Support NeoGAF

[Nerokis]

It's interesting to me that some are coalescing around the narrative that everyone was happy with Ellison, and it was simply unnecessary for Perez to run at all. The narrative seems to be based on a couple things: one, the fact that Ellison was the first big name to announce (aside from Dean, who's a ghost), got important endorsements out the gate, and had no serious competition until Perez entered the field; and two, an overemphasis on what the more progressive wing of the party wanted, seeing as it's pretty clear not everyone was totally comfortable with the choices available at the time.

Ellison filled a vacuum - that's different from everyone being happy with him. This is my first point of disagreement with the people basically arguing that it was a slap in the face for Perez to even get involved. It makes perfect sense to be uncomfortable with the race not even being a genuine competition, even before we get to how some felt about Ellison himself. Had he won, I'm sure everyone would have accepted it and wished him the best, but that's not an argument for refusing to expand the field.

The other point is that Ellison has been around for over a decade, and I haven't seen much evidence that he has the organizational or networking ability suited to leading an organization like the DNC. He's probably the first politician I ever donated to, back in 2006 or so, and I was inclined to support him after he announced his candidacy. But I had my apprehensions from the beginning, and they had nothing to do with Bernie or Warren endorsing him. I just wasn't sure why it took him so long to decide he was going to be a real leader within the party.

So from my vantage point, all this "why push Perez to run?" and "they're just anti-Bernie!" talk seems completely nonsensical and self-serving. We had a fair and competitive race, and I can only see this as a good thing. To argue against the result, some seem to be making arguments specifically tailored to promoting the idea that we shouldn't have had a serious race at all.

When did Ellison have that really bad appearance on The 1600 (I thik it was that podcast)

Listening to that certainly didn't soothe my fears.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

White working class voters were never part of the Obama coalition. Were you literally not paying attention in '08? That was Hillary's base then.

In 2008 Obama won Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and probably would have won Michigan if it wasn't schedule fuckery, and I didn't say "white working class voters" I said "working class voters in the Midwest." Not all white voters are the same, surprisingly!

And the Obama coalition refers to what he won two presidential elections with, which included working class voters in the Midwest that twice gave him a substantial number of electoral votes. Hillary beat him with Latinos in the primary but they're obviously also a necessary part of the coalition here.

edit: oh, and obviously they did think Obama represented them pretty well, since they went for him twice in substantial numbers! He won commanding leads in the upper Midwestern states without the suburban college whites who didn't want the government taking their money to pay for the dirty poors.

 

[Chindogg]

The Obama coalition had three legs: young urban professionals, minorities, and working class voters in the upper midwest. The last group wasn't really a loser in the '08 primaries either, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa all went for Obama in 2008, and I bet Michigan would have if it wasn't for the schedule fuckery.

Clinton sacrificed one of those legs (working class voters in the Midwest) for another (suburban college voters). She lost substantially more voters than she gained, which is why we lost the election. Schumer literally explained this strategy.

This is correct, although I'll also say that suburban college voters at least in Michigan were staunchly Sanders people due to his pushing of tuition free education, single payer healthcare, and income equality.

It's interesting to me that some are coalescing around the narrative that everyone was happy with Ellison, and it was simply unnecessary for Perez to run at all. The narrative seems to be based on a couple things: one, the fact that Ellison was the first big name to announce (aside from Dean, who's a ghost), got important endorsements out the gate, and had no serious competition until Perez entered the field; and two, an overemphasis on what the more progressive wing of the party wanted, seeing as it's pretty clear not everyone was totally comfortable with the choices available at the time.

Ellison filled a vacuum - that's different from everyone being happy with him. This is my first point of disagreement with the people basically arguing that it was a slap in the face for Perez to even get involved. It makes perfect sense to be uncomfortable with the race not even being a genuine competition, even before we get to how some felt about Ellison himself. Had he won, I'm sure everyone would have accepted it and wished him the best, but that's not an argument for refusing to expand the field.

The other point is that Ellison has been around for over a decade, and I haven't seen much evidence that he has the organizational or networking ability suited to leading an organization like the DNC. He's probably the first politician I ever donated to, back in 2006 or so, and I was inclined to support him after he announced his candidacy. But I had my apprehensions from the beginning, and they had nothing to do with Bernie or Warren endorsing him. I just wasn't sure why it took him so long to decide he was going to be a real leader within the party.

