I'm glad so many people know exactly what the stupid, failing DNC that got Obama elected twice did wrong this time around. I hope everyone calling for the DNC to be gutted is ready to sign up to replace them and lead the charge into 2020.
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
They did not get Obama elected. Obama got Obama elected.
Had this conversation already. Go back a few pages and find the list of people on Clinton's campaign team that came from both Obama's campaigns.
It includes her chief strategist and head of polling.
Right. Did they make any speeches? I mean you're ignoring the fact that Obama was the most charismatic and personable leader since JFK.
So it's not about neglecting the rust belt or the Midwest or about the economy. It's about being charismatic and personable.
Or is it about all of those things?
It was a couple of points.
Lots of stuff could have swung it.
1 in 100 people could have swung it.
Exactly.
A race without the FBI fuckery could have swung it
Making Trump's constant "hilarious gaffes" the scandals they should have been could have swung it
Killing the ridiculous innuendo that implied that a woman who has spent 25 years having every facet of her life torn to pieces and scrutinised under a microscope to the point that Congress spent over 2,000 days and 500million dollars investigating the e-mail procedure the previous two Secretaries of State used and had her work e-mails leaked online and came out without anything that could raise more than an eyebrow was still somehow managing to be the biggest lyingest liar and the most corrupt woman in politics could have swung it.
I'm glad so many people know exactly what the stupid, failing DNC that got Obama elected twice did wrong this time around. I hope everyone calling for the DNC to be gutted is ready to sign up to replace them and lead the charge into 2020.
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
Largely agree with the first paragraph but on the second: it was mentioned. She was trying to go for down ticket help and some were concerned about that. Given the data they had it was a decent idea (answer is always better information)
I'm glad so many people know exactly what the stupid, failing DNC that got Obama elected twice did wrong this time around. I hope everyone calling for the DNC to be gutted is ready to sign up to replace them and lead the charge into 2020.
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
Polling was off. The Clinton campaign was doing some weird stuff in the last days of the campaign. But everybody's polling was off. The only reason Trump was in the places he needed to be was because those were the only places he could be to make any difference.
it's kind of a blur now, that final rush (and then the crushing blackout), and I haven't gone back to look... but I do seem to recall something like, "Wisconsin? WTF is he doing in Wisconsin? and Michigan?"
and the assumption that he was flailing, that it was completely wasted effort.
The only guy who called it right was Michael Moore. I'm still amazed at that. And the backlash he got here for it!
I'm not going to search through 50,000 pages to find specific posts whining about it. I remember hedge and preacher were, for one thing. "It's a publicity stunt for his movie, PEC says this is 99% in the bag, etc"
I'm looking through (lefty) predictions of Trump winning and why, and it's basically Moore and like David Wong from Cracked that got it. I can't believe how myopic everyone else was. I was!
"We just need a true conservative!" is just as foolish when you replace "conservative" with "liberal."
The problem is that many Democrats equate 'centrist' with 'corporatist.' Applying that lens to the problem, we sure as hell do need a more liberal candidate.
Donald promised his voters he would punish their enemies.
So did Bernie Sanders.
Clearly, the take away here is that we need a candidate that will promise to literally destroy Wall Street and jail every member of the GOP!
It's not about 'punishing' anyone. Thanks to how they're playing the campaign finance game, Democratic politicians are currently doing the bidding of corporations like Boeing and Archer Daniels Midland. And with the advent of the tea party true believers, Dems can no longer even pretend they have taken the high ground on corporate welfare.
It's about the appearance of corruption, and it won't stop until the DNC and other groups cease believing they only way to victory is soliciting corporate donors for cash. That way, when Hillary supports something incredibly stupid like the ethanol mandate, she can say she does so because she believes in it, not because ADM gave her a shitload of money.
I have to wonder if putting Bernie up to the plate would have made any difference. It seems apparent now that a lot of Trump voters just wanted change, and wanted it so much that they were willing to overlook the fact that it came in a big racist orange package. To the people who valued novelty over common-sense, nobody from "the establishment" was ever going to be an acceptable candidate, least of all Hilary.
It was obvious from the beginning that Hilary was the DNC's preferred candidate and the leaked emails proved that pretty much everybody at the DNC was throwing their support behind her rather than Bernie, I just wonder if we'd have seen a different outcome if both candidates had been given equal support in the primaries. Hilary would clearly make a better president, but she didn't inspire people to feel feelings, and you can't deny that Bernie was awfully good at that.
I know quite a few women who disagree strongly with that.
I'm glad so many people know exactly what the stupid, failing DNC that got Obama elected twice did wrong this time around. I hope everyone calling for the DNC to be gutted is ready to sign up to replace them and lead the charge into 2020.
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
Polling was off. The Clinton campaign was doing some weird stuff in the last days of the campaign. But everybody's polling was off. The only reason Trump was in the places he needed to be was because those were the only places he could be to make any difference.
it's kind of a blur now, that final rush (and then the crushing blackout), and I haven't gone back to look... but I do seem to recall something like, "Wisconsin? WTF is he doing in Wisconsin? and Michigan?"
and the assumption that he was flailing, that it was completely wasted effort.
The only guy who called it right was Michael Moore. I'm still amazed at that. And the backlash he got here for it!
I'm not going to search through 50,000 pages to find specific posts whining about it. I remember hedge and preacher were, for one thing. "It's a publicity stunt for his movie, PEC says this is 99% in the bag, etc"
I'm looking through (lefty) predictions of Trump winning and why, and it's basically Moore and like David Wong from Cracked that got it. I can't believe how myopic everyone else was. I was!
I mean, someone is going to guess the correct outcome when you've got the entire country trying to predict it. Being right in hindsight doesn't necessarily mean they should have been trusted.
I'm glad so many people know exactly what the stupid, failing DNC that got Obama elected twice did wrong this time around. I hope everyone calling for the DNC to be gutted is ready to sign up to replace them and lead the charge into 2020.
