Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Last 2016 Election Thread You'll Ever Wear

ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
People are very interested in relitigating the 2016 election. There is, admittedly, interesting conversation to be had about it. There's also a lot of uninteresting conversation to be had about it, but hopefully that constitutes the minority of this thread.

If you want to talk about why Hillary lost, or what she could've done to be a better candidate, or what the peculiar socioeconomic conditions were that led to the Darkest Timeline, this is the thread for you! Some conditions, though:

- Do not be an asshole. This should go without saying, but you know, sensitive subject and all. If you are a big jerkface, you will get booted, and you will not be invited back in.
- Do not come in here to post about how we're all doomed, or whatever. That is not interesting conversation.
- Do not post about what Trump is currently doing, or his cabinet, or general politics.
- If anybody comes in here and posts "I don't know where this goes, but I'll just post it in here anyway," I will fucking shiv you through the Internet. Do not do that. I hate that.
- This is not a Dump On Republicans thread. If your sole contribution to the conversation is "Hillary lost because people are dumb", you are not contributing productively.

Have fun!

Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

I make tweet.
ShadowfireNo-QuarterHarry DresdenDisruptedCapitalistElvenshaeGiggles_FunsworthZilla360
«134567100

Posts

  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited January 4
    Really hoping the thread title doesn't end up prophetic...

    Kidding aside, unhappy as I am with the outcome, I am looking forward to the books and tales from behind the scenes on this one. I can only imagine some of the crazy shit that must've gone down.

    Forar on
    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • FakefauxFakefaux Humbaba My friend, we have reduced the forest to a wasteland, how shall we answer Enlil in Nippur?Registered User regular
    In the interest of pursuing discussion that isn't purely hindsight, is it alright to talk about the race to replace the DNC chair? I feel that topic is so heavily tied into the results of the election, and the warring wings of the Democratic party that have emerged from it, that it's sort of difficult to talk about it without also re-litigating the election.

  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    edited January 4
    Forar wrote: »
    Really hoping the thread title doesn't end up prophetic...

    Kidding aside, unhappy as I am with the outcome, I am looking forward to the books and tales from behind the scenes on this one. I can only imagine some of the crazy shit that must've gone down.

    Unfortunately you probably won't get any from the Trump side since, as far as I can remember, they were all under an incredibly restrictive NDA for the rest of their lives.

    Veevee on
    steam_sig.png
    Sleep
  • Bobkins FlymoBobkins Flymo Fantastic Registered User, Moderator mod
    The obnoxious thing is people trying to find One True Reason for Clinton's failure, when it's really a glorious, multi-pronged disaster.

    Curious to see if this is the death of poll aggregates for a number of elections moving forward. It's possible 538 might still exist given he was the one voice saying Clinton's had a chance to lose, but 2020 is going to have a lot of people skeptical of polling regardless.

    U9Syuit.png
    P10ForarSurfpossumShivahnHakkekageGoodKingJayIIICommander ZoomOptimusZedtynicHarry DresdenshrykeTryCatcherMan in the MistsLostNinjaNo-QuarterTetraRayMr RaySleepFencingsaxGiggles_FunsworthArdoljoshofalltradesUndead ScottsmanPeter EbelMatevMegaMekRaijin Quickfoot
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Registered User regular
    I'm lighting a powder keg but here we go, has to be done.

    I'm still furious with Sanders and (among others such a Comey and Russia) hold him and his ludicrously irresponsible rhetoric to be chiefly responsible for the loss. Moreover he's basically poisoned the well for Democrats with regards to young liberals in such a fashion as being almost impossible to fix. Outside of my immediate circle of friends it's nearly impossible to have a political discussion with damn near anyone without having to ceaselessly fend off accusation of Bernie "getting used by the party" despite the fact that he was the Independent looking for a free ride on the Democratic money train.

    This is even more grating given that he's trying to insinuate himself into the DNC fight despite having gone back to being an Independent.

    Harry DresdenshrykePanda4YouSleepGnome-InterruptusGiggles_FunsworthArdolMarathonDarkewolfeVeagleMuddypawsMegaMek
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Look at all the reliably liberal states who aren't part of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact!

    Cartogram_NPVIC_Current_Status.svg.png?1478718843
    (Yellow States didn't actually pass anything last session.)

    You should try to change that if you live there! Since more of the country agrees with Democrats than Republicans, but one vote doesn't actually equal one vote in our system of governance.

    shrykerockrngerGiggles_Funsworthjdarksundavidsdurions
  • Bobkins FlymoBobkins Flymo Fantastic Registered User, Moderator mod
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    I'm lighting a powder keg but here we go, has to be done.

