Also Booker, Cortez Masto, Gillibrand, Duckworth, the Castros and others - time to start figuring out how our bench holds up under the spotlight and how well they can handle themselves in the presence of the shrieking white hot ball of rage. I think Kaine needs to take a step back and not be a serious part of the 2020 conversation unless our options look dire.
Cortez Masto and Duckworth need to start thinking about 2020 right nao. We have potential despite the seemingly bare cupboard of Dem hopefuls..
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
+2
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
edited November 2016
Not sure if Moore's recent thoughts were posted, but he's always shared hard truths, and I don't think what's recent is any exception.
Morning After To-Do List:
1. Take over the Democratic Party and return it to the people. They have failed us miserably.
2. Fire all pundits, predictors, pollsters and anyone else in the media who had a narrative they wouldn't let go of and refused to listen to or acknowledge what was really going on. Those same bloviators will now tell us we must "heal the divide" and "come together." They will pull more hooey like that out of their ass in the days to come. Turn them off.
3. Any Democratic member of Congress who didn't wake up this morning ready to fight, resist and obstruct in the way Republicans did against President Obama every day for eight full years must step out of the way and let those of us who know the score lead the way in stopping the meanness and the madness that's about to begin.
4. Everyone must stop saying they are "stunned" and "shocked". What you mean to say is that you were in a bubble and weren't paying attention to your fellow Americans and their despair. YEARS of being neglected by both parties, the anger and the need for revenge against the system only grew. Along came a TV star they liked whose plan was to destroy both parties and tell them all "You're fired!" Trump's victory is no surprise. He was never a joke. Treating him as one only strengthened him. He is both a creature and a creation of the media and the media will never own that.
5. You must say this sentence to everyone you meet today: "HILLARY CLINTON WON THE POPULAR VOTE!" The MAJORITY of our fellow Americans preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Period. Fact. If you woke up this morning thinking you live in an effed-up country, you don't. The majority of your fellow Americans wanted Hillary, not Trump. The only reason he's president is because of an arcane, insane 18th-century idea called the Electoral College. Until we change that, we'll continue to have presidents we didn't elect and didn't want. You live in a country where a majority of its citizens have said they believe there's climate change, they believe women should be paid the same as men, they want a debt-free college education, they don't want us invading countries, they want a raise in the minimum wage and they want a single-payer true universal health care system. None of that has changed. We live in a country where the majority agree with the "liberal" position. We just lack the liberal leadership to make that happen (see: #1 above).
Let's try to get this all done by noon today.
-- Michael Moore
My only hope is that he was also spot on about the theories that Trump never wanted to be president, and was just trying to get attention... and as such, he doesn't truly believe in most of the caustic bile he's been spouting during the campaign.
Hillary did have values and goals. It was her campaign motto: "Stronger Together."
If you actually believe Stronger Together is a good slogan, then you really haven't been paying attention to the campaigns - hell, half the people, even on this board, used alternate slogans like I'm with Her which wasn't even created by her campaign.
Make America Great Again is such a better slogan that's it's not even close.
Also Booker, Cortez Masto, Gillibrand, Duckworth, the Castros and others - time to start figuring out how our bench holds up under the spotlight and how well they can handle themselves in the presence of the shrieking white hot ball of rage. I think Kaine needs to take a step back and not be a serious part of the 2020 conversation unless our options look dire.
Cortez Masto and Duckworth need to start thinking about 2020 right nao. We have potential despite the seemingly bare cupboard of Dem hopefuls..
My appetite for a woman at the top of the ticket is severely diminished.
This is more of a personal observation than suggesting any real solutions. I hope it's not off-topic.
As someone who is looking for employment right now and has been for a while, I'm acutely aware of the difference in skillsets between doing the job and getting the job. And as has been noted many many times, Hillary has been much much better at the former than the latter.
The skills required for the former vary with the job, but the interview - that's always all about sales. Selling yourself. Presentation, confidence, etc etc. There's often at least some element of lying - from omission, prevarication etc to outright bald-faced "sure, I can/have done that" fake-it-till-you-make-it. That last part is what tends to stick in the craw of people with principles. But it's there.