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
They did not get Obama elected. Obama got Obama elected.
Had this conversation already. Go back a few pages and find the list of people on Clinton's campaign team that came from both Obama's campaigns.
It includes her chief strategist and head of polling.
Right. Did they make any speeches? I mean you're ignoring the fact that Obama was the most charismatic and personable leader since JFK.
Yeah, let's be clear: Obama won twice on his own charisma. There's a reason that his 2008 keynote speech alone catapulted him to the national level. He's basically got no competition for the spot of greatest American orator currently alive.
Trump won on his own (horrifying) brand of charisma, too.
It's basically the only thing that really matters.
I'm glad so many people know exactly what the stupid, failing DNC that got Obama elected twice did wrong this time around. I hope everyone calling for the DNC to be gutted is ready to sign up to replace them and lead the charge into 2020.
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
Polling was off. The Clinton campaign was doing some weird stuff in the last days of the campaign. But everybody's polling was off. The only reason Trump was in the places he needed to be was because those were the only places he could be to make any difference.
Exactly.
Nobody called this one correctly, except arguably Nate Silver. Nobody saw this coming, on either side. The only polls predicting anything like a close race were on freaking Brietbart.
But now that Clinton has lost it's suddenly OMG WE ARE BETRAYED THEY NEGLECTED THE RUST BELT HOW COULD THEY HAVE BEEN SO STUPID?!?!?
EVERYONE was that stupid. The polls weren't able to handle an election like this. To turn in your own party and demand that they fall on their swords when the winning side failed just as spectacularly is beyond belief.
Like I commented before, this was apparently not quite the case.
Kellyanne Conway's leaked office map:
edit: at least one campaign saw it coming for Michigan, if not both.
That's the same campaign that had no polling towards the end because Trump wouldn't pay them.
I sincerely doubt they saw a win coming.
Especially since they didn't let up on the "rigged" rhetoric until the final hours.
(If that's too small, it's a word cloud about what voters have heard about Trump/Clinton)
In this election, that's the problem. I think the 2010/2014 elections are the reason to indict the Democratic establishment more generally.
It was a problem, one of the problems. It was enabled by who we choose to run. And yeah, the media didn't help. But we dropped the ball, threw interceptions, and didn't have a good offensive line. We can't just yell at the refs because they made bad calls, we have to fix our damn team too.
This is a word map based on media coverage. Please point on the map where you see any words related to policy.
It's entirely the media's fault. Clinton talked about what she would do to help <everyone> constantly, but you wouldn't know it from anyone reporting on her. They are 100% to blame for depressing D voter and handing the election to Donald.
No, dude. That is shortsighted. You cannot lay the blame for this entirely at the feet of the media, they only represent part of the whole picture. We went with a candidate we knew had these problems, but we thought being a policy wonk with a popular president and a good enough economy would make up for it. It didn't. She didn't resonate with enough voters in the parts of the country that she needed to win. If your optics are gonna be about being a part of the problem, a symbol of corruption, a Washington insider, then you could not win 2016. If the zeitgeist continues, you cannot win 2018 or 2020 either.
And what are we going to do to fix "the media" in the case of it being "entirely the media's fault"? We've got no legislative leverage over them, and they profited handily from a horse race. If that's what gets you coverage, if that's what gets your voters to show up in the places you need them, then we need to pushing the firebrand using revolutionary language.
The only problem I have with that is that Republicans won reelection in droves. The public supposedly wanted change, but really I think they just didn't want her.
Obama is the strongest Washington Insider you can get, yet he would have won reelection easily. He is well liked.
I have to wonder if putting Bernie up to the plate would have made any difference. It seems apparent now that a lot of Trump voters just wanted change, and wanted it so much that they were willing to overlook the fact that it came in a big racist orange package. To the people who valued novelty over common-sense, nobody from "the establishment" was ever going to be an acceptable candidate, least of all Hilary.
It was obvious from the beginning that Hilary was the DNC's preferred candidate and the leaked emails proved that pretty much everybody at the DNC was throwing their support behind her rather than Bernie, I just wonder if we'd have seen a different outcome if both candidates had been given equal support in the primaries. Hilary would clearly make a better president, but she didn't inspire people to feel feelings, and you can't deny that Bernie was awfully good at that.
I know quite a few women who disagree strongly with that.
I'm not saying she didn't inspire anybody, but she clearly didn't inspire enough people to feel strongly enough to come out and vote for her, because here we are.
I have to wonder if putting Bernie up to the plate would have made any difference. It seems apparent now that a lot of Trump voters just wanted change, and wanted it so much that they were willing to overlook the fact that it came in a big racist orange package. To the people who valued novelty over common-sense, nobody from "the establishment" was ever going to be an acceptable candidate, least of all Hilary.
It was obvious from the beginning that Hilary was the DNC's preferred candidate and the leaked emails proved that pretty much everybody at the DNC was throwing their support behind her rather than Bernie, I just wonder if we'd have seen a different outcome if both candidates had been given equal support in the primaries. Hilary would clearly make a better president, but she didn't inspire people to feel feelings, and you can't deny that Bernie was awfully good at that.
Not really. Bernie's style of candidacy is the kind of candidate that suffers a lot from scandals of any stripe. That kind of idealist candidate is extremely vulnerable to people getting disillusioned with him in any way at all. And we've seen that the GOP dudes are absolutely not shy at all about making shit up entirely to attach scandals to people where there isn't ven anything there.
He'd have gotten dismantled.
Was Obama not an "idealist candidate"? He seemed to do just fine. What is it about Bernie that you think would make him uniquely vulnerable to the same old lies they'd trot out against anybody the dems ran? Because I can tell you exactly why it was so effective against Hilary; they'd been doing it for two decades already and "where there's smoke there's fire" is an awfully convincing fallacy.
