No one could have predicted Comey. If anything the fault lies with Obama for not firing his ass after the first press conference
The chain of events there is staggering.
If Hillary hadn't had that e-mail server
If she hadn't had Huma as her Campaign Vice Chair
If Anthony Weiner wasn't a fucking horrible excuse for a human being
If Comey hadn't had it out for Clinton.
Lose any one of those and the entire thing wouldn't have mattered.
Like, yes, knowing what we know now, running Clinton would have been a mistake. The problem is we didn't know that stuff yet. This type of thinking is only useful if you have a time machine.
I don't think we had a choice, I think she was our best chance to beat Trump.
Her historically bad unfavorability ratings suggest otherwise.
So how did she almost beat Obama in '08 and win the popular vote against Trump in '16?
She lost both of those races, though.
The argument posed wasn't that she that she didn't win, it's that she was unpopular - those elections prove otherwise. Trump had to win on a technicality, if the vote was based on amount of votes cast she'd be the winner. When she fought Obama it was in primaries that were with tougher competition from all sides, it wasn't one on one until much later and she still barely lost. She's the only politician alive with a track record of giving Obama a run for his money yet she's never given credit for it.
Y'all should reread the summary of Sanders' opposition file someone posted right after the election.
It was BAD.
I read it and was unimpressed. Being on unemployment? Stealing electricity? Shit, that stuff would play up his street cred with the working class.
They have the guy on video in front of the fucking Sandinistas while they chant what is essentially "Death to America". Like, be serious here. This plays directly in to the stereotypes he'd be trying desperately to avoid and hits him directly in the demographics y'all are claiming would have gave him a better shot then Clinton.
And as Ebum mentioned, the media would have gone ballistic. This is way better then the email story.
The email story is worse than all the opposition research in the world because it was being investigated by James Comey. None of the stuff on Sanders even comes close to the damage from that letter.
I disagree, the email story is only worse because she got into the general. If it had been Bernie this or scandals like it would have caught fire because in presidential races the candidate everyone targets as the worst ever is the Democrat. That Obama was able to slide from this is an exception. That's how good a politician he is.
Edit: the FBI may have already had an opening with Bernie via his wife's college adventures. That's all the excuse comey would need to crucify h like they did with Hillary. All that would change is how they'd do it.
Edit: the GOP don't hold back on dem candidates in the general, whoever wins the primaries is getting their full attention and they'll bury them alive in scandals to make this a reality, helped by the media and now third parties like Russia, FBI, Wikileaks.
Bernie wouldn't be left alone in that spotlight, his primary with Hillary was a preview for what it's like for him in the general and that was her holding back. Look what past candidates like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and al gore went through.
Sorry, if I've rehash anything been busy with lots of shit. I've been mulling over how to approach categorizing Trump voters. I disagree with the sentiment that they are all fucking awful. I know of at least one Trump voter that voted for Obama twice and isn't an outright racist. I don't think it's healthy or useful to write them all off, like some want to do. Sure you can be disappointed that their decision was shitty, but not all of them are awful people.
From what I've been able to make out
Centrists that didn't trust either Clinton or Trump (yeah, fuck Comey). That incorrectly assumed that people would keep a better eye on Trump and assumed he wouldn't be that bad (yeah, some of them are privileged whites, that aren't in the firing line of most of the modern GOP's awful platform). I think this is a group that could be persuaded, mainly because they aren't asking for awful shit.
Blue Collar workers simply put modern times have not been great for some industries. Trump sold the lie that he could bring their jobs back, which is what they wanted to hear. They didn't want to hear plans about helping them switch gears into something new. This is a mixed bag, I think some of them could be persuaded to vote democratic in the future. The sticking point is there are sizable chunks of this group that can't accept that their current or former livelihood has been rendered obsolete by changes in demand or technology and perhaps no one can help them. Some of these guys might get caught up in the vicious cycle of always voting for the outsider that promises to bring back the good times.
both siders that got fed up with the current state of affairs, that went with the biggest perceived outsider to shake things up. Again another mixed group. I think some could be brought around to the idea that both sides theory is a bunch of bullshit, but there a number where, good luck getting them to admit that both sides aren't same.
Team Republican democrats really need to stop courting this group. There are decent human beings here, but this group is to a point where, barring something extreme happening to them that shatters their worldview, they'll always vote Republican. The issues don't matter. The fact don't matter. They view politics as a sport and as long as their team wins, they just don't care.
Team Awful the racists, bigots and asshole oligarchs. I think this was a smaller chunk of the Trump coalition than people made it out to be. Needless to say, fuck these people and their views. No one should be trying to help advance their shit causes.
That said, we also have two real issues. One, there is the coordinated effort by the right to disenfranchise voters that don't vote for their people. That shit probably cost democrats votes. Maybe Clinton would have won with larger margins than Trump, maybe she would have even slimmer one or maybe Trump would have even smaller number but still be in the white ass pissing and moaning about crowd sizes. The other issue is turnout. We have a ton of voters that just don't show up and it has nothing to do with voter suppression tactics, being fucked by the rich or some sort of emergency that prevents them from getting to the polls. The former issue could be tackled without address the latter one, but it would make things easier if the latter was nearly as large. The question is, how do we get those non-voters involved? If more more them showed up, would it force the GOP to moderate because some of the gerrymandering bullshit is also reliant on sizable chunks of moderate voters staying home during elections. How do we get them off their asses and involved in politics?
Finally, we have three major groups that are to blame for much of the dysfunction in US politics.
-The Republican Party, I know this is going to ruffle some feathers, but let's be honest, the current Republican leadership has been doing it damn best to undermine democracy. Be that voter suppression, gerrymandering or outright sabotage of good ideas they disagree with. Hell, there was the one quote from a McConnell aid about how they liked both sidesism because it resulted in more people on the left staying home. The Republican Party leadership has ceased looking out for the country and has opted to cater to bigots and oligarchs. In order to maintain power since it has become apparent, that their platform is just no that popular, they've gone out of their way to foster an environment of dysfunction to discourage people from wanting to participate.
-The corporate media, I know I'm preaching to the choir, but the big media outlets are fucking worthless and have been all to keen about gleefully watching the country burn down because it'll be great for the ratings. I think people should think for themselves and be critical of the media they consume, but I can see how people have started to believe stupid shit because to be far, they shouldn't have to constantly wonder if the news is really news or just bullshit based on easily disproved claims.
