Angelus Errare
Banned
If refusing to campaign on a platform of white supremacy is considered incompetent then I'm glad they're incompetent. We can point to many things they did wrong, but refusing to campaign life that isn't one of them.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Shouting match erupts between Clinton and Trump aides at Harvard forum
- Thread starter whyamihere
- Start date
- Status
If refusing to campaign on a platform of white supremacy is considered incompetent then I'm glad they're incompetent. We can point to many things they did wrong, but refusing to campaign life that isn't one of them.
I suspect many people don't even think about their best interest. They vote more often on charisma, hatred, and/or frustration with their situation and the self-interests are rationalized around those (and thus obviously secondary). In this case, the narratives produced were able to shore up enough fear and hatred around Hillary (though she'd had plenty already).
Mammoth Jones
Member
Sorta. I think they don't really ponder on it. Just attracted to the gist of a candidates message.
Jobs
Great again
Win
People hear that and it resonates.
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
For the record, I don't believe white supremacy is the platform to run on since, you know, the Democratic electorate would never have stood for it. But I do get this sense of operatives resigning to the "well, we tried really hard and we played fair but the game was rigged against us!" narrative in post-mortems, as if there wasn't anything else they could've done.
You would've figured that out if you ran a more competent campaign.
Sorry, but no, that is just so fucking stupid (the entire logic behind it). There are limits to what one should do to achieve their goal, appealing to racists is one of those limits. Yes she "had to win", but not if it goes completely against her morality.
There are many reasons the democrats lost, including Republican's blocking voter turnout as best they can and the Democratic party's handling of Bernie Sanders (which shown to bring in a high turnout of young voters who typically don't vote). It isn't simple incompetence.
Except that is not what she is saying... She is saying if appealing to a disgusting crowd by promising them their disgusting beliefs is the way to win, then she rather not win. There is nothing wrong with that. She didn't say anything about it being rigged against them either. Just that the Republicans were willing to put into play a side of society that should not be used or catered to at all.
As for the bold, it shouldn't be the platform because it is a very disgusting thing to run on, not because Democrats wouldn't stand for it.
Looking at both this dialogue and some posters on this thread, it continues to frustrate me that many people are continuing on the line that Clinton lost only because of racism. As a Black American living in Florida from Brooklyn, I can't help but roll my eyes enough on this mantra. I can't tell you how many times I was dismissed or laughed at for suggesting that Clinton was not as strong a candidate as she promoted herself to be, or that Trump had a fair chance on this. There was a lot of arrogance on the left, and I think we still have not owned up to it.
To note, I have absolutely seen here in rural Florida how much prejudice and discrimination played in the minds of voters here. Not all of them, mind you, but it absolutely played a role in Trump's win here. The fact is, Clinton was never really able to convince voters that she was the custodian of their dreams and futures as a working-class president. For all of his faults, Sanders was able to convince regular folks that he had a background and legacy that showed them he was serious. A lot of people here in Florida were burned by decades of Democrats and Republicans promising to make their lives better, and doing little. This was the view for a lot of White voters, while Black voters like myself saw a lot of positive changes.
Another issue here is the fact that Liberals have not been able to sell their ideas. As comedian Jonathan Pie showed in his own reflection of the election, "the Left" lost the art of engaging in people. If you had a rural, Conservative Christian uncomfortable with gay marriage or political correctness, they were dismissed and insulted. I saw it personally, especially from university-level students and voters. As much as I vociferously disagree with them, you need to engage with these people and make your argument. Unlike a lot of Gaffers here, I don't have the luxury of living in a Blue state. I have to engage with Republicans and conservatives EVERY DAY, so it taught me the importance of understanding their background and patiently engaging them. It hasn't always worked, but we can respect each other and have different viewpoints. I managed to win over some hearts, but its tough work.
I still feel that a lot of Clinton people have not owned up to their faults, and simply blame white supremacy on a multifaceted issue. Personally, I voted for Clinton but had no enthusiasm or hope that she was going to do much. A lot of minority friends of mine in Miami, Tallahassee, Tampa, and Jacksonville either sat home or had to drag their feet voting for Clinton. Obama was able to personally touch persons in a way Clinton never did, and honestly, I never felt genuinely tried to do. Listening to Palmieri is also bewildering, given that Clinton spent so much time away from swing states as the election went on. Heck, even Obama threw a little bit of shade on that regarding how much he was in Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina and other swing states. There is a lot of work to do, but we do ourselves an injustice by simply throwing all the burden on people being racist, and them not being engaged or motivated to vote for their candidate.
To note, I have absolutely seen here in rural Florida how much prejudice and discrimination played in the minds of voters here. Not all of them, mind you, but it absolutely played a role in Trump's win here. The fact is, Clinton was never really able to convince voters that she was the custodian of their dreams and futures as a working-class president. For all of his faults, Sanders was able to convince regular folks that he had a background and legacy that showed them he was serious. A lot of people here in Florida were burned by decades of Democrats and Republicans promising to make their lives better, and doing little. This was the view for a lot of White voters, while Black voters like myself saw a lot of positive changes.