I'm glad so many people know exactly what the stupid, failing DNC that got Obama elected twice did wrong this time around. I hope everyone calling for the DNC to be gutted is ready to sign up to replace them and lead the charge into 2020.
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
Polling was off. The Clinton campaign was doing some weird stuff in the last days of the campaign. But everybody's polling was off. The only reason Trump was in the places he needed to be was because those were the only places he could be to make any difference.
it's kind of a blur now, that final rush (and then the crushing blackout), and I haven't gone back to look... but I do seem to recall something like, "Wisconsin? WTF is he doing in Wisconsin? and Michigan?"
and the assumption that he was flailing, that it was completely wasted effort.
The only guy who called it right was Michael Moore. I'm still amazed at that. And the backlash he got here for it!
I'm not going to search through 50,000 pages to find specific posts whining about it. I remember hedge and preacher were, for one thing. "It's a publicity stunt for his movie, PEC says this is 99% in the bag, etc"
I'm looking through (lefty) predictions of Trump winning and why, and it's basically Moore and like David Wong from Cracked that got it. I can't believe how myopic everyone else was. I was!
I mean, someone is going to guess the correct outcome when you've got the entire country trying to predict it. Being right in hindsight doesn't necessarily mean they should have been trusted.
It's not about guessing some overall result, it's about getting specifics right and then explaining why.
The echo chamber bougie left explanation for Trump's support was "they're all bigots". Sorry, I don't think that gets you to this many voters. So, why did Romney lose and Trump win? This is why.
Again, there are people who voted Obama in both 2008 and 2012 that voted for Trump in 2016.
How many, though? If we look at the last four elections the number of R voters seem mostly static.
Bush 2004: 62,040,610
McCain 2008: 59,948,323
Romney 2012: 60,933,504
Trump 2016: 59,791,135
Granted that Trump's numbers will still probably go up, but I can't see him getting that many more than Romney in total (if he passes him at all).
I don't have the specific numbers, unfortunately, just anecdotes. I posted one a few pages ago from an old white guy, registered Democrat, who gladly supported Obama, gave up his guns after Sandy Hook, and voted Trump because 'he was an outsider'.
It would be useful for the Democrats to figure out if that guy is representative of a trend, and if so, why? If not, why did WI Democrats not show up?
WATCH THIS SPACE.
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
I'm glad so many people know exactly what the stupid, failing DNC that got Obama elected twice did wrong this time around. I hope everyone calling for the DNC to be gutted is ready to sign up to replace them and lead the charge into 2020.
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
Polling was off. The Clinton campaign was doing some weird stuff in the last days of the campaign. But everybody's polling was off. The only reason Trump was in the places he needed to be was because those were the only places he could be to make any difference.
it's kind of a blur now, that final rush (and then the crushing blackout), and I haven't gone back to look... but I do seem to recall something like, "Wisconsin? WTF is he doing in Wisconsin? and Michigan?"
and the assumption that he was flailing, that it was completely wasted effort.
The only guy who called it right was Michael Moore. I'm still amazed at that. And the backlash he got here for it!
I'm not going to search through 50,000 pages to find specific posts whining about it. I remember hedge and preacher were, for one thing. "It's a publicity stunt for his movie, PEC says this is 99% in the bag, etc"
I'm looking through (lefty) predictions of Trump winning and why, and it's basically Moore and like David Wong from Cracked that got it. I can't believe how myopic everyone else was. I was!
I mean, someone is going to guess the correct outcome when you've got the entire country trying to predict it. Being right in hindsight doesn't necessarily mean they should have been trusted.
It's not about guessing some overall result, it's about getting specifics right and then explaining why.
The echo chamber bougie left explanation for Trump's support was "they're all bigots". Sorry, I don't think that gets you to this many voters. So, why did Romney lose and Trump win? This is why.
Romney lost because he was about as inspiring as a tree is to a lumberjack.
I have to wonder if putting Bernie up to the plate would have made any difference. It seems apparent now that a lot of Trump voters just wanted change, and wanted it so much that they were willing to overlook the fact that it came in a big racist orange package. To the people who valued novelty over common-sense, nobody from "the establishment" was ever going to be an acceptable candidate, least of all Hilary.
It was obvious from the beginning that Hilary was the DNC's preferred candidate and the leaked emails proved that pretty much everybody at the DNC was throwing their support behind her rather than Bernie, I just wonder if we'd have seen a different outcome if both candidates had been given equal support in the primaries. Hilary would clearly make a better president, but she didn't inspire people to feel feelings, and you can't deny that Bernie was awfully good at that.
I know quite a few women who disagree strongly with that.
For women Trump lost 1% compared to Romney 2012.
And? Her story, what she's struggled through, and what she's accomplished despite everything that's been thrown at her are inspiring. That there exists a large number of people who didn't see or refused to look because E-MAILS E-MAILS BENGHAZI doesn't change that.
A lot of us were high on that when we had that all presented and read out to us at convention time. Millions of people still believe that she's an amazing person. Let's not rewrite history.
Again, there are people who voted Obama in both 2008 and 2012 that voted for Trump in 2016.
How many, though? If we look at the last four elections the number of R voters seem mostly static.
Bush 2004: 62,040,610
McCain 2008: 59,948,323
Romney 2012: 60,933,504
Trump 2016: 59,791,135
Granted that Trump's numbers will still probably go up, but I can't see him getting that many more than Romney in total (if he passes him at all).
This is precisely what I'm trying to get across, its not that Trump particularly inspired people to get out and vote for him, the issue is that Hilary didn't. You can call it "special snowflake syndrome" or "post-fact politics" all you want, but a candidate has to inspire people to vote for them on an emotional level, not just a rational one. I mean fuck, I think we've just proved that the "rational" part is optional, even.
I'm glad so many people know exactly what the stupid, failing DNC that got Obama elected twice did wrong this time around. I hope everyone calling for the DNC to be gutted is ready to sign up to replace them and lead the charge into 2020.