So from my vantage point, all this "why push Perez to run?" and "they're just anti-Bernie!" talk seems completely nonsensical and self-serving. We had a fair and competitive race, and I can only see this as a good thing. To argue against the result, some seem to be making arguments specifically tailored to promoting the idea that we shouldn't have had a serious race at all.

I don't think anyone would have really had a problem with Perez (most people don't actually have a problem with him) had Obama and Biden not stepped in out of the blue to endorse him. It gave the perception that the neoliberal wing of the Dems were pushing their guy so they didn't lose any more power than they had when Clinton fucked up the election. (And I'll keep saying fucked up because she really did botch that election in every conceivable way possible.)

 

[InstigateAndInquire]

An easy way to avoid candidates no one wants to vote for is to ban past losers from running again.

But there is precedent that past losers, past multiple losers, can eventually win. (no I'm not advocating for Hillary 2020) I'm just saying.

 

[excelsiorlef]

They are the failed status quo. Hillary is sitting at home, the Democrats are in terrible shape, Wall St. is having a blast and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

Biden and Perez are Obama camp not Clinton camp.

 

[kirblar]

In 2008 Obama won Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and probably would have won Michigan if it wasn't schedule fuckery, and I didn't say "white working class voters" I said "working class voters in the Midwest." Not all white voters are the same, surprisingly!

And the Obama coalition refers to what he won two presidential elections with, which included working class voters in the Midwest that twice gave him a substantial number of electoral votes. Hillary beat him with Latinos in the primary but they're obviously also a necessary part of the coalition here.

Lumping white working class voters in with non-white working class voters is deliberately disingenous BS that purposely ignores that the two groups DO NOT have the same voting patterns in order to perpetuate a false class-based narrative fantasy. edit: The world has changed. Rural areas nationwide are voting in line with each other, as are urban/suburban areas. This trend is not going to stop- politics have nationalized. And this election was the victory of white identity politics.

In '08, if only white people voted, Hillary wins: http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/06/democratic-nomination-voter-totals-by.html

In '16, if only white people voted, Bernie wins. The strongest predictor of how well Bernie would do in a state? How small their black population was.

In both cases, you had a lot of bitter angry voters. But in '08 you had charisma, people despising Bush, and a recession he caused. In '16, you had no charisma, a popular president, and a good economy. So while in '08 a bunch of these WWC voters were willing to swap over in order to try and fix things, in '16, they had the luxury of being able to indulge those dark, hateful, ignorant impulses.

But there is precedent that past losers, past multiple losers, can eventually win. (no I'm not advocating for Hillary 2020) I'm just saying.

Not on the Democratic side. The two parties have very different ways of nominating successful candidates.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Lumping white working class voters in with non-white working class voters is deliberately disingenous BS that purposely ignores that the two groups DO NOT have the same voting patterns in order to perpetuate a false class-based narrative fantasy.

In '08, if only white people voted, Hillary wins: http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/06/democratic-nomination-voter-totals-by.html

In '16, if only white people voted, Bernie wins. The strongest predictor of how well Bernie would do in a state? How small their black population was.

In both cases, you had a lot of bitter angry voters. But in '08 you had charisma, people despising Bush, and a recession he caused. In '16, you had no charisma, a popular president, and a good economy. So while in '08 a bunch of these WWC voters were willing to swap over in order to try and fix things, in '16, they had the luxury of being able to indulge those dark, hateful, ignorant impulses.

Not on the Democratic side. The two parties have very different ways of nominating successful candidates.

These areas were going blue consistently until this year and were a key part of the Democratic coalition. Abandoning them for the Milwaukee suburbs was a costly mistake.

And Hillary's failure to appeal to the working class more broadly than the white working class appears in the fact that her black share of the vote was worse than Gore's. She probably lost about as many of them as she did white working class voters in the upper midwest, to be honest! Her gains entirely came from those counties by Milwaukee (in any other map, they're the darkest red part), who also supported with much more fervor Ron Johnson. I guess we're going after the Ron Johnson vote now?

I'm not sure why I bother arguing this with you, though.

 

[mo60]

But there is precedent that past losers, past multiple losers, can eventually win. (no I'm not advocating for Hillary 2020) I'm just saying.

The last person who lost the presidency(not the presidential primaries) in their first run and ended up winning it in future runs was Nixon. Not sure if any democrat followed a similar path to the presidency as Nixon did.