Another issue here is the fact that Liberals have not been able to sell their ideas. As comedian Jonathan Pie showed in his own reflection of the election, "the Left" lost the art of engaging in people. If you had a rural, Conservative Christian uncomfortable with gay marriage or political correctness, they were dismissed and insulted. I saw it personally, especially from university-level students and voters. As much as I vociferously disagree with them, you need to engage with these people and make your argument. Unlike a lot of Gaffers here, I don't have the luxury of living in a Blue state. I have to engage with Republicans and conservatives EVERY DAY, so it taught me the importance of understanding their background and patiently engaging them. It hasn't always worked, but we can respect each other and have different viewpoints. I managed to win over some hearts, but its tough work.
I still feel that a lot of Clinton people have not owned up to their faults, and simply blame white supremacy on a multifaceted issue. Personally, I voted for Clinton but had no enthusiasm or hope that she was going to do much. A lot of minority friends of mine in Miami, Tallahassee, Tampa, and Jacksonville either sat home or had to drag their feet voting for Clinton. Obama was able to personally touch persons in a way Clinton never did, and honestly, I never felt genuinely tried to do. Listening to Palmieri is also bewildering, given that Clinton spent so much time away from swing states as the election went on. Heck, even Obama threw a little bit of shade on that regarding how much he was in Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina and other swing states. There is a lot of work to do, but we do ourselves an injustice by simply throwing all the burden on people being racist, and them not being engaged or motivated to vote for their candidate.
I don't even think some of them ponder the message (and this isn't limited to republicans). I've met a few that can't tell you anything about their message. Even the slogan. I've asked people that and they honestly don't know it. They just hated clinton.
ZombiePlatypus
Member
You can even brag about sexually assaulting people. Just don't use email.
We can't use facts anymore. That is considered "liberal elitism."
AppleBlade
Member
I agree with this. In fact, it's impossible for most people to vote for their own best interest since most people don't even know the candidates platforms. Prior to the election I carefully read through Trump's platform and 100 day plan as well as Hillary's platforms and views. Whenever I got into a political discussion with anyone on either side they had almost no knowledge of the specifics of their candidates platform on any issue, even the ones most important to them. It's quite frustrating to hear someone say education is very important to them or the middle east or our energy policy and yet they only have vague ideas about what the candidate they so avidly supports believes.
ultratruman
Banned
Is Conway a true believer, or just an extremely cynical careerist?
I want to know the questions historians will be looking to answer 100 years from now.
I want to know the questions historians will be looking to answer 100 years from now.
Dr. Benton Quest
Banned
She wants power and success. I doubt she cares much for policy.
harriet the spy
Member
Careerist
yeah if you try to run on white supremacy then congrats you've become the enemy
She campaigned on a social platform during an economic election. She is a free trade establishment candidate when people wanted change. Her platform was totally off from the get go - no one talks about social issues when entire regions have been devastated by technology and globalization.
Psychoward
Banned
Holy shit at that white supremacists line
Conway is a piece of shit human being trying to rationalize other piece of shit human beings
Glad she got called out so bluntly
Conway is a piece of shit human being trying to rationalize other piece of shit human beings
Glad she got called out so bluntly
I think this needs to happen from the left more. It worked for Trump, nobody could fault him on not speaking his (insane) mind. Now imagine if we did that but with you know, actual facts and intellectualism instead of nonsense.
ultratruman
Banned
I would have agreed with you, until this conference. Conway has made a lot of hints that she's frustrated with Trump throughout the campaign.
However, based on what she's saying here, it sounds like she's actually personally invested in the message.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Said regions have been fucked by technology and globalization for the last few decades. It's not a recent phenomenon.
The idea that one can't campaign on social issues when the opposition ran on...social issues is such a horrible argument. The opposition used social issues to justify the economic ones ffs.
Argue Hillary did a terrible job at addressing economic issues in a way people in those regions can understand by failing to campaign there or not using buzzwords and lying to them sure. But insinuating she shouldn't have used identity politics when the opposition did just that and won is just...a nonsensical argument.
Classic case of "well the people I pay attention to wanted this, so the whole country must have wanted this" when, in reality, 2.5 million more people voted for Clinton than Trump. Turns out that social issues were hot ticket and center stage after all. Especially when Trump HIMSELF ran on the same social issues.
SodiumBenzoate
Member
First post nails it
Excellent post, thank you.
Palmeri has been in the Clinton "bubble" so long she really doesn't understand the real flaws of her candidate and her campaign. She can argue how unfair that is and was (and it seems like she will continue doing so for a long time), but the results speak for themselves.
No one cares you convinced a couple extra million Californians that your candidate was better, because you still fucking lost. Don't complain about the rules. It's a personal and national tragedy but those were the rules, you knerw about them, and the orange man still won.
SodiumBenzoate
Member
double post whoops
ultratruman
Banned
The Democratic party let the ethno-nationalism cat out of the bag aftter Obama's victory. A problem with that is, it turns out minority ethnicities may not have as much in common as is necessary to overcome the core white vote. Look at the swing in favour of Trump amongst latino men, for example.
Another, more sinister, problem is that focusing on what you may consider the progressive cause of one specific ethnic group's power ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS leads the majority ethnicity starting to think monolithically about their own grip on society.
The 'demographics are destiny' meme is fine, but Democrats need to remember ethnicity isn't the sole determinative factor in people's behaviour or position in society. Education and economic disparities explain this election far more robustly.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked