Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

It's worth remembering that Trump did pretty well among minority voters, at least by Republican standards.

It helps that the Democrats often came off as... Hmm I don't have the words for it.

They taken the minority vote for granted, they proudly proclaimed that all minorities would flock to them, that they were the saviors of minorities... Which came off not so much as disingenuous but as kind of... I guess I'd say racist in its own right.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

Perhaps somewhat condescending or patronising?

[wierd]

"entitled"

the paris hilton kind.

[Rolan7]

At least I never saw Clintons official campaign calling racists/rednecks/whatnot.

'Basket of deplorables'.

Yeah wow she technically said something sorta like that, if you strip away all context, and ignore that she immediately apologized for the unfortunate wording.
But no sure, build a campaign around punishing her for that!  Whereas when Trump paints entire races with a broad brush, and we call him out on it, we were fearmongering.  That's fair!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/11/context-hillary-clinton-basket-deplorables/

Let me give my 2 cents on the whole dem-campaign sucked. Now I'm not american and I have followed the elections mainly from this thread (plus links posted in here) and few non-american media sources, so take this with a grain of salt.

The problem with the dem-campaign, in my opinion, was that there was no dem-campaign. Or to be more accurate, it did not get LITERALLY ANY media coverage. (Same could be said for gop-campaign. Trump just won more people with his rhetoric.) 99% of the media coverage and the posts in this very thread had nothing to do with the democratic party's campaign, but instead of various scandals, comments and propaganda pieces from SUPPORTERS of Clinton. Take into account that those supporters had no affiliation with Clinton herself and thus she had no means to control what they were saying. All the complaints about the campaign have nothing to do with the campaign. At least I never saw Clintons official campaign calling racists/rednecks/whatnot.

The campaigns of Trump and Clinton were farts in the wind, because the media directed their entire focus - aside from various scandals - to comments, writings etc. from people shouting shit from the sidelines and represented that as a official party agenda.
[/RANT]

Yeah...  I think mostly because Trump kept grabbing headlines away from the substance with his literally absurd antics, forcing the thing into a media circus.  But when they did focus on Clinton at all, it was her fucking FABRICATED "controversies" where no wrongdoing was ever found.  Just beating doubt into peoples heads, and enabling lazy voters to write her off as corrupt.  Yes, that was *lazy* of the voters and dishonest of the news agencies.

Clinton has spent her entire life trying to improve the situation of the middle class.  She was obviously going to finally succeed at a lot of it, once elected.  Trump had no solid promises (IE promises that didn't change from day to day) until basically after the election.  He still offers no plan, just vague assurances (some of them terrifying).

We're going to pay for our laziness.
idk, Frumple said all this a lot better.

[Elephant Parade]

But when they did focus on Clinton at all, it was her fucking FABRICATED "controversies" where no wrongdoing was ever found.

To be fair, there was some negligence and rule-breaking going on. Not to say that it wasn't exaggerated—it was, at least in my opinion—but to claim that there was no wrongdoing is a bit absurd.

The false equivalence is still insane, of course.

[Frumple]

It helps that the Democrats often came off as... Hmm I don't have the words for it.

They taken the minority vote for granted, they proudly proclaimed that all minorities would flock to them, that they were the saviors of minorities... Which came off not so much as disingenuous but as kind of... I guess I'd say racist in its own right.

Voodoo curse at work. Successful reframing of efforts and message as something negative or half-assed. Entitled, sure.

I think I'm joking, but I'm not sure how much.

[smjjames]

Instead of voter suppression, why don't the Republicans try to appeal to those that have been driven towards the Democrats? All voter suppression does is make their base smaller.

[wierd]

media lives on a straight diet of sensationalism. trump is sensational. (multiple meanings strongly implied)

hillary was a sensible party candidate with some baggage.
trump is talking baggage.

reflect on this monty python skit, and weep.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJVROcKFnBQ

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

But when they did focus on Clinton at all, it was her fucking FABRICATED "controversies" where no wrongdoing was ever found.

