Support NeoGAF

[Ogodei]

I don't disagree with any of the above. I disagree with your original thesis, which is not supported by the above argument!

The overwhelmingly biggest reason Hillary lost was the white supremacy thing. That doesn't seem hard to understand or to see. But somehow you keep forgetting until I remind you again!

It's difficult to say because of how close the race was. Val's right in that a few more tweaks towards policy could've brought out the 70,000 people needed to flip the race in the Great Lakes.

But yeah, the only reason Trump had a chance is because whites have had their jimmies rustled by BLM (and, on a less racially pointed note, voters' stupid tendencies to think that the parties should take turns, so that a Republican deserves a shot after 8 years of a Democrat).

 

[Valhelm]

The associated argument is that Dems/Leftist policies would always naturally win except for Dems fucking it up (and if it's a leftist policy, the Dems cheated, didn't support it, are shills,etc.)

It's not even just white people, it's trying to avoid the fact that a large number of people are terrible.

"People are terrible" is a really bad takeaway from the inability of the Democrats to recapture Obama-levels of turnout. When millions of people from marginalized communities don't think it's worth it to vote against a white supremacist, something is seriously wrong with the opposition.

And there it is.

What part of that post do you disagree with?

 

[Blader]

Hillary's commercials were generally devoid of policy. While she did discuss her policy prosals during the debates, and ran laps around Trump, her campaign didn't properly broadcast the practical benefits of a Clinton presidency.

With language like "America is already great" and her attempts to win over moderate Republicans, I think it's pretty inarguable that Hillary's campaign was meant to be a conservative force meant to prevent Trump's monstrous changes, rather than propose any necessary changes to our society. And this didn't work.

I agree they (the Clinton campaign) could have done more/better on messaging. I disagree that they lost on policy. For one, I don't think there is one single factor that can be characterized as "the overwhelmingly biggest reason" why Hillary lost. But even if there were a singular reason for the loss, I would chalk it up as a 1-2 punch of Trump's race baiting appeals and Hillary's personal baggage as a candidate, with decades-old perceptions of corruption, untrustworthiness and general unlikability baked in to her public persona.

When millions of people from marginalized communities don't think it's worth it to vote against a white supremacist, something is seriously wrong with the opposition.

I agree with this, but I also don't think flooding the airwaves with policy position ads in October would overcome that either.

 

[kirblar]

"People are terrible" is a really bad takeaway from the inability of the Democrats to recapture Obama-levels of turnout. When millions of people from marginalized communities don't think it's worth it to vote against a white supremacist, something is seriously wrong with the opposition.



What part of that post do you disagree with?

The part where you argue that because Obama was black that those flipping voters couldn't have been motivated by white supremacy. It's deliberately ignoring reality.

Also the part where YOU STATE THAT THE DEMS ARE THE STATUS QUO.

We are not! We have not been the STATUS QUO ever since LBJ passed civil rights!

 

[RumbleHumble]

It's difficult to say because of how close the race was. Val's right in that a few more tweaks towards policy could've brought out the 70,000 people needed to flip the race in the Great Lakes.

But yeah, the only reason Trump had a chance is because whites have had their jimmies rustled by BLM (and, on a less racially pointed note, voters' stupid tendencies to think that the parties should take turns, so that a Republican deserves a shot after 8 years of a Democrat).

Lets not forget they got REAL upset about that black president of ours.

 

[Blader]

The part where you argue that because Obama was black that those flipping voters couldn't have been motivated by white supremacy. It's deliberately ignoring reality.

Obama's presidency definitely triggered some level of subconscious racial resentment among white voters, including Obama voters. His approvals among whites sank like a stone after his criticism of a white Cambridge cop arresting a black Harvard professor. Presumably that drop off would involve a lot of white Obama voters, because the white McCain voters would've already disapproved of him before that!

 

[pigeon]

So your argument is that Trump's white supremacist rhetoric convinced 100,000 Obama voters to not vote for Hillary? I don't think that's plausible, especially because Hillary is white and Obama is black.

Remember that 2016 Trump won three million fewer votes than 2012 Obama. Trump's boost in white GOP turnout wasn't enough to eclipse the status quo. Democrats had to falter for him to win.