So what we essentially require is that every employee - and especially every politician - not only be the most qualified for their actual job, but also be a good salesman. Sometimes, for some positions and job descriptions, the two overlap. But I can't help but think in this case, we've had the best qualified candidate lose out to one who's completely unfit and incompetent, but did very well in the interview.
I've lost several jobs due to this. Unfortunately, the person not getting hired this time affects everyone.
Hillary did have values and goals. It was her campaign motto: "Stronger Together."
If you actually believe Stronger Together is a good slogan, then you really haven't been paying attention to the campaigns - hell, half the people, even on this board, used alternate slogans like I'm with Her which wasn't even created by her campaign.
Make America Great Again is such a better slogan that's it's not even close.
That's true if you're discussing these slogans in a vacuum.
But that's the problem. This isn't a movie teaser, where that's all you get. These are candidates running for president. It's the media's job to follow up on these messages actually mean, and they didn't do that. Sometimes, you watch a movie where the title doesn't mean much until after you're done watching it.
They never asked Trump for his plan to make America great. And they never asked Hillary for her plan to bring people together.
I'm sorry, but it's unfair to blame Hillary for not clearly communicating her goals and vision if the media refuses to give her the chance to do exactly that.
Also Booker, Cortez Masto, Gillibrand, Duckworth, the Castros and others - time to start figuring out how our bench holds up under the spotlight and how well they can handle themselves in the presence of the shrieking white hot ball of rage. I think Kaine needs to take a step back and not be a serious part of the 2020 conversation unless our options look dire.
Cortez Masto and Duckworth need to start thinking about 2020 right nao. We have potential despite the seemingly bare cupboard of Dem hopefuls..
My appetite for a woman at the top of the ticket is severely diminished.
Don't let this election dampen the hope for a better future. We thought we couldn't elect a black man (as a Democrat!!!) but if the key for 21st century candidates is to be an inspirational vessel, then I think a woman of color could be a great one.
You must not surrender! You may or may not get there but just know that you're qualified! And you hold on, and hold out! We must never surrender!! America will get better and better.
Keep hope alive. Keep hope alive! Keep hope alive! On tomorrow night and beyond, keep hope alive!
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Also Booker, Cortez Masto, Gillibrand, Duckworth, the Castros and others - time to start figuring out how our bench holds up under the spotlight and how well they can handle themselves in the presence of the shrieking white hot ball of rage. I think Kaine needs to take a step back and not be a serious part of the 2020 conversation unless our options look dire.
Cortez Masto and Duckworth need to start thinking about 2020 right nao. We have potential despite the seemingly bare cupboard of Dem hopefuls..
It's clear at this point that having any sort of political history is actively hurtful when it comes to the Presidential race. If the Dems bring in a charismatic as hell celebrity or outsider who can properly box with Trump and inspire with lofty unachievable goals, then they'll have a chance in 2020. If they bring in any sort of politician, they will lose.
Also Booker, Cortez Masto, Gillibrand, Duckworth, the Castros and others - time to start figuring out how our bench holds up under the spotlight and how well they can handle themselves in the presence of the shrieking white hot ball of rage. I think Kaine needs to take a step back and not be a serious part of the 2020 conversation unless our options look dire.
Cortez Masto and Duckworth need to start thinking about 2020 right nao. We have potential despite the seemingly bare cupboard of Dem hopefuls..
It's clear at this point that having any sort of political history is actively hurtful when it comes to the Presidential race. If the Dems bring in a charismatic as hell celebrity or outsider who can properly box with Trump and inspire with lofty unachievable goals, then they'll have a chance in 2020. If they bring in any sort of politician, they will lose.
Also Booker, Cortez Masto, Gillibrand, Duckworth, the Castros and others - time to start figuring out how our bench holds up under the spotlight and how well they can handle themselves in the presence of the shrieking white hot ball of rage. I think Kaine needs to take a step back and not be a serious part of the 2020 conversation unless our options look dire.
Cortez Masto and Duckworth need to start thinking about 2020 right nao. We have potential despite the seemingly bare cupboard of Dem hopefuls..