-The public, yes, you heard me. Frankly, people have gotten lazy. Both sides as a theory took off because people couldn't be bothered to research who they were voting for, nor did many those want to have to admit that sometimes they make bad choices. That they would rather treat politics like a team sport. That they didn't want have to look at multiple news sources so they can catch on when an outlet puts ratings over the facts, nor do they want to make the effort of finding reliable outlets from both sides of the spectrum that aren't the big news companies. They don't want to spend time keeping current with event outside their locality. They don't want to have to constantly learn new things, in order to be better informed. They don't want to have to confront that their disagreements or different ways of doing things (how many of us have heard the line, never discuss politics at the dinner table. Well how the fuck are people supposed to learn to civilly deal with differences of opinion if everyone is to damn afraid to talk about what is going on because things might get heated). Democracy demands understanding and participation and many Americans don't seem interested in participating, while a number that do participate, don't give damn about understanding how it's suppose to work.
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Dennis Kucinich, the liberal former congressman and mayor of Cleveland, enjoyed President Donald Trump's inaugural address Friday.
"GREAT #inauguration speech @RealDonaldTrump!" Kucinich tapped out on Twitter soon after the speech. "Congratulations & best wishes from Dennis & Elizabeth Kucinich watching from Beirut, Lebanon," he added in the tweet, which included American flag emojis.
Asked via email what he liked about the speech, Kucinich responded by directing a reporter to his Facebook page, where he elaborated more.
"Donald Trump's message of unity is critical at this moment," he wrote. "I call upon all Americans to join in a common effort to create a great vision for our country, our people and for peace in the world. Let's give him and ourselves a chance."
Trump, a wealthy businessman, won the White House as a populist Republican.
Kucinich, throughout a political career that included two long-shot White House bids, styled himself as a populist Democrat. He lost his Cleveland-area congressional seat in 2012, after GOP-led redistricting pushed him into the same territory as Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Toledo.
Since then he has worked as a consultant and appeared on Fox News Channel as a contributor. In 2015, he spoke at CPAC, an annual gathering of conservative activists.
Wasn't Bernie doing something similar post-inauguration? I remember he extended a hand to Trump.
What does Kucinich have to do with the 2016 election
I mean yeah that sucks but are you just looking to make all liberals guilty by association or is there some point that I'm missing
He's a member of the Democratic party who is continuing the chorus of not resisting the GOP like they should be. Nor is he the first liberal to do this, RE: Elizabeth Warren.
How can my post be interpreted as making all guilty by association*? I'm a liberal. It's another example that this behavior has infected our side, not only the centrists. This makes this a larger problem then we anticipated.
If I see a liberal politician doing something I find distasteful I'm going to call them out on it, just as I would a Blue Dog or a centrist.
Add another to the list of disappointing Democrats who need to be pressed to get their heads together. We can't do this properly if liberals/progressive politicians are off limits.
* it's a little late for this complaint seeing as Warren has been bought up doing something worse upthread and she's a liberal politics with a higher profile than Kucinich.
edit: If this is off-topic I'll move it to the appropriate thread.
At least Warren holds an office and was somewhat involved in 2016. I was among the first to criticize her for her vote, because it was actually relevant.
What you did just there was closer to going, "I wonder what Dukakis is up to now."
And if you don't see how such a post is intended to make all the members of the progressive wing of the party look equally culpable in Kucinich's actions then what, exactly, was the point? Just getting another random person's perspective? He's not a politician anymore.
It's a blatant smear, and judging by the post immediately following yours, not an unsuccessful one.
At least Warren holds an office and was somewhat involved in 2016. I was among the first to criticize her for her vote, because it was actually relevant.
What you did just there was closer to going, "I wonder what Dukakis is up to now."
And if you don't see how such a post is intended to make all the members of the progressive wing of the party look equally culpable in Kucinich's actions then what, exactly, was the point? Just getting another random person's perspective? He's not a politician anymore.
It's a blatant smear, and judging by the post immediately following yours, not an unsuccessful one.
I told you my point.
It's not a smear of the movement, which was neither my intent nor do I find it a reasonable example to use to smear a whole moment (which I'm apart of, btw).
He was a politician, one who has a history with the Democrats and had a presence in the '08 primaries. He isn't a random liberal speaking to the press.
By your omission of the rest of my post I'll take it you disagree with holding liberal politics feet to the fire when they do something bad. Which is weird stance to take since you criticized Warren.
Harry, your "point" was to "hold liberals' feet to the fire". If that was really the point, why are we talking about some guy who hasn't held office in years? How is that remotely productive?
No, what there's an actual pattern of in your posts is giving centrists a pass and lecturing progressives about what's wrong with them. Thanks, we're good.
silly us for insisting on practical solutions and not just telling people what they want to hear.
"Practical solutions," "we'll see what we can do," "progressive who gets things done," with these kinds of messages, do you wonder why people who wanted significant changes didn't turn out?
Obama left office with Guantanamo still open, two wars still ongoing with numerous drone campaigns elsewhere, no significant limits on the surveillance state, and a compromised healthcare system that got worse every year, and he has the biggest cult of personality attached to him since Reagan. People want to see candidates fight for the issues they care about in simple, clear language, not put forth wonkish policy proposals that are compromised before they even hit the negotiating table.
Still blaming Obama for everything the GOP blocked huh
Of those things, the only thing that GOP blocking has anything to do with is the healthcare system (well yeah they stopped Obama from closing Gitmo, but he could have transferred all of the detainees out)
Surveillance, deportation, war on drugs, militarized police, wall street, basically ceding ground every time there was an environmental catastrophe to whatever corporation did it, believing almost to the end that the GOP would come around
Obama was a great president but lets not put him on a pedestal
Harry, your "point" was to "hold liberals' feet to the fire". If that was really the point, why are we talking about some guy who hasn't held office in years? How is that remotely productive?
No, what there's an actual pattern of in your posts is giving centrists a pass and lecturing progressives about what's wrong with them. Thanks, we're good.
No, my point was to hold every Democrat's get to the fire.
If I see a liberal politician doing something I find distasteful I'm going to call them out on it, just as I would a Blue Dog or a centrist.
I already explained why I was doing that too, and why it was productive. I didn't post it without the proper context before or after.
I do find it unproductive not to hold every faction accountable for making mistakes, no faction is above reproach. If we are going to win being blind to our own flaws
is going to get us losses, which was a mistake Hillary did during the election as I've spoken many times in the past.
I've never gave centrists a pass, not here or in the past. Have you followed my posts in political threads the last few years? My opinions about centrists haven't changed back then or now.
I'm "lecturing" my fellow progressives who I disagree with when it comes to their conclusions, and they've done the same back to me. This is part of the process of learning how to reform the Democratic party when we lose. The party wasn't holding peace parades during the years post-Reagan until the centrists took control and gave us victories. (What they did I'm still hold against them for being dicks and turning the party rightward. Which is why I was relieved when Hillary ran a campaign in '16 that was more left leaning than I thought possible, and before that I thought exactly like you do.)
