"We spent, I think, way too much time on our side talking about him. Our whole message was don't vote for him because he is terrible. And even because he is, that is not a message."
Pete Buttigieg on why Hillary lost
|by Anonymous||reply 144||Last Wednesday at 7:18 AM|
|by Anonymous||reply 1||03/27/2019|
He is right. Time was spent on how horrible Trump was and his negatives when Hillary's negatives were just as bad as Trump's.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||03/27/2019|
He is right but not for the reasons R2 seems to think.
Stan Greenberg was telling the Hillary campaign that she needed to go hard on economic messaging but he was sidelined by Robby Mook.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||03/27/2019|
I love him but that’s BS. Hillary talked about her plans all the time, the media was only interested in Trump scandals and emails. She’s a total policy wonk but nobody wanted to listen to any of it. This is 100% on the media - they created the narrative that we had no ideas and were running merely as “Not-Trump” and I’m disappointed to see Mayor Pete propping up the right’s spin. Not knowing our enemy will doom us again.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||03/27/2019|
All he needs to do is win the Democratic primary and then the election in 2020 to show us how it's done. No?
|by Anonymous||reply 5||03/27/2019|
[quote] He is right. Time was spent on how horrible Trump was and his negatives when Hillary's negatives were just as bad as Trump's.
It's because of people like you that bullshit like: Harris slept her way to the top, Warren lied her way to the top, Klobuchar is a bully, Beto is a lightweight, Biden has a woman problem; is given the weight that is given. The worst of all of these people together, Hillary included, is not remotely as bad as Trump.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||03/27/2019|
R4 I agree. Trump was brought to us by media that wanted the clown show and still does. CNN still having Kellyanne on to spew her lies is proof of that. NYT doing there "what Trump voters think" pieces. Bullshit click bait.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||03/27/2019|
He is 100% correct.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||03/27/2019|
He looks a little like my ex—and like my ex, I find him unspectacular, especially if a bedroom is involved..
|by Anonymous||reply 9||03/27/2019|
If he wins the nomination—-we Democrat’s lose the White House in 2020. The last thing we need is to shove gay equality down the throats of moderate closeted bigoted Democrats.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||03/27/2019|
She won the popular vote.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||03/27/2019|
The all important moderate, closeted, bigoted, Democratic voting block.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||03/27/2019|
Buttigieg, Maltese for Criticize Hillary???? You in danger, gurl!
|by Anonymous||reply 13||03/27/2019|
R10, gay equality? God forbid!
|by Anonymous||reply 14||03/28/2019|
He may be right about Hillary but he needs to shut up before he pisses off her loyalists, they will tear him apart.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||03/28/2019|
I think he’s right and I voted for her.
I was surprised towards the very end how often “Trump is bad” was brought up as a campaign argument. It should have been “this is what I’m going to do” vs. “This is what he’s going to do.”
|by Anonymous||reply 16||03/28/2019|
The reason Hillary lost is because of the final debate: Muslim immigration, Pro Life/Choice, Supreme Court nomination, Gun rights.
While most of America shook their heads in his responses, his base clapped and cheered "yeeehaw" and "praise jesus!"
|by Anonymous||reply 17||03/28/2019|
She lost because the country knew she was charm-free.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||03/28/2019|
She lost because she really didn’t accomplish anything in all her political incarnations ......
|by Anonymous||reply 19||03/28/2019|
R10 they'll go for that over Reparations, I bet my house on it!
|by Anonymous||reply 20||03/28/2019|
He's right. At one point in the campaign, I was shocked to see Hillary telling voters to go read her website to get a book online to see her policy plans.
I was amazed she thought people would go actually do their own research or that Americans even read
|by Anonymous||reply 21||03/28/2019|
I am a Hillary supporter and she definitely did not want to be very specific about her economic plans. I remember the big issue was about the TARP agreement. It was a huge free trade bill that would make NAFTA and CAFTA (Chinese) look like small peanuts and be even more inclusive than the WTO.
It's passage could have allowed even more American jobs lost to offshoring. Hills was at first strongly for it, but changed and promised she wouldn't support it. However, even if she would not vote for TARP she could've easily reconstitute it and call it by a different name and pass that bill.
Hillary was a so-called "globalist" and fell a few notches for me on that
|by Anonymous||reply 22||03/28/2019|
R4, the only ads that Clinton ran in Pennsylvania were anti-trump ads. There were ZERO ads on her policy or even anything about her.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||03/28/2019|
Hillary was killed by Comey.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||03/28/2019|
One of the reasons Hillary lost - the Bernie Bros voted Trump. They almost disrupted the convention in their devotion to Bernie if you remember that. Comey just put the nail in it, R24.
" Hillary talked about her plans all the time..."
Yeah but her media on TV was 95% anti-Trump. In reality she was far more detailed than Trump OR Obama in 2008, but people don't like details. She was advised to dumb it down in 08. Hillary is not good at throwing hyperbole around at rallies.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||03/28/2019|
She might have been a bit too open and honest at some of her rallies too, r25. You don't walk into coal country and declare coal dead -- even it is true. Same with steel and manufacturing.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||03/28/2019|
Anti-gay voters are not going to vote for any Democrat anyway. Buttigieg is open,honest, and proud about who he is.
He's not like the Republicans beloved Miss Lindzey and the Turtle. These closet cases are not giving up running for their Senate incumbency jobs unless they are defeated or die in office.
To suggest Buttigieg should not be running because he is gay, should be offensive to anyone who is an open and accepting gay/lesbian. If someone doesn't like his ideas, policies, and level of experience, then that's another matter.
I too voted for Hillary, including the 2008 primary. That doesn't mean her campaign strategies were often impressive. Mistakes were made. Buttigieg was not criticizing Hillary for her ideas or character, but the campaign techniques and messaging by her campaign team. Buttigieg has a point on this factor.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||03/28/2019|
Hills ignored states she thought were in the vote bag. Even Obama said this a couple weeks after the election. Big mistake. The states went to Trump
|by Anonymous||reply 28||03/28/2019|
She still won the popular vote . With 3 million votes more than Shitfest . For me she should be president !
|by Anonymous||reply 29||03/28/2019|
She won the popular vote because she won California. She lost more states than Trump because she didn't go visit the people there and campaign. Because of her, we lost a handful of blue states and have to focus on getting back the Midwest. A Milwaukee convention is a good start
|by Anonymous||reply 30||03/28/2019|
WHAT R25 SAID!
|by Anonymous||reply 31||03/28/2019|
Fuck off R6. I'm a realist.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||03/28/2019|
[quote]She still won the popular vote . With 3 million votes more than Shitfest . For me she should be president !