Edit: Unless you want to count Andrew Jackson he was technically the last democratic presidental candidate that lost his first run and won it in his second run, but technically he was running under two different parties in both presidential runs.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

The last person who lost the presidency in their first run and ended up winning it in future runs was Nixon. Not sure if any democrat followed a similar path to the presidency as Nixon did.

Bush the Elder by this metric, actually.

 

[kirblar]

These areas were going blue consistently until this year and were a key part of the Democratic coalition. Abandoning them for the Milwaukee suburbs was a costly mistake.

And Hillary's failure to appeal to the working class more broadly than the white working class appears in the fact that her black share of the vote was worse than Gore's. She probably lost about as many of them as she did white working class voters in the upper midwest, to be honest!

I'm not sure why I bother arguing this with you, though.

We didn't abandon them. They abandoned us. They didn't vote along economic lines- they voted along racial ones. And that was their awful, heinous choice. This is the end result of the Southern Strategy. This is how it looks on a national scale.

Hillary could appeal to the non-white working class just fine. Those turnout issues are just that-enthusiasm and turnout issues in general. They have nothing to do with any specific racial issues and are endemic of larger issues on that front.

This pattern you're seeing- it wasn't just happening in WI, it was happening nationwide. This is why they were sure there wasn't fraud by looking at the stats- the same patterns were occurring in rural areas across the country.

We had a majority of the vote- the key isn't to flip racists who only vote D when the economy gets bad, it's to fix the issues with nonvoters.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

We didn't abandon them. They abandoned us. They didn't vote along economic lines- they voted along racial ones. And that was their awful, heinous choice. This is the end result of the Southern Strategy. This is how it looks on a national scale.

Hillary could appeal to the non-white working class just fine. Those turnout issues are just that-enthusiasm and turnout issues in general. They have nothing to do with any specific racial issues and are endemic of larger issues on that front.

This pattern you're seeing- it wasn't just happening in WI, it was happening nationwide. This is why they were sure there wasn't fraud by looking at the stats- the same patterns were occurring in rural areas across the country.

We had a majority of the vote- the key isn't to flip racists who only vote D when the economy gets bad, it's to fix the issues with nonvoters.

THEY DON'T ONLY VOTE D WHEN THE ECONOMY GETS BAD, THEY VOTED FOR KERRY AND GORE AND DUKAKIS

THEY HAVE BEEN VOTING D FOR THE PAST 30+ YEARS

HILLARY MATCHED OBAMA'S NUMBERS WITH MIDDLE CLASS AND EDUCATED BLACK VOTERS BUT DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY WITH WORKING CLASS MINORITY VOTERS

RACE IS THE BIGGEST FACTOR IN AMERICAN POLITICS BUT CLASS ISN'T NONEXISTENT

 

[kirblar]

THEY DON'T ONLY VOTE D WHEN THE ECONOMY GETS BAD, THEY VOTED FOR KERRY AND GORE AND DUKAKIS

THEY HAVE BEEN VOTING D FOR THE PAST 30+ YEARS

HILLARY MATCHED OBAMA'S NUMBERS WITH MIDDLE CLASS AND EDUCATED BLACK VOTERS BUT DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY WITH WORKING CLASS MINORITY VOTERS

RACE IS THE BIGGEST FACTOR IN AMERICAN POLITICS BUT CLASS ISN'T NONEXISTENT

And then a white nationalist came along.

And suddenly you saw who actually had your back.

 

[mo60]

Bush the Elder by this metric, actually.

I'm talking about the candidate being nominated for the presidency and losing to their main opponent from the other party in the general. The last presidential candidate that fits this is Nixon.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

I'm talking about the candidate being nominated for the presidency and losing to their main opponent from the other party in the general. The last presidential candidate that fits this is Nixon.

Right, but the metric being talked about here is that candidates who lose the primary can come back and win the next primary then lose the general election. Since Nixon, both Reagan and Bush failed their first primaries while Gore and Hillary won their second primaries and then failed to win the general election.

 

[Chindogg]

And then a white nationalist came along.

And suddenly you saw who actually had your back.

We've had this discussion before on Twitter.

The white nationalist didn't win Michigan. The populist that promised jobs and the return of manufacturing won.

 

[kirblar]

We've had this discussion before on Twitter.

The white nationalist didn't win Michigan. The populist that promised jobs and the return of manufacturing won.

Alongside blaming minorities and promising to do awful things to them. Because they were more than willing to throw other people under the bus to get ahead. You cannot separate the two. They are irrevocably intertwined.

