|
Moving forward, lets stop relitigating counterfactuals and try to control the neoliberal narrative of the next political cycle. Just my hot take
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
RasperFat posted:Ok, and? My point was she didn't have enthusiasm among younger voters. I actually meant what I said. Pretty much every leak revealed more and more that she was even more establishment than ever, that she rigged it against Bernie, and that she was full of poo poo. Turnout was really bad for her and she did nothing to dispel the cloud of impropriety around her and her whole campaign.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I actually meant what I said. Pretty much every leak revealed more and more that she was even more establishment than ever, that she rigged it against Bernie, and that she was full of poo poo. Turnout was really bad for her and she did nothing to dispel the cloud of impropriety around her and her whole campaign. After all votes counted, her turnout really wasn't all that bad. It wasn't Obama good, but it's not awful. She lost the election because of the Democrats who flipped in the Rust Belt (and came out in Florida). That's the story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I actually meant what I said. Pretty much every leak revealed more and more that she was even more establishment than ever, that she rigged it against Bernie, and that she was full of poo poo. Turnout was really bad for her and she did nothing to dispel the cloud of impropriety around her and her whole campaign. Ah I see sorry. I've been met with a lot of dismissive responses like this from people who meant it ironically or to be insulting. I also think it was basically rigged for Clinton, and it was obvious from the start. They didn't need to do any "cheating" when the DNC knew who was running since 2008. Leaked debate questions, DNC influence, and media collusion all definitely happened, but it was mostly dismissed as people whining that Hillary was obviously the best candidate and the primary votes showed it. Maybe not having so many establishment thumbs on the scale for future primaries might help us get a candidate people are excited for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:Ah I see sorry. I've been met with a lot of dismissive responses like this from people who meant it ironically or to be insulting. Lets also not underestimate the effect of having a unified establishment. People who contrast Sanders with Trump by saying, 'huh if he's so good then why couldn't he win the primary' are completely ignoring that Trump won due to the extreme division within Republican ranks. If they had just unified behind one candidate at the beginning of the primary then things could have gone very differently. However, Ted Cruz made that impossible and since no one saw Trump as a credible threat until it was too late it went the way it went. Essentially, they divided and conquered themselves. This is completely the opposite of the Democratic situation, where it was Sanders versus Hillary from day one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Lets also not underestimate the effect of having a unified establishment. People who contrast Sanders with Trump by saying, 'huh if he's so good then why couldn't he win the primary' are completely ignoring that Trump won due to the extreme division within Republican ranks. If they had just unified behind one candidate at the beginning of the primary then things could have gone very differently. However, Ted Cruz made that impossible and since no one saw Trump as a credible threat until it was too late it went the way it went. Essentially, they divided and conquered themselves. This is completely the opposite of the Democratic situation, where it was Sanders versus Hillary from day one. Absolutely. The Republicans have been a shitshow since the Bush fallout. The main thing that's kept them from falling apart is the seething hatred of Democrats that gets plugged constantly by RWM. I wouldn't even say it was Sanders v. Clinton on day one. She was the leader before the primaries even started, and then some Bernie upsets were a surprise challenge to her coronation. Because the DNC isn't a killing field of infighting like the RNC, they coalesced around Hillary real quick and helped shut him down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I actually meant what I said. Pretty much every leak revealed more and more that she was even more establishment than ever, that she rigged it against Bernie, and that she was full of poo poo. Turnout was really bad for her and she did nothing to dispel the cloud of impropriety around her and her whole campaign. The leaks revealed nothing that an intelligent person didn't already know and that goes for the Trump tape too. Trump isn't great to women, the trump tape didn't tell us that, all his other actions did. Clinton was an establishment insider. Not news either. It's a problem that leaks matter as much as they do in a world where there are going to be leaks about everything all the time. And our political candidates and establishment arn't suddenly worse than era's past (ok well trump is in some ways), we just see a lot more than we used too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Looks like roughly 60 if I'm doing my math right. And that number is still enough to swing Wisconsin without anyone outside of Milwaukee. You're assuming that 100% of the drop in black turnout is due to voter suppression, which is ridiculous. theflyingorc posted:After all votes counted, her turnout really wasn't all that bad. It wasn't Obama good, but it's not awful. No it was bad. There were 10 million more potential voters compared to 2012. Trump was a joke, so him taking any votes from her is embarrassing (the least liked president-elect going into office). And 2012 was seen as a disappointment. She did bad. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:No it was bad. There were 10 million more potential voters compared to 2012. Trump was a joke, so him taking any votes from her is embarrassing (the least liked president-elect going into office). And 2012 was seen as a disappointment. She did bad. Can't it be both? Turnout was bad, and rust belt Dems flipped. If either one of those hadn't happened, she would have won.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Can't it be both? Turnout was bad, and rust belt Dems flipped. If either one of those hadn't happened, she would have won. It is both.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:No it was bad. There were 10 million more potential voters compared to 2012. Trump was a joke, so him taking any votes from her is embarrassing (the least liked president-elect going into office). And 2012 was seen as a disappointment. She did bad. Obama was an exceptional candidate. Those new people are the young, who consistently vote at low levels. You're greatly simplifying the narrative. Trumps awfulness barely mattered to Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Obama was an exceptional candidate. Those new people are the young, who consistently vote at low levels. You're greatly simplifying the narrative. Your attempts to spin this are painful. 2012 had a bad turnout rate for elections period. It had the third lowest turnout of the presidential elections in twenty years. That 10 million being mostly youth, doesn't really matter much. You could assume 100% of those new voters are youth and adjust their turnout to 2012 accordingly, then Hillary is still behind like three or four million votes. Trump's awfulness did scare Republicans, specifically well off ones. However, he was able to bring in lower income and lower educated Democrats and independents to meet likely less than Mitt Romney level's of voter turnout. The fact Hillary lost to less than Mitt Romney levels of support and turnout speaks volumes of how ineffective she was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Your attempts to spin this are painful. 2012 had a bad turnout rate for elections period. It had the third lowest turnout of the presidential elections in twenty years. Good job lying with statistics. It would be just as accurate to say 2012 was the fourth highest turnout since 1976 but you have a narrative to push. Anyone trying to claim low turnout is lying to you about what happened
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
Uh, trump got more votes than Romney. Update your info
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
farraday posted:Good job lying with statistics. It would be just as accurate to say 2012 was the fourth highest turnout since 1976 but you have a narrative to push. What lies? You can see the data right here. Yes turnout for the major two parties in the United States took a dip in the mid 70s but it began crawling back up in 2004. 2012 saw a drop between 2004 and 2008 which is why it was seen as a disappointment. 2016 is an even bigger drop from that. Not to mention that millions of people voted for third parties which would slice off some percentage points of the two major candidates. Turnout for the major parties was an issue. theflyingorc posted:Uh, trump got more votes than Romney. Update your info Not turnout or voter share wise. Yes in raw votes, but again, that's because there are more eligible voters this year because the population continues to rapidly grow. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 08:24 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:What lies? Yes lying with statistics. 2012 was not a horrible turnout year. It was seen as a disappointment only in the narrative you've constructed, the narrative by the way that relies on you lying constantly about facts and then abandoning them for new ones when you get called out. For example there's this gem of yours. punk rebel ecks posted:America's population has grown significantly since those elections. The fact that Hillary got the same amount of total people to vote for her as John Kerry is telling. Also while Obama was a rockstar in 2008, he wasn't so much in 2012 where the turnout, while on the high end, was more inline with the usual. Yes that's you claiming turnout was down heavily this year while proclaiming that 2012 was "on the high end." The facts change, the narrative remains.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 08:26
|
|
(voter turnout by election for political parties)
|
