|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 11 2017 13:53 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 13:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 11 2017 13:28 Nevuk wrote:On February 11 2017 13:21 KwarK wrote:On February 11 2017 13:17 Nevuk wrote:
Personally, I still blame the nomination of Hillary more than any other factor. That and the GOP establishment being spineless, craven wimps.
In a poll where 40+% wanted Trump impeached, Hillary still didn't crack 50% of voters preferring her to Trump. ????? She got more votes than Trump. How is it that you believe the voters didn't prefer her? She didn't get the right voters in the flyover states and she lost a few key states by narrow margins while winning safe states by huge margins. There is no argument to be made that she was less popular than Trump. Obama was at 52% in the same poll. Hillary had a very hard ceiling. I'm not claiming she was less popular than Trump, just that she was possibly the worst nominee they could have chosen to actually win the election. She won the Democratic primary too, meaning that there were at least a few other candidates (Sanders, O'Malley, Webb, Chafee, Lessig) who were, by definition, worse picks because they were even less popular. Maybe there could have hypothetically been other Democratic candidates who could have beaten Hillary in the primary, but we'll never know because it didn't happen in 2016. At best, one could say that maybe another candidate- one who didn't run- may have fared better than Hillary, but she clearly couldn't have been the worst. That's pretty intense hyperbole, unless you're prepared to give reasons as to why someone like Webb or Lessig would have won the electoral college. Maybe Sanders, and that's generous, but that puts Hillary at #2, not dead last out of dozens of potential candidates. i'm not sure that makes them worse picks "by definition", certainly less popular amongst democrats. mostly I'm disagreeing over the "by definition" part. it's also the case of course that someone might not do well in the dem primary for being a bit too far right for the dems (while being fairly center overall) and would do well in the general as a result. or if we just ran approval voting they'd all run and we'd know for sure which ones would've done better/worse than hillary.
Sure. The onus is on those saying that Hillary was the worst Democratic candidate/ nominee possible to provide that kind of evidence; otherwise, there's no reason to take it seriously when there are so many no-names who only got like 1% of their constituents to even give them the time of day. Heck, if anyone else was basically a shoo-in to win the election, I'm astonished there weren't dozens of people trying to win the Democratic primary just so they could automatically become president!
But no. What we saw is that Hillary was either the #1 or #2 most electable Democrat, a far cry from her being the worst possible. The exaggeration is just silly and unwarranted; we could still talk about her flaws without flat-out lying about her level of support.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
putin considering sending snowden to trump to get at the nsa. radical transparency i say, you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free
|
On February 11 2017 14:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 13:53 zlefin wrote:On February 11 2017 13:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 11 2017 13:28 Nevuk wrote:On February 11 2017 13:21 KwarK wrote:On February 11 2017 13:17 Nevuk wrote:
Personally, I still blame the nomination of Hillary more than any other factor. That and the GOP establishment being spineless, craven wimps.
In a poll where 40+% wanted Trump impeached, Hillary still didn't crack 50% of voters preferring her to Trump. ????? She got more votes than Trump. How is it that you believe the voters didn't prefer her? She didn't get the right voters in the flyover states and she lost a few key states by narrow margins while winning safe states by huge margins. There is no argument to be made that she was less popular than Trump. Obama was at 52% in the same poll. Hillary had a very hard ceiling. I'm not claiming she was less popular than Trump, just that she was possibly the worst nominee they could have chosen to actually win the election. She won the Democratic primary too, meaning that there were at least a few other candidates (Sanders, O'Malley, Webb, Chafee, Lessig) who were, by definition, worse picks because they were even less popular. Maybe there could have hypothetically been other Democratic candidates who could have beaten Hillary in the primary, but we'll never know because it didn't happen in 2016. At best, one could say that maybe another candidate- one who didn't run- may have fared better than Hillary, but she clearly couldn't have been the worst. That's pretty intense hyperbole, unless you're prepared to give reasons as to why someone like Webb or Lessig would have won the electoral college. Maybe Sanders, and that's generous, but that puts Hillary at #2, not dead last out of dozens of potential candidates. i'm not sure that makes them worse picks "by definition", certainly less popular amongst democrats. mostly I'm disagreeing over the "by definition" part. it's also the case of course that someone might not do well in the dem primary for being a bit too far right for the dems (while being fairly center overall) and would do well in the general as a result. or if we just ran approval voting they'd all run and we'd know for sure which ones would've done better/worse than hillary. Sure. The onus is on those saying that Hillary was the worst Democratic candidate/ nominee possible to provide that kind of evidence; otherwise, there's no reason to take it seriously when there are so many no-names who only got like 1% of their constituents to even give them the time of day. Heck, if anyone else was basically a shoo-in to win the election, I'm astonished there weren't dozens of people trying to win the Democratic primary just so they could automatically become president! But no. What we saw is that Hillary was either the #1 or #2 most electable Democrat, a far cry from her being the worst possible. The exaggeration is just silly and unwarranted; we could still talk about her flaws without flat-out lying about her level of support.
