February 2, 2017 at 9:47 am #26901
Right :/February 2, 2017 at 9:51 am #26902
I just had a sort of realization.
To be frank, Bacon presents one of the most toxic politics I’ve seen.
Trump is headed toward actually pissing everyone off!
Definite parallels to consider here.February 2, 2017 at 9:55 am #26903AndrewParticipant
No, he’ll never piss everyone off. His core supporters will never leave him. Even Nixon had die-hard followers who proclaimed his innocence right up until he resigned and even after. Dictators always have defenders.February 2, 2017 at 10:06 am #26904
Everyone else is what I meant there. On mobile and it sucks.February 2, 2017 at 1:15 pm #26909
>The Bernie Bros want to do the opposite: purify the party to get rid of even the remaining “moderates.” Sorry, that’s just going to make things worse.
Yes. A lot of them want to do that, and I do not believe they will be successful.
I don’t want that. I’m not sure we even need that.
“America is not Bernieland” is nowhere near inclusive enough to make sense of this.
From the data I got to see, Sanders had roughly half the party, hot spots on both sides. Some Clinton hot, others Sanders hot. He also had roughly 60 percent of indies.
Crossovers in there too. I don’t have a feel, but it seemed like 20 percent.
Economic ideas driving that, all trending young too, but not to a super high degree.
That body of support is more than significant enough to warrant representation.
Didn’t get it. Was dismissed and fought with. That is a huge contributor to this loss. It’s also very highly suggestive of party seat losses over time too.
It does not suggest a move right makes sense either. Center left to aggressive left on a few specifics would maximize this in the future.
I see this disconnect as well as a very poor understanding of the significant and growing class level economics as the two items most needed to resolve to a winning strategy.
As stated earlier, but again here in the context of “we are center right”
That’s frankly, bullshit. Media parrots it out of self interest, the roughly quarter of us doing well, upper income affirm it too.
It’s not anywhere near a set piece with the 3 quarters of us either in economic trouble or flirting with it.
All of which is why I’m absolutely not OK with current leadership calling the shots. That needs to be a debate at minimum.
More losses are not what is needed. Nobody wants Trump to be generational.
We got him by failing to recognize the people and do that work. Continuing that will make it worse.
Blaming and shaming those people is not productive. Cultivating fear can be, and what do we see?
Lots of that. If it’s not coupled with effective opposition, that fear may just continue to favor clarity and strength, both of which Dems lack at present.February 2, 2017 at 1:17 pm #26910VitalogyParticipant
No, we got Trump because the Bernie Bots pissed in the sandbox.February 2, 2017 at 1:35 pm #26911jr_techParticipant
Perhaps some of the blame goes to those overconfident people that predicted with “mathematical certainty” that t-Rump could not win.February 2, 2017 at 1:58 pm #26912
Yup.February 2, 2017 at 2:01 pm #26913AndrewParticipant
The polls in the Republican primary consistently showed Trump winning each primary contest – and he did. I thought the polls must be wrong, that he would never win. But the polls were right, and I was wrong.
So in the general election, I figured the polls must be right, that Clinton would win. They were right in the primary, and I didn’t trust them. But – I was wrong again, but so were the polls.
It will be interesting how polls will be treated in the next few upcoming elections. I’m sure many will be freaked out about them and not trust them for the first few, like flying on an airplane the first few days after a big airplane crash.February 2, 2017 at 2:38 pm #26917Andy BrownParticipant
Andrew is correct. Even Nixon had post resignation supporters. Take a bow Herb.
Polling didn’t miss anything. It was the reporting of polls that went awry. There are hundreds of polls in a general election year and they put out thousands of poll data. What failed was the editing process where what polls to present are selected. Otherwise, how could a pea brained drumpf acolyte like bacon guess correctly.
Ordinary people live and learn, but bacon just lives.February 2, 2017 at 2:41 pm #26918
Vitalogy, yes, along with stay homes, protest votes, etc…
Blame answer shame aren’t effective GOTV, apparently.
We all see Clinton didn’t get the support needed to win too.
We can even set why aside, if we want to. Frankly, I’m fine with that. Old news. I doubt the potential for any real acceptance is there anyway.
Why they did that matters. They could do it again.
Dems get this wrong and they may want to do it again. Trump does something good, same possible outcome.
I would think super hard about, say economic populism, coupled with social regression.
It’s on the table man.
Trump doesn’t give a shit.
From where I stand, we Dems are in good solidarity on the left socially. Mixed on foreign policy. Divided hard economically.
Say foreign policy is a wash, save for most people being anti war. Either side can play that.
Social remains advantage left.
It’s economics that is fucking us.
Blame and shame are losers. Shitty GOTV, no enthusiasm. Besides, I don’t blame people for their economic votes. Steady declines continue to ratchet that problem up, and the young are aging in not seeing the mobility and buying power we did while seeing significantly higher cost and risk exposure, relative to their buying power!
Just not good.
Millennials are the biggest generation yet and they broke for Sanders style ideas by huge marginselection. They are the future too. Numbers aging in, voting more will continue.
Boomers are on their way out. Demographics trending diverse.
Whoever presents meaningful economic relief, or even that strong intent has a big advantage.
What is worth what?
So those people aren’t going away, until their need does. Edselehr posed the idea that people want to vote for, but will vote lesser evil.
If we take that and look hard at numbers and economics, the case for a Trump vote is not hard to arrive at. Desperate people heard Trump run on the things they see as addressing their needs.
Infrastructure, trade deals renegotiated, no TPP which was huge in many parts of the nation (nobody believed Clinton on that. Nobody), domestic manufacturing, etc…
I’m not an advocate. Trump is not presidential material. Not going there, to be clear.
What I am doing is sharing the picture way too many of us do not see.
All of here have options, we’ll a couple of us are in pretty bleak economic scenarios Las I asked, but in general, have options.
Many desperate people don’t, and those numbers are way larger and growing than we see recognized.
No options makes thinks different.
Blame your self, or they deserve it, or that I’d just how it is, etc… aren’t winning strategies. The GOP didn’t get the leader they wanted with their majority because those are losers.
They got Trump because he didn’t blame, shame. He validated and recognized and affirmed.
Bernie did the same things.
Clinton really didn’t. Not in the same basic ways. Dems haven’t in both their legislation and fight these last 6 years.
And that right there is what I see as defining what the potential outcomes look like. It’s why we have the conflict of opinion we do.
And it’s a huge part of why we lost as Dems too.
Nobody can force a vote. Pissed off people exist and even if we blame and shame them, the economics their anger or need are rooted in still drive those votes.
If I’m right, little will change and more losses are coming. The need is there, meaning the divide is still there, meaning we can’t count on votes http://www.reddit.com used to be able to count on.
The go forward absolutely must incorporate this reality, or why bother?February 2, 2017 at 9:58 pm #26933edselehrParticipant
Fivethirtyeight.com was chastised for setting their “clinton’s chance to win” percentages in the 70s when everyone else was in the 90s. Turned out that Nate Silver’s lack of optimism was well founded. It’s also worth noting that no one was much above ninety, meaning that Trump had a 1:10 chance, which as odds go isn’t bad.
I read one commentator describe Trump’s win as a “100 year flood”, and I think that’s a good way of thinking of it. I doubt his style of campaigning, or style of leading, starts a trend.February 2, 2017 at 10:16 pm #26935
I think Trump will usher in a wave of corporatists, Zuck being at the front.
Our “party of the people” answer will be?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.