Hillary to run again in 2020 (Op-ED)

[Flagg]

The real issue is that we had someone in the party "whose turn was up". We can't ever let that happen again, because that's why Republicans kept losing in the 90's. Yeah, I've said it, and I mean it, she was the single most qualified person running for the office from both sides, period. But there was way too much "it's her turn" going on which was just as harmful as the Bernie Bloviators not going home once the goddamned gig was up and they'd have needed to add more states for him to come even close to drawing even without counting the superdelegates.

[Simon_Jester]

While there is some truth to that, there is also a reality that a lot of Democrats, liberals, and progressives, myself included, are sick of Centrists who compromise too much. Especially when the only "compromise" most Republicans seem interested in, of late, is total capitulation on our parts. That's part of the problem- making some slight gains in the Centre won't help us if it costs us an equal or greater number of votes with the Left/progressives.

I keep smacking into this and it's incredibly frustrating.

I'm not talking about compromising with "the Republicans," as in the specific group of a few thousand politicians who have been elected to high office on the Republican ticket.

I'm talking about compromising with the electorate itself, including the half or so of the electorate which stays home every time.

There are a lot of ways to do that. But one of the ways to avoid doing that (and therefore lose) is by imposing purity tests, by demanding that we stick to policies that are divisive and extremely unpopular and are not core values of the party.

Gun control is not a core value of the Democratic Party. Free trade is not a core value of the Democratic Party, and secret corporate-dominated courts that let private corporations sue the US government for lost future profits certainly aren't.

Equal rights for all is a core value. Let's not compromise on that. "Government can be a positive force" is a core value. "The rich should pay a reasonable share of the burden of supporting a society of which they are the greatest beneficiaries" Is in my opinion a core value. Let's not compromise on those.

But if the bare act of even speaking the word 'compromise' is enough to get people pounding the table and bellowing about how it's impossible to compromise with THE REPUBLICANS due to the enormous congealed mass of bitterness people have about Republican obstruction of Obama specifically...

That's just incredibly corrosive, for purposes of our trying to turn around a bad situation in America and turn it into a winning one.

Yes, the Democratic Party should compromise with its own prospective voters. At most, the question is "which group of voters," and I want to leave that discussion open. Rather than pre-emptively shutting it because people are afraid to say:

"You know, this particular value of mine is not a core value. Maybe it's ultimately less important than obtaining the success and power that might let me save my core values from destruction at the hands of a corrupt and antidemocratic opposition."

All I want is for people to at least be willing to talk intelligently and seriously about that concept.

Is that so goddamn much to ask?

The upside of this is that it may not be necessary to compromise significant chunks of the Democratic platform, if we can find a personality who can convincingly sell it to a majority of the electorate.

Edits: I truly don't believe that we lost this election on our platform. We lost due to a combination of a system weighted against us (which unfortunately is something that will likely take a long time to fully reform), and Clinton's history and personality, or rather the somewhat distorted public perception of them.

See, I want every weapon I can get. I want to win.

One of the weapons we can get is to identify things that are not core values of the party, and recognize them as such. There's no reason that just because you favor a progressive income tax, you have to favor gun control. And demanding that everyone who favors a progressive income tax also favor gun control and support presidential candidates likely to impose more gun control is stupidly and pointlessly crippling ourselves.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm simply trying to look at all sides of the issue. You'll note that I stated my view that we should be willing to work with anyone who supports a few basic, core policies. Yet you have quoted me rather selectively, giving a false impression that I am arguing against any compromise whatsoever.

[Flagg]

While there is some truth to that, there is also a reality that a lot of Democrats, liberals, and progressives, myself included, are sick of Centrists who compromise too much. Especially when the only "compromise" most Republicans seem interested in, of late, is total capitulation on our parts. That's part of the problem- making some slight gains in the Centre won't help us if it costs us an equal or greater number of votes with the Left/progressives.

I keep smacking into this and it's incredibly frustrating.

I'm not talking about compromising with "the Republicans," as in the specific group of a few thousand politicians who have been elected to high office on the Republican ticket.

I'm talking about compromising with the electorate itself, including the half or so of the electorate which stays home every time.

There are a lot of ways to do that. But one of the ways to avoid doing that (and therefore lose) is by imposing purity tests, by demanding that we stick to policies that are divisive and extremely unpopular and are not core values of the party.

Gun control is not a core value of the Democratic Party. Free trade is not a core value of the Democratic Party, and secret corporate-dominated courts that let private corporations sue the US government for lost future profits certainly aren't.

Equal rights for all is a core value. Let's not compromise on that. "Government can be a positive force" is a core value. "The rich should pay a reasonable share of the burden of supporting a society of which they are the greatest beneficiaries" Is in my opinion a core value. Let's not compromise on those.