    I'm still furious with Sanders and (among others such a Comey and Russia) hold him and his ludicrously irresponsible rhetoric to be chiefly responsible for the loss. Moreover he's basically poisoned the well for Democrats with regards to young liberals in such a fashion as being almost impossible to fix.
    The Democrat party prior to November 8th, 2016 was not a sustainable thing. In the past eight years there's been a lot of ground lost to Republicans, and a lot of progress has been very weak thanks to obstructionism. Worse, a lot of what was accomplished was contingent on Democrats at least holding on to the presidency in 2017, and now huge swatches of the Obama legacy remains in doubt. A party of disparate politics, from blue-dogs to bernistas, forming a barely-left coalition with very little teeth was maybe not so great a long-term plan. And instead of grooming a new generation of inspirational politicians we just let the old guard have their turn once more, and had to rely on Sanders of all people to shake things up. I guess what I'm saying is that we really squandered the last eight years, and it shows.

    That said, clinging to Sanders is not a good idea. Although it's hardly impossible to fix since he's still willing to work with Democrats, and we might as well let him and get that generation back on board.

    U9Syuit.png
    FakefauxmrondeauOptimusZedCptKemzikTryCatcherThe EnderMan in the MistsNobodydispatch.oMr RaySleepGiggles_FunsworthjdarksunKraintjoshofalltradesVegemyteRchanenMatev
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    My favorite set of maps from this election.

    Straight majority.
    countymaprb512.png

    Scaled by county population.
    countycartrb512.png

    Shaded by margin.
    countycartpurple512.png

    We need to turn more districts blue, otherwise the structural disadvantage will only get worse as local government gets redder.

    is this how nations are born
    SleepGiggles_Funsworthjdarksun
  • FakefauxFakefaux Humbaba My friend, we have reduced the forest to a wasteland, how shall we answer Enlil in Nippur?Registered User regular
    edited January 4
    So far, the post-election Democratic party seems to be slowly forming into two camps. One camp is triangulating around Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Keith Ellison. The other camp is more nebulous, but seems to represent the Democratic establishment old guard, including Obama, Pelosi, Tom Perez, and Cory Booker. Chuck Schumer, oddly, seems to be siding with the first camp, despite being more of an establishment figure himself. A lot is still in flux. Several major figures on the way out, including Obama, the Clintons, and Harry Reid. All of them, though, are still trying to influence events. Obama has, somewhat at the last minute, started pushing for Tom Perez as the DNC chair, while Reid has favored Ellison. Even though he's on his way out, he leaves behind organizations like OFA, which still gives him an avenue of influence, especially considering that said organizations have in the past operated as a sort of separate DNC.

    It would seem that Sanders is emerging as the most notable politician in the aftermath overall, still going around the country and speaking at various events and pushing for changes in how the Democrats do things. Nobody else is currently operating at quite the same level of public awareness.

    Fakefaux on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Tom Perez and Cuomo have absolutely nothing to do with each other except in the minds of holier than thou assholes who think Obama is secretly more conservative than Nixon.

    Ellison should probably win so the Bernie activists are somewhat appeased, but a lot of the analysis of that race is utter nonsense.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    SurfpossumAngelHedgieOptimusZedCptKemzikshrykeGnome-InterruptusFencingsaxGiggles_FunsworthArdolMegaMek
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Registered User regular
    The Democrat party prior to November 8th, 2016 was not a sustainable thing. In the past eight years there's been a lot of ground lost to Republicans, and a lot of progress has been very weak thanks to obstructionism. Worse, a lot of what was accomplished was contingent on Democrats at least holding on to the presidency in 2017, and now huge swatches of the Obama legacy remains in doubt. A party of disparate politics, from blue-dogs to bernistas, forming a barely-left coalition with very little teeth was maybe not so great a long-term plan. And instead of grooming a new generation of inspirational politicians we just let the old guard have their turn once more, and had to rely on Sanders of all people to shake things up. I guess what I'm saying is that we really squandered the last eight years, and it shows.

    But compare this to Republicans, whose base is literally dying and are on the cusp of being outnumbered by Latinos? That said, I agree with a lot of what you are saying, and I would agree further if Bernie hadn't outright hamstrung his own ostensible allies...

    Such as when Sanders called Clinton unqualified after stating she had done the same to him. (She didn't.)
    Well let me, let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton: I don't believe that she is qualified if she is, if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don't think you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC.

    politico.com/story/2016/04/sanders-clinton-not-qualified-to-be-president-221666

    And then of course Trump picked it up and ran with it, because, why wouldn't he accept such a useful bludgeon as a gift? This was actually the point at which I fully turned on Sanders and realized precisely how much bad geeserey Clinton's had to put up with.