We have a majority without these people. I'm not interested in winning election on a national level by trying to win them over when we have much better and less revolting options available like fixing our Turnout ops. (On a local one, I'm willing to accept manchins)

 

[Moosichu]

Alongside blaming minorities and promising to do awful things to them. Because they were more than willing to throw other people under the bus to get ahead. You cannot separate the two. They are irrevocably intertwined.

They are definitely to blame for falling for that hateful message. What it does mean though is that they aren't a lost cause. They aren't going to vote along racial lines just because, they can (hopefully) be convinced not to. Which means the Dems have a chance of winning their vote to get back into power and actually help people.

They key thing as well is, is that their racist sensibilities don't have to be appealed to in order to win their vote. Positive messages can win.

 

[El_Tiguere]

Also this, good lord. I take back what I said earlier, this whole thing is actually only contentious because some people latched onto DWS as the secret manipulator working to sink Bernie Sanders

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...st-damaging-things-in-the-dncs-leaked-emails/

 

[Chindogg]

Alongside blaming minorities and promising to do awful things to them. Because they were more than willing to throw other people under the bus to get ahead. You cannot separate the two. They are irrevocably intertwined.

We have a majority without these people. I'm not interested in winning election on a national level by trying to win them over when we have much better and less revolting options available like fixing our Turnout ops. (On a local one, I'm willing to accept manchins)

But ignoring their problems and calling them deplorables is also how you lose elections.

No ones ignoring their problems, they just don't like what they're being told and go to the guy selling the evil monorail.

She also didn't call the WWC deplorables.

She did ignore their problems and did call them who considered voting for Trump out of desperation deplorables. Clinton supporters need to own that and understand that's part of what cost her.

 

[kirblar]

But ignoring their problems and calling them deplorables is also how you lose elections.

No ones ignoring their problems, they just don't like what they're being told and go to the guy selling the evil monorail.

She also didn't call the WWC deplorables.

 

[El_Tiguere]

I'm not saying it wasn't winnable, I'm saying it maybe wasn't easily winnable. I'd like to think that the thin margin in the swing states means a candidate with less baggage would have performed more, but I'm also unconvinced that Bernie would have actually had that much less baggage, and no-one can really prove that one way or the other.

First step in beating Trump: don't pick the only candidate with the same negative favorability rating.


Second step in beating Trump: if the world is increasingly a war between the upper class and the lower class, and there are waaaay more people at the bottom, don't pick the candidate known for pandering to the upper class.


Third step to beating Trump: if after 8 years of a half-assed economic "recovery", 70% country thinks we are headed in the wrong direction, don't pick the candidate touting status quo on her forehead.

Can I ask you what are the merits of establishment Democrats that you are so hellbent on defending?

 

[kirblar]

Votes aren't breaking along income lines.

Your thesis just straight up isn't correct.

 

[DJKhaled]

This too.

Anything he attaches himself to gets attacked immediately. I hope Bernie runs as third party in 2020.

Lol how dumb. If Bernie runs as third party trump will win again.

 

[mo60]

But ignoring their problems and calling them deplorables is also how you lose elections.



She did ignore their problems and did call them who considered voting for Trump out of desperation deplorables. Clinton supporters need to own that and understand that's part of what cost her.

Um she called certain supporters of trump deplorables. Not all his supporters. Also not all WWC are deplorable.

 

[Mutant]

And then a white nationalist came along.

And suddenly you saw who actually had your back.

Is there hard data that supports this?

 

[noshten]

We've had this discussion before on Twitter.

The white nationalist didn't win Michigan. The populist that promised jobs and the return of manufacturing won.

She wasn't a good candidate, she actually ended up doing worse with union households than anyone could have predicted. People can pass the buck to busters, Russia, FBI but for the midwest it was probably more to do with Clinton being linked with NAFTA, taking ages to come out against TPP, taking a nuanced stance on $15 minimum wage and her ties to big business. Her campaign never really shook that off and failed to campaign to the union members - instead trying to target Never Trump Republicans, which was an awful tactic.
As unions became less and less important in the midwest as Republicans gut them and union membership falls. It's things likes union leaders endorsing dem candidates before the primary has even started that lead to union leadership being divorced from the actual opinion of rank and file union members. This type of problem in the end makes unions incapable of actually motivating the union members in the end - next time there is a primary union leaders need to allow rank and file members to vote which candidate to choose instead of selecting one before the contest has even started.