For sure. She was a bad candidate. For instance, they propagated "false equivalency" to try and protect her among other things, she didn't get even 49% of the vote, etc. However, one could easily argue that (although I think they are wrong) that between her huge money advantage, the DNC, and her massive intimidation campaign in the primary they prevented a better nominee from emerging.
That said, she was one of the better possible Democratic candidates for 2016 because the bench of the Democratic Party was (and still is) the worst bench in recent memory for any party.
|
On February 11 2017 14:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 13:53 zlefin wrote:On February 11 2017 13:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 11 2017 13:28 Nevuk wrote:On February 11 2017 13:21 KwarK wrote:On February 11 2017 13:17 Nevuk wrote:
Personally, I still blame the nomination of Hillary more than any other factor. That and the GOP establishment being spineless, craven wimps.
In a poll where 40+% wanted Trump impeached, Hillary still didn't crack 50% of voters preferring her to Trump. ????? She got more votes than Trump. How is it that you believe the voters didn't prefer her? She didn't get the right voters in the flyover states and she lost a few key states by narrow margins while winning safe states by huge margins. There is no argument to be made that she was less popular than Trump. Obama was at 52% in the same poll. Hillary had a very hard ceiling. I'm not claiming she was less popular than Trump, just that she was possibly the worst nominee they could have chosen to actually win the election. She won the Democratic primary too, meaning that there were at least a few other candidates (Sanders, O'Malley, Webb, Chafee, Lessig) who were, by definition, worse picks because they were even less popular. Maybe there could have hypothetically been other Democratic candidates who could have beaten Hillary in the primary, but we'll never know because it didn't happen in 2016. At best, one could say that maybe another candidate- one who didn't run- may have fared better than Hillary, but she clearly couldn't have been the worst. That's pretty intense hyperbole, unless you're prepared to give reasons as to why someone like Webb or Lessig would have won the electoral college. Maybe Sanders, and that's generous, but that puts Hillary at #2, not dead last out of dozens of potential candidates. i'm not sure that makes them worse picks "by definition", certainly less popular amongst democrats. mostly I'm disagreeing over the "by definition" part. it's also the case of course that someone might not do well in the dem primary for being a bit too far right for the dems (while being fairly center overall) and would do well in the general as a result. or if we just ran approval voting they'd all run and we'd know for sure which ones would've done better/worse than hillary. Sure. The onus is on those saying that Hillary was the worst Democratic candidate/ nominee possible to provide that kind of evidence; otherwise, there's no reason to take it seriously when there are so many no-names who only got like 1% of their constituents to even give them the time of day. Heck, if anyone else was basically a shoo-in to win the election, I'm astonished there weren't dozens of people trying to win the Democratic primary just so they could automatically become president! But no. What we saw is that Hillary was either the #1 or #2 most electable Democrat, a far cry from her being the worst possible. The exaggeration is just silly and unwarranted; we could still talk about her flaws without flat-out lying about her level of support.
i'm just noting the difference between success in the primary and success in the general. (well, i'm also noting a bunch of other stuff)
someone who did poor in the primary might do well in the general simply by most dems voting for them anyways, if they can also get a bunch of center-aligned votes.
but aye, generally agreeing.
|
Bernie would have likely done better because he had a similar message to Trump except the big baddie messing everything up in the US is income inequality and the rich having too much power. He would have had the same "I can help you guys, I am an outsider" narrative except he would not have any of the horrible personality traits and baggage Trump had. It would have been a sweep of those core blue states. Those who went from Obama to Trump would have found a candidate who offers the same hope and disdain for how the poor and middle class has been treated, but you know not a terrible person. With similar messaging but Trump running fear and Bernie fighting determination and hope, he would have done very well.