No, we're not good. The party and the left have a long way to go before "good" is on anywhere near the achievable list.
edit: The fact that I don't think the centrists are evil incarnate in every post does not mean I don't criticize them when they need it. Unfortunately I've found greater disappointment with my own side (since the centrists have actually evolved into being less batshit recently - which was a win for us as a movement), which until Bernie ran I didn't realize how large the problem was because the far left usually don't have that kind of presence in the Democratic party in the modern era.
edit: We're a deeply flawed movement and we're going to stay that way until we drastically change how we do things in politics. I'd rather we not go back to being obscure and ignored in the Democratic party.
Y'all should reread the summary of Sanders' opposition file someone posted right after the election.
It was BAD.
I read it and was unimpressed. Being on unemployment? Stealing electricity? Shit, that stuff would play up his street cred with the working class.
They have the guy on video in front of the fucking Sandinistas while they chant what is essentially "Death to America". Like, be serious here. This plays directly in to the stereotypes he'd be trying desperately to avoid and hits him directly in the demographics y'all are claiming would have gave him a better shot then Clinton.
And as Ebum mentioned, the media would have gone ballistic. This is way better then the email story.
The email story is worse than all the opposition research in the world because it was being investigated by James Comey. None of the stuff on Sanders even comes close to the damage from that letter.
I disagree, the email story is only worse because she got into the general. If it had been Bernie this or scandals like it would have caught fire because in presidential races the candidate everyone targets as the worst ever is the Democrat. That Obama was able to slide from this is an exception. That's how good a politician he is.
Edit: the FBI may have already had an opening with Bernie via his wife's college adventures. That's all the excuse comey would need to crucify h like they did with Hillary. All that would change is how they'd do it.
Edit: the GOP don't hold back on dem candidates in the general, whoever wins the primaries is getting their full attention and they'll bury them alive in scandals to make this a reality, helped by the media and now third parties like Russia, FBI, Wikileaks.
Bernie wouldn't be left alone in that spotlight, his primary with Hillary was a preview for what it's like for him in the general and that was her holding back. Look what past candidates like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and al gore went through.
Bernie's wife's college adventures?
Was Bernie's wife secretary of state at the time?
I know there's a fanatical belief that Hillary was the perfect candidate but she wasn't! She had low approval ratings going in and they never improved!
This is complicated but, how about not running candidates under FBI investigation
Was Bernie's wife secretary of state at the time, and under FBI investigation going into the election?
She needn't be the SOS for the GOP to bring the full weight of their not wanting a Democrat winning the presidential to be a problem for Bernie had he been the nominee.
Stop thinking of how the election happened, and think how it'd be if Bernie were the nominee.
We know Comey wanted to sink the Democrats, why wouldn't he do the same with this? I doubt the FBI would have let it go that easily had Bernie been the nominee.
Who knows what other shit they'd try to smear him with, aside from that?
Remember who your enemy is, the GOP will try everything to bury the Democratic nominee and they proved this election that going after them with the FBI was on the table. They're not going to go soft on Bernie had he been in that position.
edit: The job the GOP did on Hillary wasn't a one time offer, that's standard procedure against Democratic presidential candidates. I bought up the previous nominees for a reason.
Comey's bullshit could have easily been made moot by the Clinton campaign, if they had not been incredibly incompetent.
There is no reason to believe another Dem's campaign wouldn't have done things like: actually hire folks Obama's team, focus on swing states, focus on widely popular policies, listen to state parties, etc.
I mean seriously the campaign spent 5 times as much on advertising in CA than it did in MI.
Comey's bullshit could have easily been made moot by the Clinton campaign, if they had not been incredibly incompetent.
There is no reason to believe another Dem's campaign wouldn't have done things like: actually hire folks Obama's team, focus on swing states, focus on widely popular policies, listen to state parties, etc.
I mean seriously the campaign spent 5 times as much on advertising in CA than it did in MI.
Maybe, maybe not. Either way that's no guarantee they wouldn't find something difficult for Bernie to counter to harm him, and it's not like the man hasn't got his ow flaws - they're simply different from Hillary's, like Hillary's were from Obama's and his were to Kerry's. They'll mould their attacks to the candidate, and even Obama isn't immune to those kind of smear campaigns. No politician is.
And Hillary's campaign did hire people from Obama's team.
Focusing on swing states would have worked for Hillary, unfortunately the party didn't realize the Rust belt was included or how hard it would be an establishment candidate to break through. This ignores he'd have his own problems, which will not be identical. From the primaries he had less engagement with women and minorities, for instance.
They're not going to go after Bernie exactly like Hillary, they're not stupid. They have their own playbook for him IIRC. Probably for every Democrat in the primaries.
The only other "data driven" campaign that I know of was Cruz back on the primary. Problem is, those campaigns basically bet all on Plan A because "the data says it so". Plan A of Cruz was to seal the deal before getting out of the Bible Belt. When that failed....there wasn't a plan B, just a mad rush to get something going on. That sounds eerily familiar.
Comey's bullshit could have easily been made moot by the Clinton campaign, if they had not been incredibly incompetent.
There is no reason to believe another Dem's campaign wouldn't have done things like: actually hire folks Obama's team, focus on swing states, focus on widely popular policies, listen to state parties, etc.
I mean seriously the campaign spent 5 times as much on advertising in CA than it did in MI.
Presidential candidates spend in "weird" non-swing or otherwise non-important states for a number of reasons. In the short term, it can help downballot candidates. Hillary was never going to win Missouri--but perhaps activating Dems could have helped Kander win. Winning the Senate was a tougher battle, yet just as important as winning the White House. We probably wouldn't have won the House, but the more seats the better, plus all kinds of state/local candidates and initiatives. In the long run, you're helping build up loyalty for your party and reduce loyalty for the other. Get someone to vote Democrat once, they're more likely to go blue in the future. Do well in Arizona and Georgia, and you're setting some seeds for 2020 or 2024. On the other hand, look at polling in the three "blue wall" rust belt states that Trump won--Hillary consistently won those polls. Presumably their internals were similar. Yes, it's safer to spend all of your resources in a handful of swing states, but after a point you're just throwing more money at a state you're largely guaranteed to win.
That strategy didn't work, of course, but the Comey letter came, what, a little over a week before the election? That totally changed the state of play, and Hillary did adjust, she spent more time and resources in Michigan at the very end of the race. But it's also a true October Surprise. It's all well and good for you to play Wednesday morning campaign strategist, but it's not something the Clinton campaign could've planned for.
They made the wrong call, but it was an understandable one. If Hillary had spent all of her time in the Rust belt, and then at the end of October a Trump child rape lawsuit advanced, she might've won the Rust Belt in a landslide and everyone would be pissed at her for not trying to make inroads elsewhere or helping downballot candidates.