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
Polling was off. The Clinton campaign was doing some weird stuff in the last days of the campaign. But everybody's polling was off. The only reason Trump was in the places he needed to be was because those were the only places he could be to make any difference.
it's kind of a blur now, that final rush (and then the crushing blackout), and I haven't gone back to look... but I do seem to recall something like, "Wisconsin? WTF is he doing in Wisconsin? and Michigan?"
and the assumption that he was flailing, that it was completely wasted effort.
The only guy who called it right was Michael Moore. I'm still amazed at that. And the backlash he got here for it!
I'm not going to search through 50,000 pages to find specific posts whining about it. I remember hedge and preacher were, for one thing. "It's a publicity stunt for his movie, PEC says this is 99% in the bag, etc"
I'm looking through (lefty) predictions of Trump winning and why, and it's basically Moore and like David Wong from Cracked that got it. I can't believe how myopic everyone else was. I was!
I mean, someone is going to guess the correct outcome when you've got the entire country trying to predict it. Being right in hindsight doesn't necessarily mean they should have been trusted.
It's not about guessing some overall result, it's about getting specifics right and then explaining why.
The echo chamber bougie left explanation for Trump's support was "they're all bigots". Sorry, I don't think that gets you to this many voters. So, why did Romney lose and Trump win? This is why.
Romney lost because he was about as inspiring as a tree is to a lumberjack.
Romney was an out of touch rich asshole and Obama promised hope.
Clinton outperformed Obama 2012 on every income bracket above $50K/year, did you know that?
I'm glad so many people know exactly what the stupid, failing DNC that got Obama elected twice did wrong this time around. I hope everyone calling for the DNC to be gutted is ready to sign up to replace them and lead the charge into 2020.
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
Polling was off. The Clinton campaign was doing some weird stuff in the last days of the campaign. But everybody's polling was off. The only reason Trump was in the places he needed to be was because those were the only places he could be to make any difference.
Exactly.
Nobody called this one correctly, except arguably Nate Silver. Nobody saw this coming, on either side. The only polls predicting anything like a close race were on freaking Brietbart.
But now that Clinton has lost it's suddenly OMG WE ARE BETRAYED THEY NEGLECTED THE RUST BELT HOW COULD THEY HAVE BEEN SO STUPID?!?!?
EVERYONE was that stupid. The polls weren't able to handle an election like this. To turn in your own party and demand that they fall on their swords when the winning side failed just as spectacularly is beyond belief.
It isn't their job to be right, not mine. I believed because I trusted them and they got their asses kicked by Priebus.
And I get that, I do, but if everyone whose job it was to see this coming didn't then it's a terribly, terribly bad decision to turn around and say one side should have known it was coming, it's all completely obvious, they should have followed these simple instructions etc.
Especially when these people got it right twice before.
I'm glad so many people know exactly what the stupid, failing DNC that got Obama elected twice did wrong this time around. I hope everyone calling for the DNC to be gutted is ready to sign up to replace them and lead the charge into 2020.
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
Polling was off. The Clinton campaign was doing some weird stuff in the last days of the campaign. But everybody's polling was off. The only reason Trump was in the places he needed to be was because those were the only places he could be to make any difference.
Exactly.
Nobody called this one correctly, except arguably Nate Silver. Nobody saw this coming, on either side. The only polls predicting anything like a close race were on freaking Brietbart.
But now that Clinton has lost it's suddenly OMG WE ARE BETRAYED THEY NEGLECTED THE RUST BELT HOW COULD THEY HAVE BEEN SO STUPID?!?!?
EVERYONE was that stupid. The polls weren't able to handle an election like this. To turn in your own party and demand that they fall on their swords when the winning side failed just as spectacularly is beyond belief.
Like I commented before, this was apparently not quite the case.
Kellyanne Conway's leaked office map:
edit: at least one campaign saw it coming for Michigan, if not both.
That's the same campaign that had no polling towards the end because Trump wouldn't pay them.
I sincerely doubt they saw a win coming.
Especially since they didn't let up on the "rigged" rhetoric until the final hours.
Was that report on polling sourced, or was it anonymous? Because it looks to me like they knew about Michigan, and not just because of one screencap from a perisope feed. They were campaigning hard there and everyone was scratching their heads about why.
BarcardiAll the WizardsUnder A Rock: AfganistanRegistered Userregular
Bottom line, we all need to acknowledge that right now we are afraid or mad or some combination of the two and it's affecting us. Don't let it dig in.
What we cannot do is fall apart, we have to pick ourselves up and face what is about to happen. Obama knows this. And he trusts that the people voted for him twice know this.
The only only only way to win all of this back is to fight back. To organize. To yes vigorously debate what to do next, but unify. Not look for blame.
Obama had a crucial issue where he had a voting record against Washington conventional wisdom: the Iraq War.
I didn't think we had any chance of losing until like a week before the election this very forum reached the consensus that the Iraq war was actually a good idea after all. That was the first crack, and even then I just went back to trusting the numbers
Dammit, the more days we are removed from this the less I'm able to avoid the conclusion that Sanders was right, even though he still should have bowed out sooner
I'm glad so many people know exactly what the stupid, failing DNC that got Obama elected twice did wrong this time around. I hope everyone calling for the DNC to be gutted is ready to sign up to replace them and lead the charge into 2020.
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
They did not get Obama elected. Obama got Obama elected.
Had this conversation already. Go back a few pages and find the list of people on Clinton's campaign team that came from both Obama's campaigns.
It includes her chief strategist and head of polling.
Right. Did they make any speeches? I mean you're ignoring the fact that Obama was the most charismatic and personable leader since JFK.
Yeah, let's be clear: Obama won twice on his own charisma. There's a reason that his 2008 keynote speech alone catapulted him to the national level. He's basically got no competition for the spot of greatest American orator currently alive.
Trump won on his own (horrifying) brand of charisma, too.