Clinton's poor performance among union households appeared to especially damage her in crucial Midwestern states. Obama won Ohio in 2012, besting Romney in those households by 23 percentage points. Clinton actually lost Ohio's union households to Trump by 9 points, according to exit polls. The state went to Trump.

That means that Trump did as well as Reagan in 1984 despite more of those union members being nonwhite. One reason why may be women who are members of unions. In 2012, Mitt Romney beat President Obama by 20 points among white women without college degrees. Trump beat Clinton with that group by 28 points.

Trump and the republicans would have cried about bernie raising their taxes and exploited his flaws to such an extreme that he would look even more unelectable then hilary.Neither bernie or hilary were the right candidates for the general electorate in 2016.

Hillary lost to Donald Trump, Bernie didn't lose to Donald Trump - thus your "unelectable" comment should be aimed squarely towards Clinton.
Republicans always run on "Dems will raise your taxes" they will run on that in 2018 and 2020 - Bernie's tax hikes aren't exactly huge to anyone making less than 50k per year. In any case it would have been a much more interesting debate - rather than discussing what Trump lied about or who he offended. So the narrative would have been is this crooked liar who is in the pocket of big business the best choice or is it this socialist jew who will raise taxes. It's all a personality contest and at the very least Sanders would have done better in the midwest even if he ended up losing Florida.

 

[mo60]

First step in beating Trump: don't pick the only candidate with the same negative favorability rating.


Second step in beating Trump: if the world is increasingly a war between the upper class and the lower class, and there are waaaay more people at the bottom, don't pick the candidate known for pandering to the upper class.


Third step to beating Trump: if after 8 years of a half-assed economic "recovery", 70% country thinks we are headed in the wrong direction, don't pick the candidate touting status quo on her forehead.

Can I ask you what are the merits of establishment Democrats that you are so hellbent on defending?

Trump and the republicans would have cried about bernie raising their taxes and exploited his flaws to such an extreme that he would look even more unelectable then hilary.Neither bernie or hilary were the right candidates for the general electorate in 2016.

 

[kirblar]

Is there hard data that supports this?

The electorate polarized. Urban and suburban areas went hard for Clinton, rural ones for Trump. Clinton won counties totalling nearly 2/3rds of the Nations GDP. (Source) The average and median Trump voter are not lower class in the slightest. They just live in rural areas.

 

[El_Tiguere]

Trump and the republicans would have cried about bernie raising their taxes and exploited his flaws to such an extreme that he would look even more unelectable then hilary.Neither bernie or hilary were the right candidates for the general electorate in 2016.

And Bernie would have said YES I will raise it on the wealthy that have enjoyed most of the benefits for the last 40 years. And the 99% in this country we're rallying behind him (especially the youth who saw the same bullshit pandering to corporations since they can remember).

The electorate polarized. Urban and suburban areas went hard for Clinton, rural ones for Trump. Clinton won counties totalling nearly 2/3rds of the Nations GDP. The average and median Trump voter are not lower class in the slightest. They just live in rural areas.

Just like this economic "recovery" was mostly felt in wealthy liberal metros, as rural metros were being deserted by people looking for jobs in the big city. It's economics. The economy was NOT good for most, no matter what you felt in your urban bubble.

 

[Chindogg]

And Bernie would have said YES I will raise it on the wealthy that have enjoyed most of the benefits for the last 40 years. And the 99% in this country we're rallying behind him (especially the youth who saw the same bullshit pandering to corporations since they can remember).

People forget that the majority of the young electorate, the vary ones marching in record numbers now, were on board with Sanders' platform.

Yes telling rural areas they have no reason to exist and should move to the city - is going to be a very popular message.

Especially when agriculture is one of this country's top exports.

 

[kirblar]

Just like this economic "recovery" was mostly felt in wealthy liberal metros, as rural metros were being deserted by people looking for jobs in the big city. It's economics. The economy was NOT good for most, no matter what you felt in your urban bubble.

It's not a bubble when most people live in urban or suburban areas.

The goal should not be to prop up towns that have ceased to have a reason to exist. But that's what the people living there want.

 

[noshten]

It's not a bubble when most people live in urban or suburban areas.

The goal should not be to prop up towns that have ceased to have a reason to exist. But that's what the people living there want.

Yes telling rural areas they have no reason to exist and should move to the city - is going to be a very popular message.