    Mr. Trump said:
    Bernie Sanders says that Hillary Clinton is unqualified to be president. Based on her decision making ability, I can go along with that!

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/718761006068051968
    That said, clinging to Sanders is not a good idea. Although it's hardly impossible to fix since he's still willing to work with Democrats, and we might as well let him and get that generation back on board.

    Is he willing to work with them, or is that just until he doesn't get his way and then turns on Democrats again? And all this is before we get into the nonsense his supporters pulled in Nevada and the way they treated Roberta Lange, let alone Bernie's own response to it that amounted to "Stop making me hit you."

    Darkewolfe
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    My favorite set of maps from this election.

    Straight majority.
    countymaprb512.png

    Scaled by county population.
    countycartrb512.png

    Shaded by margin.
    countycartpurple512.png

    We need to turn more districts blue, otherwise the structural disadvantage will only get worse as local government gets redder.

    I hate the angry parrot map.

    I hope UMich updates this one from 2012 since it has so much going for it.

    1857qaput58u3jpg.jpg

    jdarksun
  • FakefauxFakefaux Humbaba My friend, we have reduced the forest to a wasteland, how shall we answer Enlil in Nippur?Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    The Democrat party prior to November 8th, 2016 was not a sustainable thing. In the past eight years there's been a lot of ground lost to Republicans, and a lot of progress has been very weak thanks to obstructionism. Worse, a lot of what was accomplished was contingent on Democrats at least holding on to the presidency in 2017, and now huge swatches of the Obama legacy remains in doubt. A party of disparate politics, from blue-dogs to bernistas, forming a barely-left coalition with very little teeth was maybe not so great a long-term plan. And instead of grooming a new generation of inspirational politicians we just let the old guard have their turn once more, and had to rely on Sanders of all people to shake things up. I guess what I'm saying is that we really squandered the last eight years, and it shows.

    But compare this to Republicans, whose base is literally dying and are on the cusp of being outnumbered by Latinos? That said, I agree with a lot of what you are saying, and I would agree further if Bernie hadn't outright hamstrung his own ostensible allies...

    Such as when Sanders called Clinton unqualified after stating she had done the same to him. (She didn't.)
    Well let me, let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton: I don't believe that she is qualified if she is, if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don't think you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC.

    politico.com/story/2016/04/sanders-clinton-not-qualified-to-be-president-221666

    And then of course Trump picked it up and ran with it, because, why wouldn't he accept such a useful bludgeon as a gift? This was actually the point at which I fully turned on Sanders and realized precisely how much bad geeserey Clinton's had to put up with.

    Mr. Trump said:
    Bernie Sanders says that Hillary Clinton is unqualified to be president. Based on her decision making ability, I can go along with that!

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/718761006068051968
    That said, clinging to Sanders is not a good idea. Although it's hardly impossible to fix since he's still willing to work with Democrats, and we might as well let him and get that generation back on board.

    Is he willing to work with them, or is that just until he doesn't get his way and then turns on Democrats again? And all this is before we get into the nonsense his supporters pulled in Nevada and the way they treated Roberta Lange, let alone Bernie's own response to it that amounted to "Stop making me hit you."

    I'm curious what you think the path forward for the Democrats is, considering their almost complete dismantling at both the national and local level. You can't blame Sanders for the Democratic policies that led to massive losses during the Obama years. Clearly they've been doing something wrong and a change of strategy is called for.

    mrondeauNobody
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Still amazing the cotton plantation belt shows up that obviously.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    shrykeFencingsax
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Still amazing the cotton plantation belt shows up that obviously.

    I mean, yes and no...

    enlightenedbumwazillaCptKemzikshrykeThe EnderFencingsaxArdollonelyahava
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    The Democrat party prior to November 8th, 2016 was not a sustainable thing. In the past eight years there's been a lot of ground lost to Republicans, and a lot of progress has been very weak thanks to obstructionism. Worse, a lot of what was accomplished was contingent on Democrats at least holding on to the presidency in 2017, and now huge swatches of the Obama legacy remains in doubt. A party of disparate politics, from blue-dogs to bernistas, forming a barely-left coalition with very little teeth was maybe not so great a long-term plan. And instead of grooming a new generation of inspirational politicians we just let the old guard have their turn once more, and had to rely on Sanders of all people to shake things up. I guess what I'm saying is that we really squandered the last eight years, and it shows.

    But compare this to Republicans, whose base is literally dying and are on the cusp of being outnumbered by Latinos? That said, I agree with a lot of what you are saying, and I would agree further if Bernie hadn't outright hamstrung his own ostensible allies...