It's basically the only thing that really matters.
Nobody gets elected as President on their own charisma. The team that puts that charisma front and center so it can reach the hearts and minds of voters is invisible, but it's there.
There was a vast team behind Obama that supported him during both campaigns and writing off what they achieved is a terrible disservice to them.
i don't believe they would have actually done anything had she won the electoral college outright
i don't think discounting massive unrest if the election is seen to be stolen and handed to her is a good idea
Maybe funally getting some bipartisan support for overhauling the electoral college, eh?
And having actual reason to locking up these fucking pseudo-insurgent militia assholes doesn't sound too bad...
Anyhow, it's all fantasy. There'll never be an "electoral college upset" or anything like that, just babbling about it is clickbait.
Again, there are people who voted Obama in both 2008 and 2012 that voted for Trump in 2016.
How many, though? If we look at the last four elections the number of R voters seem mostly static.
Bush 2004: 62,040,610
McCain 2008: 59,948,323
Romney 2012: 60,933,504
Trump 2016: 59,791,135
Granted that Trump's numbers will still probably go up, but I can't see him getting that many more than Romney in total (if he passes him at all).
This is precisely what I'm trying to get across, its not that Trump particularly inspired people to get out and vote for him, the issue is that Hilary didn't. You can call it "special snowflake syndrome" or "post-fact politics" all you want, but a candidate has to inspire people to vote for them on an emotional level, not just a rational one. I mean fuck, I think we've just proved that the "rational" part is optional, even.
Democrats can never compete with that, because just letting go of reality isn't in the playbook. They gotta keep "to the rules" and argue logically, have the facts behind them. They will never be able to go full-on magical realm and sell that to the populace like republicans have been increasingly willing and succesful to do. Which I'm actually starting to view as a weakness.
"We just need a true conservative!" is just as foolish when you replace "conservative" with "liberal."
The problem is that many Democrats equate 'centrist' with 'corporatist.' Applying that lens to the problem, we sure as hell do need a more liberal candidate.
Donald promised his voters he would punish their enemies.
So did Bernie Sanders.
Clearly, the take away here is that we need a candidate that will promise to literally destroy Wall Street and jail every member of the GOP!
I think people from Wisconsin would show up to vote for that.
I'm glad so many people know exactly what the stupid, failing DNC that got Obama elected twice did wrong this time around. I hope everyone calling for the DNC to be gutted is ready to sign up to replace them and lead the charge into 2020.
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
Polling was off. The Clinton campaign was doing some weird stuff in the last days of the campaign. But everybody's polling was off. The only reason Trump was in the places he needed to be was because those were the only places he could be to make any difference.
Exactly.
Nobody called this one correctly, except arguably Nate Silver. Nobody saw this coming, on either side. The only polls predicting anything like a close race were on freaking Brietbart.
But now that Clinton has lost it's suddenly OMG WE ARE BETRAYED THEY NEGLECTED THE RUST BELT HOW COULD THEY HAVE BEEN SO STUPID?!?!?
EVERYONE was that stupid. The polls weren't able to handle an election like this. To turn in your own party and demand that they fall on their swords when the winning side failed just as spectacularly is beyond belief.
Like I commented before, this was apparently not quite the case.
Kellyanne Conway's leaked office map:
edit: at least one campaign saw it coming for Michigan, if not both.
That's the same campaign that had no polling towards the end because Trump wouldn't pay them.
I sincerely doubt they saw a win coming.
Especially since they didn't let up on the "rigged" rhetoric until the final hours.
Was that report on polling sourced, or was it anonymous? Because it looks to me like they knew about Michigan, and not just because of one screencap from a perisope feed. They were campaigning hard there and everyone was scratching their heads about why.
The pollsters themselves said they had pulled out of the campaign.
I'm glad so many people know exactly what the stupid, failing DNC that got Obama elected twice did wrong this time around. I hope everyone calling for the DNC to be gutted is ready to sign up to replace them and lead the charge into 2020.
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
Polling was off. The Clinton campaign was doing some weird stuff in the last days of the campaign. But everybody's polling was off. The only reason Trump was in the places he needed to be was because those were the only places he could be to make any difference.
Exactly.
Nobody called this one correctly, except arguably Nate Silver. Nobody saw this coming, on either side. The only polls predicting anything like a close race were on freaking Brietbart.
But now that Clinton has lost it's suddenly OMG WE ARE BETRAYED THEY NEGLECTED THE RUST BELT HOW COULD THEY HAVE BEEN SO STUPID?!?!?
EVERYONE was that stupid. The polls weren't able to handle an election like this. To turn in your own party and demand that they fall on their swords when the winning side failed just as spectacularly is beyond belief.
Like I commented before, this was apparently not quite the case.
Kellyanne Conway's leaked office map:
edit: at least one campaign saw it coming for Michigan, if not both.
That's the same campaign that had no polling towards the end because Trump wouldn't pay them.
I sincerely doubt they saw a win coming.
Especially since they didn't let up on the "rigged" rhetoric until the final hours.
Was that report on polling sourced, or was it anonymous? Because it looks to me like they knew about Michigan, and not just because of one screencap from a perisope feed. They were campaigning hard there and everyone was scratching their heads about why.
The pollsters themselves said they had pulled out of the campaign.
Obviously not 100% of them, or they had enough data at the cutoff that they knew what they had to do.
Dammit, the more days we are removed from this the less I'm able to avoid the conclusion that Sanders was right, even though he still should have bowed out sooner
i don't believe they would have actually done anything had she won the electoral college outright
i don't think discounting massive unrest if the election is seen to be stolen and handed to her is a good idea
Maybe funally getting some bipartisan support for overhauling the electoral college, eh?
And having actual reason to locking up these fucking pseudo-insurgent militia assholes doesn't sound too bad...
Anyhow, it's all fantasy. There'll never be an "electoral college upset" or anything like that, just babbling about it is clickbait.