And we will win the popular vote again in 2020. This time it's about concentrating more on the swing states to ensure that he doesn't win the electoral college by a few thousand votes.
That's why Biden would be such an effective candidate. He can win those crucial electoral votes back in the midwest.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||03/28/2019|
He's partly right. But he totally discounted Hillary having to fight loony elements of Left plus Republicans who were for most part united behind Trump. Then there's Comey surprise, Bernie Bros voting for Trump/ Stein (know 4 of them who did this), voters who will not ever vote for woman POTUS (I know many of them), Russian interference, just to rehash these points again.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||03/28/2019|
I would say you’re more of a whataboutist douchebag, r32...
|by Anonymous||reply 35||03/28/2019|
Hillary lost because she focused on the young demographics and she did so very arrogantly. If she would have appealed to the older audience and been even the tiniest bit humble, she would have won.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||03/28/2019|
Hillary lost because of this.
Hillary lost because of that.
Hillary lost because of the sheer stupidity of the American people.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||03/28/2019|
R37 Yep. Especially some really stupid ones in a few counties in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||03/28/2019|
The Bernie Bros are going to be a factor in this election too. They are just tools of Putin, who lives for watching our country fall apart.
There’s a certain percentage of people who are just anarchists, and Bernie and Jill Stein tapped into that group’s mindset. All government is bad, no one that runs for office is good enough, all government is corrupt and bad people, on and on.
The person agreeing with these people is thought to be a genius and the only one that should be listened to. That’s why Bernie is so popular. “Everyone is mad but thee and me, and I’m not too sure about thee,” should be their motto.
He’s right about one thing: candidates should talk about what they’re going to do, more than they talk about Trump. Trump lives to respond to name-calling. He’s not got a good response for “What are you going to do about healthcare?” Democrats do.
And don’t assume every voter is young and internet savvy. A large group of reliable voters are old and they don’t all have Twitter accounts or even Facebook. Telling them “look at my website, all the answers are there,” is like saying, “you’ll never know what I believe, so vote for the guy whose ideas are all on Fox. All you have to do is turn on the TV and it’s all there.” I actually know older people who don’t even own a computer or smartphone. They’re not poor either, they just hate it. But they do watch Fox.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||03/28/2019|
While there is a kernel of truth in what Mayor Pete says about Hillary's campaign, he's forgetting that it was in a media market where the networks would prefer to show an empty podium with the chyron reading "Trump about to speak" than show Hillary actually speaking. I watched CNN cut away from Hillary speaking to a camera stationed in front of an empty dias, and wondered at the time "How does she compete with that?"
The thing is, there is no point in going over and over the many reasons Hillary lost. I think we could all disgorge a lengthy explanation of all of the factors that lead to Trump's stunning upset, be it ever so tiny. I think what we need to do is come up with a plan to challenge Trump such that his base sees the truth of the situation: Trump does not care about them. He loves them because he can con them and even when it's proven that he conned them, they refuse to admit they were conned. Maybe someone who has worked with people who have been conned, getting them to admit their misplaced trust cost them bigly (ha!) and how they begin to take back their dignity, self worth and most importantly, don't make the same mistake again.
It's a tough road to hoe. People, especially people who think of themselves as the salt of the Earth, don't like to admit mistakes, even when admitting the mistakes is the first step to recovery; but there's the rub: many of Trump's most ardent supporters don't see their need to recover because things have not gotten bad enough for most of them to realise their mistakes and seek help. Obama left the economy in such good shape that when the Republicans stepped in, all they had to do was coast (and juice the economy with a huge tax cut that front loaded the meager benefits most people will receive).
And Democrats keep stepping in and stopping Trump's worst instincts; for example, Democrats stopped the Republicans from rescinding the ACA, meaning that there are millions of white working class and poor folks who retained their healthcare when the Republicans would have been happy to see them get sick and die for lack of basic care. Do they thank Dems for saving their healthcare? No. They think the Dems saved Obamacare so that welfare queens (who are certainly not them!) and inner-city black folks could get abortions... on their way to see the doctor in their Medicaid-paid scooter for their free annual checkup. I say, to Trump's DOJ deciding to not defend the ACA at all, rip that band-aid off the wound and let these people see the reality of what Republicans want to do to them.
It will be quite a test as April 15 rolls around and Trump's supporters have to come up with the cash to pay their taxes. Part of the tax scam was that the deductions taken from weekly paychecks were reduced (front loading the scam), meaning that instead of getting a couple hundred dollar refund, this year they're going to have to come up with a couple hundred dollars; and given that the majority of Americans have less than $400 in their checking and/or savings accounts, there's going to be a world of hurt when they have to decide between eating and paying their taxes for a couple of months. And the tax man doesn't take "I don't have any money!" as an answer.
The next month is going to be telling. We'll see. I hope that the Democrats running for the presidency are paying attention.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||03/29/2019|
They also worried about making her seem likable when being a stone cold sociopath is what would have won her the election.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||03/29/2019|
She lost because she got in the race in the first place. Her polling negatives were huge right from the start and she was never going to win. SHe is loathed by a chunk of America. Additionally treating the Sanders supporters like shit after she stole the nomination and failing to even try to bring them into the fold didnt help. Additionally cowtowing to the 1% and acting like a conservative republican was the final insult to the voters. Finally having as your campaiign theme and promise to America be...........wait for it...................... incremental change........was just assinine. Clinton was probably the worst nominee in history. I doubt the democratic party has learned anything.........thus bring on Joe Biden will be their mantra.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||03/29/2019|
[quote]after she stole the nomination
Yeah, just amazing how she "stole" those extra couple million votes.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||03/30/2019|
[QUOTE]That's why Biden would be such an effective candidate. He can win those crucial electoral votes back in the midwest.
And you know who can’t? Pete Buttigieg. He’s sitting up there pointing fingers when he’d get his ass whooped worse than Hillary in a general election.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||03/30/2019|
Buttigieg is approaching it from the point of view of the Midwest because he lives there. From the point of view of the people where he lives, Hillary didn’t show up. I bet a lot of the people in his town are saying, mention us when you campaign, we felt forgotten.
There’s a million reasons why Hillary lost. The fact that she was a bad campaigner is definitely one of them. Imagine how people in the Midwest must have felt, like they don’t matter. A lot of them voted for the guy who was always carrying on about them, even though he was lying and doesn’t give a shit about them.
