|
khwarezm posted:As has been said, under any sane electoral system Clinton, poo poo or not (and she was poo poo), would have won. In any event Sanders didn't beat her and as much as people are loath to admit that was largely because he had trouble portraying himself as attuned to the interests of the identity groups that made up the Democratic electorate. Bemoaning identity politics is pointless, it is an integral part of politics in America and everywhere else. 1. It's not really helpful to look at what happened and say 'well, if things were different she would have won anyway'. She lost states Democrats hadn't lost in decades; there's no 'buts' to that. She performed terribly. 2. She performed this way against a moron. She lost against a party whose obituaries were already written. 3. Let's say we agree with the premise that Sanders lost because he wasn't 'attuned to the interests of the identity groups that made up the Democratic electorate'. If Clinton was, then that means that the interests of the identity groups that comprise the Democratic electorate are such that they elect a candidate capable of losing a bunch of Democratic leaning states and lose an election against a moron. That's a problem. It's not Bernie Sanders' problem, it's the party's problem and the base's problem. That same situation is why liberals have been laughing at the Republican party for years. Liberals (myself included) incorrectly thought that the party whose primary system was broken and resulting in unelectable candidates was the Republican Party; it actually was the Democratic Party.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:58 |
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:None of this is idpol so why were you pretending idpol was the issue? It is. I mean, we're already going through the whole 'Clinton was the candidate of minorities!' thing again. Of course it's about identity politics (bad ones). Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Berniebro opposition to "identity politics" is subconsciously rooted in their desire to punish black voters for not "voting right" in the primaries.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Berniebro opposition to "identity politics" is subconsciously rooted in their desire to punish black voters for not "voting right" in the primaries. I personally don't think it was the African communities fault or anything, I view the media blackout on Bernie an the lack of penetration of the internet as the biggest factors contributing to the lack of success there. It wasn't until after the primaries in the South that I think Bernie pushed to being on the radar with the muggles/normies anyways. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i3y0Jv5WOM But I get that you want to paint the bernie supporters as racist, I get that, its how idpol actually works. Sethex fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:1. It's not really helpful to look at what happened and say 'well, if things were different she would have won anyway'. She lost states Democrats hadn't lost in decades; there's no 'buts' to that. She performed terribly. Just to be clear, yet again, I'm not saying that Democrats shouldn't try to regain those states, or that they didn't turn a blind to their problems, or that there aren't serious concerns for poor white people living there and elsewhere. I'm saying that it's illuminating that the consistent undervaluing of the minority voters (voter suppression played a huge part in this outcome but we haven't heard much about that) has not been talked about much while people act like identity politics that tends to be concerned with such issues are somehow the problem. quote:2. She performed this way against a moron. She lost against a party whose obituaries were already written. quote:3. Let's say we agree with the premise that Sanders lost because he wasn't 'attuned to the interests of the identity groups that made up the Democratic electorate'. If Clinton was, then that means that the interests of the identity groups that comprise the Democratic electorate are such that they elect a candidate capable of losing a bunch of Democratic leaning states and lose an election against a moron. This is ridiculous, you are basically repeating the same kind of drivel that the Shillbots trotted out in the months between the Primaries and the actual election but from a different direction. There is no problem with the candidate, its the voters. If only they would shut up and vote for who they were meant to then this would all be a lot easier. What's the next step, continue denigrating identity politics and signal to Minorities that the interests of white people in the midwest take priority, and be shocked if they offer any kind of blowback? Sanders didn't do well with Racial minorities, by a long shot. Its just the way it is. Considering that they make up most of the Democratic electorate at this point you cannot ignore them and that means you will have to engage with identity politics on