    Such as when Sanders called Clinton unqualified after stating she had done the same to him. (She didn't.)
    Well let me, let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton: I don't believe that she is qualified if she is, if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don't think you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC.

    politico.com/story/2016/04/sanders-clinton-not-qualified-to-be-president-221666

    And then of course Trump picked it up and ran with it, because, why wouldn't he accept such a useful bludgeon as a gift? This was actually the point at which I fully turned on Sanders and realized precisely how much bad geeserey Clinton's had to put up with.

    Mr. Trump said:
    Bernie Sanders says that Hillary Clinton is unqualified to be president. Based on her decision making ability, I can go along with that!

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/718761006068051968
    That said, clinging to Sanders is not a good idea. Although it's hardly impossible to fix since he's still willing to work with Democrats, and we might as well let him and get that generation back on board.

    Is he willing to work with them, or is that just until he doesn't get his way and then turns on Democrats again? And all this is before we get into the nonsense his supporters pulled in Nevada and the way they treated Roberta Lange, let alone Bernie's own response to it that amounted to "Stop making me hit you."

    I'm curious what you think the path forward for the Democrats is, considering their almost complete dismantling at both the national and local level. You can't blame Sanders for the Democratic policies that led to massive losses during the Obama years. Clearly they've been doing something wrong and a change of strategy is called for.

    Step one: run candidates.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    SurfpossummonikerNo-QuartershrykeSleepGiggles_FunsworthArdol
  • Bobkins FlymoBobkins Flymo Fantastic Registered User, Moderator mod
    I think Sanders is acting pretty charitable towards the DNC given that we have proof they were trying to screw him during the primary. And instead of any kind of censure, his opponent just invited Debs to the campaign.

    U9Syuit.png
    FakefauxOptimusZedCptKemzikThe EnderNobodyLostNinjaDronus86jdarksunCaptain MarcusjoshofalltradesUnluckykedinikMatev
  • FakefauxFakefaux Humbaba My friend, we have reduced the forest to a wasteland, how shall we answer Enlil in Nippur?Registered User regular
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    The Democrat party prior to November 8th, 2016 was not a sustainable thing. In the past eight years there's been a lot of ground lost to Republicans, and a lot of progress has been very weak thanks to obstructionism. Worse, a lot of what was accomplished was contingent on Democrats at least holding on to the presidency in 2017, and now huge swatches of the Obama legacy remains in doubt. A party of disparate politics, from blue-dogs to bernistas, forming a barely-left coalition with very little teeth was maybe not so great a long-term plan. And instead of grooming a new generation of inspirational politicians we just let the old guard have their turn once more, and had to rely on Sanders of all people to shake things up. I guess what I'm saying is that we really squandered the last eight years, and it shows.

    But compare this to Republicans, whose base is literally dying and are on the cusp of being outnumbered by Latinos? That said, I agree with a lot of what you are saying, and I would agree further if Bernie hadn't outright hamstrung his own ostensible allies...

    Such as when Sanders called Clinton unqualified after stating she had done the same to him. (She didn't.)
    Well let me, let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton: I don't believe that she is qualified if she is, if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don't think you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC.

    politico.com/story/2016/04/sanders-clinton-not-qualified-to-be-president-221666

    And then of course Trump picked it up and ran with it, because, why wouldn't he accept such a useful bludgeon as a gift? This was actually the point at which I fully turned on Sanders and realized precisely how much bad geeserey Clinton's had to put up with.

    Mr. Trump said:
    Bernie Sanders says that Hillary Clinton is unqualified to be president. Based on her decision making ability, I can go along with that!

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/718761006068051968
    That said, clinging to Sanders is not a good idea. Although it's hardly impossible to fix since he's still willing to work with Democrats, and we might as well let him and get that generation back on board.

    Is he willing to work with them, or is that just until he doesn't get his way and then turns on Democrats again? And all this is before we get into the nonsense his supporters pulled in Nevada and the way they treated Roberta Lange, let alone Bernie's own response to it that amounted to "Stop making me hit you."

    I'm curious what you think the path forward for the Democrats is, considering their almost complete dismantling at both the national and local level. You can't blame Sanders for the Democratic policies that led to massive losses during the Obama years. Clearly they've been doing something wrong and a change of strategy is called for.

    Step one: run candidates.

    Pretty sure they've been doing that for the last eight years. And that's a lot easier said than done now, considering their stable of candidates being groomed for higher and higher offices has had its legs cut out from under it. The Democrats' ranks have been decimated.

  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    My favorite set of maps from this election.

    Straight majority.
    countymaprb512.png

    Scaled by county population.
    countycartrb512.png

    Shaded by margin.
    countycartpurple512.png

    We need to turn more districts blue, otherwise the structural disadvantage will only get worse as local government gets redder.