But if the bare act of even speaking the word 'compromise' is enough to get people pounding the table and bellowing about how it's impossible to compromise with THE REPUBLICANS due to the enormous congealed mass of bitterness people have about Republican obstruction of Obama specifically...

That's just incredibly corrosive, for purposes of our trying to turn around a bad situation in America and turn it into a winning one.

Yes, the Democratic Party should compromise with its own prospective voters. At most, the question is "which group of voters," and I want to leave that discussion open. Rather than pre-emptively shutting it because people are afraid to say:

"You know, this particular value of mine is not a core value. Maybe it's ultimately less important than obtaining the success and power that might let me save my core values from destruction at the hands of a corrupt and antidemocratic opposition."

All I want is for people to at least be willing to talk intelligently and seriously about that concept.

Is that so goddamn much to ask?

The upside of this is that it may not be necessary to compromise significant chunks of the Democratic platform, if we can find a personality who can convincingly sell it to a majority of the electorate.

Edits: I truly don't believe that we lost this election on our platform. We lost due to a combination of a system weighted against us (which unfortunately is something that will likely take a long time to fully reform), and Clinton's history and personality, or rather the somewhat distorted public perception of them.

See, I want every weapon I can get. I want to win.

One of the weapons we can get is to identify things that are not core values of the party, and recognize them as such. There's no reason that just because you favor a progressive income tax, you have to favor gun control. And demanding that everyone who favors a progressive income tax also favor gun control and support presidential candidates likely to impose more gun control is stupidly and pointlessly crippling ourselves.

The truth though, is that for a big chunk of Obamas terms, the Democrats were fully willing to compromise on just about everything except abortion, civil rights, and a few other issues regarding environmental protection. But they were willing to compromise on LGBTQ issues, gun control, and healthcare just off the top of my head.

The Republicans weren't willing to compromise on where the 44th President was born !

I mean it was literally the Democrats with both chambers of Congress, the Supreme Court who were more or left with a slight rightward bend in its dick at the time, and the Republicans idea of compromise even then was; "We get 98% of what we want and you might get what you want in awhile when we get to it in between vacations, fundraisers, calling you a sand-nigger at town halls in our home districts, and fondling interns, Paige's, children off the street, etc.

That's not to say you shouldn't wipe the slate clean when dealing with new people in places of power, it's just the reality that to many Republicans and Democrats (or "conservative independents" and "liberal independents", no scum or villainy exists so foul) the simple word "compromise" is akin to setting themselves on fire while on YouTube screaming "IT'S PEEEEEOPLE! SOYLENT GREEN IS PEEEEOPLE!!!

[Simon_Jester]

You're not listening, Flagg.

You circled right back to "we can't compromise with 'the Republicans' " and cruised right past what I'm talking about. This isn't about compromising with 'the Republicans.' Not in the sense that you're using the term, in the sense of those few thousand members of the Republican Party who've been elected to high office on the party ticket.

It's about compromising with the electorate.

And yes, there are people who are too dumb, or batshit, or fanatical, for it to be worth trying to pursue their individual personal votes. 20% of Americans or whatever can't acknowledge that Barack Obama is a real American citizen.

While we're at it, 20% of Americans or whatever think the moon landings were a hoax, and 20% of Americans or whatever probably think the world is flat. I bet 20% of Americans probably loved the Star Wars Holiday Special, while we're at it.

But the bare fact that this 20% (or so) of Americans can come anywhere remotely close to swaying American politics tells you something very important. Namely, that the other 80% are grossly underrepresented! They're not showing up to the polls. Part of that may just be lack of motivation and charisma on the part of various political figures- failure to make people want to vote for them. But part of it is also the ease with which a lot of people tell themselves the South Park lie: that both sides of the argument are equally shitty.

And the intense dualism of the parties ("my enemy is for it, so I must be against it") makes it very easy for people to fall into this trap. Because it makes it comically easy to get suckered into saying unpopular things that insta-lose when you try to play them in various parts of the country.
_________________________

The Democratic Party has been setting itself up to be accused of being just as bad as the Republicans, in many, many ways. Insufficient ideological purity is NOT one of those ways, though.

So I think the Democratic Party, and all us Democrats as individuals, very much need to do some due diligence, carefully examine the party platform, and divide it into two components:

1) Things that are core Democratic values. These things are important and we need to actively work to make sure that we can persuade people that they're worth working towards.
2) Things that are NOT core Democratic values. These things- well, you can have your opinion on them, some other Democrat can have theirs, fine whatever. It is gross stupidity for us to try and tell everyone who disagrees with 5% or more of the Party Checklist that they aren't 'real Democrats.'