their terms if the economic left expects to gain ground again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:1. It's not really helpful to look at what happened and say 'well, if things were different she would have won anyway'. She lost states Democrats hadn't lost in decades; there's no 'buts' to that. She performed terribly. She lost states that Democrats hadn't lost since Bill Clinton's election; truly a failure of Clintonian policies and nothing else. The people writing obituaries for the Republicans were dumb. People have been writing them every four years for the last twenty years, and every failure is just met with "next time, next time, the Republicans will surely collapse under the weight of our correctness". I blame it on the influx of Gen Xers and millenials who don't remember the decades of Republican domination that Bill interrupted. Anyone who's calling 2016 an overwhelming defeat and the death of the Democratic coalition clearly doesn't remember the Reagan and Nixon landslides.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Hot take but if it were Bill Clinton somehow running again he would have won This isn't a rejection of Clintonian policies, this is a rejection of her specifically She is nowhere near as savvy as her husband Main Paineframe posted:The people writing obituaries for the Republicans were dumb. People have been writing them every four years for the last twenty years, and every failure is just met with "next time, next time, the Republicans will surely collapse under the weight of our correctness". I blame it on the influx of Gen Xers and millenials who don't remember the decades of Republican domination that Bill interrupted. Anyone who's calling 2016 an overwhelming defeat and the death of the Democratic coalition clearly doesn't remember the Reagan and Nixon landslides. I don't think Republicans ever had the house under Reagan
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
botany posted:*loss may include winning the popular vote by several million * If you ignore that allocating the respective third parties puts Trump ahead on the PV** ** this is what dems hiss at nader and stein anout so it would be silly not to
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Just a-poppin in to say still lollin at stone cold. stay probated ya dumbshit cuz its YOU using the underprivileged as a rhetorical forum bludgeon jesus if you give a poo poo get out and do a poo poo for disabled hispanic immigrants (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Ignoring the screaming match above, where is the idea that democrats abandoned economic leftism coming from? Have you been in some hoxhaist bunker for the past 50 years? This was probably the first election in our lives where the democratic party could be even vaguely considered a leftist party, instead of the party leftists vote for. Ya'll seem to be doing the whole "longing for a golden age that never was" bullshit and laying the blame for economic leftism at the feet of the political factions that launched leftist economics back into viability. Frankly I long for the days when socialism was just for Jews, queers, and coloreds cuz holy poo poo do the johnny-come-latelys suck at it. I agree that the Democrats were significantly more leftist in this election than in recent decades. My argument (not sure if this is what other people aer saying) is more about them making it a bigger part of their message. If you didn't watch the debates and didn't go to Clinton's website, there's a very good chance you wouldn't be aware of her more significant economic proposals. I think she should have made that a bigger part of her ads (and told surrogates to talk about it more, etc), instead of focusing so much on attacking Trump. So basically my issue is more with adding more focusing on her economic platform to her message, preferably in place of Trump attacks (rather than in places of so-called "identity politics", which I think are usually fine). edit: See this quote: Business Gorillas posted:what was hillary's leftist economic policy? i live in cleveland and watched her ads almost nonstop for 2 months and all i can tell you is she isn't donald trump and she likes children Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I agree that the Democrats were significantly more leftist in this election than in recent decades. The Democrats were. Hillary wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:The Democrats were. Hillary wasn't. The free college (for most families) and minimum wage increase (I forget if she was aiming for 12 or 15, but either would have been major) alone are waaay more leftist than anything we've seen out of the Democratic party in decades. While it's highly questionable if either could/would have been passed, merely making them an explicit part of the platform is still significant. Granted, that's not saying much, but it's still an improvement. When I say "leftist" here I just mean "relative to other recent Democratic Party platforms."