    I hate the angry parrot map.

    I hope UMich updates this one from 2012 since it has so much going for it.

    1857qaput58u3jpg.jpg
    Whereas (tho I like both) I think the angry bird does a better job cracking the impression that the gray areas are just even instead of empty.

    And I will rip this party in half over this.

    is this how nations are born
    tynic
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    The Democrat party prior to November 8th, 2016 was not a sustainable thing. In the past eight years there's been a lot of ground lost to Republicans, and a lot of progress has been very weak thanks to obstructionism. Worse, a lot of what was accomplished was contingent on Democrats at least holding on to the presidency in 2017, and now huge swatches of the Obama legacy remains in doubt. A party of disparate politics, from blue-dogs to bernistas, forming a barely-left coalition with very little teeth was maybe not so great a long-term plan. And instead of grooming a new generation of inspirational politicians we just let the old guard have their turn once more, and had to rely on Sanders of all people to shake things up. I guess what I'm saying is that we really squandered the last eight years, and it shows.

    But compare this to Republicans, whose base is literally dying and are on the cusp of being outnumbered by Latinos? That said, I agree with a lot of what you are saying, and I would agree further if Bernie hadn't outright hamstrung his own ostensible allies...

    Such as when Sanders called Clinton unqualified after stating she had done the same to him. (She didn't.)
    Well let me, let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton: I don't believe that she is qualified if she is, if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don't think you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC.

    politico.com/story/2016/04/sanders-clinton-not-qualified-to-be-president-221666

    And then of course Trump picked it up and ran with it, because, why wouldn't he accept such a useful bludgeon as a gift? This was actually the point at which I fully turned on Sanders and realized precisely how much bad geeserey Clinton's had to put up with.

    Mr. Trump said:
    Bernie Sanders says that Hillary Clinton is unqualified to be president. Based on her decision making ability, I can go along with that!

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/718761006068051968
    That said, clinging to Sanders is not a good idea. Although it's hardly impossible to fix since he's still willing to work with Democrats, and we might as well let him and get that generation back on board.

    Is he willing to work with them, or is that just until he doesn't get his way and then turns on Democrats again? And all this is before we get into the nonsense his supporters pulled in Nevada and the way they treated Roberta Lange, let alone Bernie's own response to it that amounted to "Stop making me hit you."

    I'm curious what you think the path forward for the Democrats is, considering their almost complete dismantling at both the national and local level. You can't blame Sanders for the Democratic policies that led to massive losses during the Obama years. Clearly they've been doing something wrong and a change of strategy is called for.

    Step one: run candidates.

    Pretty sure they've been doing that for the last eight years. And that's a lot easier said than done now, considering their stable of candidates being groomed for higher and higher offices has had its legs cut out from under it. The Democrats' ranks have been decimated.

    They leave a LOT of races unopposed. Like a Wisconsin supreme court spot the filing deadline was 5 PM today. No challenger.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    monikermrondeauOptimusZedshrykeNobodyCaptain MarcusRchanenMegaMek
  • CoinageCoinage Registered User regular
    I think we can all agree Martin O'Malley would have won 320 EVs #omentum

    IKE04Qa.jpg
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    I think Sanders is acting pretty charitable towards the DNC given that we have proof they were trying to screw him during the primary. And instead of any kind of censure, his opponent just invited Debs to the campaign.
    I... feel basically the opposite about all of this.

    There was a kerfuffle about more debates and CNN's question thing, but unless I'm forgetting or ignorant, nothing particularly substantial.

    Certainly nothing to merit the accusations that came of them.

    is this how nations are born
    No-QuartershrykePanda4YouSleepGnome-InterruptusFencingsaxGiggles_FunsworthdavidsdurionsArdollonelyahavaAimOneAngryPossumMarathonDarkewolfeVeagle
  • FakefauxFakefaux Humbaba My friend, we have reduced the forest to a wasteland, how shall we answer Enlil in Nippur?Registered User regular
    edited January 4
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    The Democrat party prior to November 8th, 2016 was not a sustainable thing. In the past eight years there's been a lot of ground lost to Republicans, and a lot of progress has been very weak thanks to obstructionism. Worse, a lot of what was accomplished was contingent on Democrats at least holding on to the presidency in 2017, and now huge swatches of the Obama legacy remains in doubt. A party of disparate politics, from blue-dogs to bernistas, forming a barely-left coalition with very little teeth was maybe not so great a long-term plan. And instead of grooming a new generation of inspirational politicians we just let the old guard have their turn once more, and had to rely on Sanders of all people to shake things up. I guess what I'm saying is that we really squandered the last eight years, and it shows.

