Print

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

[McTraveller]

Re: Gillibrand... why would you make gender issues a core part of your platform?

What I mean there is, that's a good way to continue the trend of making things divisive, rather than unified.  Unless I've missed some massive change in approach to that particular issue.

Can we please have a platform based on something other than divisive topics and "we just have to beat Trump"? If you focus on actual issues, you defeat Trump by default, right? Right? _Crickets?

[Rolan7]

I'm not sure what's more divisive about gender issues than any other platform.  Besides, we tried that strategy of unoffensive, status-quo Democrat with a strong platform.  It turns out that core Republican voters didn't care about her platform, no matter how many times she asked them to visit her website

I don't think even the Democratic party is stupid enough to try that again.  2016 should have been an easy election, and 2020 will be too - but with an actual progressive candidate, who doesn't back off from "divisive" issues.

[McTraveller]

By "divisive topic" I meant things where one side or the other says "We are right and you are wrong, suck it!"  Both the right and the left have their divisive topics.

Note that I make a distinction here between divisive topics and controversial topics.  I think it's fine to make strong stands on controversial topics, but not divisive ones.

Basically - don't make it "us against them" - make it "this is an important issue we should resolve."

This forum crowd I think gets that, but the general public, well, it seems the distinction is a bit too subtle.

[smjjames]

Didn’t Trump run on actual issues as perceived by his base? There’s ‘actual issues’ ‘and there’s ‘issues that make me go RAAARRRR!’

[Loud Whispers]

I wonder if even 4chan has gotten uncomfortable with all this, since the memes are getting all too real and the high has worn off.

The general sentiment there is that Trump is a disappointment for being too moderate

[Lord Shonus]

I'm not sure what's more divisive about gender issues than any other platform.  Besides, we tried that strategy of unoffensive, status-quo Democrat with a strong platform.  It turns out that core Republican voters didn't care about her platform, no matter how many times she asked them to visit her website

I don't think even the Democratic party is stupid enough to try that again.  2016 should have been an easy election, and 2020 will be too - but with an actual progressive candidate, who doesn't back off from "divisive" issues.

That is likely to be a "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory ” approach. It ignores all of the data suggesting that Hillary herself was the problem, and assumes that gaining the support of previously -apathetic leftward voters will outweigh the risk of stampeding the moderates to the opposition.

2016 was a razor-thin election in the key swing states. The drop in polling after Cindy's final ”her Emails!" letter is greater than that margin.

[smjjames]

Looks like spellcorrect changed Comey into Cindy, heh.

[Rolan7]

Huh, I haven't heard much criticism about Clinton except for her centrist platform.  A platform that I was happy with, but a surprising number of people wanted someone more progressive like Sanders.  Which I'm looking forward to too, now that Trump has destroyed the illusion that "safe" candidates are a better strategy.

I mean, Republicans accused her of murdering Bill's mistresses, saving her email in the wrong place, and being single-handedly responsible for Benghazi.  But other than being a murderous war criminal with bad IT, what makes her the problem herself?  Too old?

I don't think the manufactured "scandals" count against Clinton, because no one's too clean for the Republicans to besmirch.  Just look at Obama.  I guess you could argue that she didn't handle them as well.

[McTraveller]

I think people are overlooking one of Hilary's other problems: it would have been another Clinton in the White House.  I was surprised enough we had two Bush presidents - I think people were starting to be subconsciously fearful of presidential dynasties.

I think people were also aware that Hilary's entire career has been aimed at nothing other than "doing whatever it takes to become President" - and people with that kind of ambition trigger a kind of subconscious fear.  The interesting thing is that while Trump also has that kind of unbridled ambition, it was never before in the political arena.

It's also easy to forget that there were a lot of people who voted Trump solely for the purpose of getting conservative SC justices: I know several people who voted because of that, even though they knew Trump would likely be a disaster in most other fronts.  In the close-margin states, I'd be really curious to know if that was the real issue, not "Trump's core base."

Sorry I'm having an onery day so this is kind of rambling.

[Telgin]

There was a general miasma of fishiness that surrounded her and followed her everywhere for a lot of people, deserved or not.  I know people who said, "Yeah, well, I don't like Hillary either" who couldn't say why when pressed for it.  Even if you didn't believe she was literally running a pedophilia ring out of a pizza parlor, a lot of people just accepted that something was wrong with her in general.  Nobody is too good for the Republican party to drag through the mud and paint as the most corrupt thing in existence, but their character assassination certainly worked on her.

I don't know.  My dad likes to say that the only way she could get so rich while being a politician is to be corrupt, but he also buys into a lot of the conspiracy theories so maybe he's not a good example.  He's also the kind that would never vote for a Democrat no matter what their platform is, so there's that too.

For something that might be closer to a real answer, she came off as flippant and tone deaf to some people.  Not spending time campaigning in some states, for example.  Or not telling coal miners she'd save their jobs.

it would have been another Clinton in the White House.

I've heard this a lot from family too.  I'm not sure what Bill Clinton did to hurt them so much since they never phrase it as avoiding presidential dynasties.  They just don't like Clintons.  Or Obamas.

[Hanslanda]

I hate to be that guy but fuck coal miners. Find a new profession. Coal is dying. Get the fuck over it. Telegraph operators and milkmen did.

[nenjin]

Pandering to people's unwillingness to change for the better is basically an entire leg of the Republican party.

[Telgin]

If I recall that's what she said, although in nicer words.  For what it's worth, I agree with you, but that's the kind of thing that didn't engender support for her among those affected.

The alternative would be to pledge that the government would support a dying industry just for them, or lie, but here we are I guess.

[Lord Shonus]

Her opponents spent forty years piling dirt on the Clintons. Much of that dirt was dubious or worse, but the sheer weight of it left many voters with a nearly indelible impression that she was corrupt as hell.

There was strong allegation that the primaries were rigged to spit her out as The One And Only Candidate, further cementing the notion that she was playing dirty pool.

The extreme overconfidence shown by her supporters (pundits were giving her a 99% chance of winning) only boosted the appearance of corruption.

[wierd]

Considering some of the things coming out about the clinton foundation and its operation practices, some of those allegations could well be true.

The thing is-- Politics is a dirty game.  Power always is.  Finding a clean politician is like finding a chicken with lips; You probably wont ever find one, and they probably dont exist.


Not that I support Ms Clinton, she was about as unelectable as Herr Trump, but the little bullshit game that got played with the superdelegates got that system revised, so that's a win for democracy this next round.  (I'm not naive, the super-delegate system has value to prevent pupulist horror shows like Trump from gaining the democratic ticket. It's a hedge against that very kind of thing, and is the reason it exists. However, the focus of party power has shifted more and more that direction, and what was a safety valve became a "pull lever for election" mechanism.  the recent changes simply reset this back to where it is supposed to be, and that's a win.)


Assuming we still have a country in 2 more years, I certainly hope the pupulace is not so gullible to elect orange idiot for 4 more years.