This might surprise you, but elections actually start with zero votes on either side. Analysis like this that only looks at variation from the previous election does exactly what I noted before -- it reduces voters to morally unresponsive monoliths, ignoring the fact that they make affirmative choices each and every year they turn out.

The overwhelming reason Hillary lost is that 46% of American voters voted for a white supremacist to be president. If they hadn't done that, she definitely would've won.

Everything else is on the margin.

 

[Valhelm]

The part where you argue that because Obama was black that those flipping voters couldn't have been motivated by white supremacy. It's deliberately ignoring reality.

I'm not talking about the Democrats who went for Trump, I'm talking about the millions more Democrats who went for nobody

The part where you argue that because Obama was black that those flipping voters couldn't have been motivated by white supremacy. It's deliberately ignoring reality.

Also the part where YOU STATE THAT THE DEMS ARE THE STATUS QUO.

We are not! We have not been the STATUS QUO ever since LBJ passed civil rights!

"Status quo" meant Obama's 2012 performance. I think that's an acceptable baseline because he lacked the energy of his first election and was presiding over more secure (though still uncertain) economic circumstances. In this election, he dealt with a more competent and less dangerous opponent than Hillary, so there was less urgency for him to win. But he still managed to turn out more voters than Hillary could.

If Hillary had matched Obama's good but not great turnout in 2012, she would have been president in spite of Trump's boost of Republican turnout. And that's really the crux of the matter.

This might surprise you, but elections actually start with zero votes on either side. Analysis like this that only looks at variation from the previous election does exactly what I noted before -- it reduces voters to morally unresponsive monoliths, ignoring the fact that they make affirmative choices each and every year they turn out.

Then why do you think substantially fewer people were motivated to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 than for Obama in 2012, even though many of these Obama voters were directly threatened by Trump's policies?

 

[Stinkles]

Did anyone watch the Luther Strange debate last night? Absolutely embarrassing as both idiots claimed to love Trump better than the other.

Pledging naked, unwavering fealty to an obvious idiot, traitor and sexual assaulter.

 

[kirblar]

I'm not talking about the Democrats who went for Trump, I'm talking about the millions more Democrats who went for nobody



"Status quo" meant Obama's 2012 performance. I think that's an acceptable baseline because he lacked the energy of his first election and was presiding over more secure (though still uncertain) economic circumstances. In this election, he dealt with a more competent and less dangerous opponent than Hillary, so there was less urgency for him to win. But he still managed to turn out more voters than Hillary could.

If Hillary had matched Obama's good but not great turnout in 2012, she would have been president in spite of Trump's boost of Republican turnout. And that's really the crux of the matter.

This is where invoking MLK's white moderate excerpt would actually make sense. (and there were issues across groups of all races/ages/etc.) There are a lot of voters for whom Trump invoking white supremacy wasn't enough of an issue for them to vote for Clinton! This is a problem!

Obama is a once in a generation outlier. Obama didn't understand just how much his charisma was carrying things and we paid the price organizationally. It's not an acceptable baseline because it's an election involving Obama vs any one of our elections that hasn't in the past 20 years!

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Just saw some clips of Moore... dear lord. “Transgender troops in our bathrooms.”

I can’t

 

[Zolo]

Rand Paul seems like a firm 'no'.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/22/trump-obamacare-tweet-rand-paul-response-243015

 

[Valhelm]

This is where invoking MLK's white moderate excerpt would actually make sense. (and there were issues across groups of all races/ages/etc.) There are a lot of voters for whom Trump invoking white supremacy wasn't enough of an issue for them to vote for Clinton! This is a problem!

Yeah, it's an especially dire problem when you consider that many people who stayed home on election day are not white. For many non-voting individuals, the problem was not that they didn't oppose Trump but that they didn't believe a vote for Clinton would be worth it. This is the fundamental problem with Hillary's performance in 2016, and I think it could have been overcome through more exciting policies that offered specific and unique benefits to voters.

While I'm sure white supremacy caused some Obama voters to vote for Trump, it did not cause millions of other Obama voters to stay home. This is the demographic I'm talking about, the tens of millions of registered voters with whom Hillary Clinton could not connect.

 

[kirblar]

Rand Paul seems like a firm 'no'.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/22/trump-obamacare-tweet-rand-paul-response-243015

Which means McCain is too.