I love Tammy Duckworth but she is not going to be president.
i mean, how hard a mode you guys want to set this election to?
Also Booker, Cortez Masto, Gillibrand, Duckworth, the Castros and others - time to start figuring out how our bench holds up under the spotlight and how well they can handle themselves in the presence of the shrieking white hot ball of rage. I think Kaine needs to take a step back and not be a serious part of the 2020 conversation unless our options look dire.
Cortez Masto and Duckworth need to start thinking about 2020 right nao. We have potential despite the seemingly bare cupboard of Dem hopefuls..
It's clear at this point that having any sort of political history is actively hurtful when it comes to the Presidential race. If the Dems bring in a charismatic as hell celebrity or outsider who can properly box with Trump and inspire with lofty unachievable goals, then they'll have a chance in 2020. If they bring in any sort of politician, they will lose.
Former Governors have had an advantage over former legislators for... pretty much the entire history of the US, simply because Governors have a narrower attack profile.
A legislator can be taken to task for every single thing he votes on, including the amendments that nobody fucking reads.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Hillary did have values and goals. It was her campaign motto: "Stronger Together."
If you actually believe Stronger Together is a good slogan, then you really haven't been paying attention to the campaigns - hell, half the people, even on this board, used alternate slogans like I'm with Her which wasn't even created by her campaign.
Make America Great Again is such a better slogan that's it's not even close.
That's true if you're discussing these slogans in a vacuum.
But that's the problem. This isn't a movie teaser, where that's all you get. These are candidates running for president. It's the media's job to follow up on these messages actually mean, and they didn't do that. Sometimes, you watch a movie where the title doesn't mean much until after you're done watching it.
They never asked Trump for his plan to make America great. And they never asked Hillary for her plan to bring people together.
I'm sorry, but it's unfair to blame Hillary for not clearly communicating her goals and vision if the media refuses to give her the chance to do exactly that.
They're not going to. They now see their job as the acquisition of the most eyeballs and clicks and ratings and pageviews. Not seriously and soberly discuss policy or check facts. Because no one cares about that anymore, only tweet-length slogans and soundbites.
This is the state of political discourse, now and going forward. There's a reason print and long-form investigative journalism is dying.
I'm drunk enough (and STAYING drunk) that I keep popping over to CNN hoping to see a headline like "Whoops, we totally fucked up the calling in this election" or "Clinton pulls out miraculous win."
I'm scared to be sober enough to not have fantasies dancing in my mind. I'm literally planning a trip to the nearby store to buy more beer, because I drank, in a row, what was supposed to be a multi-day supply. Like, I literally owe my brother money now because I drank his stashed beer.
Don't go down this road
Sorry, I totally did.
If it makes you feel any better, I also got chicken tenders and some cherry tomatoes.
Chicken tenders and cherry tomatoes own.
I am cross-faded as fuck right now but I'm planning to move to Florida to make one last desperate stand for what I believe America should be before bailing, and I'm attempting to convince other progressives I know in California to do the same.
I am still totally making contingency plans for the collapse of society though.
He'll go down in history as the 21st Century J Edgar Hoover.
he should be so lucky to be that famous
he'll go down as a footnote most likely
That would be true if this was, say, Bush v. Gore.
But a reality TV host grifter with no relevant experience vs. an the first major party candidate in history with the most qualifications in recent history?
With ties to foreign government to boot?
Yeah. He's going to be remembered as a monster. At least Hoover didn't cost MLK the chance at being president.
I think there is something to be said that Democrats need to make the case FOR liberalism more than they do. We can't win based on "just think of what will happen if Republicans get elected", we need to make promises that people actually want.
People can fault Sanders for being unrealistic in his policy proposals, but that gets people fired up more. Be unrealistic while campaigning, and then when the reality of politics hits you can dial it back. Go for universal paid health care, get single payer. Go for universal basic income, get more social security benefits and a better social safety net.
The problem the Dems have isn't convincing people those are good things, it's convincing people those are good things that can be paid for while we're trillions of dollars in the hole without going further down that well.