farraday posted:Yes lying with statistics. 2012 was not a horrible turnout year. It was seen as a disappointment only in the narrative you've constructed, the narrative by the way that relies on you lying constantly about facts and then abandoning them for new ones when you get called out Please, list to me all of these pleathora of facts of mine that get called out. So far you've only presented this one. farraday posted:Yes that's you claiming turnout was down heavily this year while proclaiming that 2012 was "on the high end." This is a fair point, which is why I reworded in my previous statement to say that turnout for the major political parties in 2012 was a "disappointment" as it was down from the previous two elections. 2016's turnout rate for the major political parties is even less then that. Aside from that tidbit, nothing else has changed in any, way, shape or form. Trump was a poor candidate who did more or less as good Romney who was also a poor candidate. Trump only received around 1.5 million more votes than Romney did, which is far less gain than he should have due to so many new eligible voters. Hillary Clinton so far has less raw votes than Obama does and that doesn't account for the new eligible voters since 2012, who lean overwhelmingly Democratic. This means that she had notably less turnout than Obama. This boils down to that turnout was a problem relatively. I use relatively because turnout in general is a huge problem in the US, as even 2008 was pretty mediocre compared to other developed nations. None of this by the way changes my other points that Trump was a bad candidate and suggesting that around 100% of a decline in black turnout rate was due to voter suppression was dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Please, list to me all of these pleathora of facts of mine that get called out. So far you've only presented this one. "For major political parties" You just can't help yourself can you? 2012 and 2016 will have near identical turnouts and you have to fix that by blithly erasing 5% of the votes in 2016 and then retroactively saying everyone knows 2012 was a bad turnout and disappointing and the third worst turnout! How about you just apologize to the thread for lying with statistics and move on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks I demand you apologize for this insult!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
farraday posted:"For major political parties" I don't understand this "gotcha!" moment you are trying to push. This wasn't the first time I said "major political parties". The entire time I've been talking about the Republican and Democratic candidates, so I'm not sure what you are on about. Regardless, let me lay this out one more time: The main point I'm trying to get across is that less supporters of the Republican and Democratic parties showed up to vote for their candidates. This is true because Trump had less of a share of giblet voters than Mitt Romney did. The same is also true for Hillary Clinton. I can bring up Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, but third parties are tricky because you don't know how many of those voters would have showed up to vote for Hillary or Trump if there was a choice. And even assuming if every single voter of these candidates would have voted for on the major political parties if there was no choice, that is really puts more things into perspective of how awful the two major candidates were that there base were willing to show up to the polls in order to protest rather than to actually vote for them. That may actually be the case being that Jill Stein and Gary Johnson ran in 2012 and weren't even visible in any form. So I guess you want me to say that I should have been more clear in saying that "turnout wasn't nearly as bad, just that a notable share of voters from both major parties disliked their candidates so much that they decided to give them a "gently caress you!" by voting for hopeless third party candidates? Doesn't really send a strong signal toward Hillary or Trump to me. EDIT - I feel that this is missing the general point that she lost to Donald loving Trump, and even with the popular vote it is still embarrassingly much closer than it should be. Calibanibal posted:punk rebel ecks I demand you apologize for this insult!!  punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 09:20 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Your attempts to spin this are painful. 2012 had a bad turnout rate for elections period. It had the third lowest turnout of the presidential elections in twenty years. The third lowest rate in twenty years isn't "a bad turnout rate for elections period," because there are six elections in twenty years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:The third lowest rate in twenty years isn't "a bad turnout rate for elections period," because there are six elections in twenty years. Okay, that was bad way to phrase it, I'll give you that. But it still was lower than the previous two elections, which is why it was seen as a "disappointment" at the time. 2004 and 2008 had relatively healthy turnout rates for America, and it had many hopeful that soon America would have turnout rates comparable to other similar developed nations. 2012 stopped the hope for the trend. Regardless, that doesn't disregard my main points that Dem turnout should have been better* and that Trump was a lovely candidate. * Republican turnout as well if they ran a non-crap candidate, but I want to put focus on the Democrats problems. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 09:26 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I don't understand this "gotcha!" moment you are trying to push. This wasn't the first time I said "major political parties". The entire time I've been talking about the Republican and Democratic candidates, so I'm not sure what you are on about. Again this is you lying with statistics. You're very interested in head to head kick out the third parties and yet you're claiming Trump received less of the vote than Romney based on including the third parties. If you exclude them, Trump received 49% of the vote compared to Romney's 48%. You refuse to have any consistent reasoning, rambling from factoid to factoid. Maybe you can get enough mindless cheerleaders to complain people are being mean to you but that doesn't change you refuse to stop lying with statistics. Is there a single fact here you haven't repeatedly mangled along the way to maintaining a narrative you apparently can not support any other way?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
I think Hillary's emails really hurt her image after all the information that came out, like how she said there was no classified info on the server, and then oops, there was classified info on the server after all. Then there was the discussion over the fact that the server was never supposed to exist in the first place and never handle classified materiel, and that 30,000 emails were deleted off of it. Sure no charges were brought against her, but she should have never done that in the first place, and her actions during the scandal and her secrecy made anyone who was iffy about voting for hillary even less inclined to vote for her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 10:49
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:I think Hillary's emails really hurt her image after all the information that came out, like how she said there was no classified info on the server, and then oops, there was classified info on the server after all. The E-mails were supposed to be deleted BEFORE she was being investigated, but the people who managed her server had forgotten to do it. When the investigation started, they said "oh crap" and went and did the deletion that they were supposed to have done months earlier. It looked bad, but it was nothing. The whole E-mail scandal was the biggest pile of nothing imaginable. Every CEO at every company in the country does dumber IT Security things every day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
The good news is that private industries have a way of purging itself of such incompetence, unlike the public which we literally put into power.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:The third lowest rate in twenty years isn't "a bad turnout rate for elections period," because there are six elections in twenty years. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/index.html?client=ms-android-bell-ca&espv=1 Does this link from cnn, like, say it was the lowest since 1996?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
It's literally impossible for the President to misuse classified material so this was certainly a good topic for everyone to have focused on
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
N. Senada posted:The good news is that private industries have a way of purging itself of such incompetence, unlike the public which we literally put into power. The frustrating thing is that you KNOW that Trump is going to be an absolute nightmare for any of the White House security people and they'll probably have to fight him tooth and nail to get him to follow even the most basic Security protocols. There's no way he'll be willing to remember a single password.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:The frustrating thing is that you KNOW that Trump is going to be an absolute nightmare for any of the White House security people and they'll probably have to fight him tooth and nail to get him to follow even the most basic Security protocols. There's no way he'll be willing to remember a single password.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The password will be either ME or Ivanka. HandsActuallyVeryBig6969
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
farraday posted:Again this is you lying with statistics. What part of "It likely less eligible voters went to vote for Trump than they did with Romney" are you not comprehending here? Not to mention I also said "more or less" (even though it's really likely to be less) which 49% fits into. Not to mention even if that was true (it isn't) this doesn't change the narrative much that Donald Trump was a mediocre candidate at best since he only got slightly more of a share of eligible votes (which he very likely didn't) than Romney, who is widely seen as a mediocre candidate. farraday posted:You refuse to have any consistent reasoning, rambling from factoid to factoid. Maybe you can get enough mindless cheerleaders to complain people are being mean to you but that doesn't change you refuse to stop lying with statistics. So far the best you have managed to do is "if you completely ignore your argument about eligible voters turning out to vote for Trump (the entire premise of your argument), and instead completely focus on share of votes between the two political parties (which has nothing to do with what you are talking about) you will see that Donald Trump had a 1% more of a share of voters who turned out than Mitt Romney. (which has nothing to do with his overall popularity)" I don't even know if I should start off by pointing out the difference between measuring eligible voters voting for a candidate and measuring the share that did, or the fact that Hillary was such a mediocre candidate that she managed to beat Trump only by a relatively close margin in the popular vote. You keep managing to make Hillary look worse and worse with your arguments. You keep running around throwing anything you can at the wall to desperately hope something sticks in light of the obvious fact that less eligible voters went out to vote for Hillary than they should have, as well as Trump. This clearly signals two political candidates who are not strong. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:I think Hillary's emails really hurt her image after all the information that came out, like how she said there was no classified info on the server, and then oops, there was classified info on the server after all. Hillary would have been way better off being honest with us from the start and just apologizing for her bad judgement and being bad at computer. Hell maybe even suggest that the federal government get a department of IT that has the power to put their foot down on internet security since the government is full of olds Yes her image from the media is largely bullshit, and her duplicity was overstated to comical proportions. I think that seed had an easier time growing because she is legitimately secretive to the point of lying to us.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