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Hot take but if it were Bill Clinton somehow running again he would have won If we're attributing credibility to bill, its on record that he tried to warn her campaign about campaigning in the midwest and making them feel at ease, and the campaign brushed him off. Also I should reiterate since it seems to be a shitposter focus; black democrats were polled to be very satisfied with both primary candidates. It came down to Bill and Hillary's decades long groundwork appealing to black community leaders that made them prefer her. This is expressed very easily in the exit polls; 18-30 black democrats were split or slightly favored Bernie, whereas every further age group skewed more and more Clinton. This theory fits with groups they have had less groundwork with too; the majority of minority demographics 18-30 vastly favored Bernie, including young women, hispanic democrats, and arab democrats. So it clearly wasn't entirely an issue of "Bernie ignored minorities too much!". Before anyone gets upset: yes, Bernie could have done better outreach. His messaging was well intentioned ("we can come together and solve all our problems, we are not our own enemies, these policies will help everyone") but made black dems concerned as they had heard similar reassurances from far less trustworthy politicians. I hope you, guy who felt he didnt do enough, can at least admit that his platform after adding Symone Sanders to his campaign had vastly improved on this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The free college (for most families) and minimum wage increase (I forget if she was aiming for 12 or 15, but either would have been major) alone are waaay more leftist than anything we've seen out of the Democratic party in decades. While it's highly questionable if either could/would have been passed, merely making them an explicit part of the platform is still significant. Granted, that's not saying much, but it's still an improvement. When I say "leftist" here I just mean "relative to other recent Democratic Party platforms." The DNC stance was $15 min wage, in what was either the most out of touch moment or extreme level of post-primary dickwaving she started a fuss and haggled over 12 dollars instead. Not exactly a comforting appearance for fiscal leftists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:* If you ignore that allocating the respective third parties puts Trump ahead on the PV** Johnson pulled more from Clinton than Trump due to salty berniebros though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Johnson pulled more from Clinton than Trump due to salty berniebros though. If you seriously believe that Bernie supporters became libertarians and voted en masse for Gary Johnson, then you are fundamentally insane and will never concede an inch of ground.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Johnson pulled more from Clinton than Trump due to salty berniebros though. Prove it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:If we're attributing credibility to bill, its on record that he tried to warn her campaign about campaigning in the midwest and making them feel at ease, and the campaign brushed him off. A lot of Hillary's campaign problems were uniquely Hillary like, for example, her using a literal copy paste of her 2008 "Farmers for Hillary" primary campaign to appeal to rural voters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Actually, it is good for women to have the same opportunities as men. What's your next hot take, that DADT was good because you don't believe in military service? Yeah. Basically, in order of preference, it's like this: Mostly white right-wing executives < diverse right-wing executives < diverse not right-wing executives So having more women/minorities as executives (or on the board of directors or whatever) is definitely a positive relative to the way things were before. Obviously it would be even better if they weren't still often terrible, but it's not like we used to have a bunch of left-wing white executives (and I really seriously doubt we'll ever find ourselves with the choice between "left-wing white male executives" or "right-wing diverse executives"). zegermans posted:Johnson pulled more from Clinton than Trump due to salty berniebros though. Isn't this objectively false? Like, didn't some really high percent of Sanders voters say that they would also support Clinton (unless you believe some some massive conspiracy to lie about Clinton support I guess)? edit: Like, myself and a bunch of people I know voted Bernie in the primaries, and every single one (except for this one weird guy) voted Clinton in the generals. It's an anecdote, but I think the people I know are fairly representative of Sanders voters in general. And it's waaay more likely that Sanders supporters who didn't vote for Clinton would have voted for Stein instead, rather than Johnson. If I had to guess, I would place the percent of Sanders voters who voted Johnson in the general election in the low single digits, at best. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
As a woman who supported Bernie, I find being called a "bro" in any way, shape or form grossly insulting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:
Not to say that it would have passed or been enacted, but bernie ' s proposals would have been significantly more beneficial to those communities than anything in Hillary's build, an her proposals likely wouldn't get done. But for Hillary's administration what probably would get accomplished is the TPP and a poo poo load of neoliberal agenda stuff which at best would do nothing for the lower classes. To me the leaders that were getting their electorate to vote hillary to me just seem like bourgeois key masters to those communities, they may have been acting selfishly to empower themselves or done what they saw as politically possible in their mind, but that doesn't really matter, they aimed for the horizon and hit the ground. Now they are worse off. One component that idpol typically under reports or shuffles into the category of 'worrying about this is oppression' is the notion that oppressed groups have their own bourgeoisie that operate within the greater systems of oppression. This video makes a point to flesh that out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB1UAT73o7w That said obviously if bernie didn't win those groups, more effort should have been made to reach them. But to be fair the guy probably wasn't expecting his message to resonate like it did among passionate progressives an it was his first rodeo. Sethex fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The free college (for most families) and minimum wage increase (I forget if she was aiming for 12 or 15, but either would have been major) alone are waaay more leftist than anything we've seen out of the Democratic party in decades. While it's highly questionable if either could/would have been passed, merely making them an explicit part of the platform is still significant. Granted, that's not saying much, but it's still an improvement. When I say "leftist" here I just mean "relative to other recent Democratic Party platforms." There's plenty there to reinforce the cynical way the left created her. Her entire "let's disrupt the student loan industry" solution to college debt was just one example. Another being her very late arrival to the Public Option when it was seen as the most logical next step to fix Obamacare. Meanwhile, her hardcore supporters played up constantly on how we already have UHC like Switzerland or the Netherlands do, even though we don't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
^^^ My feeling about Clinton is that she doesn't really have any firm convictions about this stuff, but that she's willing to go with whatever happens to be popular. While this certainly isn't ideal (and makes her far less reliable than someone like Sanders who has always supported this stuff), it at least means that she'll probably shift to the left if the voter base also does. I'm also basing this off of the fact that presidents usually successfully uphold most of the promises they make during their campaigns.Neurolimal posted:This theory fits with groups they have had less groundwork with too; the majority of minority demographics 18-30 vastly favored Bernie, including young women, hispanic democrats, and arab democrats. So it clearly wasn't entirely an issue of "Bernie ignored minorities too much!". I think that the age difference is largely due to older people having a positive association of Clinton with Bill Clinton's presidency in the 90's. So she probably got a LOT of older Democrat voters based off of that. Obviously this isn't the case for all (or even most necessarily) of people who voted Clinton in the primary, but I think it helps explain the huge age gap. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Oddly a lot of these places that voted Clinton in the primaries voted for Trump in the general and consistently got lower primary turnout. Maybe the Democrats have a really lovely primary system?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Hot take: I'm not sure why people's take away from this election is "Hillary was so bad she lost to a human garbage fire of a candidate!" If you only looked at the results from election day where trump had fewer votes than mccain that might make sense, but at this point it seems pretty obvious that outside of like the west coast, Utah and Virginia Trump wasn't a garbage fire. I mean whether or not you think Hillary was any good, Trump ran ahead of Romney in all but one of the states where votes matter. Unless I suppose you think she lost by turning out conservatives to vote against her, but then I wonder what you think the democrats should have done instead. Anyway it looks like identity politics work, since the candidate who substituted identity politics for policy is the president-elect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Anyway it looks like identity politics work, since the candidate who substituted identity politics for policy is the president-elect. I think that "identity politics" (as the main focus of a campaign) works only if the identity in question happens to also be the biggest demographic (in this case white people).
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Yet again we are back to this problem of white people claiming to be alienated because Democrats did not put their problems at the forefront. While I agree that ignoring (or decreasing) focus on minority/gender issues is a terrible idea that will result in those issues being ignored, I think it's kind of obviously wrong to say that economic policy only applies to and appeals to white people. edit: Ah whoops didn't mean to put this in a new post instead of combining it with my last one, sorry
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think it's kind of obviously wrong to say that economic policy only applies to and appeals to white people. Nobody disagrees about that. That wasn't the point. They were reading between the lines; we're rightfully skeptical and it's hard to get to the end of that post and really keep faith in how much Mr. Economics For Everyone cares about minorities. That sort of language is a persistent issue and the reason we end up with this goofy battle that shouldn't be happening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:There are plenty of buts here, Clinton has, as of right now, 2.5 million votes over her opponent. It is ridiculous to just write that off as if it means nothing, let me reiterate, the candidate that got the most votes cast by the people of America lost the election to an opponent with 2.5 million less votes. Any democracy that lets this happen has got serious structural problems that need to be addressed but people don't seem to care much about the fact that the voters in (mostly minority dominated) states like California are systematically devalued compared to, like, Wyoming. Instead we hear a lot more about how the Democrats need to appeal to the white working class in the rustbelt. I'm not saying it means nothing. But just as pointing out the popular vote is important, it's also important to point out that she lost a lot of states that Democrats had done well in recently. It's also important to point out that her popular vote advantage is, afaik, lower than Obama's in the two elections he did win. It is also worth pointing out that Trump was a candidate with a lot of weaknesses. This is all worth pointing out because we have to compare her to some kind of benchmark, some kind of idea of what would be the acceptable performance of a Democrat against a Republican who is crazy. quote:This is ridiculous, you are basically repeating the same kind of drivel that the Shillbots trotted out in the months between the Primaries and the actual election but from a different direction. There is no problem with the candidate, its the voters. If only they would shut up and vote for who they were meant to then this would all be a lot easier. What's the next step, continue denigrating identity politics and signal to Minorities that the interests of white people in the midwest take priority, and be shocked if they offer any kind of blowback? This kind of argument is exactly what I mean when I say there is a difference between 'identity politics' and 'bad identity politics'. Or what someone earlier referred to as 'the politics of deference'. There is nothing wrong with saying that voters in a primary system might vote in ways that are not conducive to winning a general election; that their perspective on what is a candidate that's acceptable to general election voters might be skewed. This, in fact, is what people said about conservatives who voted for Donald Trump for months. There is nothing wrong with bringing this up, because there is nothing wrong with considering that people might actually be wrong and make mistaken decisions. You are essentially using the fact that Clinton won the minority vote to make people uncomfortable about asking these questions because it would be 'racist' to do so or something. It's utterly ridiculous. Which takes me to this: quote:Sanders didn't do well with Racial minorities, by a long shot. Its just the way it is. Considering that they make up most of the Democratic electorate at this point you cannot ignore them and that means you will have to engage with identity politics on their terms if the economic left expects to gain ground again. Clinton didn't do that well with minorities either. She did not do better than Obama. Maybe improved slightly among Latinos, but we can probably chalk that up to the insanely racist person she was running against. This whole notion that Clinton was the candidate of minorities, of identity, was really weak from the get-go. She does not have a particularly good history of actual good policies for minorities. She had a white base in 2008 when running against Obama. She did not perform incredibly well among minorities (or even women) in the general election. It is just an isolated fact (that she won the minority vote in this primary, against Sanders) stretched beyond all reason, at a time when people erroneously assumed that she would actually win the election off the back of minority turnout. There were many narratives during the election, narratives which hinged on a future outcome. The failure of that future outcome to occur means they were not real; they were false narratives. This is one of them. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Nobody disagrees about that. That wasn't the point. They were reading between the lines; we're rightfully skeptical and it's hard to get to the end of that post and really keep faith in how much Mr. Economics For Everyone cares about minorities. That sort of language is a persistent issue and the reason we end up with this goofy battle that shouldn't be happening. The big issue here is that there's a bold and visible line between "reading between the lines" and "inventing ulterior motives among people who support your cause". Most of the people here aren't trying to "steal" attention from your causes. They just want to pull democrats to the left financially after Obama buckled to every austrian economic narrative tossed his way. We aren't old bitter white southerners trying to wrassle black men into plantations. We're a diverse group of young women and men with no bright future ahead of us, no safe job, no comfortable life. And that just describes those of us outside the midwest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:She lost states that Democrats hadn't lost since Bill Clinton's election; truly a failure of Clintonian policies and nothing else. I'm a big baby who can't accept the fact that maybe if I hadn't shamed all the Bernie supporters during the primary they would've help mi abuela win. gahahaha
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Prove it. Like, every 2-way/4-way poll showed an advantage towards Clinton in the 2-way, and those voters weren't going to Stein because she rarely polled higher than an anomaly. Also 20% of the electorate went in to vote disliking both candidates, and those people broke 50R/30D/20L. Conservatives held their nose and voted for Trump. Berniebros voted for the most weed-friendly penis they could find on the ballot. Zerg Mans fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