I don't care if you make 100K a year or 15K, no one is voluntarily going to sign up for a 45% tax bracket because it's insane.
My point is that I think Trump just proved that it doesn't matter if the policies make sense in reality. All that matters is does it get your base fired up?
Campaign on bombast and hyperbole, govern in reality. Campaigning on reality is what Hillary did, and she lost.
Nothing Trump did bears repeating. He got the fewer votes than any GOP candidate this century. Hillary lost, he did not beat her. The way forward is correcting her mistakes, not emulating him.
I'm drunk enough (and STAYING drunk) that I keep popping over to CNN hoping to see a headline like "Whoops, we totally fucked up the calling in this election" or "Clinton pulls out miraculous win."
I'm scared to be sober enough to not have fantasies dancing in my mind. I'm literally planning a trip to the nearby store to buy more beer, because I drank, in a row, what was supposed to be a multi-day supply. Like, I literally owe my brother money now because I drank his stashed beer.
Don't go down this road
Sorry, I totally did.
If it makes you feel any better, I also got chicken tenders and some cherry tomatoes.
Chicken tenders and cherry tomatoes own.
I am cross-faded as fuck right now but I'm planning to move to Florida to make one last desperate stand for what I believe America should be before bailing, and I'm attempting to convince other progressives I know in California to do the same.
This would be amazing if it happened.
ArbitraryDescriptor on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
He'll go down in history as the 21st Century J Edgar Hoover.
he should be so lucky to be that famous
he'll go down as a footnote most likely
That would be true if this was, say, Bush v. Gore.
But a reality TV host grifter with no relevant experience vs. an the first major party candidate in history with the most qualifications in recent history?
With ties to foreign government to boot?
Yeah. He's going to be remembered as a monster. At least Hoover didn't cost MLK the chance at being president.
i don't buy that comey is responsible for the outcome of the election
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+4
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
He'll go down in history as the 21st Century J Edgar Hoover.
he should be so lucky to be that famous
he'll go down as a footnote most likely
That would be true if this was, say, Bush v. Gore.
But a reality TV host grifter with no relevant experience vs. an the first major party candidate in history with the most qualifications in recent history?
With ties to foreign government to boot?
Yeah. He's going to be remembered as a monster. At least Hoover didn't cost MLK the chance at being president.
i don't buy that comey is responsible for the outcome of the election
He's not, but he damn sure didn't help, and the timing was very telling.
I think there is something to be said that Democrats need to make the case FOR liberalism more than they do. We can't win based on "just think of what will happen if Republicans get elected", we need to make promises that people actually want.
People can fault Sanders for being unrealistic in his policy proposals, but that gets people fired up more. Be unrealistic while campaigning, and then when the reality of politics hits you can dial it back. Go for universal paid health care, get single payer. Go for universal basic income, get more social security benefits and a better social safety net.
The problem the Dems have isn't convincing people those are good things, it's convincing people those are good things that can be paid for while we're trillions of dollars in the hole without going further down that well.
I don't care if you make 100K a year or 15K, no one is voluntarily going to sign up for a 45% tax bracket because it's insane.
I'm signing up for 75% tax bracket if it includes education, health care, good infrastructure, and basic income.
I have a ~50% marginal rate and recently voted for a party that promised to increase my taxes
Assuming I electoral math'd right that's 40k making the difference here. In a nation of 300 million
I don't even have some solution or really even a cognizant point, it just fascinates/terrifies/saddens me
40k deciding the election in favor of the person who lost by millions of votes.
Like, the US did not vote incorrectly in 2000, or in 2016. We just have a huge stupid as fuck wall to climb up after we decide to vote for a reasonable person.
I think there is something to be said that Democrats need to make the case FOR liberalism more than they do. We can't win based on "just think of what will happen if Republicans get elected", we need to make promises that people actually want.
People can fault Sanders for being unrealistic in his policy proposals, but that gets people fired up more. Be unrealistic while campaigning, and then when the reality of politics hits you can dial it back. Go for universal paid health care, get single payer. Go for universal basic income, get more social security benefits and a better social safety net.