And this is totally different from the pooh-poohed idea of trying to compromise with Republican congressmen, which is, yes, pretty much pointless unless one has one hell of a grip on them.
____________________________

But honestly, from now on, maybe if anyone replies to my "we need to be capable of compromising with the electorate" with "but you can't compromise with congressional Republicans" or whatever... Maybe I should just post 'lololololol' as my response and link to this page of this thread. Because this is seriously turning into some kind of parody shit, where the word 'compromise' is becoming to the left a new version of 'Niagara Falls'

[His Divine Shadow]

Barack Obama had horrible financial policies that in the end helped Trump win, of course on this forum I know that is nothing new, there's been assloads of thread on the failure of hope and abandonment of Obama's electoral platform:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R6O-AdvzTM

[Flagg]

You're not listening, Flagg.

You circled right back to "we can't compromise with 'the Republicans' " and cruised right past what I'm talking about. This isn't about compromising with 'the Republicans.' Not in the sense that you're using the term, in the sense of those few thousand members of the Republican Party who've been elected to high office on the party ticket.

It's about compromising with the electorate.

And yes, there are people who are too dumb, or batshit, or fanatical, for it to be worth trying to pursue their individual personal votes. 20% of Americans or whatever can't acknowledge that Barack Obama is a real American citizen.

While we're at it, 20% of Americans or whatever think the moon landings were a hoax, and 20% of Americans or whatever probably think the world is flat. I bet 20% of Americans probably loved the Star Wars Holiday Special, while we're at it.

But the bare fact that this 20% (or so) of Americans can come anywhere remotely close to swaying American politics tells you something very important. Namely, that the other 80% are grossly underrepresented! They're not showing up to the polls. Part of that may just be lack of motivation and charisma on the part of various political figures- failure to make people want to vote for them. But part of it is also the ease with which a lot of people tell themselves the South Park lie: that both sides of the argument are equally shitty.

And the intense dualism of the parties ("my enemy is for it, so I must be against it") makes it very easy for people to fall into this trap. Because it makes it comically easy to get suckered into saying unpopular things that insta-lose when you try to play them in various parts of the country.
_________________________

The Democratic Party has been setting itself up to be accused of being just as bad as the Republicans, in many, many ways. Insufficient ideological purity is NOT one of those ways, though.

So I think the Democratic Party, and all us Democrats as individuals, very much need to do some due diligence, carefully examine the party platform, and divide it into two components:

1) Things that are core Democratic values. These things are important and we need to actively work to make sure that we can persuade people that they're worth working towards.
2) Things that are NOT core Democratic values. These things- well, you can have your opinion on them, some other Democrat can have theirs, fine whatever. It is gross stupidity for us to try and tell everyone who disagrees with 5% or more of the Party Checklist that they aren't 'real Democrats.'

And this is totally different from the pooh-poohed idea of trying to compromise with Republican congressmen, which is, yes, pretty much pointless unless one has one hell of a grip on them.
____________________________

But honestly, from now on, maybe if anyone replies to my "we need to be capable of compromising with the electorate" with "but you can't compromise with congressional Republicans" or whatever... Maybe I should just post 'lololololol' as my response and link to this page of this thread. Because this is seriously turning into some kind of parody shit, where the word 'compromise' is becoming to the left a new version of 'Niagara Falls'

Simon, I get what you're saying, and I agree in that philosophy, but the people I'm talking about represent vast swaths of the electorate.
And I guess what I'm trying to say is that I just don't think it makes much sense to say "we need to compromise with the electorate" since the majority of registered voters are already a tad to the left of the left of center Democrats, they just don't vote or they live in the wrong states. I mean honest question: How do you compromise with an electorate farther to the left of you when a center-right politician like Barack Obama is considered to be far to the left of Karl Marx by a small but powerful and reliable (aka they vote) chunk of the electorate that yells and screams at the very politicians I described in my last post that they aren't conservative enough, and then in the next cycle come close to, or are successful in a primary challenge?

[TheFeniX]

Barack Obama had horrible financial policies that in the end helped Trump win, of course on this forum I know that is nothing new, there's been assloads of thread on the failure of hope and abandonment of Obama's electoral platform:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R6O-AdvzTM

"Why do you think they voted for Trump, they wanted to smash you motherfuckers."

That was a good watch. I've met more than a few racist/whateverist shithead Trump voters in Texas and online, but if there was a single point those people on the outside had: that would be it in a nutshell. People so woefully tired of Democrat bullshit about helping the working class or really helping anyone who can't dump millions into their bank accounts. And the next Dem in line? Hillary Clinton? People fucking hate her outside her hugbox. She's a symbol for everything wrong with U.S. politics.

Trump is... whatever, not getting back into it. But for all his faults, when the time came to vote he had this going for him: He wasn't a politician. And he wasn't part of the establishment, at least not the part they cared about. He wasn't part of the group of assholes bending the Middle Class over a barrel.

I honestly don't know what would be worse for the U.S. as a whole: Trump or HRC. As a person, for civil rights: sure yea, HRC now that public opinion swings in favor of things like same sex marriage. She's not a monster, just an opportunist and more than willing to take dirty money from anyone offering.