Rand will be vote 52 against or vote 51 in favor.

Yeah, it's an especially dire problem when you consider that many people who stayed home on election day are not white. For many non-voting individuals, the problem was not that they didn't oppose Trump but that they didn't believe a vote for Clinton would be worth it. This is the fundamental problem with Hillary's performance in 2016, and I think it could have been overcome through more exciting policies that offered specific and unique benefits to voters.

While I'm sure white supremacy caused some Obama voters to vote for Trump, it did not cause millions of other Obama voters to stay home. This is the demographic I'm talking about, the tens of millions of registered voters with whom Hillary Clinton could not connect.

You see the fundamental issue there as Clinton picking bad policies.

I see it as Clinton being a bad liar and unable to give that sort of rhetorical bullshit to please white mid-westerners that Obama was a master at. (see: stuff on NAFTA, race, etc.) Also why you need to run younger candidates in general who don't have as long a record.

The generation gap will kill the Dems every 8-12 years regardless after a president, because the new generation just doesn't understand the horror they're up against until they actually see it.

 

[Valhelm]

Ambition isn't dishonesty. Bringing to the table difficult-to-pass policies is substantially better than offering voters no major positive changes, because it brings these issues to discussion and raises popular support for their execution.

Perhaps more importantly, ambitious policies increase turnout and help you get elected. I expect they also boost turnout for down-ballot races, thus making something like single payer more tenable and securing support for other, easier bills.

 

[Deuce Deuce]

Rand Paul seems like a firm 'no'.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/22/trump-obamacare-tweet-rand-paul-response-243015

That should be 3 then right? Murkowski, Collins, and Paul. I'm cautiously optimistic that Paul will come through this time.

Great news to end the week.

 

[Diablos]

Rand won’t be bribed or bullied. Perhaps Lisa got bribed and McCain got bullied. Just saying.

Edit: really hope Collins switches to independent or Dem after this because why not

 

[Vimes]

GOP if you could stop scaring the shit out of us on a regular basis just to butter up your asshole donors that'd be great.

 

[chadskin]

SIREN, McCain: "“I cannot in good conscience vote for the Graham-Cassidy proposal"

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/911286349017288705

 

[Diablos]

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/911286349017288705

Fap fap fap faaaaappppppp

 

[Tamanon]

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/911286349017288705

Well that Town Hall got less interesting, lol.

 

[teiresias]

Rand won’t be bribed or bullied. Perhaps Lisa got bribed and McCain got bullied. Just saying.

Edit: really hope Collins switches to independent or Dem after this because why not

If Murkowski and McCain couldn't be bullied in real-time on the floor during the last vote I don't see how they get bullied this time when a vote isn't even scheduled or committed to.

 

[kirblar]

@jbarro Josh Barro Retweeted
I think GOP opponents have learned that announcing a hard no just gets them abuse from the WH

This seems like the best explanation of why we had to endure this bullshit again for a week.

 

[Plinko]

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/911286349017288705

HYYYYYYYPPPPPPPPPPPPPEEEEEEE

 

[balladofwindfishes]

How many times will McCain need to reiterate that he is not voting for this bill before people believe him?

 

[Aaron Strife]

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/911286349017288705

Oh god, it's going to pass!

How many times will McCain need to reiterate that he is not voting for this bill before people believe him?

Problem with McCain is he doesn't seem to have any ideological opposition to the bill, so I feel like his total opposition is less secure.

If your position is "I'd vote for this if it went through the proper channels" I'm not counting you as an opponent until shit actually goes down. Even now I'm on my toes.

 

[Deuce Deuce]

How many times will McCain need to reiterate that he is not voting for this bill before people believe him?

Democrats are some of the most hand wringingest people in existance.

 

[Y2Kev]

But there was a smile...

 

[Futurevoid]

If indeed the votes are not there, I'd be blown away if McConnell brings this thing to the floor for yet another very public embarrassment.

 

[PBY]

How many times will McCain need to reiterate that he is not voting for this bill before people believe him?

This is the first time he's said this, come on.

"I want order" is a non answer.

