2016 Election Thread

[TheLeviathan]

 

Wow. I can't imagine what fights are like with two of the most politically powerful people on the planet.

I'm pretty sure everyone on this thread (outside of chi... Sorry chi) saw this flaw very early in her campaign. It's a shame really. Her team was completely out of touch with the voters. The scandals hurt, but were nothing in comparison to what trump endured. Hopefully the party can put together a new message that reaches out to more than simply social liberals.

 

Liberals in general have somehow put themselves in the false dilemma that you have to either "cater" to white men/working class whites or have complete disdain for them.  There was a segment on Maher's show that really highlighted it.

 

How about just acknowledging that even with the "privilege" that comes with being a white person, you can still have a pretty crappy situation on your hand.  Your life can still suck and you can still be desperate and hoping someone will help.  The very notion of that for some liberals is antithetical to their belief system.

 

And the left's candidate outright went on debate stages and said "we're going to end their jobs" and called them "Deplorables".

 

All you had to do was acknowledge they need help.  And they do.  And Hillary more than ignored it, she thumbed her nose at the very idea of it.  And she's far from alone on the left.

[DaveW]

Yeah in retrospect for as much **** as we have the GOP for rolling out a bunch of terrible candidates, the Dems rolled out two terrible ones as well.

 

Warren or Biden would have won in a landslide.

[Badsmerf]

I'm not so sure Warren would have done any better than Clinton, maybe worse. While she is exceptionally smart and a great leader for liberals, i don't see her connecting with the people whom voted trump. Biden on the other hand, might have been interesting.

[stringer bell]

Still watching the popular vote total. Clinton now more than a million ahead and .8%. 22% of California's vote remains to be counted, so she'll likely increase her margin by at least half a million if not more and the percentage margin figures to be over 1.5%. When is this significant? 2 million? 2 percent? I don't know, but it is fodder for Democrats.

[nicksaviking]

 

I'm not so sure Warren would have done any better than Clinton, maybe worse. While she is exceptionally smart and a great leader for liberals, i don't see her connecting with the people whom voted trump. Biden on the other hand, might have been interesting.

 

Well all we heard about was Trump getting ant-establishment/outsider votes. I don't know why Warren wouldn't have gotten those.

 

Going in, I thought Warren's political inexperience would have been her biggest draw back. Now we find out it actually would have been a huge benefit.

 

Plus, she probably could have made Trump cry during one of the debates.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Well all we heard about was Trump getting ant-establishment/outsider votes. I don't know why Warren wouldn't have gotten those.

 

Going in, I thought Warren's political inexperience would have been her biggest draw back. Now we find out it actually would have been a huge benefit.

 

Plus, she probably could have made Trump cry during one of the debates.

 

She represents a lot of the resentment towards the left.  She wouldn't have had a prayer of appealing to the voters that swung this IMO.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

She represents a lot of the resentment towards the left.  She wouldn't have had a prayer of appealing to the voters that swung this IMO.  

And, let's be honest, she has a vagina. We can argue the effects of that on the presidential vote but it's damned near impossible to deny there is an effect.

[PseudoSABR]

 

She represents a lot of the resentment towards the left.  She wouldn't have had a prayer of appealing to the voters that swung this IMO.  

Warren would have gotten far, far more liberal enthusiasm then Clinton ever did.  She may not have gotten the rural whites that went for Trump, but she may have turned out people from various other groups (which Clinton did not) that overcomes rural white vote.   

 

If the takeaway from this election is to pander to rural whites or lose, this country is screwed. 

[Craig Arko]

 

If the takeaway from this election is to pander to rural whites or lose, this country is screwed. 

That was my conclusion. Not much in the way of innovation coming from that.

[Badsmerf]

It doesn't have to be pandering. Clinton didn't think she needed their vote either, she was wrong and so are you. Like Levi has said, if the democrats continue to ignore that segment of the population they will struggle. The message doesn't have to pander to them, the message just needs to at least reach them and provide a solution rather than ignoring the issues they have.

 

To me it's an easy conversation to show unions do more for the everyday worker than the pandering to corporate America the republicans do. If the party doesn't find a way to reach these people they will not move forward.

 

I actually think the lose was the best thing for the party. The win by trump is going to mask many of the problems the republicans have. The party remains fractured and now has all branches of government. I could see them losing all in 4 years.

[Mike Sixel]

 

It doesn't have to be pandering. Clinton didn't think she needed their vote either, she was wrong and so are you. Like Levi has said, if the democrats continue to ignore that segment of the population they will struggle. The message doesn't have to pander to them, the message just needs to at least reach them and provide a solution rather than ignoring the issues they have.

To me it's an easy conversation to show unions do more for the everyday worker than the pandering to corporate America the republicans do. If the party doesn't find a way to reach these people they will not move forward.