But to fight income inequality? To make sure one medical expense doesn't bankrupt me? To stop banks from betting against debators and making billions doing so? To keep this country from eating itself while the 1% cry about "class warfare!?"

I couldn't tell you who's worse. And that's the problem. There's no one "better," everyone is just voting for who (hopefully) won't fuck them the most or they're voting against you out of anger. Obama turned into just as much a flim-flam man as the next politician, but damned if he didn't make you feel good while he was fucking you.

I couldn't bring myself to vote for Trump, but God damned if it wasn't tempting. Just as a "fuck you." And to be fair, it wouldn't be that hard for me as a married Middle-class white guy.

[The Romulan Republic]

Their are a lot of reasons people voted for Trump, and its not all because the Democrats were too cozy with Wall Street. It wasn't that making people cheer for the wall, or threaten violence against their opponents, or advocate for banning Muslims.

Yes, their's frustration at the Democrats not doing more for the poor and middle class, and that's reasonable, to a point. But the sick irony is that Trump is going to fuck them far harder than any Democrat ever did. But hey, at least its a rich asshole with mob ties born with a silver spoon up his ass doing the fucking, not a politician.

You want to complain about the Democrats not doing more? That's fair. But must people, even now, after we've seen what Trump in office is actually like, keep arguing the utter fallacy that "There's no one "better""? That the Democrats and Republicans are just as bad as each other? That is a simplistic and objectively false cliche which normalizes political incompetence and corruption, and tells people "It can never get better, their's no point expecting more from our leaders, so you might as well not vote, or vote from spite." It is, as you just demonstrated, the lie that makes a racist, rapist, pathological liar and sociopath endorsed by the fucking Klan seem acceptable, because "at least he's not a politician."

Its a nice excuse to take no personal responsibility for the state of your country. After all, it doesn't matter who you did or didn't vote for, or campaign for. The end result is the same. A cynical, fatalistic acceptance of oppression which absolves you of one of your most fundamental responsibilities as a citizen of a self-styled democracy- to use your vote well.

At this point, I regard such false equivalencies as nothing more or less than an argument on the side of despotism.

And yeah, Trump won't be that hard for you, if all you care about is yourself. Right up until you need health care. Or you lose your job because the economy crashed, and food stamps are gone. Or your kid's school is even more shitty than it currently is.

I'm almost tempted to wish that you get a taste of that, that you have to watch your family miss meals, or lose their home, or die of a treatable illness, because maybe then you'd understand what's at stake. But I'm not quite that spiteful yet.

[The Romulan Republic]

I also find it interesting that you acknowledge that Trump will be worse for civil liberties but quickly shrug off the significance of that, presumably because you're "a married Middle-class white guy."

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me."

Nazi references are admittedly overused, but I think this one is apt in spirit at least, if not literally.

[Imperial528]

I frankly fail to see the logic in trying to spite the oligarchy by electing a plutocrat. One who is proud of it, at that.

For all the things HRC wouldn't fight for, there's a lot that she wouldn't have tried to destroy. Trump has no interest in preserving the middle class, and has so far actively fought against existing protections and intends to take a cleaver to the only healthcare reform we have, without which the insurance market could very well have entered a death spiral of rising premiums and dropping subscribers.

My biggest gripe with HRC is that Former Secretary Clinton clearly has none of what got Senator Clinton elected twice by large margins in New York. My father is from Syracuse and keeps up with politics in New York, and he was quite impressed by Hillary's senate campaigns. When she ran for senator she actually got a considerable amount of support from Republicans in rural NY since she made it a point to meet with towns, discuss their issues, and promise to review them if she got elected. She was reelected because she actually did look into what she discussed, and even if she had no power to affect it, she would reconnect with those towns and tell them what she had learned and what plans she had to help address their concerns.

Yet for whatever reason she didn't do much of that in 2008 for the DNC primary, and in 2016 she didn't do it at all in the areas it would have done the best. Part of this can be blamed on her campaign strategists, but it also begs the question: she had to have known that this tactic worked and actually got results and the respect of her constituents, so why the hell didn't she show any inkling of even trying for it for 2016?

Of course you can counter that they're both fakes, and that may very well be true.

So why is it anyone voted for the one who fakes his accomplishments over the one who fakes her appearance?

I can't pin any truly rational motivator on it, so I conclude that it must be due to partisanship. Hillary may have done nothing to sooth the fears of republican voters, but that doesn't change the fact that the (R) candidate was unfit to manage a little league team, let alone the country.

[Simon_Jester]

Trump is... whatever, not getting back into it. But for all his faults, when the time came to vote he had this going for him: He wasn't a politician. And he wasn't part of the establishment, at least not the part they cared about. He wasn't part of the group of assholes bending the Middle Class over a barrel.