"A closer examination of SEC documents reveals Zuck only needs to still own enough Facebook stock or have the board’s approval to be allowed to serve in government indefinitely," the technology news outlet reported. "Combined with Zuckerberg’s announcement yesterday that his 2017 personal challenge is to meet and listen to people in all 50 states, this fact lends weight to the idea that Zuckerberg may be serious about diving into politics."
Certainly his 30-state tour sounds very much like a political campaign.
The Facebook CEO says his personal challenge for 2017 is to have visited and met people in every state. That means he will travel to about 30 states in 2017, according to a Facebook post.
"My work is about connecting the world and giving everyone a voice," Zuckerberg wrote. "I want to personally hear more of those voices this year."
"A closer examination of SEC documents reveals Zuck only needs to still own enough Facebook stock or have the board’s approval to be allowed to serve in government indefinitely," the technology news outlet reported. "Combined with Zuckerberg’s announcement yesterday that his 2017 personal challenge is to meet and listen to people in all 50 states, this fact lends weight to the idea that Zuckerberg may be serious about diving into politics."
Certainly his 30-state tour sounds very much like a political campaign.
The Facebook CEO says his personal challenge for 2017 is to have visited and met people in every state. That means he will travel to about 30 states in 2017, according to a Facebook post.
"My work is about connecting the world and giving everyone a voice," Zuckerberg wrote. "I want to personally hear more of those voices this year."
Ugh.
Not to surprising. With the Trump precedent no reason for major company CEOs not to take a run at office if they want because apparently conflicts of interest are not a thing.
"A closer examination of SEC documents reveals Zuck only needs to still own enough Facebook stock or have the board’s approval to be allowed to serve in government indefinitely," the technology news outlet reported. "Combined with Zuckerberg’s announcement yesterday that his 2017 personal challenge is to meet and listen to people in all 50 states, this fact lends weight to the idea that Zuckerberg may be serious about diving into politics."
Certainly his 30-state tour sounds very much like a political campaign.
The Facebook CEO says his personal challenge for 2017 is to have visited and met people in every state. That means he will travel to about 30 states in 2017, according to a Facebook post.
"My work is about connecting the world and giving everyone a voice," Zuckerberg wrote. "I want to personally hear more of those voices this year."
Ugh.
Because what could be better than a man who literally controls all of the information half the world sees and uses as news running for an elected office?
A man who will literally have all of the information about anyone who runs against him and anyone who is voting in every election.
"A closer examination of SEC documents reveals Zuck only needs to still own enough Facebook stock or have the board’s approval to be allowed to serve in government indefinitely," the technology news outlet reported. "Combined with Zuckerberg’s announcement yesterday that his 2017 personal challenge is to meet and listen to people in all 50 states, this fact lends weight to the idea that Zuckerberg may be serious about diving into politics."
Certainly his 30-state tour sounds very much like a political campaign.
The Facebook CEO says his personal challenge for 2017 is to have visited and met people in every state. That means he will travel to about 30 states in 2017, according to a Facebook post.
"My work is about connecting the world and giving everyone a voice," Zuckerberg wrote. "I want to personally hear more of those voices this year."
Ugh.
Meanwhile he's suing indigenous Hawaiians because they have access rights to chunks of their land that his new Hawaii mansion covers.
Y'all should reread the summary of Sanders' opposition file someone posted right after the election.
It was BAD.
I read it and was unimpressed. Being on unemployment? Stealing electricity? Shit, that stuff would play up his street cred with the working class.
They have the guy on video in front of the fucking Sandinistas while they chant what is essentially "Death to America". Like, be serious here. This plays directly in to the stereotypes he'd be trying desperately to avoid and hits him directly in the demographics y'all are claiming would have gave him a better shot then Clinton.
And as Ebum mentioned, the media would have gone ballistic. This is way better then the email story.
The email story is worse than all the opposition research in the world because it was being investigated by James Comey. None of the stuff on Sanders even comes close to the damage from that letter.
I disagree, the email story is only worse because she got into the general. If it had been Bernie this or scandals like it would have caught fire because in presidential races the candidate everyone targets as the worst ever is the Democrat. That Obama was able to slide from this is an exception. That's how good a politician he is.
Edit: the FBI may have already had an opening with Bernie via his wife's college adventures. That's all the excuse comey would need to crucify h like they did with Hillary. All that would change is how they'd do it.
Edit: the GOP don't hold back on dem candidates in the general, whoever wins the primaries is getting their full attention and they'll bury them alive in scandals to make this a reality, helped by the media and now third parties like Russia, FBI, Wikileaks.
Bernie wouldn't be left alone in that spotlight, his primary with Hillary was a preview for what it's like for him in the general and that was her holding back. Look what past candidates like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and al gore went through.
Bernie's wife's college adventures?
Was Bernie's wife secretary of state at the time?
I know there's a fanatical belief that Hillary was the perfect candidate but she wasn't! She had low approval ratings going in and they never improved!
This is complicated but, how about not running candidates under FBI investigation
So the Republican congress starts a witch hunt on every Democrat that could possibly be a good presidential candidate so optics make them look like criminals. Democrats never win again.
The gist is that a marketing firm called Cambridge Analytica is able to use Facebook, online quizzes, and other metadata to precisely profile people. Trump hired them, and thus his campaign was able to micro-target voting demographics with adds custom made to win them over.
While I did not know about this, it's no surprise. What was illuminating for me is how big a role this plays in the "bubble" or alt-reality many Trump voters seem to live in. I'd unintentionally assumed that bubbling yourself is an proactive thing. You would have to seek out your preferred info and manually filter out stuff you don't want. This article shows that it's a passive thing. If you do so much as use Facebook, you can be fed a constant stream of tailor made adds that re-inforce your preconceived bias.
What's especially worrying is that everybody is susceptible to this. I fell for the fake news about Trump calling Republicans gullible because it perfectly fit my biases about Trump and Republicans.* It takes a large investment of time and focusing your attention to stay reasonably informed with any accuracy. Those two things are in short supply for even the most well meaning of us.
God help us all.
*To the credit of D&D, it was debunked in the next two post.
We should have spent the last decade filling our bench so that in 2016 we had more nationally-recognized politicians who were willing to throw their hat in the ring.
I wonder if a more contested primary would have been ultimately good for Clinton. Most of what I remember from her was Trump bashing. It was beautiful to see, but futile. A primary made up of a broader swath of Dems, Libs, and Progs might have forced Clinton to shore up her weaknesses. Nobody gets in their best shape if they aren't challenged.