Again, there are people who voted Obama in both 2008 and 2012 that voted for Trump in 2016.
How many, though? If we look at the last four elections the number of R voters seem mostly static.
Bush 2004: 62,040,610
McCain 2008: 59,948,323
Romney 2012: 60,933,504
Trump 2016: 59,791,135
Granted that Trump's numbers will still probably go up, but I can't see him getting that many more than Romney in total (if he passes him at all).
This is precisely what I'm trying to get across, its not that Trump particularly inspired people to get out and vote for him, the issue is that Hilary didn't. You can call it "special snowflake syndrome" or "post-fact politics" all you want, but a candidate has to inspire people to vote for them on an emotional level, not just a rational one. I mean fuck, I think we've just proved that the "rational" part is optional, even.
Democrats can never compete with that, because just letting go of reality isn't in the playbook. They gotta keep "to the rules" and argue logically, have the facts behind them. They will never be able to go full-on magical realm and sell that to the populace like republicans have been increasingly willing and succesful to do. Which I'm actually starting to view as a weakness.
I mean, what's the policy behind 'Yes We Can'? Sure, Obama had plenty of policy, but that wasn't what people knew about him immediately. It's that he was a charismatic figure that had an easily digestible, easily repeatable message.
Trump was the inverse-Obama. He had little policy, little knowledge about how to be President, but he had charisma (albeit a terrible sort, but still charisma) and he had the message 'make america great again'.
Guys torturing yourself with these faithless EV fantasy votes isn't helping you cope in the long run. Yes, this election is different. Yes it very much seems like Trump has some level of ties to Russia. Yes he's a piece of shit monster for a variety of reasons.
However unless some serious fucking evidence is dropped before the EC Vote, none of these fantasies are going to happen and there is zero reason to believe that evidence is forthcoming.
It isn't healthy for your brain meats
I'd argue that none of this discussion is really productive, but it's therapeutic, so let everyone have it.
- No, the electors will not go faithless.
- No, we will not get rid of the EC.
- No, we will not make gains in the midterms.
- No, there will never another D president again.
Fascism won, and democracy is dead (at the federal level). The last time this occurred, the entire world went to war. Who's going to be able to free us from our authoritarian overlords?
No one.
Either democracy is dead or it isn't. And it is not dead at the federal level. Clinton hasn't been murdered, Obama hasn't been tortured, the Washington Post buildings have not been bombed, and people who have displeased Trump have not been gunned down by paramilitary forces at his beck and call.
This is a terrible candidate, who will probably be an awful president; he's not Pinochet or Hitler (it's indeed disconcerting to people who have experience of real authoritarianism to see folks claiming we're under yoke; when the Staples Center in L.A. becomes a giant prison where Trump stores left-leaning sympathizers, then we'll be under a dictatorship).
It is my strong belief that the GOP Senate will nuke the filibuster. I also believe that they will push through some form of National Voter ID Law that creates incredibly undue burden on traditionally democratic voting blocs. I also believe that they will fill the courts with judges that will support these disenfranchisement attempts. The culmination of these simple acts ensures a one-party stranglehold on the federal government for years to come, and allows them to start making inroads on traditionally blue state and local races.
What makes you believe they will not follow this plan, or some plan like it?
Jesus Christ man read my last sentence
Even then it's still a democracy
One party stranglehold? Sure, until the people are tired of the Republican jig and vote for the other guy! The Democrats had a "stranglehold" over the Deep South until they didn't, and had a "stranglehold" over the Midwest until yesterday.
A one party stranglehold is Bob Dylan arrested at Staples Center, tortured, having his hands broken and ordered to play his guitar, and then murdered. Respect people who have lived (or at least has family that lived) through that.
Also, voter ID is a tool of the devil for a LARGE part the rightwing voting bloc.
That you do not take into account the possibility that Trump might lose in the 2020 election is folly.
I would again suggest you take some time off and seek some council - professional council, not strangers on the internet. I actually am worried about you.
Hey, if I'm wrong... groovy! We all win!
But if I'm right... well, none of us actually want to live in that world. Again. I wouldn't be imagining if there weren't some historical precedent.
Yes you would be imagining it because you're losing your shit
When Hitler was elected he passed an act after two months that essentially closed the Legislative. Germany had lost a World War and had faced hyperinflation. In 1932 unemployment was 32%.
When Salvador Allende was deposed he (I'm trying to be as neutral as I can) presided over economic chaos and a much more divided nation than present USA
When Mussolini rose to power the Italian oligarchy had led the people to the disaster of Caporetto over nothing.
Guys torturing yourself with these faithless EV fantasy votes isn't helping you cope in the long run. Yes, this election is different. Yes it very much seems like Trump has some level of ties to Russia. Yes he's a piece of shit monster for a variety of reasons.
However unless some serious fucking evidence is dropped before the EC Vote, none of these fantasies are going to happen and there is zero reason to believe that evidence is forthcoming.
It isn't healthy for your brain meats
I'd argue that none of this discussion is really productive, but it's therapeutic, so let everyone have it.
- No, the electors will not go faithless.
- No, we will not get rid of the EC.
- No, we will not make gains in the midterms.
- No, there will never another D president again.
Fascism won, and democracy is dead (at the federal level). The last time this occurred, the entire world went to war. Who's going to be able to free us from our authoritarian overlords?
No one.
Either democracy is dead or it isn't. And it is not dead at the federal level. Clinton hasn't been murdered, Obama hasn't been tortured, the Washington Post buildings have not been bombed, and people who have displeased Trump have not been gunned down by paramilitary forces at his beck and call.
This is a terrible candidate, who will probably be an awful president; he's not Pinochet or Hitler (it's indeed disconcerting to people who have experience of real authoritarianism to see folks claiming we're under yoke; when the Staples Center in L.A. becomes a giant prison where Trump stores left-leaning sympathizers, then we'll be under a dictatorship).