Pete is trying to reassure them he takes them seriously and will listen to them. He has to do that. What’s he supposed to do, act like only the coasts and the South matter? And his talking about religion is a way to reassure Independents, black voters and crossover Republicans who hate Trump in purple states in the South, so he has to do that too. Some rednecks may feel unsure about gays, but they sure like religious candidates. For all his bluster, Trump isn’t one. There are parts of the country where religion is a big part of everyday life and they want to hear that. Texas is one of those places, just read the comments in a local Texas newspaper some day. It’s all, “I’ll pray for them.” And pro-lifers would never vote for any Democrat anyway.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||03/30/2019|
Right.. I hate the media for that R7. trump is their cash cow.. 24/7 trump.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||04/01/2019|
[quote] trump is their cash cow
If the masses weren't buying it, then the media wouldn't be selling it.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||04/01/2019|
He's not wrong. Why are people expected to act like Hillary is above criticism? Everything he said is valid.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||04/01/2019|
[quote]Pete is trying to reassure them he takes them seriously and will listen to them.
Rather than lambasting and dictating to them. Which Hillary did.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||04/01/2019|
R15: Too late, they've been savaging him in all his threads all weekend.
R48: Because she is the fucking QUEEN you lowly BernBro Russian Stein thing!!!! Bow down and lick her tits for eternity!!!!!!
In all seriousness, it's sick the way the PUMAs have built a personality cult around her and are using it as the litmus test for an election she will have nothing to do with. This is in addition to their sick obsession with the lie that having a primary to pick a nominee is being a spoiler, and blaming Sanders supporters for her loss when over 90% of them voted for her in the general, making that contention metaphysically impossible.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||04/01/2019|
In 2008 she overwhelmingly carried White people during the primaries. But when it came to 2016, she never bothered to re-connect with her White base in the states that mattered most (PA, WI and MI) when pandering to gays and POC by building up big leads in CA and NY. It's as though her camp neglected to read the Constitution about how elections are won. In essence, she ran the wrong race.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||04/01/2019|
I thought at the time that she did not visit the Midwest because she had pneumonia and was too exhausted from recovery to do all the stops she needed to do.
I had pneumonia in my teens and again in my twenties, and I was exhausted for months afterwards. Just barely had enough energy to go to work, and then would conk out once I got home. My mother was in her fifties and we both had it at he same time. She was the same.
I can’t imagine having to go on a campaign feeling like that, just worn out. Of course, at the time they couldn’t acknowledge it because of her age. People are nasty and they would make it about her age and not that she had a serious illness.
Pneumonia can be misleading because even when you’re really sick you are walking around and not in any pain or anything. But you’re still using a lot of energy to recover.
I think she did not want to admit it to anyone.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||04/01/2019|
"She’s a total policy wonk but nobody wanted to listen to any of it. This is 100% on the media ..."
Agree 1,000 percent with the first sentence. No one listens to detailed POLICY crap, except for the political hacks in DC and maybe NYC. And any campaign should know that, and if they don't or didn't, it's THEIR fault. The media...hahaha.
Thanks for posting Hillary, I mean R4.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||Last Sunday at 10:41 PM|
[quote] The media...hahaha.
Yes, the election of Trump and what has been going on since is indeed very funny. Well, at least to you.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||Last Sunday at 11:28 PM|
[quote]From the point of view of the people where he lives, Hillary didn’t show up.
I get so tired of this kind of shit. You know where else candidates don't 'show up'? California. Yes, we get used like an ATM by both parties, but rarely does either side actually come here to campaign among the people to any great extent. We still engage and we still vote and we don't have a non-stop whining crusade happening about it. These special snowflake attention addicts in red states are fucking exhausting.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||Last Sunday at 11:35 PM|
She lost because she called half of Trump's supporters a "Basket of deplorables." While true and we on the left cheered, it did her immense harm to those sitting on the fence.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||Last Sunday at 11:43 PM|
[quote] Trump was brought to us by media that wanted the clown show
Don't shift the blame to the media, they did as they were instructed by the DNC and the Hillary campaign. Hillary's campaign strategy was to build up Trump as the front runner on the theory no way could he ever win.
"Why I'm More Worried About Marco Rubio Than Donald Trump," read a Vox headline. "Donald Trump Is Actually a Moderate Republican," wrote Slate. "Why Cruz Is Worse Than Trump" read one headline by The New York Times' Paul Krugman. "Why Liberals Should Support a Trump Republican Nomination" was New York Magazine's contribution to this genre.
Krugman's cluelessness is a particularly interesting read.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||Last Sunday at 11:48 PM|
Hillary refused to get angry. She was so terrified that any criticism of Washington would turn off Obama fans. The only thing she Expressed disgust at was Trump and his deplorables. She never expressed disgust at the way Washington operates. She never acted angry about the fact that people were paying higher health care premiums under Obamacare and still couldn’t afford to see a doctor when they got sick because of deductibles. She never got angry about the amount of money that we sink into countries that most Americans can’t find on a map. And she also came across as way too cautious. People like it when a politician promises things but she was far too wrapped up in details. Trump gets this. Hillary could have run like she wanted to burn Washington DC down and instead she ran like an incumbent Who wanted to tinker at the edges. Americans were ready to light a fire and she totally missed that. Incidentally I’m a big fan of hers but watching her do politics is painful.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||Last Sunday at 11:57 PM|
It's ridiculous to say that "don't vote for the mentally ill fascist" isn't enough incentive to get out the vote.
Millions of Americans decided they would rather have a fascist than a woman, or that not getting their #1 pick of Bernie meant they should tear the whole thing down as punishment. A lot of people, Buttigieg included, don't want to face that.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||Last Monday at 12:04 AM|
Also I have to say that I am not interested in any analysis of the 2016 election that doesn't mention Trumpster racism, the Comey letter, and influence from foreign actors on social media.
Anyone at this late date focusing entirely on HRC campaign mistakes can go fuck themselves.
A lot of Dem candidates are going to try to appease the Sanders supporters and the Independents by blaming HRC. That doesn't mean I have to like it.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||Last Monday at 12:09 AM|
[quote]I watched CNN cut away from Hillary speaking to a camera stationed in front of an empty dias, and wondered at the time "How does she compete with that?"
Seriously. On Super Tuesday, CNN's front page said Sanders won so many delegates he was "catching up" to HRC, and that was a lie. But nobody cared. His supporters were RTing it on Twitter and lying about simple math to support it, while on here, someone told me "shut up, if he gained even one delegate that means he's gaining on her."
The media is responsible for a lot of this but candidates aren't going to be honest about why, because the media will bury them if they do.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||Last Monday at 12:22 AM|
Remember when Hillary closed that one debate revealing that Trump had insulted the chubby Miss Universe contestant. In retrospect that moment probably sums up the whole problem with her campaign. It was like we were all supposed to clutch or pearls and say OMG!! He insulted a beauty pageant contestant!!! I mean how MARY! can you get.
(and besides Trump was somewhat nice to the woman letting her keep her title despite pageant officials wanting to revoke it. He got her a trainer to help her work off the weight.)
|by Anonymous||reply 62||Last Monday at 12:25 AM|
"He told her she was fat and got her a trainer. He gets my vote!"
|by Anonymous||reply 63||Last Monday at 12:27 AM|
I'll criticize Trump on many things but as a pageant owner he did ok. Even that whole thing with Rosie. She took him to task for being the "moral arbiter" of whether or not the woman could keep her crown. That also was a case where the pageant officials wanted to dump her for being irresponsible and partying too much and not fufilling her duties. Trump met with her and accepted her pledge to try and do better. I think she went to rehab too.
I should have stuck with beauty pageant ownership.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||Last Monday at 12:31 AM|
make that He should have stuck....
|by Anonymous||reply 65||Last Monday at 12:31 AM|
What's the point of taking time to reanalyze 2015?? Well, why stop at Hillary. Maybe he could analyze why Dukakis lost. Then do John Kerry. Then do Walter Mondale.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||Last Monday at 12:33 AM|
because those that don't understand history r66 are doomed to repeat it
|by Anonymous||reply 67||Last Monday at 12:35 AM|
[quote]Maybe he could analyze why Dukakis lost. Then do John Kerry. Then do Walter Mondale.
Rode in a tank plus couldn't answer if Kitty was raped and murdered what he'd do, Kerry too rich and elitist seeming never really stood a chance, Mondale bland and boring against popular incumbent.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||Last Monday at 12:45 AM|
No, it's because he and every other Dem are desperate for the Never Hillary vote, and so will criticize her every chance they get.
Just like how Gore didn't want to be associated with Bill Clinton after the impeachment.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||Last Monday at 12:48 AM|
Mayor Pete would never wear an ill-fitting bright yellow Mao Tse Tung jacket so we are ok.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||Last Monday at 12:53 AM|
I am a Hillary supporter, but I believe she purposely did not want to discuss her economic policies. Other than specific carve outs for women and children, she did not offer much. She never said she'd raise taxes on the wealthy like Bernie did. Her main thrust was to encourage more free trade (TPP). However, when she caught wind how people frowned upon it, she had to walk that back to the point of promising she wouldn't. But in my mind, she would have re-titled it and shoved it down our throats.
Let's face it, she did not offer anything after that. In hindsight that doesn't seem too bad. Could she have kept the stock market going gang busters like it is under Bone Spurs? I don't think so. I just hope the long-due correction hits before 2020. If it goes even higher, Cheeto may win hands down. It will figure highly in his favor.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||Last Monday at 1:20 AM|
Those who were conned and won't admit it, accepted the conning because it guaranteed them institutional racism, which is what they really cared about and why they voted.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||Last Monday at 1:34 AM|
We have to remember that Hillary is popular vote win can be accounted for totally by California. And if we want to win in 2020, we have to get Beyond the Myth the winning California means anything. Because it doesn't as proven in 2016. That said oh, I worked on the campaign as a statistician and Mook shut down every single idea that would have allowed Hillary to win the electoral college.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||Last Monday at 3:31 AM|
[quote]I'll criticize Trump on many things but as a pageant owner he did ok.
Yeah, he did great when he used to bust into the contestants' dressing rooms unannounced, didn't he? Especially when it was the underage girls...
|by Anonymous||reply 74||Last Monday at 4:04 AM|
R71, you are completely and utterly wrong.
No wait, I don't mean wrong, I mean you are a liar and a troll.
[quote]The majority of her proposals raise taxes directly on high-income taxpayers. Her plan would enact a new surtax on taxpayers with incomes above $5 million, a 30 percent minimum tax (the Buffett Rule), a limit on itemized deductions to a tax value of 28 percent, and an estate tax increase to a top rate of 65 percent for estates worth $1 billion or more. She would also enact a number of targeted tax policies that would impact businesses, such as a new “financial risk” fee on large banks, the elimination of tax expenditures related to the fossil fuel industry, and several tax cuts for small businesses. Her plan would also cut taxes for lower- and middle-income taxpayers through an expansion of the Child Tax Credit.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||Last Monday at 4:56 AM|
[quote] the only ads that Clinton ran in Pennsylvania were anti-trump ads. There were ZERO ads on her policy or even anything about her.
Another Pennsylvania voter here, and this is the truth. I kept waiting for Hillary to pivot from anti-Trump ads to ads about her and what she wanted to accomplish as president, but those ads never came. Almost every one of Hillary's ads was just clips of Trump saying nasty things about women or a clip from David Letterman's old talk show where he pointed out that Trump's ties are made in China.
[quote] Well, why stop at Hillary. Maybe he could analyze why Dukakis lost. Then do John Kerry. Then do Walter Mondale.
They all lost for similar reasons -- because as Democrats, we convinced ourselves that voters didn't care about charisma and were looking for someone with experience and detailed policy proposals. Every time we nominate a charisma-free policy wonk, we lose. But we never seem to learn from our mistake.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||Last Monday at 5:17 AM|
You can't have it both ways. You can't say she's just a policy wonk and having "detailed policy proposals" doesn't win elections, and ALSO say that she lost because she never talked about policy.
Trump's ads were also all about character attacks. That's all Trump does: attack someone's character.
Besides, polling said that the negative ads from HRC were working. It's folly to look at it in hindsight and say the ads were a mistake, when everything said they weren't.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||Last Monday at 5:23 AM|
[quote] You can't have it both ways. You can't say she's just a policy wonk and having "detailed policy proposals" doesn't win elections, and ALSO say that she lost because she never talked about policy.
I'm not saying that her ads should have talked about the fine points of policy. They shouldn't have. But they should have said SOMETHING about her and her vision for the country. Most of her ads never even mentioned her name (except for "I'm Hillary Clinton and I approved this message").
[quote] Besides, polling said that the negative ads from HRC were working. It's folly to look at it in hindsight and say the ads were a mistake, when everything said they weren't.
The link you provided doesn't really say anything about the effectiveness of her ads, and it's from August 2016, before the general election phase even started. It just speculates that her ads must have been working because she was way ahead in all of the polls in swing states at that time. But as the election got closer, those polls tightened, and she ended up losing nearly all of those states. So I guess the ads didn't work after all.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||Last Monday at 5:37 AM|
There has been a conspiracy against Dem candidates in the ad industry going back twenty years.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||Last Monday at 5:42 AM|
I don't see this dumb hick (who also isn't as progressive as he should be) changing that.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||Last Monday at 5:42 AM|
I distinctly remember Chris Matthews saying, "We will break and go to the Trump rally as soon as he gets to the podium." Never once heard him say, "We will break and go to the Clinton rally as soon as she gets to the podium."
|by Anonymous||reply 81||Last Monday at 5:48 AM|
She lost, so of course her ads didn’t work.
I live in Nevada, which was considered a swing state. All the ads were as mentioned above, Trump is bad, look how scary he is. At the time, I too wondered when she was going to make the uplifting, Obamaesque hope and change type ads. Never happened. It was like her one presentation was, “look at the dystopian future with Trump.”
The average voter does not like that. It’s like, if you have nothing positive to discuss, then you’re just bashing the other guy because you have nothing. We have to face that most voters vote by feelings, not statistics or scare tactics. The more you rub the other guy’s nose in the dirt, the more they like him and are suspicious of you. She was making him into the unfairly bashed underdog, into an anti-hero. Trump was joyous and enthusiastic, she was the dour and disapproving old lady.
Democrats need to face this time, you can have the best politics in the world, but if you can’t get your foot in the door it means nothing. Sell the personality and character of the candidate. That’s what Trump did.
One thing he has been a huge success about is keeping his base. No matter what he does he keeps his base. Because he plays to his base. It’s remarkable that he is still in the 40’s range of approval ratings because he is terrible at his job, but excellent at appealing to his base. If he wasn’t, we would have nothing to worry about because his record is terrible. His base doesn’t care though. No Democrat has a loyal base like that, and the SJW’s work night and day to keep the base divided.
I read one idiot on twitter this morning who said, “we had the right candidate.” She lost. How can she be the right candidate if she lost? That kind of thinking dooms the party. Was Dukakis the right candidate? No. Was McGovern? No. Because they lost. Somebody who can win is the right candidate. Purity tests get you nowhere. That kind of defeatist “it doesn’t matter if we win or not” thinking is why we have Trump. The right candidate is the one who beats Trump. Period. Nothing else matters.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||Last Monday at 5:57 AM|
Horeseshit. The "base" of people who voted for Trump because they thought he'd do well is vanishingly small. People voted for him because they thought he'd lose or because he knew so little of the job, he'd accomplish nothing. That latter group were (partly) right, and that's where his 40% approval comes from, not his "base." Indeed, Trump's being there has saved us all kind of horrible things a Mitt Romney or a Mike Pence would have done. The political winds are drifting left in this country and if you don't see that, you will make another tragic mistake.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||Last Monday at 6:12 AM|
Putin. That is why she “lost”, you foaming-at-the-mouth asshole Bernboys.
This is just another variant of man-bum Ken. FUCK YOU.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||Last Monday at 6:20 AM|
[quote]She lost. How can she be the right candidate if she lost?
Because the Comey letter, media bias, and interference from foreign interests caused the loss.
Polling shows that HRC's support skyrocketed in PA once she started the ads you guys are talking about.
When the Comey letter dropped, Trump's support jumped four full points in PA while HRC's dropped two, meaning that on Election Day, they were only two points apart, well within the margin of error.
The ads worked. The candidate was fine. The problem was that the fucking FBI, at the behest of the GOP, pulled a last-minute dirty trick.
The fact that you guys don't care that the goddamned motherfucking F B I stole the election for Trump is pretty telling. It's not that you don't care, it's that you're lying to try to make it seem like it didn't even happen. That is just all kinds of messed up.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||Last Monday at 6:23 AM|
[quote]Trump's being there has saved us all kind of horrible things a Mitt Romney or a Mike Pence would have done
Unfortunately, I think the latest push from the GOP might mean that's not true. We'll have to see, but it's a concerning time right now.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||Last Monday at 6:24 AM|
[quote] Stan Greenberg was telling the Hillary campaign that she needed to go hard on economic messaging
Bill said the same thing.
He thought she was putting too much into the womens angle after trump was exposed for all with assaults on women.
He was so angry she wouldn't listen to him that he left for Arkansas during the campaign after a shouting match.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||Last Monday at 6:30 AM|
The late feminist “nasty woman” sarcasm Really hurt her with Middle America. She ran a campaign aimed at New York and Boston cultural elites instead one aimed at Middle Americans
|by Anonymous||reply 88||Last Monday at 7:23 AM|
Eh, every right-winger and BernieBro says Dems "cater to the elites." It's meaningless, especially as long as the GOP financially rapes Americans to line their own pockets and the pockets of corporations. Get back to me when you care about that.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||Last Monday at 7:28 AM|
In any real democracy psychopath Hillary Clinton would have won because she got more votes. Since America was founded by the elite for the elite with a populist discourse of equality that excluded everyone not from the elite this is what we have.
Dems do cater to the elites since at least Bill Clinton. You consider AOC and Sanders "radicals" for actually addressing blue collar problems instead of brow nosing Wall Street like Hillary did. Trump at least pretends toncare about the working class.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||Last Monday at 7:46 AM|
The lies from Russia and the Republican Party is why she was not elected. Hillary did not talk about Trump. Is he a damn dummy?
|by Anonymous||reply 91||Last Monday at 7:49 AM|
[quote] Bill said the same thing. He thought she was putting too much into the womens angle after trump was exposed for all with assaults on women.
Bill understood how big was the glass house in which Hillary was throwing stones.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||Last Monday at 8:02 AM|
Dems should run campaigns and select nominees that appeal to swing state voters.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||Last Monday at 8:11 AM|
It’s culture, stupid. Throughout the world, the right is sweeping to power by appealing to peoples’ views on cultural issues, including immigration, gender and sexuality, religion, and abortion.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||Last Monday at 8:19 AM|
Hillary lost because of the Electoral College a relic of the past that needs to be gotten rid of.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||Last Monday at 8:25 AM|
Hillary was a horrible campaigner. I kept wondering why she had so few big campaign rallies, but then I noticed how inert and dull she was speaking to crowds. Meanwhile, Trump was having multiple raucous rallies per day.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||Last Monday at 8:26 AM|
[quote]It's a tough road to hoe.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||Last Monday at 8:29 AM|
R6 is obtusely, maybe deliberately missing the point. Buttigieg is saying that there was no clear, positive (positive as in promulgating ideas and policies) Democratic Party message during the last election. It was mostly about how horrible Trump was.
The DNC and Hillary had the power to steer media coverage towards more substantive issues, but they didn't, probably naively thinking that pointing out Trump's foolishness was enough, as it would be for rational, reasonable people. But now we know - as we also know from merely observing people trying to use self-checkout at the grocery - that the electorate isn't as rational or reasonable as we would imagine.
B. has previously said that the reason people voted for Trump is because they don't believe either party is truly concerned about their needs and they want to see the whole thing burn down. Datalounge itself understands the cleansing power of the greasefire.
Yet many of you appear to project your fantasies onto (in this case Democratic) politicians, claiming they have powers and platforms that frankly, there is no clear evidence of. The interesting ideas are coming from the peanut gallery candidates. Bill Clinton was a neo-liberal - or is that neo-conservative? - it is still hard to tell all these years later. Hillary, for all her excellent public service work, was/is an establishmentarian, not a breakaway. IMO her record is enough reason to vote for her. She at least cares about people; she has compassion. And she knows how to do politics. But many don't agree with me because she's too traditional.
And that is how I feel about Buttigieg. He's très conventional. He doesn't make me all tingly down there - or anywhere else. I'm talking about my politics bone, of course. He will be seen as another insider by many workaday voters. It has already been mentioned how few socioeconomic ideas he has put forth so far. He's good at sounding placating. The stuff B. did in his hometown was excellent, yet establishment, neo-liberal - or is that neo-conservative? - it's hard to tell. His politics remind me of Bill Clinton's "welfare to work" and "savings accounts for the poor" back in the '90s.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||Last Monday at 8:30 AM|
[quote]The DNC and Hillary had the power to steer media coverage towards more substantive issues, but they didn't
They and the public tried multiple times. The media wasn't interested. It wasn't as exciting as the Trump shitshow.
Absolute lunacy that you'd say the DNC could have fixed the media but chose not to.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||Last Monday at 8:31 AM|
Democrats bought the lie that new demographics would ensure Democratic victories for them.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||Last Monday at 8:32 AM|
Although many American voters, especially women, would never admit it, fundamentally the reason HRC lost the Electoral College, and thus the election, is because she's female...as unfair and unfortunate as that is.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||Last Monday at 8:38 AM|
That was a huge factor
|by Anonymous||reply 102||Last Monday at 8:39 AM|
Which is why Democrats are not placing women candidates at the top of the polls now
|by Anonymous||reply 103||Last Monday at 8:40 AM|
The idea that Democrats assumed a win is somewhat overstated. It was that way at times, but there was always a concern that it would be difficult for a Dem to win after a two-term Dem president; that's not how it typically works. After it became clear the media was fellating Donnie Two Scoops, after we saw the rampant sexism and undue focus on the emails, and especially after HRC got pneumonia, people were worried. People got worried after Russia was sanctioned and we didn't really know what, if anything, was being done to secure the election.
People forget that the race was pretty close starting in July. First during the RNC convention, Trump briefly lead in the polls. Then the pneumonia incident brought their numbers almost neck-and-neck, and again at the Comey letter.
It's so frustrating to see anyone, least of all another Dem, try to boil it down to "Hillary's campaign, like, sucked n stuff."
|by Anonymous||reply 104||Last Monday at 8:42 AM|
Earth to CNN:
Mayor Pete is hardly the first Dem to say this.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||Last Monday at 8:43 AM|
[quote]Clinton was probably the worst nominee in history.
No, that was Dukakis but Hillary comes in second.
|by Anonymous||reply 106||Last Monday at 8:44 AM|
Obama said the same thing. Biden too
|by Anonymous||reply 107||Last Monday at 8:46 AM|
And a segment of Democrats still think another Massachusetts professor type can win national elections.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||Last Monday at 8:47 AM|
This is YUGE
|by Anonymous||reply 109||Last Monday at 8:49 AM|
[quote] Democrats bought the lie that new demographics would ensure Democratic victories for them.
There are no “new” demographics.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||Last Monday at 8:53 AM|
[quote]You don't walk into coal country and declare coal dead -- even it is true. Same with steel and manufacturing.
Yet that's what Mayor Pete did in his launch speech. He said (paraphrasing) that some industries are of the past and we should look to the future and the new economy. For which he was praised to the heavens by Morning Joe despite Mika and Joe previously lambasting Hillz for it.
There's a lot to like about Pete. But the media is already creating a veritable hagiography of him as the new messiah, and wants us to forget that other candidates and other Dem personalities have already said and repeated the same things.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||Last Monday at 8:55 AM|
Democrats learned that their base is not nearly as unified or politically committed as the rightwing is.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||Last Monday at 9:05 AM|
Democrats need to be focusing on appealing to Midwestern voters
|by Anonymous||reply 113||Last Monday at 9:51 AM|
Hillary should have been leading by 20 points. Or more. Name one other candidate in the last forty years who wouldn’t have cleaned Trump’s clock.
She lost not only because of Putin, Comey, sexism, etc, but because people did not find her personable. They didn’t want to have a beer with her.
Look at what Bill overcame. Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, accusations of rape, god knows what else. A scandal of an illegitimate black baby on the campaign trail. People didn’t care and dismissed all that because they LIKED him.
Same with Trump. A woman who was thirteen years old at the time cane up with an eyewitness who said Trump raped her. 20 women accused him of sexual assault. His ex wife accused him of rape on court docs during their divorce. People didn’t care because they LIKED him.
I do think sexism played a big role. Women have to be perfect, men do not. But mostly that women appearing strident remind people of their bitchy mother-in-law, not a leader. It may be unfair, but unfair people get to vote.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||Last Monday at 10:01 AM|
She was a shrill, humorless, arrogant scold who had been front and center in American life for 25 years and people were so fucking sick of her they would've voted for a dog instead, just to get her off the national stage once and for all and send her into retirement.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||Last Monday at 10:10 AM|
I wonder who R115 voted for...
|by Anonymous||reply 116||Last Monday at 10:14 AM|
R108: She can and she will.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||Last Monday at 10:35 AM|
It’s not that Trump was likeable, but Middle America related to him Because he said things they believed but were once afraid to say
|by Anonymous||reply 118||Last Monday at 10:39 AM|
[quote] he said things they believed but were once afraid to say
Substitute "truths" for "things". Such as the immigration problem.
|by Anonymous||reply 119||Last Monday at 10:45 AM|
|by Anonymous||reply 120||Last Monday at 10:56 AM|
I don’t think Elizabeth Warren has a chance in hell. Whiny quavering weak voice. Sounds and looks like a wimp. It doesn’t matter how smart she is, Putin would kick sand in her face and that’s all there is to it.
Kamala - cold calculating cunt. Has the warmth of a lizard person. Never opens her mouth except to put a foot in it.
Corey Booker - is not catching on.
Eric Swalwell. Right now people think he is not as effective on the campaign trail as Buttigieg. Will that change? Who knows.
Amy Klobuchar - crazy ex girlfriend with a comb in her purse. Also not doing well in polls.
Biden -we all know the pros and cons. What dirty laundry can the Russians and the Republicans dig up? If there’s an outraged woman out there with a groping story, he’s over.
Bernie - lots of unmined, unvetted dirt there. Another one waiting for the other shoe to drop.
This is why Pete B is popular, not because he’s god’s gift to humanity.
|by Anonymous||reply 121||Last Monday at 10:57 AM|
Trump was able to overcome the Heartland disdain for Northeastern and urban candidates by overtly pandering to their values and identity. He gave them assurances they would hold unprecedented power in his administration, and he’s honored that vow.
|by Anonymous||reply 122||Last Monday at 10:58 AM|
R122, you’re right. And in order to get the old coal towns, he had to say coal is coming back. He has no problem lying, but anybody that’s a decent human being does.
I think the Heartland was very offended by Hillary not going there and took it personally. And Trump saying, what a piece of shit she is for not coming to see you! I think you’re wonderful! was exactly what they wanted to hear and they agreed with him.
|by Anonymous||reply 123||Last Monday at 11:01 AM|
"Why am I not 50 points ahead?"
"You can go to my website and download a free copy of my book to learn more about my policies"
"What? With a cloth?"
"I love hot sauce in my bag!"
"Some of my favorite artists are Katy Perry and Demi Lovato"
"Those jobs are never coming back" (Re:manufacturing)
A few moments from the campaign that made me cringe. Hillary was too clueless to understand Americans do not read. You need to tell them in simple terms and sound bytes what you plan to do. You can't cast them off as deplorables even though that is true. You also can't wonder why you aren't 50 points ahead. You aren't entitled to victory Madam. This is a competition. Her joke about wiping her server with a cloth also fell flat and was not funny. The music and Hwood pandering was also pathetic and beneath her.
|by Anonymous||reply 124||Last Monday at 11:02 AM|
[quote] She’s a total policy wonk but nobody wanted to listen to any of it.
Because she never packed it in a way that made anyone care or understand WTF she was talking about. She had a bunch of powerpoints on her website.
Compare that to this guy from Arkansas who just said "It's the economy, stupid" and then everyone knew what he meant and what his policy points were.
(And R115 is not far off)
|by Anonymous||reply 125||Last Monday at 11:03 AM|
^^packaged, not packed
|by Anonymous||reply 126||Last Monday at 11:03 AM|
Hillary's problem actually is she's too honest.
She's a realist when it comes to policy which doesn't sell well in campaigns. People want to hear pipe dreams and big sweeping change.
That's what the Trump and Sanders supporters and even 08 Obama supporters have in common.
|by Anonymous||reply 127||Last Monday at 11:05 AM|
Here's the thing: in the business world, it's clear who is CEO material and who is not.
And the CEO is rarely the smartest person in the room. They're the person with the personality to drive everyone and pull things together, be the public face of the company, recognize good ideas from other people and get those ideas in motion.
Hillary was none of those things and Bill was all of them.
She was the person they make Chief Strategy Officer or Chief Operations Officer because they will come up with clever ideas that the company can then choose to act on, but they would be a disaster as a leader because they don't know how to communicate with people.
Why no one ever told her straight up that she was not cut out to be president will forever remain a mystery.
|by Anonymous||reply 128||Last Monday at 11:07 AM|
"Why am I not 50 points ahead?"
This made her look horrible, condescending. Additionally, in the last weeks of the campaign, it was reported that Hillary folks were already making plans for administration. It made it seem like they Were already measuring the windows for White House drapes. Other candidates may have done this in the past, but there was no corresponding reporting that Trump was doing the same. A lot of people resented Hillary and her supporters’ mindset that her victory was inevitable.
|by Anonymous||reply 129||Last Monday at 11:08 AM|
R127, duh. It’s stupid for a politician not to know this dude
|by Anonymous||reply 130||Last Monday at 11:09 AM|
Hillary lost because people have woken up to the reality of neo-liberalism.
|by Anonymous||reply 131||Last Monday at 11:09 AM|
America had since 1992 to make up their mind about Hillary. And did, hipsters included.
|by Anonymous||reply 132||Last Monday at 11:18 AM|
Another thing that really turns off blue collar voters is college college college talk. As if every person in America has to go to college or they’re a loser. A lot of people can’t afford it.
Telling people all they have to do is either quit their day job that pays the bills, never sleep again for years, quit supporting their family for years, and go into mountainous debt for decades is ridiculously out of touch. It’s like saying “let them eat cake” to people who can never do that. Poor people can’t live in their parents’ basement, they’re paying their parents’ bills and theirs too. Or sleeping in their van on campus for years. Unless they have kids, in which case they’re working three jobs and there is no time for school.
It’s not enough to say I have the union’s vote, what are you going to do to bring up wages for low income people? Tell them to spend $100,000 on an education? That’s easy, no problem. I’m sure they’ll all go out and do that the day after you get elected. The real world isn’t as simple as that.
I knew union people who thought she was an asshole, because she didn’t understand anything about them.
One thing you can say about Buttigieg is that South Bend is a legitimately poor town with a long term unemployment problem he improved, and lots of poverty and minorities. He is not going to tell somebody living in a ramshackle shack to just go to Harvard and they’ll be fine.
The improvements he made were not dependent on the whole town going to college. He understood some people were never going to be upwardly mobile. They are people with nothing, who can’t get ahead enough to ever get anything. And he doesn’t look down at them as being write offs.
|by Anonymous||reply 133||Last Monday at 11:20 AM|
|by Anonymous||reply 134||Last Monday at 11:30 AM|
R133, right. It was also very telling of her character that after the election she boasted about winning the vote of the "educated and higher income class" . I lost alot of respect for her after hearing that.
Told you all you need to know about Ms. Clinton. She doesn't give a damn about you if you don't make a million dollars a year, don't have a private jet, and can't afford a 10k a plate donation drive for her.
That is not how a leader speaks. You would never hear Barack or Bill or Buttigieg talking down on others like that even if that's what they feel in private.