The problem the Dems have isn't convincing people those are good things, it's convincing people those are good things that can be paid for while we're trillions of dollars in the hole without going further down that well.
I don't care if you make 100K a year or 15K, no one is voluntarily going to sign up for a 45% tax bracket because it's insane.
My point is that I think Trump just proved that it doesn't matter if the policies make sense in reality. All that matters is does it get your base fired up?
Campaign on bombast and hyperbole, govern in reality. Campaigning on reality is what Hillary did, and she lost.
Nothing Trump did bears repeating. He got the fewer votes than any GOP candidate this century. Hillary lost, he did not beat her. The way forward is correcting her mistakes, not emulating him.
I'm drunk enough (and STAYING drunk) that I keep popping over to CNN hoping to see a headline like "Whoops, we totally fucked up the calling in this election" or "Clinton pulls out miraculous win."
I'm scared to be sober enough to not have fantasies dancing in my mind. I'm literally planning a trip to the nearby store to buy more beer, because I drank, in a row, what was supposed to be a multi-day supply. Like, I literally owe my brother money now because I drank his stashed beer.
Don't go down this road
Sorry, I totally did.
If it makes you feel any better, I also got chicken tenders and some cherry tomatoes.
Chicken tenders and cherry tomatoes own.
I am cross-faded as fuck right now but I'm planning to move to Florida to make one last desperate stand for what I believe America should be before bailing, and I'm attempting to convince other progressives I know in California to do the same.
This would be amazing if it happened.
Spread the good word. I have a Facebook group I could message you as I am still feebly pretending to keep this account and my social media separate. I think this is a movement that needs to happen before the midterms and I will do my best to make it happen.
He'll go down in history as the 21st Century J Edgar Hoover.
Please. Hoover attempted to preserve the union against anti-government forces. He was wrong and ended up being anti-democracy. But his heart was in a reasonable place, that stability is valuable. Comey here is worse. He has thrown the nation to the wolves for noting.
Truman’s famous “whistle-stop campaign” took him to rural communities and small towns where working-class and middle-class whites felt neglected. In fiery speeches with blunt language, he singled out sources of blame. Truman went after the “do nothing” Republican Congress as a prominent foe, but also denounced an array of “special interests,” including “bloodsuckers who have offices on Wall Street.” Truman named these enemies and promised to “give ’em’ hell.” His crowds believed him and rallied to their candidate. On Election Day, he predicted there were would be “a lot of surprised pollsters.” There were.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
People want to believe that Everything's Going to Be Okay. That Things Will Get Better. For them, for their families, for their towns, for their country. They want someone to tell them this, and make them believe it.
Even if it's a lie. Especially if it's a lie.
Because the lie is often better than the miserable, hopeless truth they see around them.
(And whether things really are that bad, by whatever measure or comparison, doesn't matter; what matters is what they (think they) see and hear and believe.)
And to those who believe in (cold, hard, depressing) truth and facts as things that are good, pure, and worthy in themselves, this is anathema.
But that, IMO, is how humans are, how they work. And that too (though still IMO, I acknowledge) is also inescapable, undeniable fact. No matter how much we would like to believe otherwise, it is still true.
For all of our professed devotion to reason, we are still human too, and we are going through all of the above, right here in our own communities, right now.
Humans are, as a rule, terrible at making good decisions from feelings. That does not stop us from doing so, constantly. This election has, I submit, provided plenty of examples on both sides.
We must acknowledge these facts, these truths, as we decide how to proceed.
And when we do, if we want to succeed, it will probably be through straight-up appeal to feelings.
Backed up by facts and evidence, preferably. But the feelings must be acknowledged, must be included, must come first. Way out in front.
Because people don't listen to or care about facts, unless you've already got them listening, already got them sympathizing, already have them emotionally invested.
Have them believing that you care.
About them, their families, their towns... and their feelings.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds.2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
+15
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
edited November 2016
I haven't had time to read the whole thread, so if this has already been said, sorry. Sorry in advance for the length.