 

[gimmmick]

Great choice. I only know of him is when he was a real time with Bill Maher the week Trump got elected. Hopefully the dnc can rally up the working class people with Perez. Can't be a horrible if he came out of Obama's circle.

 

[kirblar]

Yes telling rural areas they have no reason to exist and should move to the city - is going to be a very popular message.

That's why I'm not a politician! I'm all for subsidizing ways of getting those people out of there, but its a handout you'll have to shove down their throat.

 

[El_Tiguere]

It's not a bubble when most people live in urban or suburban areas.

The goal should not be to prop up towns that have ceased to have a reason to exist. But that's what the people living there want.

Is it what they want? Or do they want jobs back? Your elitist "rural areas don't matter any more" is what got us Trump. How dare you tell the humans living there that their town no longer has a reason to exist? How about you do simple thing like prop them up with free quality education you know... in case they are people simply looking to better themselves and live a better life?

Democrats going forward can't be THIS detached from the world outside our trendy urban metros. It's a recipe for disaster.

 

[Chindogg]

That's why I'm not a politician! I'm all for subsidizing ways of getting those people out of there, but its a handout you'll have to shove down their throat.

Yeah that's totally fucking unreasonable. The majority of food in this country is produced in the midwest. You can't get people out of rural areas because that means we all fucking starve.

Is it what they want? Or do they want jobs back? Your elitist "rural areas don't matter any more" is what got us Trump. How dare you tell the humans living there that their town no longer has a reason to exist? How about you do simple thing like prop them up with free quality education you know... in case they are people simply looking to better themselves and live a better life?

Democrats going forward can't be THIS detached from the world outside our trendy urban metros. It's a recipe for disaster.

Kirblar, this is how I hear you sound when you say the shit you say about politics in general.

 

[kirblar]

Is it what they want? Or do they want jobs back? Your elitist "rural areas don't matter any more" is what got us Trump. How dare you tell the humans living there that their town no longer has a reason to exist? How about you do simple thing like prop them up with free quality education you know... in case they are people simply looking to better themselves and live a better life?

Democrats going forward can't be THIS detached from the world outside our trendy urban metros. It's a recipe for disaster.

Towns and cities are built around economic activity. When the heart is ripped out, the body dies. You can either die with it or find a new body.

People don't move anymore, the rates steadily gone down for decades. And that's a problem.

I'm not talking about farm towns, I'm talking about factory ones. There's a difference.

And yes, I believe that having more people live in diverse urban and suburban communities alongside people of other races, religions and cultures is a good thing and that this change in demographics is a great thing for our country.

 

[noshten]

I mean with automation coming thick and fast - cities are going to be effected far more than any other place. The rural areas have already seen a disappearance of jobs while the cities are still the refuge of opportunity.
Long term you have to be thinking about solutions to raise everyone up not just the lucky few that will have a job in 20 years.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Towns and cities are built around economic activity. When the heart is ripped out, the body dies. You can either die with it or find a new body.

People don't move anymore, the rates steadily gone down for decades. And that's a problem.

I'm not talking about farm towns, I'm talking about factory ones. There's a difference.

And yes, I believe that having more people live in diverse urban and suburban communities alongside people of other races, religions and cultures is a good thing and that this change in demographics is a great thing for our country.

Sure, cried the tenant men, but it's our land...We were born on it, and we got killed on it, died on it. Even if it's no good, it's still ours....That's what makes ownership, not a paper with numbers on it.

We're sorry. It's not us. It's the monster. The bank isn't like a man.

Yes, but the bank is only made of men.

No, you're wrong there—quite wrong there. The bank is something else than men. It happens that every man in a bank hates what the bank does, and yet the bank does it. The bank is something more than men, I tell you. It's the monster. Men made it, but they can't control it.

 

[The Blackrose]

We didn't abandon them. They abandoned us. They didn't vote along economic lines- they voted along racial ones. And that was their awful, heinous choice.

Oh please. As someone who lived in one of those districts that have flipped between R and D over the years, this, along with your "move to the city/suburb" line is reductio ad absurdum at its finest. For years, these towns have watched as their jobs were sent either out of the state or out of the country. I've seen the desperation in some of the families. For some of these families, their condition has not improved for years. Do these people even have the resources or capability to relocate? Probably not.

Along comes Trump, who is promising among all the other BS he's peddling, that he's going to bring jobs back. To anybody with a modicum of a functioning BS detector and how anti-capitalistic the notion is, they shouldn't be buying it.