    But compare this to Republicans, whose base is literally dying and are on the cusp of being outnumbered by Latinos? That said, I agree with a lot of what you are saying, and I would agree further if Bernie hadn't outright hamstrung his own ostensible allies...

    Such as when Sanders called Clinton unqualified after stating she had done the same to him. (She didn't.)
    Well let me, let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton: I don't believe that she is qualified if she is, if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don't think you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC.

    politico.com/story/2016/04/sanders-clinton-not-qualified-to-be-president-221666

    And then of course Trump picked it up and ran with it, because, why wouldn't he accept such a useful bludgeon as a gift? This was actually the point at which I fully turned on Sanders and realized precisely how much bad geeserey Clinton's had to put up with.

    Mr. Trump said:
    Bernie Sanders says that Hillary Clinton is unqualified to be president. Based on her decision making ability, I can go along with that!

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/718761006068051968
    That said, clinging to Sanders is not a good idea. Although it's hardly impossible to fix since he's still willing to work with Democrats, and we might as well let him and get that generation back on board.

    Is he willing to work with them, or is that just until he doesn't get his way and then turns on Democrats again? And all this is before we get into the nonsense his supporters pulled in Nevada and the way they treated Roberta Lange, let alone Bernie's own response to it that amounted to "Stop making me hit you."

    I'm curious what you think the path forward for the Democrats is, considering their almost complete dismantling at both the national and local level. You can't blame Sanders for the Democratic policies that led to massive losses during the Obama years. Clearly they've been doing something wrong and a change of strategy is called for.

    Step one: run candidates.

    Pretty sure they've been doing that for the last eight years. And that's a lot easier said than done now, considering their stable of candidates being groomed for higher and higher offices has had its legs cut out from under it. The Democrats' ranks have been decimated.

    They leave a LOT of races unopposed. Like a Wisconsin supreme court spot the filing deadline was 5 PM today. No challenger.

    This speaks to a mindset I've seen in Democratic circles, namely that certain districts, counties, etc, are just so much dead air: they can never win there, why bother? I'd say this is related to the malaise I've also seen regarding midterms. Many Democrats seem to just assume they automatically do poorly in the midterms, as if this were written law.

    The party feels like it's really lost its ability to put forward a core message that is compelling to people and instead of addressing this it's just shrugged its shoulders and said "oh well."

    Fakefaux on
    Edith UpwardsGiggles_FunsworthCaptain Marcus
  • SniperGuySniperGuy Also known as Dohaeris Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    I think Sanders is acting pretty charitable towards the DNC given that we have proof they were trying to screw him during the primary. And instead of any kind of censure, his opponent just invited Debs to the campaign.
    I... feel basically the opposite about all of this.

    There was a kerfuffle about more debates and CNN's question thing, but unless I'm forgetting or ignorant, nothing particularly substantial.

    Certainly nothing to merit the accusations that came of them.

    It seemed pretty clear from everything I was seeing that they wanted to go with Clinton and did what was in their power to keep it that way, despite the support for Bernie.

    Me on Twitch!
    Dohaeris210 on PSN
    Me on Steam
    FakefauxOptimusZedEmissary42The EnderNobodyLostNinjaEdith UpwardsjdarksunCaptain Marcusjoshofalltrades
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Registered User regular
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    I think Sanders is acting pretty charitable towards the DNC given that we have proof they were trying to screw him during the primary. And instead of any kind of censure, his opponent just invited Debs to the campaign.
    I... feel basically the opposite about all of this.

    There was a kerfuffle about more debates and CNN's question thing, but unless I'm forgetting or ignorant, nothing particularly substantial.

    Certainly nothing to merit the accusations that came of them.

    It seemed pretty clear from everything I was seeing that they wanted to go with Clinton and did what was in their power to keep it that way, despite the support for Bernie.

    So what exactly did they do to Bernie? Please give specific examples.

    Moreover, in terms of favoritism, why wouldn't the DNC be backing Clinton- a career Democrat- over Sanders who joined the party for scarcely a year just to use their election apparatus, warchest, and donor list for himself? Doubly so once he started biting the hand that had been feeding him with campaign money and chairmanships for years.
    I think Sanders is acting pretty charitable towards the DNC given that we have proof they were trying to screw him during the primary. And instead of any kind of censure, his opponent just invited Debs to the campaign.

    Citation needed.

    (Doubly so for cherry picked emails sent late in the primary, stolen by the honest-to-god Russians, and leaked by Assange who besides being wanted on rape charges is about to be interviewed by Sean Hannity.)

    knitdanSurfpossumAistanHarry DresdenshryketynicHacksawPanda4YouGnome-InterruptusAngelHedgieminirhyderFencingsaxGiggles_FunsworthdavidsdurionsiTunesIsEvilArdolMarathonCantidoDarkewolfeMegaMek
  • knitdanknitdan Actually Knits SometimesRegistered User regular
    The only evidence is some emails that were dated after it was clear that Bernie had no realistic path to victory and they wanted him out so they could focus on the general.