Clinton was a fine candidate. I think her team trusted the polls too much and thought pussygate was the deathblow so they coasted. Polls told her team that attacking Trump was working, but they were wrong and Clinton's team didn't change strategies since they were winning. If she had continued the campaign grind and worked on her messaging of her plans a bit more she would have won. Those were the key to her loss.
|
On February 11 2017 15:35 Slaughter wrote:
Bernie would have likely done better because he had a similar message to Trump except the big baddie messing everything up in the US is income inequality and the rich having too much power. He would have had the same "I can help you guys, I am an outsider" narrative except he would not have any of the horrible personality traits and baggage Trump had. It would have been a sweep of those core blue states. Those who went from Obama to Trump would have found a candidate who offers the same hope and disdain for how the poor and middle class has been treated, but you know not a terrible person. With similar messaging but Trump running fear and Bernie fighting determination and hope, he would have done very well.
Clinton was a fine candidate. I think her team trusted the polls too much and thought pussygate was the deathblow so they coasted. Polls told her team that attacking Trump was working, but they were wrong and Clinton's team didn't change strategies since they were winning. If she had continued the campaign grind and worked on her messaging of her plans a bit more she would have won. Those were the key to her loss.
I think your analysis is correct on every point. I just think losing specifically to a candidate as obviously terrible as Donald Trump, even with all the caveats, makes her not a fine candidate.
|
This thread is fucking ridiculous, Trump being in office is the responsibility of the people who voted for him. You don't get to blame the opposition for failing to rein you in when you do something obviously retarded.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
at this point, bernie or busters blaming hillary for their own delusional refusal to vote for her is just not going to change, i just take it for granted.
but what is in motion tends to stay in motion, and this agitator leftist group's impact on future dem politics will be large and unhelpful. can't really blame hillary for the great farce of 2018, when people who didn't vote for hillary primary out traitor dem senators. or the great election of 2020, notable for the intense primary to take down the neoliberal candidate for being able to read.
|
On February 11 2017 23:57 oneofthem wrote:
at this point, bernie or busters blaming hillary for their own delusional refusal to vote for her is just not going to change, i just take it for granted.
but what is in motion tends to stay in motion, and this agitator leftist group's impact on future dem politics will be large and unhelpful. can't really blame hillary for the great farce of 2018, when people who didn't vote for hillary primary out traitor dem senators. or the great election of 2020, notable for the intense primary to take down the neoliberal candidate for being able to read.
Fake leftists who are actually just agitators will forever be the downfall of civilization. It's super frustrating to listen to people whose only political interest is to "disrupt the status quo" instead of expanding and protecting the things that are working.
|
On February 11 2017 13:35 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 11:33 KwarK wrote:On February 11 2017 11:23 biology]major wrote:
To your question kwark: absolutely the factory worker will benefit. Automation and globalism will eventually eradicate their occupation, but for now he will provide some relief. Ford, Carrier, GM, Chrysler is just the start. Those jobs disappearing has been a snowballing process that has been going on a while and is continuing. Trump publishes a few high profile stories about how he has saved a hundred jobs here and there and apparently you're buying the propaganda. So let's ask it another way. Do you think he will be able to reverse the trend? Do you think the number of menial, unskilled labour, factory jobs in the United States is going to increase under Trump? Will those who lost their jobs to automation regain them or are you saying that those who are already fucked will stay fucked and many of those not already fucked will get fucked but that the number of new people who get fucked will be lower? Hillary offered a solution to the actual problem. Trump insisted that the problem was completely different to what it actually was and is now ignoring it. She didn't offer a solution. She offered a wishy-washy "TPP is not the deal I wanted for our workers" that literally no one buys (not her supporters, not her opponents) and made a campaign that focused mostly on identity politics issues and how bad Trump is. Further, she made a big deal of "why MAGA when America is already great" a message which does not resonate with the people whose lives are taking a downward spiral. Was/is Trump worse? Yes, he offered delusion instead of an honest nothing. But Hillary definitely didn't offer a solution.