I think we're on the cusp of a wholesale realignment of the two parties. (I've thought this for years...I just didn't think it'd happen for another decade or so.) One of the two parties is going to carry forward the mantle of populist economics and one is going to carry forward the mantle of neoliberal economics. (For the last two or three decades, both parties have had large populist wings among their voters but have overwhelmingly had neoliberals in elected office. I don't think there's any realistic way for both parties to continue doing so after this election.)
So, which party do the Dems want to be? A choice has to be made, and either choice will involve letting some members fade out of the Democratic coalition in an attempt to pick up others. Social liberals -- those who prioritize LGBT issues, women's rights, civil rights -- have been (and, I expect, will continue to be) much more open to partnerships with multinational corporations than the old trade-and-labor union wing of the party ever will be. Clinton and Obama ultimately belong to that coalition: in their eyes, Goldman Sachs is not an enemy to be defeated, but a potential ally to be courted. But alliances like that will forever be anathema to the working union class.
So, one option is for Dems to accept losing the working class vote and to instead turn their attention to reaching out even more to corporate America. That'll involve the Dems basically keeping their social agenda and adopting parts of what once was the Republican economic agenda: committing to correcting the corporate tax system, streamlining the regulatory state, imposing fewer barriers to trade, greater openness to freedom of labor. In other words, they can be a social liberalism + neoliberal economic party. The Clinton/Obama model cranked in a slightly more business friendly direction. They'll try to win on the backs of college-educated voters and corporate dollars. The Dems are already half-way there in being the party of science and the tech industry. Multinational corporations never cared about social conservatism anyway (gender studies programs at several universities are already funded by corporate dollars and some of the biggest push back against bathroom bills came from big corporations); it might not be too hard for the Dems to woo them into a new alliance.
Conversely, the Dems can go full-bore populist and try to win back the working class vote, but that will likely require some curtailing of those aspects of the social liberal agenda that are most opposed by the working class: (definitely) gun control, (probably) LGBT/Trans issues, (maybe) abortion rights. Bernie Sanders, Brian Schweitzer, and Joe Manchin are probably the role models for this direction. If Dems go that way, they will almost certainly put the LGBT vote and perhaps the women's vote back into play. They'll have to win on the backs of working-class voters and minorities, with social liberals put on the back burner. With no obvious corporate dollars to rely on, funding for elections will have to primarily come from grassroots donations -- national campaigns will need to run a very tight ship to make due.
That's my prediction. I just don't see how the current coalitions hold. Trump and Sanders both showed there's a populist giant out there waiting to be captured by one party or the other; up until this point, that giant had been torn between voting their social agenda (pro-life, pro-gun rights) and their economic agenda (pro-labor, pro-minimum wage, anti-free trade). But it's clearly there for one of the parties to take, and it controls a lot of electoral votes in the Rust Belt, Appalachia, and the Plains States. It's only a matter of time before one of the parties adapts itself to capture it.
Also Booker, Cortez Masto, Gillibrand, Duckworth, the Castros and others - time to start figuring out how our bench holds up under the spotlight and how well they can handle themselves in the presence of the shrieking white hot ball of rage. I think Kaine needs to take a step back and not be a serious part of the 2020 conversation unless our options look dire.
Cortez Masto and Duckworth need to start thinking about 2020 right nao. We have potential despite the seemingly bare cupboard of Dem hopefuls..
My appetite for a woman at the top of the ticket is severely diminished.
Posts
Cortez Masto and Duckworth need to start thinking about 2020 right nao. We have potential despite the seemingly bare cupboard of Dem hopefuls..
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
My only hope is that he was also spot on about the theories that Trump never wanted to be president, and was just trying to get attention... and as such, he doesn't truly believe in most of the caustic bile he's been spouting during the campaign.
Make America Great Again is such a better slogan that's it's not even close.
Scott Adams does the best job explaining why. Yeah, yeah, I know you hate the creator of Dilbert, but he correctly predicted the outcome a year ago.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/144816352346/battle-of-the-campaign-slogans
My appetite for a woman at the top of the ticket is severely diminished.
(... oops. sorry.)