No one could have predicted Comey. If anything the fault lies with Obama for not firing his ass after the first press conference
Then the right gets to bloviate about an Obama conspiracy to put Clinton in the White House. However, firing Comey might still have been the least bad option. The really galling thing about Comey is he timed his fuckery for max impact. Without him to pull that last minute stunt, we'd probable have Madame President Clinton right now.
There's also the fact that Bernie was strongest in the rust belt states that ended up losing Hillary the election. What works in the primary isn't the same as what works in the general. Bernie may have lost the primary, but he also might have won the general.
Clinton beat Bernie in most of the "Rust Belt" including crushing him in Pennsylvania and Ohio. He did win Wisconsin and Michigan, but the latter by ~1.5% compared to double digit wins by Clinton in those states.
Y'all should reread the summary of Sanders' opposition file someone posted right after the election.
It was BAD.
I read it and was unimpressed. Being on unemployment? Stealing electricity? Shit, that stuff would play up his street cred with the working class.
They have the guy on video in front of the fucking Sandinistas while they chant what is essentially "Death to America". Like, be serious here. This plays directly in to the stereotypes he'd be trying desperately to avoid and hits him directly in the demographics y'all are claiming would have gave him a better shot then Clinton.
And as Ebum mentioned, the media would have gone ballistic. This is way better then the email story.
The email story is worse than all the opposition research in the world because it was being investigated by James Comey. None of the stuff on Sanders even comes close to the damage from that letter.
I disagree, the email story is only worse because she got into the general. If it had been Bernie this or scandals like it would have caught fire because in presidential races the candidate everyone targets as the worst ever is the Democrat. That Obama was able to slide from this is an exception. That's how good a politician he is.
Edit: the FBI may have already had an opening with Bernie via his wife's college adventures. That's all the excuse comey would need to crucify h like they did with Hillary. All that would change is how they'd do it.
Edit: the GOP don't hold back on dem candidates in the general, whoever wins the primaries is getting their full attention and they'll bury them alive in scandals to make this a reality, helped by the media and now third parties like Russia, FBI, Wikileaks.
Bernie wouldn't be left alone in that spotlight, his primary with Hillary was a preview for what it's like for him in the general and that was her holding back. Look what past candidates like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and al gore went through.
Bernie's wife's college adventures?
Was Bernie's wife secretary of state at the time?
I know there's a fanatical belief that Hillary was the perfect candidate but she wasn't! She had low approval ratings going in and they never improved!
This is complicated but, how about not running candidates under FBI investigation
So the Republican congress starts a witch hunt on every Democrat that could possibly be a good presidential candidate so optics make them look like criminals. Democrats never win again.
Sure, let them put every Democrat under investigation, that would be comical
But I mean aren't most of you pretty much already of the belief Democrats will never win again, since Hillary was the perfect candidate but the deck is too badly stacked for any Democrat to win?
Y'all should reread the summary of Sanders' opposition file someone posted right after the election.
It was BAD.
I read it and was unimpressed. Being on unemployment? Stealing electricity? Shit, that stuff would play up his street cred with the working class.
They have the guy on video in front of the fucking Sandinistas while they chant what is essentially "Death to America". Like, be serious here. This plays directly in to the stereotypes he'd be trying desperately to avoid and hits him directly in the demographics y'all are claiming would have gave him a better shot then Clinton.
And as Ebum mentioned, the media would have gone ballistic. This is way better then the email story.
The email story is worse than all the opposition research in the world because it was being investigated by James Comey. None of the stuff on Sanders even comes close to the damage from that letter.
I disagree, the email story is only worse because she got into the general. If it had been Bernie this or scandals like it would have caught fire because in presidential races the candidate everyone targets as the worst ever is the Democrat. That Obama was able to slide from this is an exception. That's how good a politician he is.
Edit: the FBI may have already had an opening with Bernie via his wife's college adventures. That's all the excuse comey would need to crucify h like they did with Hillary. All that would change is how they'd do it.
Edit: the GOP don't hold back on dem candidates in the general, whoever wins the primaries is getting their full attention and they'll bury them alive in scandals to make this a reality, helped by the media and now third parties like Russia, FBI, Wikileaks.
Bernie wouldn't be left alone in that spotlight, his primary with Hillary was a preview for what it's like for him in the general and that was her holding back. Look what past candidates like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and al gore went through.
Bernie's wife's college adventures?
Was Bernie's wife secretary of state at the time?
I know there's a fanatical belief that Hillary was the perfect candidate but she wasn't! She had low approval ratings going in and they never improved!
This is complicated but, how about not running candidates under FBI investigation
So the Republican congress starts a witch hunt on every Democrat that could possibly be a good presidential candidate so optics make them look like criminals. Democrats never win again.
Sure, let them put every Democrat under investigation, that would be comical
But I mean aren't most of you pretty much already of the belief Democrats will never win again, since Hillary was the perfect candidate but the deck is too badly stacked for any Democrat to win?
I don't think a single person has said that or thought that in the entirety of the thread.
Hillary was a candidate with flaws. All candidates have flaws, and yes, the impact of hers was underestimated.
It's also not the only reason she lost. Boiling it down to 'Hillary was a bad candidate and that's all!' is what's going to keep the Democrats from winning again. Because it's not the only angle they need to figure out.
WATCH THIS SPACE.
+11
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
Y'all should reread the summary of Sanders' opposition file someone posted right after the election.
It was BAD.
I read it and was unimpressed. Being on unemployment? Stealing electricity? Shit, that stuff would play up his street cred with the working class.
They have the guy on video in front of the fucking Sandinistas while they chant what is essentially "Death to America". Like, be serious here. This plays directly in to the stereotypes he'd be trying desperately to avoid and hits him directly in the demographics y'all are claiming would have gave him a better shot then Clinton.
And as Ebum mentioned, the media would have gone ballistic. This is way better then the email story.
The email story is worse than all the opposition research in the world because it was being investigated by James Comey. None of the stuff on Sanders even comes close to the damage from that letter.
I disagree, the email story is only worse because she got into the general. If it had been Bernie this or scandals like it would have caught fire because in presidential races the candidate everyone targets as the worst ever is the Democrat. That Obama was able to slide from this is an exception. That's how good a politician he is.
Edit: the FBI may have already had an opening with Bernie via his wife's college adventures. That's all the excuse comey would need to crucify h like they did with Hillary. All that would change is how they'd do it.
Edit: the GOP don't hold back on dem candidates in the general, whoever wins the primaries is getting their full attention and they'll bury them alive in scandals to make this a reality, helped by the media and now third parties like Russia, FBI, Wikileaks.
Bernie wouldn't be left alone in that spotlight, his primary with Hillary was a preview for what it's like for him in the general and that was her holding back. Look what past candidates like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and al gore went through.