Well, he totally is. It's just that he's part of the group taking advantage of the middle class being bent over the barrel, not the group holding the middle class down on the barrel. And for a bunch of people that makes it better!

[Yes, I know, you're describing the attitude, the fuck-you-ism. My point is that this attitude is basically "I'm tired of being screwed over, let me sign up for being screwed over harder and without the occasional gestures to salve my self-respect a little!" ]

I honestly don't know what would be worse for the U.S. as a whole: Trump or HRC. As a person, for civil rights: sure yea, HRC now that public opinion swings in favor of things like same sex marriage. She's not a monster, just an opportunist and more than willing to take dirty money from anyone offering.

But to fight income inequality? To make sure one medical expense doesn't bankrupt me? To stop banks from betting against debators and making billions doing so? To keep this country from eating itself while the 1% cry about "class warfare!?"

...Really?

Trump is already talking about how he's going to deliberately blow up programs that keep income inequality from being worse than it is, and about how he will enable the congressional Republicans to do so. Say what you will about Clinton, her first pick for Secretary of Labor wouldn't have been a guy who loudly fantasizes about replacing his fast-food workers with robots, and her pick for Secretary of Education wouldn't have been a woman who thinks all education should cost money.

This is not a hard comparison to make.

I couldn't bring myself to vote for Trump, but God damned if it wasn't tempting. Just as a "fuck you."

I empathize, but I also empathize with people who use suicide attempts to teach their loved ones a lesson for making them feel unappreciated. It's batshit crazy even if it is sympathetically crazy.

I'm glad you avoid deliberate self-destructive behavior.

And to be fair, it wouldn't be that hard for me as a married Middle-class white guy.

I wouldn't bet on it; shit going wrong has knock-on effects.

If this goes on, a lot of middle class white guys are going to find out that their middle class jobs aren't very tenable as the economy hollows out with consumer prices skyrocketing and immigrant labor vanishing. A lot of middle class white guys five or ten years from now are going to be getting their TVs stolen by non-middle class, maybe-white guys who have no other way to make ends meet. A lot of middle-class white guys are going to get sick and realize oh shit, health care is actually important!

[The Romulan Republic]

I frankly fail to see the logic in trying to spite the oligarchy by electing a plutocrat. One who is proud of it, at that.

For all the things HRC wouldn't fight for, there's a lot that she wouldn't have tried to destroy. Trump has no interest in preserving the middle class, and has so far actively fought against existing protections and intends to take a cleaver to the only healthcare reform we have, without which the insurance market could very well have entered a death spiral of rising premiums and dropping subscribers.

My biggest gripe with HRC is that Former Secretary Clinton clearly has none of what got Senator Clinton elected twice by large margins in New York. My father is from Syracuse and keeps up with politics in New York, and he was quite impressed by Hillary's senate campaigns. When she ran for senator she actually got a considerable amount of support from Republicans in rural NY since she made it a point to meet with towns, discuss their issues, and promise to review them if she got elected. She was reelected because she actually did look into what she discussed, and even if she had no power to affect it, she would reconnect with those towns and tell them what she had learned and what plans she had to help address their concerns.

Yet for whatever reason she didn't do much of that in 2008 for the DNC primary, and in 2016 she didn't do it at all in the areas it would have done the best. Part of this can be blamed on her campaign strategists, but it also begs the question: she had to have known that this tactic worked and actually got results and the respect of her constituents, so why the hell didn't she show any inkling of even trying for it for 2016?

Of course you can counter that they're both fakes, and that may very well be true.

So why is it anyone voted for the one who fakes his accomplishments over the one who fakes her appearance?

I can't pin any truly rational motivator on it, so I conclude that it must be due to partisanship. Hillary may have done nothing to sooth the fears of republican voters, but that doesn't change the fact that the (R) candidate was unfit to manage a little league team, let alone the country.

Putting Trump in charge of a little league team would mean trusting him with children, and after his comments sexualizing minors, I certainly wouldn't.

And yes. As you can probably gather from my posts, I find it incredibly frustrating that people who know that Trump is a monster still exhibit sympathy, or at least tolerance, for him because "at least he's anti-establishment"- except he is part of the establishment in terms of being, as you said, a plutocrat who wants to bleed the poor and middle class dry. The only major ways I can see where he's "anti-establishment" are in the degree to which he's willing to be openly bigoted and incite political violence, and his possible (depending on the results of the investigations) lack of loyalty to his country.

Even the protectionism doesn't really count, because his personal record shows that he does not feel that those rules should apply to him and his cronies. This is a man who reportedly does illegal business dealings with other countries and hires cheap immigrant labour.

[TheFeniX]

Yes, their's frustration at the Democrats not doing more for the poor and middle class, and that's reasonable, to a point. But the sick irony is that Trump is going to fuck them far harder than any Democrat ever did. But hey, at least its a rich asshole with mob ties born with a silver spoon up his ass doing the fucking, not a politician.

