the money so basically what you are saying is she was mitt romney?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:trumped up trickle down sounds like it was written by committee, much like everything she said and or did hey at least it was about the economy
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:hillary over-relied on the polling which was completely off the mark, while obama's polling (generally polling during 2008, 2012 overall) was actually on the money doesn't help her reputation as being out of touch as hell tho. i mean not that it matters now except in a historical sense (and i guess going forward)
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:every line by every other political campaign was designed by committee, it's only more immediately apparent when you compare it to a campaign run by the seat of somebody's pants well yeah, but the good ones don't sound like they were
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
etalian posted:Instead she trusted computer program to make big strategic decisions for her campaign. even I have to admit that's probably the most hilarious and fitting thing about that failure of a campaign, yea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:38
|
|
theflyingexecutive posted:lol Hillary ate so much poo poo for lines like that when her opponent was blasting winners like "no puppet, no puppet" and "nasty woman" Make America Great Again? Lying Crooked Hillary? Trump's poo poo actually stuck. Clinton had "Dangerous Donald"
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 16:07 |
|
|
Hillary Clinton literally lost the election because she trusted a computer model too much and forgot to do human outreach. I know it sounds like a bad fake news article but it's genuinely a major factor in her failure and is hilarious/terrible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:39
|
|