|
Ferrinus posted:Cause: Democratic party runs someone who isn't Clinton Who was President for the last 8 years on your world? Yes, they are in fact capable of starting fresh on someone and getting up to speed very quickly. The fact that Obama was able to overcome it is testament to his once in a generation talent. The fact that we can only win with that kind of talent proves my point. The GOP has created a world where when someone has to win by default, they do, and they've done it doing things we're too squeamish to do.
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Who was President for the last 8 years on your world? So the democrats ran a candidate that wasn't the constant target of the republican smear machine for the past twenty years, and this candidate reigned for eight solid years, and this is proof of how the republican smear machine is just as effective given one year or four years as it is when given twenty years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Jesus you're stupid Obama won through a combination of being a flat-out amazing candidate and the outgoing Republican President's chickens all coming home to roost in the same two year period. Despite all that in his favor, the GOP still had their 60 million certain that this dude they first heard of in 2004 was a Muslim sleeper agent. My point is that the Republican hate machine works so well in concert with their sleazy disenfranchisement tactics that the Democrats can't win by default. We probably won't see such an obviously terrible candidate as Trump again in our lifetimes, but their people still thought the career civil servant was worse. Didn't matter why, she was just worse. Those weren't Obama voters. Not in any significant numbers. With the hate machine motivating all those electric wheelchairs out to the polls, and GOP controlled statehouses curtailing early voting, underserving minority precincts with equipment, instituting horseshit ID requirements, and all the rest of it, Democrats are at a very real structural disadvantage. That doesn't mean Hillary made missteps, but it does mean that the Republican candidate can be a walking disaster while the Democrat has to be perfect. That needs to be acknowledged. TheScott2K fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
How on earth do you cite confirmed black man Barack "the Islamic shock" Obama as proof that right wing mudslinging is equally effective regardless of target or time allotted? Aren't you supposed to avoid mentioning him if at all possible and then resort to pleading that he's a special exception when I bring him up?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:How on earth do you cite confirmed black man Barack "the Islamic shock" Obama as proof that right wing mudslinging is equally effective regardless of target or time allotted? Aren't you supposed to avoid mentioning him if at all possible and then resort to pleading that he's a special exception when I bring him up? The Islamic Shock is proof that the thing can be spun up at a moment's notice, because it was. He was just the rare talent that can beat it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
It's a good thing the Republicans haven't spent decades smearing socialism and atheism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
That all powerful conservative media.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:The Islamic Shock is proof that the thing can be spun up at a moment's notice, because it was. He was just the rare talent that can beat it. Okay, I agree with you that right-wing smears can be spun up at a moment's notice. I disagree, however, that they are equally effective on every candidate and equally effective regardless on how much time they've spent in the public consciousness being honed and repeated. I think you're conflating the existence of pearl-clutching about socialism with the power of pearl-clutching about socialism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
coathat posted:That all powerful conservative media. Rolleyes all you want, it's proven pretty drat effective at shaping the thought of the people that so many are so certain the Democrats need to "win over." It's a big part of why I think the more worthwhile fight is for Democratic turnout and rolling back all the voting restrictions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Our biggest worry when picking a candidate should be the threat of republican smears. No, but when they have a fatal flaw that's probably going to depress turnout significantly, welp... Like, seriously, you realize this was all avoidable, right? That Clinton didn't have to make these mistakes that literally made her lose?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
The "Clinton's missteps!" argument really doesn't look great in the face of 60 million people proving that they will literally vote for anything with an (R) next to its name. There's clearly bigger problems than Clinton not being perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Yes, I am aware there were factors both exogenous and endogenous to the campaign that resulted in the loss. What was the fatal flaw Clinton had that reduced turnout? Turnout was up compared to 2012.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:The "Clinton's missteps!" argument really doesn't look great in the face of 60 million people proving that they will literally vote for anything with an (R) next to its name. There's clearly bigger problems than Clinton not being perfect. This would be a more convincing argument if Trump's turnout wasn't quite literally the lowest of a winning candidate in 20 years. The reason why he won was because Clinton couldn't get out the vote. She was a terrible candidate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
The vote was also unable to get out in a whole lot of states. The Republicans weren't just tilting at windmills with all of the obvious voter disenfranchisement, they had a goal and achieved it. Pinning the whole fiasco on Clinton is tempting because it's an easy fix. "Oh just run someone else next time." We don't have a bench full of Obamas. To get the White House back we have to stop acting like we're better than politics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes, I am aware there were factors both exogenous and endogenous to the campaign that resulted in the loss. Overall turnout doesn't matter, and you should know that by now. Saying that turnout was up compared to 2012 could not possibly be less relevant. Turnout in key states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania matter. The fatal flaws in Clinton as a candidate included her Wall Street speeches, the bungled handling of the emails non-controversy, and (fairly or unfairly) her association with her husband's legacy of financial deregulation and free trade agreements.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Majorian posted:This would be a more convincing argument if Trump's turnout wasn't quite literally the lowest of a winning candidate in 20 years. The reason why he won was because Clinton couldn't get out the vote. She was a terrible candidate. More recent numbers show turnout was up. http://www.electproject.org/2016g http://www.electproject.org/2012g
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:More recent numbers show turnout was up. This. Doesn't. Matter. Leading in the overall popular vote does not make a candidate president. e: And, more to the point of my argument, Trump still didn't turn out an unusual amount of Republicans. He didn't ride into office on some sort of wave. He won because the Democrats, and the Clinton campaign in particular, lost. TheScott2K posted:The vote was also unable to get out in a whole lot of states. The Republicans weren't just tilting at windmills with all of the obvious voter disenfranchisement, they had a goal and achieved it. Yes, I've frequently acknowledged as much: Majorian posted:I can't speak for every Sanders supporter, but I don't deny that any of these played at least small roles. The problem is, we as Dems/progressives/whatever have no control over how the Republicans, Russians, FBI, etc., are going to try to kneecap us during the course of a campaign. We do, however, have at least some control over who we nominate, and seasoned candidates like Clinton have control over the blatant missteps that they make leading up to and during their campaigns. We can assume that Republicans are going to fight dirty against Democratic candidates. We shouldn't have to watch our candidates kneecap themselves. It would be terrific if Clay and the other Clinton diehards would meet me halfway as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It would be terrific if Clay and the other Clinton diehards would meet me halfway as well. I think they are hesitant because so many people are drumming their "this is the most important thing to change" drum where "this" is their personal pet issue despite all evidence showing that there's a whole bunch of different ways things could have gone better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I think they are hesitant because so many people are drumming their "this is the most important thing to change" drum where "this" is their personal pet issue despite all evidence showing that there's a whole bunch of different ways things could have gone better. Yeah, well, I agree on that. Anybody who insists that one piece of the Democratic platform or the other needs to get all the attention, to the exclusion of everything else, is doing the progressive cause a disservice, IMO. This is a coalition. We need social justice warriors, and we need economic justice warriors, if we want to win.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Overall turnout doesn't matter, and you should know that by now. Saying that turnout was up compared to 2012 could not possibly be less relevant. Turnout in key states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania matter. The fatal flaws in Clinton as a candidate included her Wall Street speeches, the bungled handling of the emails non-controversy, and (fairly or unfairly) her association with her husband's legacy of financial deregulation and free trade agreements. Pennsylvania turnout was up. Michigan turnout was up. A failure to turn out voters does not explain the loss. Majorian posted:It would be terrific if Clay and the other Clinton diehards would meet me halfway as well. I don't think Clinton ran a good campaign, and have said so many times. We clearly erred in thinking pluralism could pull moderate republicans, when instead it created a backlash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Pennsylvania turnout was up. Michigan turnout was up. A failure to turn out voters does not explain the loss. Well, you say that, but... quote:On the morning of Election Day, internal Clinton campaign numbers had her winning Michigan by 5 points. By 1 p.m., an aide on the ground called headquarters; the voter turnout tracking system they’d built themselves in defiance of orders — Brooklyn had told operatives in the state they didn’t care about those numbers, and specifically told them not to use any resources to get them — showed urban precincts down 25 percent. Maybe they should get worried, the Michigan operatives said. Yes, overall turnout was up in those two states. But it was positively anemic in places like Detroit. A failure to turn out voters did play a significant role. e: Fivethirtyeight agrees: quote:Registered voters who didn’t vote on Election Day in November were more Democratic-leaning than the registered voters who turned out, according to a post-election poll from SurveyMonkey, shared with FiveThirtyEight. In fact, Donald Trump probably would have lost to Hillary Clinton had Republican- and Democratic-leaning registered voters cast ballots at equal rates. Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, you say that, but... There was less turnout in Detroit and flint, but Detroit and flint also lost population. In detroit's case, it lost population while simultaneously gaining white residents. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-demographics-of-detroit-are-changing-rapidly-2015-5 The data doesn't bear your assertions out here. Here's a good synopsis of the data suggesting Comey cost Clinton percentage points of the electorate. https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/1/11/14215930/comey-email-election-clinton-campaign Nonvoters were more likely to be young, non-white and democrats in 2012 too, that's not new. http://nonvotersinamerica.com/2012/12/nonvoters-in-america-2012/ JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes, I am aware there were factors both exogenous and endogenous to the campaign that resulted in the loss. Some places. But again, look at Michigan. Wayne county, where Detroit is, was 40k votes lower in 2016. Saginaw and Genesee counties, ~6k votes each. This are the democratic strongholds of Michigan, and the African-American population centers. Clinton got reduced turnout where it matters, and she lost the state by 10k votes. Hell, she lost both Genesee and Saginaw. EDIT: Demographic changes don't nearly account for that large a decrease in turnout. a foolish pianist fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, well, I agree on that. Anybody who insists that one piece of the Democratic platform or the other needs to get all the attention, to the exclusion of everything else, is doing the progressive cause a disservice, IMO. This is a coalition. We need social justice warriors, and we need economic justice warriors, if we want to win. the problem with sjws is they probably lose you more votes than they gain
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
For every SJW we lose, we'll gain two, uh, two... two of the... you know,
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The plan this time was predicated on the idea that Republican voters could be convinced to stay home if we showed them what an utter poo poo Donald Trump was. We were actually pretty successful at that. Something like 60% of voters agreed he was poo poo, but 15% of those went on to vote for him anyway. Republican turnout cannot be depressed. They will vote for any dogshit. All plans moving forward must assume that Republican turnout will stay roughly the same and we have to concentrate on our own turnout.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:I've said it before and I'll say it again. The plan this time was predicated on the idea that Republican voters could be convinced to stay home if we showed them what an utter poo poo Donald Trump was. We were actually pretty successful at that. Something like 60% of voters agreed he was poo poo, but 15% of those went on to vote for him anyway. Republican turnout cannot be depressed. They will vote for any dogshit. All plans moving forward must assume that Republican turnout will stay roughly the same and we have to concentrate on our own turnout. Republican turnout was shown to be depressed at every point before the Comey letter convinced them that a literaly criminal was going to become president Clinton was simply a uniquely bad candidate, the same poo poo wouldn't have worked on Obama or Sanders
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:For every SJW we lose, we'll gain two, uh, two... two of the... you know, A sister soulja moment might legit let you gain 1 white working class voter with a higher propensity to vote in a swing state instead of piling on the D+30 landslide in Cali
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:Some places. But again, look at Michigan. Wayne county, where Detroit is, was 40k votes lower in 2016. Saginaw and Genesee counties, ~6k votes each. This are the democratic strongholds of Michigan, and the African-American population centers. Clinton got reduced turnout where it matters, and she lost the state by 10k votes. Hell, she lost both Genesee and Saginaw. Are you sure? Detroit has lost about 27,000 people since 2012 and Flint has lost another 3,000, and that's metro area, not the county as a whole. But we can't assume they were all voters, so let's be generous and say 30,000 people stayed home in these counties. Let's also be generous and give Clinton a 50% margin of victory, which would translate into a 15,000 vote shift. She'd barely carry the state, sure, but that represents a 0.3% shift in the state's vote. Compare that to the 2 to 3% shift we saw post-Comey. Could Clinton have done a better job in the state? Absolutely. Was voter turnout the most significant issue? Not even close. And that's with some pretty charitable assumptions. Typo posted:Republican turnout was shown to be depressed at every point before the Comey letter convinced them that a literaly criminal was going to become president Comey was not Hillary's fault, get that breitbart poo poo out of here. Crazy October suprise bullshit from the FBI would have hurt anyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Comey was not Hillary's fault, get that breitbart poo poo out of here. Ehhh, it kind of was. The emails nonsense would have been a footnote in this election if she hadn't so horribly bungled her messaging from the get-go. Like, you can blame Comey for shooting Clinton in the foot, but she bears some responsibility for handing him the gun and the ammo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Ehhh, it kind of was. The emails nonsense would have been a footnote in this election if she hadn't so horribly bungled her messaging from the get-go. Would it have been Bernie's fault for vacationing in Yaroslavl if Comey had written a bullshit letter a week before the election saying they had discovered new evidence and were investigating it? I think it's crazy to think that the only reason the Emails stuff hurt hillary is because she didn't respond to it right. It was a multi-year long smear perpetrated by the entire republican party and media apparatus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Would it have been Bernie's fault for vacationing in Yaroslavl if Comey had written a bullshit letter a week before the election saying they had discovered new evidence and were investigating it? If he had been planning to run for President back then? Yeah, kind of. I mean, that's one of the things you're dodging so doggedly: Clinton was planning to run for President (or already was running) when she made many of these mistakes. How the hell didn't she know better? quote:I think it's crazy to think that the only reason the Emails stuff hurt hillary is because she didn't respond to it right. It was a multi-year long smear perpetrated by the entire republican party and media apparatus. The thing that damned her was not that she made a mistake with her emails - it's that she was so incredibly evasive about owning up to it. That underlined her perceived untrustworthiness, in the eyes of many. (who were admittedly pretty dumb people, but hey, their votes count as much as yours and mine) Majorian fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Would it have been Bernie's fault for vacationing in Yaroslavl if Comey had written a bullshit letter a week before the election saying they had discovered new evidence and were investigating it? We'll never truly know but Sanders had a better chance of winning over the people that were dissatisfied with the system. The same that went for Trump. I mean if made up thought experiments like this help the PTSD of Clinton's loss then by all means continue with them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The thing that damned her was not that she made a mistake with her emails - it's that she was so incredibly evasive about owning up to it. That underlined her perceived untrustworthiness, in the eyes of many. (who were admittedly pretty dumb people, but hey, their votes count as much as yours and mine) Whatever impact Clinton's response had on the overall impact of the smears, we know Comey's bullshit letter hurt her significantly in the last week. Suggesting it wouldn't have hurt her at all if she had responded differently is pure conjecture. Emails was always bullshit. She treated it like bullshit. I don't think prostrating herself before the right wing noise machine would have made any difference whatsoever-- Comey's bullshit would have hurt her whether she said I'm sorry right away or not. Buckwheat Sings posted:We'll never truly know but Sanders had a better chance of winning over the people that were dissatisfied with the system. The same that went for Trump. Bernie would have done better with the fringe, it's the center I would have worried about. If you don't like reading about or talking about the election then maybe don't read this thread? JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
How do we explain the Obama voters who voted for Trump? Hillary's campaign never had a coherent and simple message other than that she was better than the alternative. Contrast this with both of Obama's campaigns, where a discussion of economic fairness penetrated into the general public consciousness. She seemed hesitant to articulate any simple domestic policy, which was compounded in an election where the opposition was essentially promising to pave the street with gold. Would it really have hurt to throw out a big juicy bone to the working class and on labor issues generally? This underscores a general problem among centrist Democrats who are often unwilling and unable to articulate any sort of publicly coherent economic message. For god's sake, even JeffersonClay is unwilling to do so in this very thread when pushed!
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:How do we explain the Obama voters who voted for Trump? Hillary's campaign never had a coherent and simple message other than that she was better than the alternative. Contrast this with both of Obama's campaigns, where a discussion of economic fairness penetrated into the general public consciousness. She seemed hesitant to articulate any simple domestic policy, which was compounded in an election where the opposition was essentially promising to pave the street with gold. Would it really have hurt to throw out a big juicy bone to the working class and on labor issues generally? This underscores a general problem among centrist Democrats who are often unwilling and unable to articulate any sort of publicly coherent economic message. For god's sake, even JeffersonClay is unwilling to do so in this very thread when pushed!
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Bernie would have done better with the fringe, it's the center I would have worried about. Like I said, if it helps then keep going. I'm surprised you still think Bernie is fringe even after Trump winning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
Buckwheat Sings posted:Like I said, if it helps then keep going. I'm surprised you still think Bernie is fringe even after Trump winning. But Bernie lost the primary?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
stone cold posted:But Bernie lost the primary? Clinton was one of the most powerful people in the Democratic party. Bernie is an outsider and there was a considerable effort to push Hillary forward despite her mistakes. It's pretty clear from this election that the Democrats need some serious soul searching but I think their work is cut out for them judging from people still reeling from this election. Heck you could argue Trump only lasted so long since he wasn't a direct target as there were so many candidates. He wasn't even taken seriously until it was too late.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
stone cold posted:But Bernie lost the primary? so did clinton in 08, she wasn't the fringe of the party then or now
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 02:13
|
|