What happens when that desperation kicks in? He wants to bring that old job at the shipyard back. Not have to worry about making sure the family has a roof over their head, or food on the table. Maybe actually have some spending money for a change.

But keep parroting that it was a decision based on racial tones, while verbally crapping on persistent problems like Appalachian Poor. That will get you back the White House in 4 years.

I mean with automation coming thick and fast - cities are going to be effected far more than any other place. The rural areas have already seen a disappearance of jobs while the cities are still the refuge of opportunity.
Long term you have to be thinking about solutions to raise everyone up not just the lucky few that will have a job in 20 years.

Bingo.

 

[Boney]

Anybody that has picked a book once in their life understands that demagogues don't rise up to power in a vacuum. Economic collapse puts people in a heightened sense of anxiety that takes the form of wrath and vengeance through the demagogue. Nazi Germany underwent the same transformation after Versailles and the Nazi party made Jews, the English and the French the reason for their misery. Today it's the liberal class, celebrities and politicians. The southern strategy appeals to these irrationalities and democrats are glad to play along to get the minority votes for sake of only being not republicans.
It's impossible to say it better than it was said here.

Simplifying the rise of Trump as white supremacists or even shaming them into being delusional for clinging to memory of a once functioning economy built of new the back of the industry is embarrasing. Smugly proclaiming Hillary once said green energy as a victory, and cynically dismissing why someone who championed them, slamming nafta and accusing the politicians as traitors are as blind as the people who voted for trump based on these promises. But unlike them, you have no excuses.

http://m.truthdig.com/report/item/demagogue-in-chief_20161211

Trump is the sick expression of a dysfunctional political system and mass culture that celebrate the most depraved aspects of human nature—greed, a lust for power, a thirst for adulation and celebrity, a penchant for the manipulation of others, dishonesty, a lack of remorse and a frightening pathology in which reality is ignored. He is the product of our escapist world of constant entertainment. He embodies the mutation of values in American society that has culminated in an enormous cult of the self and the abandonment of the common good.

“When a population becomes distracted by trivia,” wrote Neil Postman, “when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people becomes an audience and their public business a vaudeville, then a nation finds itself at risk: cultural-death is a clear possibility.”

Demagogues—insecure and crippled by an unbridled narcissism and seldom of high intelligence—play to the inverted values of a decayed society. They attack all who do not kneel before the idol of “the great leader.” “Saturday Night Live” can continue to go after Trump, but Trump, as president, will use every tool in his arsenal, no matter how devious, to banish such public ridicule. He will seek to domesticate the press and critics first through the awarding of special privileges, flattery, gifts and access. Those who cannot be bought off will be destroyed. His petulant, childish taunts, given authority by the machinery of the security and surveillance state, will be dangerous.

...

Demagogues foster the psychosis of permanent war, which often leads to actual war. The psychosis of permanent war becomes a tool to abolish civil liberties and condemn dissent as treason. Huge expenditures go into the military, which demagogues see as an extension of their personal power, while the rest of the country decays. There is nothing a demagogue loves more than a big military parade.
The story of demagogues is as old as civilization. They have risen and fallen like the tides, always leaving in their wake misery, destruction and death. They exploit the frustrations and anger generated by a decayed society. They make fantastic promises they never keep. They demonize the vulnerable as scapegoats. They preach hatred and violence. They demand godlike worship. They consume those they rule.

 

[TurnipFritters]

Is it what they want? Or do they want jobs back? Your elitist "rural areas don't matter any more" is what got us Trump. How dare you tell the humans living there that their town no longer has a reason to exist? How about you do simple thing like prop them up with free quality education you know... in case they are people simply looking to better themselves and live a better life?

Democrats going forward can't be THIS detached from the world outside our trendy urban metros. It's a recipe for disaster.

Hey you know what happens to people who live in rural areas who get a good education? They leave, because there aren't any jobs that make use of their degree in those rural areas. Hell, look at all these kids nowadays graduating from college and not being able to find a job in their field.

We can't pretend there's some easy answer for this, like we can just offer free college and some vague infrastructure works plans and POOF SMALL TOWN LIFE IS SAVED!