It is my strong belief that the GOP Senate will nuke the filibuster. I also believe that they will push through some form of National Voter ID Law that creates incredibly undue burden on traditionally democratic voting blocs. I also believe that they will fill the courts with judges that will support these disenfranchisement attempts. The culmination of these simple acts ensures a one-party stranglehold on the federal government for years to come, and allows them to start making inroads on traditionally blue state and local races.
What makes you believe they will not follow this plan, or some plan like it?
You're close but what will actually happen is the Democratic Party will drift rightward to stay competitive. Midwestern whites are about to be the Belle of the Ball
I'm glad so many people know exactly what the stupid, failing DNC that got Obama elected twice did wrong this time around. I hope everyone calling for the DNC to be gutted is ready to sign up to replace them and lead the charge into 2020.
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
Polling was off. The Clinton campaign was doing some weird stuff in the last days of the campaign. But everybody's polling was off. The only reason Trump was in the places he needed to be was because those were the only places he could be to make any difference.
Exactly.
Nobody called this one correctly, except arguably Nate Silver. Nobody saw this coming, on either side. The only polls predicting anything like a close race were on freaking Brietbart.
But now that Clinton has lost it's suddenly OMG WE ARE BETRAYED THEY NEGLECTED THE RUST BELT HOW COULD THEY HAVE BEEN SO STUPID?!?!?
EVERYONE was that stupid. The polls weren't able to handle an election like this. To turn in your own party and demand that they fall on their swords when the winning side failed just as spectacularly is beyond belief.
Like I commented before, this was apparently not quite the case.
Kellyanne Conway's leaked office map:
edit: at least one campaign saw it coming for Michigan, if not both.
That's the same campaign that had no polling towards the end because Trump wouldn't pay them.
I sincerely doubt they saw a win coming.
Especially since they didn't let up on the "rigged" rhetoric until the final hours.
Was that report on polling sourced, or was it anonymous? Because it looks to me like they knew about Michigan, and not just because of one screencap from a perisope feed. They were campaigning hard there and everyone was scratching their heads about why.
The pollsters themselves said they had pulled out of the campaign.
Trump stopped paying them. He was sure the numbers were wrong. We all laughed at him for it.
I'm glad so many people know exactly what the stupid, failing DNC that got Obama elected twice did wrong this time around. I hope everyone calling for the DNC to be gutted is ready to sign up to replace them and lead the charge into 2020.
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
Polling was off. The Clinton campaign was doing some weird stuff in the last days of the campaign. But everybody's polling was off. The only reason Trump was in the places he needed to be was because those were the only places he could be to make any difference.
Exactly.
Nobody called this one correctly, except arguably Nate Silver. Nobody saw this coming, on either side. The only polls predicting anything like a close race were on freaking Brietbart.
But now that Clinton has lost it's suddenly OMG WE ARE BETRAYED THEY NEGLECTED THE RUST BELT HOW COULD THEY HAVE BEEN SO STUPID?!?!?
EVERYONE was that stupid. The polls weren't able to handle an election like this. To turn in your own party and demand that they fall on their swords when the winning side failed just as spectacularly is beyond belief.
Like I commented before, this was apparently not quite the case.
Kellyanne Conway's leaked office map:
edit: at least one campaign saw it coming for Michigan, if not both.
That's the same campaign that had no polling towards the end because Trump wouldn't pay them.
I sincerely doubt they saw a win coming.
Especially since they didn't let up on the "rigged" rhetoric until the final hours.
Was that report on polling sourced, or was it anonymous? Because it looks to me like they knew about Michigan, and not just because of one screencap from a perisope feed. They were campaigning hard there and everyone was scratching their heads about why.
This. We fell for a lot of "lol they are so inept" stories because we wanted to.
Pushing your GOTV off on the RNC isn't the same as having none at all
I really hope that when 2020 rolls around - when we're hip deep in a recession - the next Democratic candidate uses the phrase "revitalize the rust belt" at least seven times a speech.
The other thing we need to think about is if we actually have lost the rust belt, we need a new map. And we need it in 4 years.
Losing a number of states by less than a percentage point when you're fielding an incredibly unpopular candidate probably isn't losing them indefinitely.
Posts
Exactly.
A race without the FBI fuckery could have swung it
Making Trump's constant "hilarious gaffes" the scandals they should have been could have swung it
Killing the ridiculous innuendo that implied that a woman who has spent 25 years having every facet of her life torn to pieces and scrutinised under a microscope to the point that Congress spent over 2,000 days and 500million dollars investigating the e-mail procedure the previous two Secretaries of State used and had her work e-mails leaked online and came out without anything that could raise more than an eyebrow was still somehow managing to be the biggest lyingest liar and the most corrupt woman in politics could have swung it.
Hindsight is 20/20
Largely agree with the first paragraph but on the second: it was mentioned. She was trying to go for down ticket help and some were concerned about that. Given the data they had it was a decent idea (answer is always better information)
I'm not going to search through 50,000 pages to find specific posts whining about it. I remember hedge and preacher were, for one thing. "It's a publicity stunt for his movie, PEC says this is 99% in the bag, etc"
I'm looking through (lefty) predictions of Trump winning and why, and it's basically Moore and like David Wong from Cracked that got it. I can't believe how myopic everyone else was. I was!
It's not about 'punishing' anyone. Thanks to how they're playing the campaign finance game, Democratic politicians are currently doing the bidding of corporations like Boeing and Archer Daniels Midland. And with the advent of the tea party true believers, Dems can no longer even pretend they have taken the high ground on corporate welfare.
It's about the appearance of corruption, and it won't stop until the DNC and other groups cease believing they only way to victory is soliciting corporate donors for cash. That way, when Hillary supports something incredibly stupid like the ethanol mandate, she can say she does so because she believes in it, not because ADM gave her a shitload of money.