Bernie's wife's college adventures?
Was Bernie's wife secretary of state at the time?
I know there's a fanatical belief that Hillary was the perfect candidate but she wasn't! She had low approval ratings going in and they never improved!
This is complicated but, how about not running candidates under FBI investigation
So the Republican congress starts a witch hunt on every Democrat that could possibly be a good presidential candidate so optics make them look like criminals. Democrats never win again.
Sure, let them put every Democrat under investigation, that would be comical
But I mean aren't most of you pretty much already of the belief Democrats will never win again, since Hillary was the perfect candidate but the deck is too badly stacked for any Democrat to win?
I don't think a single person has said that or thought that in the entirety of the thread.
Hillary was a candidate with flaws. All candidates have flaws, and yes, the impact of hers was underestimated.
It's also not the only reason she lost. Boiling it down to 'Hillary was a bad candidate and that's all!' is what's going to keep the Democrats from winning again. Because it's not the only angle they need to figure out.
The candidates they put forward is the only angle they have any control over. Voting rights? 30+ states are controlled by Republican legislatures, and soon they'll have the federal courts. Blocking Trump appointees? The only weapon they have against that is the filibuster, and as soon as they use it it'll be stripped from them. Russia? Comey? The apparatuses that could deal with that are in Republican hands.
The only thing that matters right now is figuring out what the party stands for. Finding the principles that will impassion their base to engage in large scale grass roots organizing, and putting forward candidates who represent those principles, that can rally people to the polls in 2018.
The candidates they put forward is the only angle they have any control over. Voting rights? 30+ states are controlled by Republican legislatures, and soon they'll have the federal courts. Blocking Trump appointees? The only weapon they have against that is the filibuster, and as soon as they use it it'll be stripped from them. Russia? Comey? The apparatuses that could deal with that are in Republican hands.
The only thing that matters right now is figuring out what the party stands for.
Sure, they have control over this.
Finding the principles that will impassion their base to engage in large scale grass roots organizing, and putting forward candidates who represent those principles, [\b]that can rally people to the polls in 2018.
Almost everything else at this point is hot air.
That is not how primaries work, it's a free for all where the factions have candidates running who want the prize and to the winner go to the spoils. Primaries are a competition, not a coronation of what ever the party defined itself as at the time. Of course someone will be the front runner and everyone else has to be able to beat them in the game so it's important the weaker factions run candidates who can pose a real challenge.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Just as an aside...
Fuck anyone who thought both sides were the same, so vote for a third party or stay at home.
Seriously, fuck them hard.
Geese.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Posts
The chain of events there is staggering.
If Hillary hadn't had that e-mail server
If she hadn't had Huma as her Campaign Vice Chair
If Anthony Weiner wasn't a fucking horrible excuse for a human being
If Comey hadn't had it out for Clinton.
Lose any one of those and the entire thing wouldn't have mattered.
The argument posed wasn't that she that she didn't win, it's that she was unpopular - those elections prove otherwise. Trump had to win on a technicality, if the vote was based on amount of votes cast she'd be the winner. When she fought Obama it was in primaries that were with tougher competition from all sides, it wasn't one on one until much later and she still barely lost. She's the only politician alive with a track record of giving Obama a run for his money yet she's never given credit for it.
I disagree, the email story is only worse because she got into the general. If it had been Bernie this or scandals like it would have caught fire because in presidential races the candidate everyone targets as the worst ever is the Democrat. That Obama was able to slide from this is an exception. That's how good a politician he is.
Edit: the FBI may have already had an opening with Bernie via his wife's college adventures. That's all the excuse comey would need to crucify h like they did with Hillary. All that would change is how they'd do it.
Edit: the GOP don't hold back on dem candidates in the general, whoever wins the primaries is getting their full attention and they'll bury them alive in scandals to make this a reality, helped by the media and now third parties like Russia, FBI, Wikileaks.
Bernie wouldn't be left alone in that spotlight, his primary with Hillary was a preview for what it's like for him in the general and that was her holding back. Look what past candidates like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and al gore went through.
From what I've been able to make out
Centrists that didn't trust either Clinton or Trump (yeah, fuck Comey). That incorrectly assumed that people would keep a better eye on Trump and assumed he wouldn't be that bad (yeah, some of them are privileged whites, that aren't in the firing line of most of the modern GOP's awful platform). I think this is a group that could be persuaded, mainly because they aren't asking for awful shit.
Blue Collar workers simply put modern times have not been great for some industries. Trump sold the lie that he could bring their jobs back, which is what they wanted to hear. They didn't want to hear plans about helping them switch gears into something new. This is a mixed bag, I think some of them could be persuaded to vote democratic in the future. The sticking point is there are sizable chunks of this group that can't accept that their current or former livelihood has been rendered obsolete by changes in demand or technology and perhaps no one can help them. Some of these guys might get caught up in the vicious cycle of always voting for the outsider that promises to bring back the good times.
both siders that got fed up with the current state of affairs, that went with the biggest perceived outsider to shake things up. Again another mixed group. I think some could be brought around to the idea that both sides theory is a bunch of bullshit, but there a number where, good luck getting them to admit that both sides aren't same.
Team Republican democrats really need to stop courting this group. There are decent human beings here, but this group is to a point where, barring something extreme happening to them that shatters their worldview, they'll always vote Republican. The issues don't matter. The fact don't matter. They view politics as a sport and as long as their team wins, they just don't care.
Team Awful the racists, bigots and asshole oligarchs. I think this was a smaller chunk of the Trump coalition than people made it out to be. Needless to say, fuck these people and their views. No one should be trying to help advance their shit causes.
That said, we also have two real issues. One, there is the coordinated effort by the right to disenfranchise voters that don't vote for their people. That shit probably cost democrats votes. Maybe Clinton would have won with larger margins than Trump, maybe she would have even slimmer one or maybe Trump would have even smaller number but still be in the white ass pissing and moaning about crowd sizes. The other issue is turnout. We have a ton of voters that just don't show up and it has nothing to do with voter suppression tactics, being fucked by the rich or some sort of emergency that prevents them from getting to the polls. The former issue could be tackled without address the latter one, but it would make things easier if the latter was nearly as large. The question is, how do we get those non-voters involved? If more more them showed up, would it force the GOP to moderate because some of the gerrymandering bullshit is also reliant on sizable chunks of moderate voters staying home during elections. How do we get them off their asses and involved in politics?
Finally, we have three major groups that are to blame for much of the dysfunction in US politics.
-The Republican Party, I know this is going to ruffle some feathers, but let's be honest, the current Republican leadership has been doing it damn best to undermine democracy. Be that voter suppression, gerrymandering or outright sabotage of good ideas they disagree with. Hell, there was the one quote from a McConnell aid about how they liked both sidesism because it resulted in more people on the left staying home. The Republican Party leadership has ceased looking out for the country and has opted to cater to bigots and oligarchs. In order to maintain power since it has become apparent, that their platform is just no that popular, they've gone out of their way to foster an environment of dysfunction to discourage people from wanting to participate.
-The corporate media, I know I'm preaching to the choir, but the big media outlets are fucking worthless and have been all to keen about gleefully watching the country burn down because it'll be great for the ratings. I think people should think for themselves and be critical of the media they consume, but I can see how people have started to believe stupid shit because to be far, they shouldn't have to constantly wonder if the news is really news or just bullshit based on easily disproved claims.
-The public, yes, you heard me. Frankly, people have gotten lazy. Both sides as a theory took off because people couldn't be bothered to research who they were voting for, nor did many those want to have to admit that sometimes they make bad choices. That they would rather treat politics like a team sport. That they didn't want have to look at multiple news sources so they can catch on when an outlet puts ratings over the facts, nor do they want to make the effort of finding reliable outlets from both sides of the spectrum that aren't the big news companies. They don't want to spend time keeping current with event outside their locality. They don't want to have to constantly learn new things, in order to be better informed. They don't want to have to confront that their disagreements or different ways of doing things (how many of us have heard the line, never discuss politics at the dinner table. Well how the fuck are people supposed to learn to civilly deal with differences of opinion if everyone is to damn afraid to talk about what is going on because things might get heated). Democracy demands understanding and participation and many Americans don't seem interested in participating, while a number that do participate, don't give damn about understanding how it's suppose to work.
http://www.cleveland.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/01/dennis_kucinich_cheers_preside.html
Wasn't Bernie doing something similar post-inauguration? I remember he extended a hand to Trump.
I mean yeah that sucks but are you just looking to make all liberals guilty by association or is there some point that I'm missing
He's a member of the Democratic party who is continuing the chorus of not resisting the GOP like they should be. Nor is he the first liberal to do this, RE: Elizabeth Warren.
How can my post be interpreted as making all guilty by association*? I'm a liberal. It's another example that this behavior has infected our side, not only the centrists. This makes this a larger problem then we anticipated.
If I see a liberal politician doing something I find distasteful I'm going to call them out on it, just as I would a Blue Dog or a centrist.
Add another to the list of disappointing Democrats who need to be pressed to get their heads together. We can't do this properly if liberals/progressive politicians are off limits.
* it's a little late for this complaint seeing as Warren has been bought up doing something worse upthread and she's a liberal politics with a higher profile than Kucinich.
edit: If this is off-topic I'll move it to the appropriate thread.
What you did just there was closer to going, "I wonder what Dukakis is up to now."
And if you don't see how such a post is intended to make all the members of the progressive wing of the party look equally culpable in Kucinich's actions then what, exactly, was the point? Just getting another random person's perspective? He's not a politician anymore.
It's a blatant smear, and judging by the post immediately following yours, not an unsuccessful one.
I told you my point.
It's not a smear of the movement, which was neither my intent nor do I find it a reasonable example to use to smear a whole moment (which I'm apart of, btw).
He was a politician, one who has a history with the Democrats and had a presence in the '08 primaries. He isn't a random liberal speaking to the press.
By your omission of the rest of my post I'll take it you disagree with holding liberal politics feet to the fire when they do something bad. Which is weird stance to take since you criticized Warren.
No, what there's an actual pattern of in your posts is giving centrists a pass and lecturing progressives about what's wrong with them. Thanks, we're good.
Of those things, the only thing that GOP blocking has anything to do with is the healthcare system (well yeah they stopped Obama from closing Gitmo, but he could have transferred all of the detainees out)
Surveillance, deportation, war on drugs, militarized police, wall street, basically ceding ground every time there was an environmental catastrophe to whatever corporation did it, believing almost to the end that the GOP would come around
Obama was a great president but lets not put him on a pedestal
No, my point was to hold every Democrat's get to the fire.
I already explained why I was doing that too, and why it was productive. I didn't post it without the proper context before or after.
I do find it unproductive not to hold every faction accountable for making mistakes, no faction is above reproach. If we are going to win being blind to our own flaws
is going to get us losses, which was a mistake Hillary did during the election as I've spoken many times in the past.
I've never gave centrists a pass, not here or in the past. Have you followed my posts in political threads the last few years? My opinions about centrists haven't changed back then or now.
I'm "lecturing" my fellow progressives who I disagree with when it comes to their conclusions, and they've done the same back to me. This is part of the process of learning how to reform the Democratic party when we lose. The party wasn't holding peace parades during the years post-Reagan until the centrists took control and gave us victories. (What they did I'm still hold against them for being dicks and turning the party rightward. Which is why I was relieved when Hillary ran a campaign in '16 that was more left leaning than I thought possible, and before that I thought exactly like you do.)
No, we're not good. The party and the left have a long way to go before "good" is on anywhere near the achievable list.
edit: The fact that I don't think the centrists are evil incarnate in every post does not mean I don't criticize them when they need it. Unfortunately I've found greater disappointment with my own side (since the centrists have actually evolved into being less batshit recently - which was a win for us as a movement), which until Bernie ran I didn't realize how large the problem was because the far left usually don't have that kind of presence in the Democratic party in the modern era.
edit: We're a deeply flawed movement and we're going to stay that way until we drastically change how we do things in politics. I'd rather we not go back to being obscure and ignored in the Democratic party.
Bernie's wife's college adventures?
Was Bernie's wife secretary of state at the time?
I know there's a fanatical belief that Hillary was the perfect candidate but she wasn't! She had low approval ratings going in and they never improved!
This is complicated but, how about not running candidates under FBI investigation
She needn't be the SOS for the GOP to bring the full weight of their not wanting a Democrat winning the presidential to be a problem for Bernie had he been the nominee.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-jane-vermont-burlington-college-219114
Stop thinking of how the election happened, and think how it'd be if Bernie were the nominee.
We know Comey wanted to sink the Democrats, why wouldn't he do the same with this? I doubt the FBI would have let it go that easily had Bernie been the nominee.
Who knows what other shit they'd try to smear him with, aside from that?
Remember who your enemy is, the GOP will try everything to bury the Democratic nominee and they proved this election that going after them with the FBI was on the table. They're not going to go soft on Bernie had he been in that position.
edit: The job the GOP did on Hillary wasn't a one time offer, that's standard procedure against Democratic presidential candidates. I bought up the previous nominees for a reason.
There is no reason to believe another Dem's campaign wouldn't have done things like: actually hire folks Obama's team, focus on swing states, focus on widely popular policies, listen to state parties, etc.