"Do more"? I'm sorry, has the wage inequality gap not been growing under Obama? Home Foreclosures? I'm sure Wells Fargo got spanked hard and people went to jail for their LATEST ROUND of fraud.

So, when you're talking to a bunch of straight white voters who might care, but don't care enough, about civil liberties to outweigh their ability to survive: How do you think they're going to vote?

And now that the veil has been lifted from Trump: his popularity continues to dig past rock bottom.

You want to complain about the Democrats not doing more? That's fair. But must people, even now, after we've seen what Trump in office is actually like, keep arguing the utter fallacy that "There's no one "better""? That the Democrats and Republicans are just as bad as each other? That is a simplistic and objectively false cliche which normalizes political incompetence and corruption, and tells people "It can never get better, their's no point expecting more from our leaders, so you might as well not vote, or vote from spite." It is, as you just demonstrated, the lie that makes a racist, rapist, pathological liar and sociopath endorsed by the fucking Klan seem acceptable, because "at least he's not a politician."

If your candidate can't ROFLSTOMP the person you're ranting about when the last candidate, who was a black man, ROFLSTOMPED an old-white guy: you got fucking problems. You can get pissy at me all you want, but I'm not going to sit here and say the Democrats slowly letting us go painlessly in our sleep is somehow WAY FUCKING BETTER than Trump smothering us with a pillow. Yea, it's better. Ok you got me. But WAY FUCKING BETTER? No.

Democrats talk a big game then bet small. Voters picked up on this and turned on them. Same way they turned on GW and Republicans after 8 years of whatever-the-fuck-that-was. But let's just keep beating the "it's all the deplorables" drum and let Democrats shirk nearly all the blame when they've proved over and OVER again they are willing to throw their electorate under the bus if the wind is blowing the right direction.

[Yes, I know, you're describing the attitude, the fuck-you-ism. My point is that this attitude is basically "I'm tired of being screwed over, let me sign up for being screwed over harder and without the occasional gestures to salve my self-respect a little!" ]

And that was a powerful motivator. As for me personally, getting Democrats to even admit there's a problem with their party is a huge part of the issue, both now and in the past. Just because the guy next to you hasn't showered in 6 years doesn't mean you smell great because you showered a month ago.

Trump is already talking about how he's going to deliberately blow up programs that keep income inequality from being worse than it is, and about how he will enable the congressional Republicans to do so. Say what you will about Clinton, her first pick for Secretary of Labor wouldn't have been a guy who loudly fantasizes about replacing his fast-food workers with robots, and her pick for Secretary of Education wouldn't have been a woman who thinks all education should cost money.

To be fair, I am "high" on anti-histamines and watching that video made me a bit angry (specifically at Obama and Democrats) because even though RR likes to think I have no problems, 2016 was a rough fucking year where I skirted a line 3 times. But, I wasn't going to cry about it because this isn't my blog.

Anyways, I got off on another rant and meant to talk about "during the election how I couldn't tell who was worse for the economy and that was a major problem with the HRC campaign" because I damned sure wasn't the only one with that on the mind. Obviously, this question was answered, but I wouldn't exactly be pumping my fist at President Hillary. More sigh of relief, then preparation for 4 more year of mediocrity and lies. But since I used "don't" instead of "didn't" in "I honestly don't know what," it fucked the entire read of the post up.

I'm usually on the ball with stuff like that. Anyways:

That video was a good watch as it hit on more than a few point that have been ignored over that past whatever amount of time. A guy like Trump was able to do what he did specifically due to the actions of Democrats over the past 8 years. And yea, current Republican are much worse, but I'm just as tired of that argument as I'm sure others are tired of "they're both the same."

The electorate is constantly in a position to vote for people who do not support their welfare in any given form. We get tossed a few gnawed bones at best. And in response, those people will vote for literally anyone who they determine is not part of that system. Republicans found this out the fucking hard way in 2008 when they ran adds talking about Obama's inexperience in national politics so you can't claim that kind of angry voting doesn't have its positive moments.

[The Romulan Republic]

"Do more"? I'm sorry, has the wage inequality gap not been growing under Obama? Home Foreclosures? I'm sure Wells Fargo got spanked hard and people went to jail for their LATEST ROUND of fraud.

Yes, do more.

Because contrary to the narrative you seem determined to peddle, Democrats do at least offer something for the non-wealthy. Under the Democrats their are actually things like food stamps, and Obamacare, and Social Security, and public education. All of which are in jeopardy under the new regime.

So, when you're talking to a bunch of straight white voters who might care, but don't care enough, about civil liberties to outweigh their ability to survive: How do you think they're going to vote?