I've lost several jobs due to this. Unfortunately, the person not getting hired this time affects everyone.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
That's true if you're discussing these slogans in a vacuum.
But that's the problem. This isn't a movie teaser, where that's all you get. These are candidates running for president. It's the media's job to follow up on these messages actually mean, and they didn't do that. Sometimes, you watch a movie where the title doesn't mean much until after you're done watching it.
They never asked Trump for his plan to make America great. And they never asked Hillary for her plan to bring people together.
I'm sorry, but it's unfair to blame Hillary for not clearly communicating her goals and vision if the media refuses to give her the chance to do exactly that.
Don't let this election dampen the hope for a better future. We thought we couldn't elect a black man (as a Democrat!!!) but if the key for 21st century candidates is to be an inspirational vessel, then I think a woman of color could be a great one.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
He'll go down in history as the 21st Century J Edgar Hoover.
It's clear at this point that having any sort of political history is actively hurtful when it comes to the Presidential race. If the Dems bring in a charismatic as hell celebrity or outsider who can properly box with Trump and inspire with lofty unachievable goals, then they'll have a chance in 2020. If they bring in any sort of politician, they will lose.
Beyonce/Clooney 2020
I'm only kind of kidding.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
he should be so lucky to be that famous
he'll go down as a footnote most likely
I love Tammy Duckworth but she is not going to be president.
i mean, how hard a mode you guys want to set this election to?
Former Governors have had an advantage over former legislators for... pretty much the entire history of the US, simply because Governors have a narrower attack profile.
A legislator can be taken to task for every single thing he votes on, including the amendments that nobody fucking reads.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
They're not going to. They now see their job as the acquisition of the most eyeballs and clicks and ratings and pageviews. Not seriously and soberly discuss policy or check facts. Because no one cares about that anymore, only tweet-length slogans and soundbites.
This is the state of political discourse, now and going forward. There's a reason print and long-form investigative journalism is dying.
The 22nd century isn't likely to last long or be concerned with history anyway.
I am still totally making contingency plans for the collapse of society though.
That would be true if this was, say, Bush v. Gore.
But a reality TV host grifter with no relevant experience vs. an the first major party candidate in history with the most qualifications in recent history?
With ties to foreign government to boot?
Yeah. He's going to be remembered as a monster. At least Hoover didn't cost MLK the chance at being president.
Nothing Trump did bears repeating. He got the fewer votes than any GOP candidate this century. Hillary lost, he did not beat her. The way forward is correcting her mistakes, not emulating him.
Or:
This would be amazing if it happened.
i don't buy that comey is responsible for the outcome of the election
He's not, but he damn sure didn't help, and the timing was very telling.
I have a ~50% marginal rate and recently voted for a party that promised to increase my taxes
27k in wisconsin
Assuming I electoral math'd right that's 40k making the difference here. In a nation of 300 million
I don't even have some solution or really even a cognizant point, it just fascinates/terrifies/saddens me
People spent so much time laughing at the Scottish referendum "Better Together" slogan too and that's pretty much the same
I honestly thought it was "I'm with her"
40k deciding the election in favor of the person who lost by millions of votes.
Like, the US did not vote incorrectly in 2000, or in 2016. We just have a huge stupid as fuck wall to climb up after we decide to vote for a reasonable person.
I mean, 40k is as grim dark as you get so what did you expect?
Spread the good word. I have a Facebook group I could message you as I am still feebly pretending to keep this account and my social media separate. I think this is a movement that needs to happen before the midterms and I will do my best to make it happen.
Please. Hoover attempted to preserve the union against anti-government forces. He was wrong and ended up being anti-democracy. But his heart was in a reasonable place, that stability is valuable. Comey here is worse. He has thrown the nation to the wolves for noting.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
People want to believe that Everything's Going to Be Okay. That Things Will Get Better. For them, for their families, for their towns, for their country. They want someone to tell them this, and make them believe it.
Even if it's a lie. Especially if it's a lie.
Because the lie is often better than the miserable, hopeless truth they see around them.
(And whether things really are that bad, by whatever measure or comparison, doesn't matter; what matters is what they (think they) see and hear and believe.)