    Plus the fact that he only decided to become a Democrat last year so he could use the party to boost his own profile. Not a big surprise the establishment didn't want some Johnny-come-lately carpetbagger as their candidate.

    Ooh big conspiracy

    Fallen London: Joe Cusick
    IncenjucarNo-QuarterAiouaSurfpossumAistantynicHacksawPanda4YouCommander ZoomSleepGnome-InterruptusAngelHedgieGiggles_FunsworthdavidsdurionsiTunesIsEvilArdolOneAngryPossumCantidoDarkewolfeMild ConfusionMegaMek
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    I think Sanders is acting pretty charitable towards the DNC given that we have proof they were trying to screw him during the primary. And instead of any kind of censure, his opponent just invited Debs to the campaign.
    I... feel basically the opposite about all of this.

    There was a kerfuffle about more debates and CNN's question thing, but unless I'm forgetting or ignorant, nothing particularly substantial.

    Certainly nothing to merit the accusations that came of them.

    It seemed pretty clear from everything I was seeing that they wanted to go with Clinton and did what was in their power to keep it that way, despite the support for Bernie.

    Though, to be fair, I'm not really personally convinced that it was something magical about Sanders that was the source of that support. He just ended up the only opposition to Clinton's nomination with a chance in hell, and his positions were leftist enough to create some excitement.

    We lost this race sometime in the 90's, when the Clintons consolidated their power but decided it would be weird to run Hillary in 2000. Then we lost it again in 2008 when Obama took the nomination.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    jdarksun
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    And people are so obsessed with hating Clinton they failed to acknowledge what she actually ran on. Which remains infuriating. It's not 1996.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    monikerSurfpossumIncenjucarRingoNo-QuartershrykePanda4YouEdith UpwardsSleepGnome-InterruptusAngelHedgieGiggles_FunsworthFencingsaxdavidsdurionsCalicaiTunesIsEvilArdollonelyahavaOneAngryPossumCantidoDarkewolfeMegaMek
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    And people are so obsessed with hating Clinton they failed to acknowledge what she actually ran on. Which remains infuriating. It's not 1996.

    No, evidently it's 1980.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    mrondeauSniperGuyCptKemzikHachfaceLostNinjaEdith UpwardsSleepP10Giggles_FunsworthjdarksunKraintjoshofalltradesMatevMegaMek
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    And people are so obsessed with hating Clinton they failed to acknowledge what she actually ran on. Which remains infuriating. It's not 1996.

    No, evidently it's 1980.

    1876 is more accurate.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    No-QuarterMayabirdmoniker
  • SniperGuySniperGuy Also known as Dohaeris Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 4
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    I think Sanders is acting pretty charitable towards the DNC given that we have proof they were trying to screw him during the primary. And instead of any kind of censure, his opponent just invited Debs to the campaign.
    I... feel basically the opposite about all of this.

    There was a kerfuffle about more debates and CNN's question thing, but unless I'm forgetting or ignorant, nothing particularly substantial.

    Certainly nothing to merit the accusations that came of them.

    It seemed pretty clear from everything I was seeing that they wanted to go with Clinton and did what was in their power to keep it that way, despite the support for Bernie.

    So what exactly did they do to Bernie? Please give specific examples.

    Moreover, in terms of favoritism, why wouldn't the DNC be backing Clinton- a career Democrat- over Sanders who joined the party for scarcely a year just to use their election apparatus, warchest, and donor list for himself? Doubly so once he started biting the hand that had been feeding him with campaign money and chairmanships for years.
    I think Sanders is acting pretty charitable towards the DNC given that we have proof they were trying to screw him during the primary. And instead of any kind of censure, his opponent just invited Debs to the campaign.

    Citation needed.

    (Doubly so for cherry picked emails sent late in the primary, stolen by the honest-to-god Russians, and leaked by Assange who besides being wanted on rape charges is about to be interviewed by Sean Hannity.)

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279007-sanders-says-dnc-favoring-clinton-ahead-of-convention

    I mean here's one example. I'm having a shitload of trouble finding examples beyond people screaming wikileaks up and down, but the idea that the DNC had a plan for Clinton and Bernie was an annoying wrench isn't exactly an outrageous one.