The logical choice would be the candidate who will best serve everyone's interests. And that ain't Donald Trump, on any score. Not on economics, not on civil liberties, not on foreign policy. Nothing.

Unless you're a rich sociopath, a bigoted war monger like Bannon, or the Russian government. Or Daesh- I'm sure their recruitment efforts will benefit greatly from the Donald.

And now that the veil has been lifted from Trump: his popularity continues to dig past rock bottom.

The small silver lining.

Pray the realization doesn't come too late.

If your candidate can't ROFLSTOMP the person you're ranting about when the last candidate, who was a black man, ROFLSTOMPED an old-white guy: you got fucking problems. You can get pissy at me all you want, but I'm not going to sit here and say the Democrats slowly letting us go painlessly in our sleep is somehow WAY FUCKING BETTER than Trump smothering us with a pillow. Yea, it's better. Ok you got me. But WAY FUCKING BETTER? No.

For many, many people, possibly millions if the Republicans succeed in dismantling the existing social safety net or drag us into a major war, it will be the literal difference between life and death.

Or if not life and death, between opportunity and perpetual poverty. Between being regarded as equal under the law and... not.

I also semi-object to you describing Clinton as "my candidate". Yes, I voted for her to stop Trump, and have zero regrets about that, but she was never my first choice.

My philosophy is pretty much "Vote progressive in the primaries, then vote for whoever gets the nomination so we can limit the damage until demographics swing things in our favour."

Democrats talk a big game then bet small.

A complaint I share. But it changes none of what I've said above.

Voters picked up on this and turned on them. Same way they turned on GW and Republicans after 8 years of whatever-the-fuck-that-was. But let's just keep beating the "it's all the deplorables" drum and let Democrats shirk nearly all the blame when they've proved over and OVER again they are willing to throw their electorate under the bus if the wind is blowing the right direction.

This is an over-simplistic narrative, and frankly a dishonest and dangerous one, because it attempts to hand-wave away the very real role that bigotry and desire for authoritarianism in some segments of the public, as well as extraordinary interference by Russia and elements of the FBI, played in Trump's victory. And also because it falsely portrays Trump's victory as the result of a popular backlash against Clinton and this nebulous "establishment" (which somehow doesn't include hereditary rich white male oligarch who used to be buddies with the Clintons Trump), when in fact Clinton won the popular vote by nearly three million and lost only because of the Electoral College.

In doing so, this narrative legitimizes Trump while whitewashing the worst elements of his agenda and his base.

In truth, Clinton's loss was very narrow, and any of half a dozen different things being slightly different might have changed the result.

You are also, once again, exaggerating and over-generalizing about the Democrats. The Democratic Party is not and has never been a homogenous establishment. If it was, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren wouldn't be where they are.

And progressivism is only going to become a stronger force in the party as the generational shift continues. Unless, for example, all the young progressives take your approach of regarding the Democrats as no different than the Republicans, quit the party, and squander their potential influence by not voting or casting votes based on spite (i.e. Trump) or fringe ideological purity (i.e. the Greens).

To be fair, I am "high" on anti-histamines and watching that video made me a bit angry (specifically at Obama and Democrats) because even though RR likes to think I have no problems, 2016 was a rough fucking year where I skirted a line 3 times. But, I wasn't going to cry about it because this isn't my blog.

I'm sorry for your troubles, but I said nothing of the sort.

You yourself said that you felt that you wouldn't be that badly off under Trump, because of your position as a Middle class white man. I responded to your own choice of words on the subject, and I stand by my view that that attitude is both selfish and arguably discriminatory (this, I suppose, is what people mean by "white/male privilege"), and that it is a short-sighted one.

Because Trump will hurt you. His Presidency is a risk to everyone. Some will just feel it sooner and more harshly than others.

[Flagg]

The Democrats talk about the working class? When? All I ever hear from them is how the middle class must be saved. The Republicans pretend to want to help the middle class, but generally favor the upper-middle/lower-upper class.

[Knife]

I keep smacking into this and it's incredibly frustrating.

I'm not talking about compromising with "the Republicans," as in the specific group of a few thousand politicians who have been elected to high office on the Republican ticket.

I'm talking about compromising with the electorate itself, including the half or so of the electorate which stays home every time.

This is THE PROBLEM though. After 20-40 years of propaganda and plenty of people who were convinced with propaganda to vote against their interests, what other conundrum can we see?

Gun control is not a core value of the Democratic Party. Free trade is not a core value of the Democratic Party, and secret corporate-dominated courts that let private corporations sue the US government for lost future profits certainly aren't.

Agreed. It's a side issue easily countered. It's a stereo type that can be smashed. Wasn't even an issue in the last election. That's how dumb it is.

Equal rights for all is a core value. Let's not compromise on that. "Government can be a positive force" is a core value. "The rich should pay a reasonable share of the burden of supporting a society of which they are the greatest beneficiaries" Is in my opinion a core value. Let's not compromise on those.