How many, though? If we look at the last four elections the number of R voters seem mostly static.
Granted that Trump's numbers will still probably go up, but I can't see him getting that many more than Romney in total (if he passes him at all).
For women Trump lost 1% compared to Romney 2012.
I mean, someone is going to guess the correct outcome when you've got the entire country trying to predict it. Being right in hindsight doesn't necessarily mean they should have been trusted.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Yeah, let's be clear: Obama won twice on his own charisma. There's a reason that his 2008 keynote speech alone catapulted him to the national level. He's basically got no competition for the spot of greatest American orator currently alive.
Trump won on his own (horrifying) brand of charisma, too.
It's basically the only thing that really matters.
Speaking of which
"Hindsight is 2020" will be a killer campaign slogan if the next four years are disastrous.
That is remarkably catchy.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
That's the same campaign that had no polling towards the end because Trump wouldn't pay them.
I sincerely doubt they saw a win coming.
Especially since they didn't let up on the "rigged" rhetoric until the final hours.
The only problem I have with that is that Republicans won reelection in droves. The public supposedly wanted change, but really I think they just didn't want her.
Obama is the strongest Washington Insider you can get, yet he would have won reelection easily. He is well liked.
There narrative doesn't line up.
I'm not saying she didn't inspire anybody, but she clearly didn't inspire enough people to feel strongly enough to come out and vote for her, because here we are.
Was Obama not an "idealist candidate"? He seemed to do just fine. What is it about Bernie that you think would make him uniquely vulnerable to the same old lies they'd trot out against anybody the dems ran? Because I can tell you exactly why it was so effective against Hilary; they'd been doing it for two decades already and "where there's smoke there's fire" is an awfully convincing fallacy.
It's not about guessing some overall result, it's about getting specifics right and then explaining why.
The echo chamber bougie left explanation for Trump's support was "they're all bigots". Sorry, I don't think that gets you to this many voters. So, why did Romney lose and Trump win? This is why.
I don't have the specific numbers, unfortunately, just anecdotes. I posted one a few pages ago from an old white guy, registered Democrat, who gladly supported Obama, gave up his guns after Sandy Hook, and voted Trump because 'he was an outsider'.
It would be useful for the Democrats to figure out if that guy is representative of a trend, and if so, why? If not, why did WI Democrats not show up?
Romney lost because he was about as inspiring as a tree is to a lumberjack.
And? Her story, what she's struggled through, and what she's accomplished despite everything that's been thrown at her are inspiring. That there exists a large number of people who didn't see or refused to look because E-MAILS E-MAILS BENGHAZI doesn't change that.
A lot of us were high on that when we had that all presented and read out to us at convention time. Millions of people still believe that she's an amazing person. Let's not rewrite history.
This is precisely what I'm trying to get across, its not that Trump particularly inspired people to get out and vote for him, the issue is that Hilary didn't. You can call it "special snowflake syndrome" or "post-fact politics" all you want, but a candidate has to inspire people to vote for them on an emotional level, not just a rational one. I mean fuck, I think we've just proved that the "rational" part is optional, even.
Romney was an out of touch rich asshole and Obama promised hope.
Clinton outperformed Obama 2012 on every income bracket above $50K/year, did you know that?
Here's the David Wong article, btw: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
And I get that, I do, but if everyone whose job it was to see this coming didn't then it's a terribly, terribly bad decision to turn around and say one side should have known it was coming, it's all completely obvious, they should have followed these simple instructions etc.
Especially when these people got it right twice before.
Was that report on polling sourced, or was it anonymous? Because it looks to me like they knew about Michigan, and not just because of one screencap from a perisope feed. They were campaigning hard there and everyone was scratching their heads about why.
What we cannot do is fall apart, we have to pick ourselves up and face what is about to happen. Obama knows this. And he trusts that the people voted for him twice know this.
The only only only way to win all of this back is to fight back. To organize. To yes vigorously debate what to do next, but unify. Not look for blame.
I didn't think we had any chance of losing until like a week before the election this very forum reached the consensus that the Iraq war was actually a good idea after all. That was the first crack, and even then I just went back to trusting the numbers
Nobody gets elected as President on their own charisma. The team that puts that charisma front and center so it can reach the hearts and minds of voters is invisible, but it's there.
There was a vast team behind Obama that supported him during both campaigns and writing off what they achieved is a terrible disservice to them.
And having actual reason to locking up these fucking pseudo-insurgent militia assholes doesn't sound too bad...
Anyhow, it's all fantasy. There'll never be an "electoral college upset" or anything like that, just babbling about it is clickbait.
Democrats can never compete with that, because just letting go of reality isn't in the playbook. They gotta keep "to the rules" and argue logically, have the facts behind them. They will never be able to go full-on magical realm and sell that to the populace like republicans have been increasingly willing and succesful to do. Which I'm actually starting to view as a weakness.
I think people from Wisconsin would show up to vote for that.
The pollsters themselves said they had pulled out of the campaign.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Obviously not 100% of them, or they had enough data at the cutoff that they knew what they had to do.
Him bowing out sooner wouldn't have helped.
I mean, what's the policy behind 'Yes We Can'? Sure, Obama had plenty of policy, but that wasn't what people knew about him immediately. It's that he was a charismatic figure that had an easily digestible, easily repeatable message.
Trump was the inverse-Obama. He had little policy, little knowledge about how to be President, but he had charisma (albeit a terrible sort, but still charisma) and he had the message 'make america great again'.
He doesn't have to be Hitler.
He can just be an incompetent Putin or Erdogan and that would still be very bad for us.
Trump stopped paying them. He was sure the numbers were wrong. We all laughed at him for it.
This. We fell for a lot of "lol they are so inept" stories because we wanted to.
Pushing your GOTV off on the RNC isn't the same as having none at all
Losing a number of states by less than a percentage point when you're fielding an incredibly unpopular candidate probably isn't losing them indefinitely.