With all the education, intellect, and money in the world, she still couldn't win a race even when the lag was cleared for her so what does that say about her? I am sure "dumber" people would've had more common sense and better winning instincts.
|by Anonymous||reply 135||Last Monday at 1:04 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 136||Last Monday at 1:05 PM|
During the election, someone on here noted that if the Clintons owned a business, that Bill would know the name of every admin and janitor, know their kids names, their birthdays and joke around with them. Hillary would ignore anyone who was not at an executive vice president level or higher and look pained when Bill said hello to one of the security guards and asked how his granddaughter was.
I thought that summed them up perfectly and why one was a popular president and the other was a losing candidate.
|by Anonymous||reply 137||Last Monday at 1:14 PM|
As one pundit said, although Americans generally thought Trump was a mess, they were lookin for any excuse to not vote for Hillary
|by Anonymous||reply 138||Last Monday at 1:44 PM|
Trump filled huge arenas all over the USA with over-capacity crowds standing outside, and he continues to do so.
You can't link us to a photo of a Clinton rally anywhere in 2016 (outside the party convention) with an audience of even five thousand people.
The idea that it took sneaky Russian propaganda to defeat Hillary is absurd on the face of it. Trump made his own case loud and clear to overflow crowds up and down the nation while Hillary couldn't fill a high school gymnasium.
|by Anonymous||reply 139||Last Tuesday at 7:38 AM|
Dipping my toes back into this exhausting thread. Tax day has come and gone, and while there have been rumblings and a few news stories about people waking up to the fact that Trump's trillion-dollar tax scam has hurt the middle class and provided enormous benefit to the 0.1%, against the wall of bad news coming out every 10 seconds, it's been pretty much lost. Besides, taxes are so complicated...
Nevertheless, the recurring theme, that Hillary didn't campaign/ignored real people/otherwise screwed it up, is getting old. The reason she lost was because the media wanted to focus on the circus, which does not make for good governance, and ignore the machinery, which is how good government works. In other words, it was much more fun and attracted more viewers when Trump was spouting nonsense than when Hillary would give a thoughtful and provocative answer. We'd much rather cheer for the liar than believe the truth. To wit, manufacturing jobs are never coming back. We can either accept that fact and face the reality, or we can continue to hope against hope that the factory will reopen and bring back middle class jobs. Which activity is going to being prosperity back to the midwest? And if you believe the lies that Trump tells (to those "overflowing crowds," R139), then you doom the midwest to even more hard times.
And then you throw in the manipulation of social media by sophisticated Russian-led operations — one that has been proven to have focused like a laser beam on every minor disagreement between liberals and virtually ignore similar minor disagreements between conservatives — along with voter suppression, an outdated system that was designed to prevent the most popular states from having a corresponding say in government, and the largest segment of the population having their worst fears stoked, and you get a buffoon like Trump eeking out the slimmest of victories. Not that the size of the victory matters; our system has ways of dealing with popular winners (as in, the leader of the opposition declaring before the winner was even sworn in to oppose him on every single thing he wants to do... looking at you, Turtle McConnell). No. the only victory that matters is the Republican win, because the rest of the world sees that their interests are best served by the party that wants to screw the American people the hardest (just not the sexual way, because that again goes to the Democrats, or at least, that's what were lead to believe because a sexual scandal only counts when it surrounds a Democrat).
Trump's trade war with China has helped... China. Trump cozying up to Kim Jong Un has helped... North Korea. Trump pulling us out of the Paris Accords has helped... the developing world that wants to pollute with impunity. Trump withdrawing from the Iranian nuclear deal has helped... no one, which at least prevents it from helping US. That's the irony of this idea that Trump puts America first is just that; an idea that has no basis in reality, and in fact, has put America last.
And that is why Trump is able to fill stadiums, R139. He is willing to go where responsible politicians are not. For example, he'll happily stoke racial resentment. He'll gladly tell us that the situation on the Southern border is "out of control" when, in fact, illegal immigration is down. Yes, asylum seekers have increased, which to the uneducated sounds a lot like illegal immigration, but it isn't. Another example is Trump's preoccupation with Omar; he took a comment, used it out of context, it got picked up by Rupert Murdoch, and then gets tweeted by Trump, and the fact of the matter being that Omar is a co-sponsor of the 9/11 first responders care act gets lost, allowing Trump, Murdoch, McConnell and every Republican hide the fact that they are cutting aid to the 9/11 first responders.
Which all comes down to the point I made at R40: Republicans are masters of media manipulation. Of course we'd rather watch a shit show unfold before our eyes than the metaphorical equivalent of watching paint dry, which is what policy is.
|by Anonymous||reply 140||Last Tuesday at 8:01 AM|
[quote]And then you throw in the manipulation of social media by sophisticated Russian-led operations —
So sophisticated that over 75,000 Americans show up every time Trump delivers a speech in Middle America.
How could Trump possibly reach the voters if it weren't for "Russians" covertly tricking us into listening to him every time we pack an arena for him?
|by Anonymous||reply 141||Last Tuesday at 8:10 AM|
I am preparing for his re-election . Dems seem to lack the unity and zeal to win
|by Anonymous||reply 142||Last Tuesday at 8:27 AM|
Good discussion. So. What have we learnt here?
|by Anonymous||reply 143||Last Wednesday at 5:59 AM|
We've learned that no matter what, someone always has to make shit up:
[quote]over 75,000 Americans show up every time Trump delivers a speech in Middle America.
75,000? Where? When? What arena?
I'm not saying that he doesn't draw crowds. I'm not saying that he isn't popular... among his base. What I am saying is that the Russians used a sophisticated social media campaign to drive a wedge — Trump — between the American people because they couldn't beat us militarily, economically or even in the court of public opinion until they realized that there is a huge swath of America that is so stupid they'll believe anything an old white man says, particularly if he lies to them, makes promises he (or any politician) can't keep, and peppers the speech with racism and bigotry.
What worries me is that the Russians (or any outside influence) doesn't even have to be that sophisticated because the American media plays right into their hands. The market is so crowded that at this point if you can get a crowd of a couple hundred together, between stagecraft, camera angles, and just plain trickery, the rallies that Trump holds look big and make the news divisions scramble to give him wall-to-wall coverage. What gives me comfort is that, in contrast to R142's lack of ability for critical analysis, the Democratic field is generating huge interest, excitement and yes, zeal, as evidenced by the enormous early campaign contributions that the top contenders are posting and crowds they're generating, and we're almost a year out before the first primary ballot is cast.
|by Anonymous||reply 144||Last Wednesday at 7:18 AM|