 

[Valhelm]

Democrats are some of the most hand wringingest people in existance.

with this much on the line idk if you can blame them

 

[Futurevoid]

To make it official. McCain's statement:

 

[BoogieWoogie]

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/911286349017288705

Thank fucking GOD.

Now bring on the upcoming mid-term war between establishment GOP and Koch Brothers' Crazies.

 

[Diablos]

This is the first time he's said this, come on.

"I want order" is a non answer.

“I want the regular order” lol

 

[Blader]

Democrats are some of the most hand wringingest people in existance.

Donald Trump is president, and that occurred after many Democrats -- myself included -- told others to stop handwringing over the election. So, I think some handwringing is well overdue here.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I wonder, should Graham-Cassidy fail (looks more likely to fail than it does to pass), if there will be any inclination in the GOP to set aside reconciliation in next year's budget for ACA repeal yet again.

Like I know they don't actually give a shit and want to move onto tax reform, but this has been their white whale for years. What do they think their base cares more about? Killing Obamacare or giving some rich corporate assholes more money?

 

[Zolo]

If indeed the votes are not there, I'd be blown away if McConnell brings this thing to the floor for yet another very public embarrassment.

I imagine this is one of the reasons why he's been relatively silent. He doesn't want to feel forced to put it to vote if they don't have the guaranteed votes like the last vote.

 

[Plinko]

I'm thankful he is saying this about Graham-Cassidy, but I am getting sick and tired of hearing republicans say the ACA was "rammed through" Congress.

 

[Mark Andrew]

God bless John McCain.

 

[Ogodei]

Thank fucking GOD.

Now bring on the upcoming mid-term war between establishment GOP and Koch Brothers' Crazies.

More fun than that:

Establishment GOP
Koch Brothers Crazies
Trumpkin Neofascists

 

[Diablos]

To make it official. McCain's statement:

MAVERICK

 

[nature boy]

*Levels of Mavericking increasing*

I can see Cheeto tweeting:

"So-called POW McCain doesn't want GREAT HEALTHCARE for Americans, but dopey Obamacare! Weak!"

 

[Basileus777]

So Graham-Cassidy probably won't get a vote after all.

 

[Zukkoyaki]

McCain coming out like this could very well trigger a bit of a domino effect of other senators opposing it. Rand will probably actually vote no and some others will soon follow, especially now that some studies have been released confirming the bill is a shitshow.

 

[Blader]

I'm thankful he is saying this about Graham-Cassidy, but I am getting sick and tired of hearing republicans say the ACA was "rammed through" Congress.

Ha, I had the exact same reaction. Hard eyeroll at that line.

McCain coming out like this could very well trigger a bit of a domino effect of other senators opposing it. Rand will probably actually vote no and some others will soon follow, especially now that some studies have been released confirming the bill is a shitshow.

Yeah, expect those cowards Portman and Capito to declare their opposition now too.

 

[Zolo]

McCain coming out like this could very well trigger a bit of a domino effect. Rand will probably actually vote no and some others will soon follow, especially now that some studies have been released confirming the bill is a shitshow.

Yeah. I imagine part of the reason for Rand coming out against this as much as he is in part because Collins, Murkowski, and McCain are fairly firm 'no's now.

 

[Diablos]

Yeah. I imagine part of the reason for Rand coming out against this as much as he is in part because Collins, Murkowski, and McCain are fairly firm 'no's now.

Yep. No pressure on Rand

Btw we must win the house and/or Senate next year or else the ACA probably will finally be ripped apart

McCain won’t live forever

 

[Tamanon]

I'm not sure how Murkowski can really come out for it, even with an Alaska buyout, considering the reasons McCain gave.

And any carve-outs for Alaska and others will probably piss off Rand Paul and keep him a hard no.

 

[nature boy]

McCain coming out like this could very well trigger a bit of a domino effect of other senators opposing it. Rand will probably actually vote no and some others will soon follow, especially now that some studies have been released confirming the bill is a shitshow.

This is not getting a vote on the floor, that's for sure

 

[MrCheez]

"Obamacare rammed through Congress" is so disingenuous... as is acting as though Graham and Cassidy have good intentions behind their bill.

But... I'll take it if it means McCain is sweeping in to save the day again. Good on him. I do have to give props for a Republican sticking up for bipartisan governing.