UP AND ADAM posted:I'm a big baby who can't accept the fact that maybe if I hadn't shamed all the Bernie supporters during the primary they would've help mi abuela win. Shaming berniebros was funny at the time and is still funny today somehow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Like, every 2-way/4-way poll showed an advantage towards Clinton in the 2-way, and those voters weren't going to Stein because she rarely polled higher than an anomaly. Polls please.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Right after the election, I saw a bunch of stuff about how Hillary's turnout was terrible compared to Obama's (like 6-8 million less Dems) and Trump had the lowest turnout of Republicans since like 2000 and the idea was both had terrible numbers. But that turned out not to be the case, right? Trump had more turnout than Romney and Hillary wasn't *that* far behind Obama form 2012?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Like, every 2-way/4-way poll showed an advantage towards Clinton in the 2-way, and those voters weren't going to Stein because she rarely polled higher than an anomaly. I mean the poster you're responding to is clearly wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if the "dislikes both candidates" group was over 50% Republican in the first place. edit: Violator posted:Right after the election, I saw a bunch of stuff about how Hillary's turnout was terrible compared to Obama's (like 6-8 million less Dems) and Trump had the lowest turnout of Republicans since like 2000 and the idea was both had terrible numbers. But that turned out not to be the case, right? Trump had more turnout than Romney and Hillary wasn't *that* far behind Obama form 2012? Clinton has about as many votes as Obama 2012 right now (but there are more eligible voters), Trump has 1-2 million more votes than Romney. James Garfield fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Polls please. For the former, just look RCP's poll history comparing 2 way to 4 way. For the latter, here's the study: http://www.edisonresearch.com/hidden-group-won-election-trump-exit-poll-analysis-edison-research/ You could argue I suppose that the "dislike both" segment started out over 50% republican, but I think it's a far cry to say that it was 70%.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
You're assuming those who liked neither were mainly Bernie supporters, which is a pretty significant mistake as a result of your bias against "salty berniebros". No matter how hard you peer, supporters of a fiscal and social leftist did not then break for the libertain fiscal-conservative social centrist over the fiscal-centrist social-leftist. Anything else is a desperate attempt to scapegoat someone else for Clinton's failure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:^^^ My feeling about Clinton is that she doesn't really have any firm convictions about this stuff, but that she's willing to go with whatever happens to be popular. While this certainly isn't ideal (and makes her far less reliable than someone like Sanders who has always supported this stuff), it at least means that she'll probably shift to the left if the voter base also does. I'm also basing this off of the fact that presidents usually successfully uphold most of the promises they make during their campaigns. We're getting dangerously close to primarychat at this point, but my take on Hillary is that she has convictions but has learned the hard way that convictions don't mean squat if neither voters nor Congress are willing to back them. She pivots to what voters want and tends to make her changes more incremental because she's seen firsthand what happens to a policy that Congress hates and voters refuse to support. It seems strange today mostly because Obama's presidency has taken the exactly opposite course, starting with bipartisanship and cooperation but shifting more and more toward unilateral moves toward whatever Obama really wants as he grows frustrated with fruitless attempts to gain buy-in from Republicans and opts to bypass them instead. Pedro De Heredia posted:I'm not saying it means nothing. But just as pointing out the popular vote is important, it's also important to point out that she lost a lot of states that Democrats had done well in recently. It's also important to point out that her popular vote advantage is, afaik, lower than Obama's in the two elections he did win. It is also worth pointing out that Trump was a candidate with a lot of weaknesses. Barack Obama, the first non-white president, who got turnout levels not seen in an entire generation, and who was elected during the largest financial crisis and recession since before World War II, is not a good barometer to measure presidential candidates by. It's like comparing candidates to FDR.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:58 |
|
|
Thalantos posted:As a woman who supported Bernie, I find being called a "bro" in any way, shape or form grossly insulting. As a dude idc personally but I think dismissively calling people bros as a gendered insult (as the hillary campaign did) rings of that similar tone that you usually see right wing people trot out as examples of tumblr style PC culture attacking whites or whatev. We've even seen it from a few people here. That said I think some are now in probation purgatory for the time being. I think one of the parts of idpol that needs to go is the venom that alienates the enthusiasm of a lot of 18 to 30 something male supporters. Getting labelled sexist racist whatever in an official sort of way by the Clinton campaign then expecting a subset not to have personal conviction preventing them from forgiving those slights is unrealistic. Slandering supporters of a candidate didn't work for a number of reasons, the Clinton campaign tested that. Sethex fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:02
|
|