I actually think the lose was the best thing for the party. The win by trump is going to mask many of the problems the republicans have. The party remains fractured and now has all branches of government. I could see them losing all in 4 years.

 

For 35 years the GOP has taught that unions are evil, liberal, money sucking.....how do the Dems overcome that in less than 10 years time?

 

It's right in some of the articles out there now....unions are perceived badly, that's how rhetoric over time works....

[TheLeviathan]

 

Warren would have gotten far, far more liberal enthusiasm then Clinton ever did.  She may not have gotten the rural whites that went for Trump, but she may have turned out people from various other groups (which Clinton did not) that overcomes rural white vote.   

 

If the takeaway from this election is to pander to rural whites or lose, this country is screwed. 

 

Your last sentence is everything wrong with how some liberals are coming away from this.  

 

There is a wide gulf of options between "pander" and "dismiss condescendingly".   How about acknowledge?  It's possible, even if you're white and male, to being having a crappy go of life right now.  Shouldn't we care to help those people too?  Feel free not to pander, but maybe a little less open hostility would help.

 

I do agree that she may have inspired more of the millenial vote, but I also agree with Brock.  I think there is a percentage of the voting bloc (some of which voted for Obama and not Hillary btw) that would have rejected her on the basis of her sex.  I don't think she would have swung the working class her way and I'm not sure the millenials make up for it.

[TheLeviathan]

 

For 35 years the GOP has taught that unions are evil, liberal, money sucking.....how do the Dems overcome that in less than 10 years time?

 

It's right in some of the articles out there now....unions are perceived badly, that's how rhetoric over time works....

 

I think a big part of that equation needs to come from a de-coupling of lobbying and campaign influence from government.  A lot of right-wing anti-union feel comes from deservedly not liking the way union cash piles influence elections.  Much like left-wing corporation disdain spills from the same.  

 

I'd be a lot more in favor of unions if we took out the political influence.  That and did away with this ability they seem to have to defend the worst people and keep them employed.  (See: Police, teaching, etc.)

[Mike Sixel]

You want this court and congress to reduce teh influence of money from unions and corporations? Good luck with that, well, on one side anyway.

[PseudoSABR]

 

It doesn't have to be pandering. Clinton didn't think she needed their vote either, she was wrong and so are you. Like Levi has said, if the democrats continue to ignore that segment of the population they will struggle. The message doesn't have to pander to them, the message just needs to at least reach them and provide a solution rather than ignoring the issues they have.

To me it's an easy conversation to show unions do more for the everyday worker than the pandering to corporate America the republicans do. If the party doesn't find a way to reach these people they will not move forward.

I actually think the lose was the best thing for the party. The win by trump is going to mask many of the problems the republicans have. The party remains fractured and now has all branches of government. I could see them losing all in 4 years.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here.  My point about pandering to rural whites was in response to the notion someone like Warren wouldn't have done better in this election.  As you point out, liberals don't necessarily need to alter their message to be attractive to persuadable rural whites. 

 

I still think the analysis here is under-appreciating the lack of enthusiasm for Clinton.  The loss probably has more to do with Clinton's flaws as a candidate than it does with liberal messaging.  Clinton was never an authentic vessel for ideas on the left; her attributes--competency, experience, using political bureaucracy to get things done--hardened the anti-establishment critique.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

Your last sentence is everything wrong with how some liberals are coming away from this.  

 

There is a wide gulf of options between "pander" and "dismiss condescendingly".   How about acknowledge?  It's possible, even if you're white and male, to being having a crappy go of life right now.  Shouldn't we care to help those people too?  Feel free not to pander, but maybe a little less open hostility would help.

 

I do agree that she may have inspired more of the millenial vote, but I also agree with Brock.  I think there is a percentage of the voting bloc (some of which voted for Obama and not Hillary btw) that would have rejected her on the basis of her sex.  I don't think she would have swung the working class her way and I'm not sure the millenials make up for it.

Of course, there's a wife gulf between pandering and dismissing.  My point is that Democrats don't need to (and should not) pander, that's precisely why a Warren/Sanders liberal would have done better than Clinton, because they do speak to poor rural white's concerns.  

 

I know plenty of white guys who would have entertained voting for Sanders over Trump but were deadset against voting for Clinton.  

Warren may have had trouble with the liberal elitist angle, but she's very authentic messenger. She may not have 'swung the working class her way' but she'd fair significantly better than Clinton.   A good deal of that working class vote for Trump was a vote against Clinton personally; Warren doesn't have the same defects, even if she still is a woman and a liberal. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

I think a big part of that equation needs to come from a de-coupling of lobbying and campaign influence from government.  A lot of right-wing anti-union feel comes from deservedly not liking the way union cash piles influence elections.  Much like left-wing corporation disdain spills from the same.  