This is simply not true. As I addressed at length previously, she offered plenty of solutions for the ills of rural America, of workers with job insecurity, of the unemployed, etc. Now, you can blame her campaign for not communicating her plans well enough, but as I wrote in the same post that was a difficult task because the noise of the campaign (Trump's nonsensical statements, horse race coverage, etc.) kept drowning out any policy proposals they tried to promote. In any case, the idea that Clinton didn't offer solutions is flat-out false -- not only did she offer solutions, but she was the candidate with the most detailed and thought-out solutions that didn't rely on overly optimistic/outright fantastical/completely made up projections and conditions.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 11 2017 23:57 oneofthem wrote:
at this point, bernie or busters blaming hillary for their own delusional refusal to vote for her is just not going to change, i just take it for granted.
but what is in motion tends to stay in motion, and this agitator leftist group's impact on future dem politics will be large and unhelpful. can't really blame hillary for the great farce of 2018, when people who didn't vote for hillary primary out traitor dem senators. or the great election of 2020, notable for the intense primary to take down the neoliberal candidate for being able to read.
She didn't earn the vote of the people she needed to win. Some of the reason for that was that people perceived foul play on the part of the DNC. Part of it was the any other numerous reasons why people don't like her.
It's interesting how her supporters are often willing to say "she made unspecified mistakes, I guess" but in the case of any specific mention of the mistakes she made, there is merely rationalization. No, she was a terrible candidate who lost to a pussy grabber, because she couldn't earn the votes of the people who voted for Obama or Bernie - and she had the arrogance to think she had it in the bag and could show no desire whatsoever to deviate from her own general manner of doing things.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i've emphasized a combination of genuine suffering (particularly young people with heavy debt and heavy labor market pressure+rural hopelessness), tactical failings (poll reliance) and the media environment.
but yes, hillary is uniquely vulnerable to basically all of these circumstances. it's just that i wouldn't say this situation is her fault.
unlucky lul
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
As in every election, some circumstances are lucky, others are not.
She was lucky to have the least popular candidate in the history of the country as her opponent. She was unlucky to be a "status quo" candidate in a populist era. She was unlucky that her support was concentrated most strongly in safe states. She was lucky that every other day, her opponent did something that should have disqualified him from being president.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well i'd also blame suburban republican voters for failing to appreciate the importance of protecting fundamental liberal values.
this should be most apparent in 2018 and 2020.
we have baron harkonnen as president, and the world is eu4 with modern day mod. but hey, tax cuts
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Fundamental liberal values are losing ground across most of the Western world - the US among them. That's been the trend for at least the past decade and it's not ending any time soon.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
and this is how you get feudalism boys and girls.
btw facing trump isn't necessarily lucky. it's apparent that suburban republicans don't care about pussy grabbing and facing trump as a woman basically made social liberalism an overwhelming focus for the media. but as we know, suburban republicans don't care about pussy grabbing despite what they say in focus groups
|
On February 12 2017 01:58 LegalLord wrote:
She was lucky that every other day, her opponent did something that should have disqualified him from being president.
I'm still amazed by this part here personally. When 2020 rolls around, will he still get special treatment? Voters gave him a pass for his shit temperament, personality, and qualifications because he was a rich businessman and people assumed he knew what he was doing. He didn't have to abide by regular political standards of conduct and discourse.
|
You know, if I hadn't seen this forum I would think that the notion that people attempt to blame something else than Clinton for Clinton losing to Trump was just progressive propaganda.
You are not owed any votes. Not even for being objectively better than your opponent. Every vote that you don't get is a vote that you failed to get. It doesn't matter that the people who didn't vote for you or voted against you made a mistake based on their own interest (and they did). It's still your fault.
This is a basic idea that is understood just about everywhere. You are responsible for the votes you get. And I'm not saying that from a bernieorbust point of view, I did argue that you should vote for Clinton against Trump as a leftist cause, you know, I'm able to observe reality; that has consistently been my point of view as soon as Bernie lost to her. Now that we're here, you just need to snap out of this cause you're not learning the lessons that you should be learning.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
what if 'voters' or 'you' have factually wrong or imbalanced beliefs?
|
I think the current irritation is that the super progressives take the "we told you so" high ground, while also saying Clinton didn't earn their votes. The primaries were rigged in Clinton favor(forget several million votes), so the whole "earn peoples votes" argument doesn't apply here. The discussion is circular, frustrating and will not matter a year from now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