override367 posted:Hillary would have been way better off being honest with us from the start and just apologizing for her bad judgement and being bad at computer. Hell maybe even suggest that the federal government get a department of IT that has the power to put their foot down on internet security since the government is full of olds She should have done it earlier, but I doubt she expected it to become literally the #1 discussed issue of the campaign.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:The E-mails were supposed to be deleted BEFORE she was being investigated, but the people who managed her server had forgotten to do it. When the investigation started, they said "oh crap" and went and did the deletion that they were supposed to have done months earlier. Yeah but if a CEO at a company fucks up everything they can blame IT and fire them if they do it in house, regardless of whos fault it is If the CEO of a company took company data off premises against security rules and paid some guys outside their company to set up a server in their house, they'd have a hard time blaming Joe IT too. Granted, they'd be a CEO, so they'd land on their feet - but most CEOs wouldn't make it to the oval office either
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:she specifically did that during one of the debates She did that apology long after the emails were constantly a topic in discourse. During that time when she apologized during the first debate, the emails were already the #1 discussed issue of her campaign for quite some time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:she specifically did that during one of the debates Yes she definitely should have done it earlier! Maybe also not lying about classified material and number of devices she used and all that There is a good excuse for the e-mail server, even the behavior that goes against rules, there is little excuse for flatly lying about it The only defense we really had for her is "But Trump is so much worse!", which is really tough when you're the party that relies on having energetic turnout. The other defense of "But it was a nothingburger!" really isn't a defense, because when it comes to politics what is or is not a nothingburger is not connected to the facts
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
override367 posted:If the CEO of a company took company data off premises against security rules and paid some guys outside their company to set up a server in their house, they'd have a hard time blaming Joe IT too. Granted, they'd be a CEO, so they'd land on their feet - but most CEOs wouldn't make it to the oval office either Millions of people who update their work password by taking the previous password and incrementing the number at the end every time there's a reset decided that Hillary could be written off because she threatened nothing and didn't want to carry two blackberries. It's insane. edit: not to mention the moronic "DESTROYING DEVICES WITH HAMMERS!!!" thing, when Blackberries store all data on the server.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
So far I am loving the gentle slap fights going on over turnout. Punk rock guy, you're right about everything. It is THEY who spout lies from their filthy mouths, apologies to me tho. My favorite poo poo analysis of the way forward for democrats has to hands down be this article by the economist, which argues that a move to the left for the democrats would be a huge mistake and then bolsters this claim with the opinion of a senior democratic member who states bernie could never be president, despite their predictions being awful and the fact that Donald Trump is president. http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21710273-american-left-danger-learning-precisely-wrong-lesson-defeat-democrats Literally the reason why the unwashed masses aren't receptive to the bullshit spewed by moderates is because to accept their narrative requires you to be an indoctrinated party loyal. The narratives put forth by normal candidates don't fit as a road map for late capitalism. An whether the authentic Hillary supporters like it or not (which they don't) simply voting for the lesser of two evils over an over isn't going to work anymore. I like Zizeks view that we saw that 'manufacturing consent' doesn't work anymore. The media was overtly on Hillary's side, as was feminism, Saudi Arabia, Wallstreet, liberal intellectuals, an the working class was like 'nah, thanks but, protest candidate.'
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
theflyingorc posted:They would never ever get in trouble without data actually being stolen. Well complaining that it's unfair is so much shouting at clouds, the issue did have legs, and it did stick At some point we have to admit that she had some fault in the matter instead of just always falling back to "But if X had done Y" or "But Trump" because that doesn't work
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:13
|
|