    A lot of the examples have a bunch of possible defenses but the impression that Clinton was the preferred golden child who "deserved it" was definitely a common one. Even if not intentional, the DNC managed to make it seem that way when they should have strived for fairness. Especially because despite her qualifications and despite the accusations launched against her all the time being ridiculous, the general public doesn't care to delve that deep or care that much. Clinton had a lot of baggage, whether it was real or not, and putting focus on her was a bad move in my opinion. No, this isn't right, and yes, it is shitty. Unfortunately it is also how things worked out.

    SniperGuy on
    Me on Twitch!
    Dohaeris210 on PSN
    Me on Steam
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.

    It's more an argument that we shouldn't be smug about Trump voters vulnerability to propaganda.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    Carson Vendetta
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.

    It's more an argument that we shouldn't be smug about Trump voters vulnerability to propaganda.

    I think in general we can't really reasonably be smug about anything about this election.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    edited January 4
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.
    I mean, the blind Clinton hate is what everybody ends up talking about when her actual merits (policies, preparedness for the office, experience, history of trying to make the world a better place, etc etc) fail as a defense of her candidacy.

    And they generally* fail because of the blind Clinton hate.

    So that's all kind of frustrating.

    * generalizations etc. Is there anyone here who thinks Hillary would have been a bad President (relative to, say, Obama)?

    Surfpossum on
    is this how nations are born
    No-QuarterCalicaDarkewolfe
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.

    It's more an argument that we shouldn't be smug about Trump voters vulnerability to propaganda.

    I think in general we can't really reasonably be smug about anything about this election.

    Winning the popular vote is a decent balm. Republican Presidents have only won a popular mandate twice in my lifetime.

    OptimusZed
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.
    I mean, the blind Clinton hate is what everybody ends up talking about when her actual merits (policies, preparedness for the office, experience, history of trying to make the world a better place, etc etc) fail as a defense of her candidacy.

    And they generally* fail because of the blind Clinton hate.

    So that's all kind of frustrating.

    * generalizations etc. Is there anyone here who thinks Hillary would have been a bad President (relative to, say, Obama)?

    Unfair comparison, because Obama is a top 5 President. :(

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.
    I mean, the blind Clinton hate is what everybody ends up talking about when her actual merits (policies, preparedness for the office, experience, history of trying to make the world a better place, etc etc) fail as a defense of her candidacy.

    And they generally* fail because of the blind Clinton hate.

    So that's all kind of frustrating.

    * generalizations etc. Is there anyone here who thinks Hillary would have been a bad President (relative to, say, Obama)?

    Well, I'm more referencing the "it's totally unfair that [insert terrible thing that people think about Clinton]" and how often it came up, both in the primary and the general.

    That we ran someone who had such widespread negative misconceptions and couldn't catch a break from a public approval standpoint looks a lot like the height of arrogance in retrospect.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    mrondeauMrMisterTryCatcherjdarksunjoshofalltradesFrankiedarling
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.
    I mean, the blind Clinton hate is what everybody ends up talking about when her actual merits (policies, preparedness for the office, experience, history of trying to make the world a better place, etc etc) fail as a defense of her candidacy.

    And they generally* fail because of the blind Clinton hate.

    So that's all kind of frustrating.

    * generalizations etc. Is there anyone here who thinks Hillary would have been a bad President (relative to, say, Obama)?

    Unfair comparison, because Obama is a top 5 President. :(
    By bad I mean not good, not just not as good as.

    I suppose I more accurately mean using Obama as a marker for very good. I know some folks who think him despicable (the illustrious fringe left).

    is this how nations are born
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I would agree that the blind Clinton hate was a huge downside.

    Which remains an extremely underwhelming defense of her candidacy, particularly in hindsight.
    I mean, the blind Clinton hate is what everybody ends up talking about when her actual merits (policies, preparedness for the office, experience, history of trying to make the world a better place, etc etc) fail as a defense of her candidacy.

    And they generally* fail because of the blind Clinton hate.

    So that's all kind of frustrating.

    * generalizations etc. Is there anyone here who thinks Hillary would have been a bad President (relative to, say, Obama)?

    Well, I'm more referencing the "it's totally unfair that [insert terrible thing that people think about Clinton]" and how often it came up, both in the primary and the general.

    That we ran someone who had such widespread negative misconceptions and couldn't catch a break from a public approval standpoint looks a lot like the height of arrogance in retrospect.

    On the other hand, letting the GOP propaganda outfit win and having their message become conventional wisdom among leftists is... let's say frustrating.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    OptimusZedSurfpossumNo-QuartershrykeEtiowsaPanda4YouGnome-InterruptusAstaerethdavidsdurionsCalicaArdoliTunesIsEvilOneAngryPossumDarkewolfeVeagleMegaMek
«134567100
This discussion has been closed.