This is important but the last election is bringing this up to even GOPer voters.

But if the bare act of even speaking the word 'compromise' is enough to get people pounding the table and bellowing about how it's impossible to compromise with THE REPUBLICANS due to the enormous congealed mass of bitterness people have about Republican obstruction of Obama specifically...

That's just incredibly corrosive, for purposes of our trying to turn around a bad situation in America and turn it into a winning one.

Agreed. If there is any silver lining to Trump it's to bring this out. The risk of losing ACA, the simple fact they voted for a 'better America' he can't possible bring them will prove this point.

Yes, the Democratic Party should compromise with its own prospective voters. At most, the question is "which group of voters," and I want to leave that discussion open. Rather than pre-emptively shutting it because people are afraid to say:

"You know, this particular value of mine is not a core value. Maybe it's ultimately less important than obtaining the success and power that might let me save my core values from destruction at the hands of a corrupt and antidemocratic opposition."

All I want is for people to at least be willing to talk intelligently and seriously about that concept.

Without being to frank, I think we've hit rock bottom in America. Sure, plenty of American's are happy because their 'team' R is winning. Plenty of others are with buyers remorse.

[Flagg]

Was gun control even an issue in the election? I don't recall it being mentioned by the Clinton campaign at all.

[Flagg]

And more to that, Republicans won't compromise with democrats on seemingly any issue. I mean the situation for almost 6 years is just "give us everything, fuck you if you think we'll give any inch on any thing".

[Imperial528]

Was gun control even an issue in the election? I don't recall it being mentioned by the Clinton campaign at all.

It wasn't explicitly mentioned by Clinton, though it had a presence in her platform IIRC, though not overtly so.

Didn't stop the Republicans and the NRA from telling the base how much Clinton wanted to take their guns.

My philosophy is pretty much "Vote progressive in the primaries, then vote for whoever gets the nomination so we can limit the damage until demographics swing things in our favour."

Counting on demographic swings has lead to democratic defeats at the state level since 2010, and is part of the complacency which was an issue in Clinton's campaign.

Demographic changes will not counter the Republican gerrymandering nor the electoral college. The Democrats need to toughen up and actually challenge the Republicans, not just in spirit but in who they run with and their platform as is put into practice, or the demographic gains will evaporate.

It's important to remember that the Republican party counted on the black vote after the civil war, and were absolutely shocked when FDR took it away from them more or less permanently.

I can imagine a future where this happens with Latino support for democrats, especially if the religious wing of the GOP wins out over the southern strategy wing enough that they are willing to appeal to Latinos for their religious votes.

The only way to prevent this from happening is for the democrats to stop being complacent. Because if they don't, someone will seize the opportunity. I would hope it would be an actual leftist party, but there's no promises there.

[Flagg]

Was gun control even an issue in the election? I don't recall it being mentioned by the Clinton campaign at all.

It wasn't explicitly mentioned by Clinton, though it had a presence in her platform IIRC, though not overtly so.

Didn't stop the Republicans and the NRA from telling the base how much Clinton wanted to take their guns.

Yeah, that's my point. Why should Democrats compromise on issues that Republicans will bring up as some dire threat anyway? Did Obama get Gun control legislation passed? No, to the point that people on the goddamned terrorist watch list can still buy them and now President Pussygrabber wants to make it easier/possible for the severely mentally disturbed to buy them, too.

And gerrymandering has no effect on the electoral college.

[Imperial528]

And gerrymandering has no effect on the electoral college.

Not directly. Primarily it contributes to their undue dominance in the house, which is a massive obstacle to electoral college reform since any sizeable republican presence in the house will fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo that they have so well adapted their party's tactics to.

[Flagg]

And gerrymandering has no effect on the electoral college.

Not directly. Primarily it contributes to their undue dominance in the house, which is a massive obstacle to electoral college reform since any sizeable republican presence in the house will fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo that they have so well adapted their party's tactics to.

Yeah, but gerrymandering can only be fixed on a state by state level, and states will never give up that power. And you need 3/4 of them to get an amendment passed.

[The Romulan Republic]

Their's the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which will take effect if states with a total of 270 or more EC votes sign onto it. I don't know if it would hold up in court, being kind of an attempt to do an end-run around the EC without passing a Constitutional Amendment, but aside from that, its the most direct route.

[The Vortex Empire]

Their's the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which will take effect if states with a total of 270 or more EC votes sign onto it. I don't know if it would hold up in court, being kind of an attempt to do an end-run around the EC without passing a Constitutional Amendment, but aside from that, its the most direct route.

Won't happen, no Republican states will sign it since the GOP benefits from the EC, and few swing states will sign it since it gives up their disproportionate power. Aren't enough large + heavily democratic states to hit 270 EVs.