I mean seriously the campaign spent 5 times as much on advertising in CA than it did in MI.
Maybe, maybe not. Either way that's no guarantee they wouldn't find something difficult for Bernie to counter to harm him, and it's not like the man hasn't got his ow flaws - they're simply different from Hillary's, like Hillary's were from Obama's and his were to Kerry's. They'll mould their attacks to the candidate, and even Obama isn't immune to those kind of smear campaigns. No politician is.
And Hillary's campaign did hire people from Obama's team.
Focusing on swing states would have worked for Hillary, unfortunately the party didn't realize the Rust belt was included or how hard it would be an establishment candidate to break through. This ignores he'd have his own problems, which will not be identical. From the primaries he had less engagement with women and minorities, for instance.
They're not going to go after Bernie exactly like Hillary, they're not stupid. They have their own playbook for him IIRC. Probably for every Democrat in the primaries.
Presidential candidates spend in "weird" non-swing or otherwise non-important states for a number of reasons. In the short term, it can help downballot candidates. Hillary was never going to win Missouri--but perhaps activating Dems could have helped Kander win. Winning the Senate was a tougher battle, yet just as important as winning the White House. We probably wouldn't have won the House, but the more seats the better, plus all kinds of state/local candidates and initiatives. In the long run, you're helping build up loyalty for your party and reduce loyalty for the other. Get someone to vote Democrat once, they're more likely to go blue in the future. Do well in Arizona and Georgia, and you're setting some seeds for 2020 or 2024. On the other hand, look at polling in the three "blue wall" rust belt states that Trump won--Hillary consistently won those polls. Presumably their internals were similar. Yes, it's safer to spend all of your resources in a handful of swing states, but after a point you're just throwing more money at a state you're largely guaranteed to win.
That strategy didn't work, of course, but the Comey letter came, what, a little over a week before the election? That totally changed the state of play, and Hillary did adjust, she spent more time and resources in Michigan at the very end of the race. But it's also a true October Surprise. It's all well and good for you to play Wednesday morning campaign strategist, but it's not something the Clinton campaign could've planned for.
They made the wrong call, but it was an understandable one. If Hillary had spent all of her time in the Rust belt, and then at the end of October a Trump child rape lawsuit advanced, she might've won the Rust Belt in a landslide and everyone would be pissed at her for not trying to make inroads elsewhere or helping downballot candidates.
There are absolutely races here that the Democrats could and should win. Why are Republicans running unopposed in districts that Hillary carried?
This needs to be the Democrat focus. Get candidates for every race. Stop focusing on every 4 years, and focus on every damned election.
Build up your bench so we're not looking at 2020 and trying to come up with names that make any kind of sense.
Not to surprising. With the Trump precedent no reason for major company CEOs not to take a run at office if they want because apparently conflicts of interest are not a thing.
Kucinich wasn't even relevant when he was running for President. Which wasn't in 2016.
Because what could be better than a man who literally controls all of the information half the world sees and uses as news running for an elected office?
A man who will literally have all of the information about anyone who runs against him and anyone who is voting in every election.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Meanwhile he's suing indigenous Hawaiians because they have access rights to chunks of their land that his new Hawaii mansion covers.
To be followed by one of the Kardashians, I suppose.
So the Republican congress starts a witch hunt on every Democrat that could possibly be a good presidential candidate so optics make them look like criminals. Democrats never win again.
The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz
The gist is that a marketing firm called Cambridge Analytica is able to use Facebook, online quizzes, and other metadata to precisely profile people. Trump hired them, and thus his campaign was able to micro-target voting demographics with adds custom made to win them over.
While I did not know about this, it's no surprise. What was illuminating for me is how big a role this plays in the "bubble" or alt-reality many Trump voters seem to live in. I'd unintentionally assumed that bubbling yourself is an proactive thing. You would have to seek out your preferred info and manually filter out stuff you don't want. This article shows that it's a passive thing. If you do so much as use Facebook, you can be fed a constant stream of tailor made adds that re-inforce your preconceived bias.
What's especially worrying is that everybody is susceptible to this. I fell for the fake news about Trump calling Republicans gullible because it perfectly fit my biases about Trump and Republicans.* It takes a large investment of time and focusing your attention to stay reasonably informed with any accuracy. Those two things are in short supply for even the most well meaning of us.
God help us all.
*To the credit of D&D, it was debunked in the next two post.
I wonder if a more contested primary would have been ultimately good for Clinton. Most of what I remember from her was Trump bashing. It was beautiful to see, but futile. A primary made up of a broader swath of Dems, Libs, and Progs might have forced Clinton to shore up her weaknesses. Nobody gets in their best shape if they aren't challenged.
Then the right gets to bloviate about an Obama conspiracy to put Clinton in the White House. However, firing Comey might still have been the least bad option. The really galling thing about Comey is he timed his fuckery for max impact. Without him to pull that last minute stunt, we'd probable have Madame President Clinton right now.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Sure, let them put every Democrat under investigation, that would be comical
But I mean aren't most of you pretty much already of the belief Democrats will never win again, since Hillary was the perfect candidate but the deck is too badly stacked for any Democrat to win?
I don't think a single person has said that or thought that in the entirety of the thread.
Hillary was a candidate with flaws. All candidates have flaws, and yes, the impact of hers was underestimated.
It's also not the only reason she lost. Boiling it down to 'Hillary was a bad candidate and that's all!' is what's going to keep the Democrats from winning again. Because it's not the only angle they need to figure out.
The candidates they put forward is the only angle they have any control over. Voting rights? 30+ states are controlled by Republican legislatures, and soon they'll have the federal courts. Blocking Trump appointees? The only weapon they have against that is the filibuster, and as soon as they use it it'll be stripped from them. Russia? Comey? The apparatuses that could deal with that are in Republican hands.
The only thing that matters right now is figuring out what the party stands for. Finding the principles that will impassion their base to engage in large scale grass roots organizing, and putting forward candidates who represent those principles, that can rally people to the polls in 2018.
Almost everything else at this point is hot air.
Sure, they have control over this.
That is not how primaries work, it's a free for all where the factions have candidates running who want the prize and to the winner go to the spoils. Primaries are a competition, not a coronation of what ever the party defined itself as at the time. Of course someone will be the front runner and everyone else has to be able to beat them in the game so it's important the weaker factions run candidates who can pose a real challenge.
Fuck anyone who thought both sides were the same, so vote for a third party or stay at home.
Seriously, fuck them hard.
Geese.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Especially in this election.
There are mercifully very few people who Trump is the same as.
A woman this stupid got 1,457,222 votes for President of the United States. Or she's just a sham propped up by the right to hurt the Democratic Party.
Pourquoi pas les deux?