(this is setting aside the major hurdle of actually convincing people in small rural towns that progressive candidates/values/etc are actually good and cool an will help them in real, tangible ways - even if we were to get a supermajority of progressives who actually had a workable plan of action, it would still take decades for large swaths of our rural country to actually feel the effects. And as we've seen recently, it's pretty hard to convince people that things are getting better with you in charge if they aren't personally effected)

 

[The Technomancer]

Oh please. As someone who lived in one of those districts that have flipped between R and D over the years, this, along with your "move to the city/suburb" line is reductio ad absurdum at its finest. For years, these towns have watched as their jobs were sent either out of the state or out of the country. I've seen the desperation in some of the families. For some of these families, their condition has not improved for years. Do these people even have the resources or capability to relocate? Probably not.

Along comes Trump, who is promising among all the other BS he's peddling, that he's going to bring jobs back. To anybody with a modicum of a functioning BS detector and how anti-capitalistic the notion is, they shouldn't be buying it.

What happens when that desperation kicks in? He wants to bring that old job at the shipyard back. Not have to worry about making sure the family has a roof over their head, or food on the table. Maybe actually have some spending money for a change.
.

So I grew up in Kenosha. Most southeastern county in Wisconsin. Reliably blue until this election. Was a solid manufacturing town for a while. Then the factories pulled out. Thirty years ago. The people of Kenosha? They've largely gotten over it. No-one is still nursing losing their job at the Chrysler plant in the late 80s, if they are it certainly hasn't shown in how they've voted in the last four elections. The town has turned into a nice little tourist destination. Those people didn't flip to Trump for "economic anxieties"

 

[Aaronology]

People forget that the majority of the young electorate, the vary ones marching in record numbers now, were on board with Sanders' platform.

You forget that these people couldn't even turn out in significant enough numbers to win him a damn primary. Stop talking up how motivated they were. For every person castigating Clinton for losing to Trump there is the equally relevant fact that Bernie lost to Clinton.

The question over how well he would have done in a GE is an epic waste of time in this thread, not to mention being utterly off topic.

 

[The Technomancer]

We didn't abandon them. They abandoned us. They didn't vote along economic lines- they voted along racial ones. And that was their awful, heinous choice. This is the end result of the Southern Strategy. This is how it looks on a national scale.

THEY DON'T ONLY VOTE D WHEN THE ECONOMY GETS BAD, THEY VOTED FOR KERRY AND GORE AND DUKAKIS

THEY HAVE BEEN VOTING D FOR THE PAST 30+ YEARS

HILLARY MATCHED OBAMA'S NUMBERS WITH MIDDLE CLASS AND EDUCATED BLACK VOTERS BUT DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY WITH WORKING CLASS MINORITY VOTERS

RACE IS THE BIGGEST FACTOR IN AMERICAN POLITICS BUT CLASS ISN'T NONEXISTENT

And then a white nationalist came along.

And suddenly you saw who actually had your back.

I think Kirblar is being a little bit reductive here but I think some of y'all are still dangerously underestimating just how effective a platform of white nationalism was able to be at the national stage. It fucking worked. A lot of those people knew exactly what it said on the tin and its why they voted for him.

 

[faisal233]

But ignoring their problems and calling them deplorables is also how you lose elections.



She did ignore their problems and did call them who considered voting for Trump out of desperation deplorables. Clinton supporters need to own that and understand that's part of what cost her.

White people really are snowflakes. We get called rapists, murderers, drug dealers and terrorists by Trump and we are supposed to make sure their feeling don't get hurt.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Do we have numbers backing up that rural areas did not benefit from the recovery?

Rural areas are big time fox news watchers, if they hear the economy is shit 24/7 you would be pissed too. Thinking the economy sucks doesn't make it true however, what are the actual job numbers in trumpland, compared to when Obama took office.

 

[sturgboski]

Whelp, Trump like a lot of Bernie or busters are saying this was all rigged because Bernie guy lost.

 

[Father_Brain]

In kirblar's ideal America, filthy WWC scum and their families would face an exhaustive psychological screening for any trace of racial animus before being deemed eligible for any government benefit. Fail, and no more free school lunch for little Timmy!

 

[BrutishMrFish]

She did ignore their problems and did call them who considered voting for Trump out of desperation deplorables. Clinton supporters need to own that and understand that's part of what cost her.

She called Nazis and klansmen deplorable and overestimated how many of them there were.

It's true that she shouldn't have said it, not because she was wrong about nazis, but because Trump voters were always going to latch on to whatever they could to feed their persecution complex in order to ignore the fact that they were supporting a horrible person.