And to those who believe in (cold, hard, depressing) truth and facts as things that are good, pure, and worthy in themselves, this is anathema.
But that, IMO, is how humans are, how they work. And that too (though still IMO, I acknowledge) is also inescapable, undeniable fact. No matter how much we would like to believe otherwise, it is still true.
For all of our professed devotion to reason, we are still human too, and we are going through all of the above, right here in our own communities, right now.
Humans are, as a rule, terrible at making good decisions from feelings. That does not stop us from doing so, constantly. This election has, I submit, provided plenty of examples on both sides.
We must acknowledge these facts, these truths, as we decide how to proceed.
And when we do, if we want to succeed, it will probably be through straight-up appeal to feelings.
Backed up by facts and evidence, preferably. But the feelings must be acknowledged, must be included, must come first. Way out in front.
Because people don't listen to or care about facts, unless you've already got them listening, already got them sympathizing, already have them emotionally invested.
Have them believing that you care.
About them, their families, their towns... and their feelings.
I'm unsure whether to be relieved or more frightened.
The legendary pivot finally appears.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I think we're on the cusp of a wholesale realignment of the two parties. (I've thought this for years...I just didn't think it'd happen for another decade or so.) One of the two parties is going to carry forward the mantle of populist economics and one is going to carry forward the mantle of neoliberal economics. (For the last two or three decades, both parties have had large populist wings among their voters but have overwhelmingly had neoliberals in elected office. I don't think there's any realistic way for both parties to continue doing so after this election.)
So, which party do the Dems want to be? A choice has to be made, and either choice will involve letting some members fade out of the Democratic coalition in an attempt to pick up others. Social liberals -- those who prioritize LGBT issues, women's rights, civil rights -- have been (and, I expect, will continue to be) much more open to partnerships with multinational corporations than the old trade-and-labor union wing of the party ever will be. Clinton and Obama ultimately belong to that coalition: in their eyes, Goldman Sachs is not an enemy to be defeated, but a potential ally to be courted. But alliances like that will forever be anathema to the working union class.
So, one option is for Dems to accept losing the working class vote and to instead turn their attention to reaching out even more to corporate America. That'll involve the Dems basically keeping their social agenda and adopting parts of what once was the Republican economic agenda: committing to correcting the corporate tax system, streamlining the regulatory state, imposing fewer barriers to trade, greater openness to freedom of labor. In other words, they can be a social liberalism + neoliberal economic party. The Clinton/Obama model cranked in a slightly more business friendly direction. They'll try to win on the backs of college-educated voters and corporate dollars. The Dems are already half-way there in being the party of science and the tech industry. Multinational corporations never cared about social conservatism anyway (gender studies programs at several universities are already funded by corporate dollars and some of the biggest push back against bathroom bills came from big corporations); it might not be too hard for the Dems to woo them into a new alliance.
Conversely, the Dems can go full-bore populist and try to win back the working class vote, but that will likely require some curtailing of those aspects of the social liberal agenda that are most opposed by the working class: (definitely) gun control, (probably) LGBT/Trans issues, (maybe) abortion rights. Bernie Sanders, Brian Schweitzer, and Joe Manchin are probably the role models for this direction. If Dems go that way, they will almost certainly put the LGBT vote and perhaps the women's vote back into play. They'll have to win on the backs of working-class voters and minorities, with social liberals put on the back burner. With no obvious corporate dollars to rely on, funding for elections will have to primarily come from grassroots donations -- national campaigns will need to run a very tight ship to make due.
That's my prediction. I just don't see how the current coalitions hold. Trump and Sanders both showed there's a populist giant out there waiting to be captured by one party or the other; up until this point, that giant had been torn between voting their social agenda (pro-life, pro-gun rights) and their economic agenda (pro-labor, pro-minimum wage, anti-free trade). But it's clearly there for one of the parties to take, and it controls a lot of electoral votes in the Rust Belt, Appalachia, and the Plains States. It's only a matter of time before one of the parties adapts itself to capture it.
Mine isn't. At all.
It will probably involve blaming minorities like usual.
I hope so.