To be fair, there was some negligence and rule-breaking going on. Not to say that it wasn't exaggerated—it was, at least in my opinion—but to claim that there was no wrongdoing is a bit absurd.

The false equivalence is still insane, of course.

Aye, and furthermore, anything Clinton messed up on, Trump messed up on worse. Email security, other-nations'-influence, shady money stuff, even if Clinton did those things, Trump did them EVEN MORE.

As for the racism/sexism stuff, she noted that many Trump-supporters liked him because he was making racist and sexist remarks. That's hardly the same as saying "Trump-supporters are all racists." She has said that she regrets saying "half," but 99% of statistics are just pulled out of one's arse anyway - she was saying that part of Trump's appeal is his racism. And Trump definitely has made racist statements.

Instead of voter suppression, why don't the Republicans try to appeal to those that have been driven towards the Democrats? All voter suppression does is make their base smaller.

Err, the point of voter suppression is that your base is smaller, but the other base is decreased even more than yours.

It helps that the Democrats often came off as... Hmm I don't have the words for it.

They taken the minority vote for granted, they proudly proclaimed that all minorities would flock to them, that they were the saviors of minorities... Which came off not so much as disingenuous but as kind of... I guess I'd say racist in its own right.

Voodoo curse at work. Successful reframing of efforts and message as something negative or half-assed. Entitled, sure.

I think I'm joking, but I'm not sure how much.

Hmm, this "coming off as being racist" seems like it could use some quotes (with context), some statements, anything that could support the currently unfounded assertion, don't you think Neo?

[Reelya]

The African American turnout was much lower this time around. I think saying all of that was due to GOP voter suppression is just head in the sand.

If your own registered voters don't turn up to cast a ballot, automatically saying you only lost because "Voter Suppression" is no different to GOP people claiming they lost because of "Voter Impersonation". Both are ways of avoiding having to look at your own side very closely.

Yeah, some states had voter ID laws in place that could be discriminatory against minorities (since minorities tend to be poorer and more likely to lack good paperwork), but as far as I'm aware African American turnout was down everywhere, not just in those places. Clinton was supposedly really popular with that demographic, or so we kept hearing. We're not hearing that now.

[Frumple]

Instead of voter suppression, why don't the Republicans try to appeal to those that have been driven towards the Democrats? All voter suppression does is make their base smaller.

Enough burnt bridges the suppression is less effort, if I had to make a guess. Last while (years) the GOP hasn't been so much setting fire to bridges when it comes to those demographics as setting up a gigantic WP sprinkler in the middle of town and letting it loose. Like, they could try to appeal but they've been setting most possibilities of that on fire for most folks' lifetime.

And no, ree, no one sensible is saying it's all of it. Just that it's there and has more of an effect than it should. Which is, y'know. Backed by court judgements and effects of identified measures on turnout and whatnot.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

The African American turnout was much lower this time around. I think saying all of that was due to GOP voter suppression is just head in the sand.

If your own registered voters don't turn up to cast a ballot, automatically saying you only lost because "Voter Suppression" is no different to GOP people claiming they lost because of "Voter Impersonation". Both are ways of avoiding having to look at your own side very closely.

Oh, certainly - voter suppression alone can't explain the drop in African American turnout. But that doesn't necessarily imply that Clinton was racist - only that people saw her as racist. (Or patronizing, etc.) And of course we can blame all that on the media. Fuck the media, really.

[Reelya]

How did I imply Clinton was racist?

Basically, I said the Dems fucked up and lost the black vote, which they really needed. I didn't imply any particular reason, it's just an observation of fact.

Your first impulse is "Don't imply Clinton is racist", but that really is a complete tangent that shuts down looking deeper into what went wrong.

[Frumple]

Eh, not all. Quite a bloody lot, yeah. Probably a majority, sure. But not all.

Still, FTFE. Fuck the forth estate.

[wierd]

i dont suppose the word "coronation" i have seen many people use, has any meaning at all in context for why dem voters did not lick clintons heels, despite the  electioneering of the dnc as revealed by the leaked emails?

lots of dems like bernie. 

no, it must be voter supression!

(rolls eyes)