 

I'd be a lot more in favor of unions if we took out the political influence.  That and did away with this ability they seem to have to defend the worst people and keep them employed.  (See: Police, teaching, etc.)

I agree with refining the roles of unions.  Unions should be there for bargaining of contracts, not as an advocate in every situation which affects that group from termination to politics. 

 

But as long as we live in a Citizen's United world, taking away the political influence would be nary impossible. 

[Craig Arko]

 

Warren doesn't have the same defects, even if she still is a woman and a liberal. 

Of course, neither of those is a defect.

[DaveW]

The majority of unions these days are bloated, money generating messes that often do a lot more harm then good.

 

Not all are bad, just most.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Of course, there's a wife gulf between pandering and dismissing.  My point is that Democrats don't need to (and should not) pander, that's precisely why a Warren/Sanders liberal would have done better than Clinton, because they do speak to poor rural white's concerns.  

 

I know plenty of white guys who would have entertained voting for Sanders over Trump but were deadset against voting for Clinton.  

Warren may have had trouble with the liberal elitist angle, but she's very authentic messenger. She may not have 'swung the working class her way' but she'd fair significantly better than Clinton.   A good deal of that working class vote for Trump was a vote against Clinton personally; Warren doesn't have the same defects, even if she still is a woman and a liberal. 

 

I do agree she is authentic, I still lean to the idea she would have lost, but i'd also grant she'd have likely had a better shot.  I think we learned that despite many positive about Clinton as a politician and a person, there simply could not have been a worse choice.

 

As for pandering, I'm pretty much against it in all forms anyway,

[TheLeviathan]

 

I agree with refining the roles of unions.  Unions should be there for bargaining of contracts, not as an advocate in every situation which affects that group from termination to politics. 

 

But as long as we live in a Citizen's United world, taking away the political influence would be nary impossible. 

 

I agree here as well.  It was one point that Bernie had that I was in 100% agreement and is, begrudgingly, a point of favor in Trump's case too. The influence of money on politics is a massive issue.

 

The power some unions have mustered has hurt working people too.  They make it so there are legitimate reasons to fear allowing a union to exist as part of your labor force.  I think neutering the politics ties for unions and corporations would go a long, long way.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I agree here as well.  It was one point that Bernie had that I was in 100% agreement and is, begrudgingly, a point of favor in Trump's case too. The influence of money on politics is a massive issue.

 

The power some unions have mustered has hurt working people too.  They make it so there are legitimate reasons to fear allowing a union to exist as part of your labor force.  I think neutering the politics ties for unions and corporations would go a long, long way.

 

and churches.....individual people only from now on, maybe PACs.....

[TheLeviathan]

 

and churches.....individual people only from now on, maybe PACs.....

 

Yeah, I was about to edit in lobbyists groups like the NRA too.  I think I'd like it so that the government just gave every candidate a stipend of some kind.  Nothing more, nothing less.  But I admit I'm just spitballing.

[Badsmerf]

I agree with unions. The problem is when people only hear one side of the message, and not necessarily the truth at that, thinking gets pushed in that direction. Instead, paint it with the brush you want. If a message isn't provided it is impossible to be heard.

 

I only used unions as an example. The same can be said about many hot button issues. Every one of them can be shown to benefit rural America, you just have to try.

 

I'm interested to see if Pelosi is voted to lead the party again. Her time is up imo.

[Brock Beauchamp]

It's my opinion the more organization money we can remove from politics, the better off we'll be going forward.

 

Corporations, organizations like the NRA, unions, all of 'em.

[Squirrel]

 

It's my opinion the more organization money we can remove from politics, the better off we'll be going forward.

 

Corporations, organizations like the NRA, unions, all of 'em.

Yup ... not sure if or when anyone can make that happen, though, as those who can make it happen are the ones benefiting from it. We'll see ...

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Well all we heard about was Trump getting ant-establishment/outsider votes. I don't know why Warren wouldn't have gotten those.

 

Going in, I thought Warren's political inexperience would have been her biggest draw back. Now we find out it actually would have been a huge benefit.

 

Plus, she probably could have made Trump cry during one of the debates.

Agree, and then I had the sudden realization today that Warren is going to look like an insider by the time 2019-2020 rolls around and she starts campaigning.

[Badsmerf]

She should stay in Congress. She can do a lot more for progressives there. I'm already smiling inside thinking about her tearing trump apart for the next 4 years.

 

538 has an article about this very subject. However, in the article the commentors claim the democrats have a lack of upcoming talent. I have to completely disagree after watching the dnc this summer.

[TheLeviathan]

He's considering Mitt Romney for Sec. of State eh?

 

Surprising.  And interesting.....

[Mr. Brooks]

He's considering Mitt Romney for Sec. of State eh?

 

Surprising. And interesting.....

Romney is a complete fraud, like Cruz proved to be, if he works for Trump after all the stuff he said about him.