Clinton's defeat

A forum to seperate the more serious discussions from the lighter topics in Off-topic.

Re: Clinton's defeat

Postby V » 01 Feb 2017, 14:36

An interesting response & thanks. It is to some extent what I expected that the focus is now on Trump & his success/failure. This would be a bit of a gamble from the Democrat point of view (not exactly controlling their own destiny in 2020) but will be the likely outcome of the 2016 result.
Platinum Classicist
Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished.
V
 
Posts: 546
Joined: 04 May 2014, 21:28
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1664
All-game rating: 1689
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: Clinton's defeat

Postby Keirador » 02 Feb 2017, 00:54

Senlac wrote:An interesting response & thanks. It is to some extent what I expected that the focus is now on Trump & his success/failure. This would be a bit of a gamble from the Democrat point of view (not exactly controlling their own destiny in 2020) but will be the likely outcome of the 2016 result.

It's not really a gamble the Democrats can choose to take or not take. As with any party that spends some time in the political wilderness, they're going to undergo a rebuilding period in which the platform is re-examined, fought over, and likely changed, but regardless of what they try to do, in a two-party system elections are almost always a referendum on the party in power. Even if they win control of one or both houses of Congress in 2018 (which itself would be a sign of immensely broad and deep dissatisfaction with Trump and the Republicans), it's literally impossible for them to win a veto-proof majority so it will still largely be seen as Trump's government and Trump's mess, much as the last few years have been politically "owned" by Obama despite an obstructionist legislature.
Did you know there’s a faceless old woman who secretly lives in your home? It’s true. She’s there now. She’s always there, just out of your sight. Always just out of your sight.
User avatar
Keirador
 
Posts: 8965
Joined: 01 Dec 2008, 21:36
Location: Living secretly in the home of every single resident of Night Vale
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1132)
All-game rating: (1133)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Clinton's defeat

Postby Minneapolitan » 09 Feb 2017, 03:31

I think Zander and Keirador both have put it perfectly. As someone who lives in ultra-liberal Minneapolis but works on the railroad entirely in mostly-rural southern Minnesota - and I spend about half my waking time down there - I can confirm that there is a HUGE divide between urban and rural Americans. In fact, I've been saying it for years to my urban friends and neighbors and nobody seems to get it. Nobody knows or sees the people I am around every single day. They're in a bubble. A huge blue bubble.

Regular people out there in Middle America - and this includes soft-line Democrats and Republicans as well as swing voters - don't listen to NPR, don't read the New York Times, don't watch the PBS NewsHour, etc. They watch football and hockey, they hunt deer, they work on cars, and THEY LIKE LAUGHING. They shower after work, not before. And they're fucking sick and tired of liberals telling them how to raise their children, telling them they're not smart enough (although many aren't), and telling them what to believe and how to believe it on a now-unmanageable number of social issues that are increasingly complex. Simple people want simple lives, not more complexities. Even the playgrounds being covered in padding is seen as liberal intrusion when people think, "We were just fine growing up. We got hurt and learned our fucking lesson."

Are they right about liberals? Maybe. But the perception is what matters, not the facts. And they see liberals as a bunch of gluten-free, overly PC, wine-drinking, tree-hugging, gun-hating, yoga-preaching, Civil War art-hating, bicycle-riding, Indian drum-beating, vegan Hollyweird freaks who don't know how to mind their own business and wouldn't know a good fart joke if it pulled their wussy hybrid car out of a snow drift. No irreverent humor without being shunned by some latte-sipping college grad for not being "culturally sensitive." Honestly, when did "retarded" and "midget" become bad words?? And yes, I've been accused of these types of things many times by fellow Minneapolitans. I'm more left than Lenin and even I'm sick and tired of liberals!

Middle America saw Hillary Clinton as the manifestation of all these annoying people they want to bitch-slap. They saw Clinton as the "Pepsi candidate" offered by a party that put blue-collar whites in the back seat twenty years ago along with the AFL-CIO and free-trade issues - and put all the social issues in the front. Guess what, Democrats? Social issues don't put more bread on the kitchen table for the largest demographic. Voting for Trump was absolutely a "fuck you" to a Progressive America that is progressing faster than Regular America is willing or able to. Rural America will progress...but it must be left to do so at its own natural pace - and encouraged by liberals, not shouted at by these goddamn "social justice warriors" who can't take a goddamn joke. East and West Coast liberals seem especially oblivious to this.

The Democrats don't know how to fight fire with fire. "Fire" in politics is extremely rare but burns and spreads stronger and faster. Donald Trump was fire. Remember when Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura ran for governor? THAT was fire. Barack Obama might have been in 2008, but that has much to do with the embarrassing disaster Bush left us in. Political fire tends to come from unconventional backgrounds because Americans are easily tired of the same old "Coke vs. Pepsi" choices.

If you're a political party and suddenly you're faced with authentic FIRE, there's not much you can do. The Democrats saw Donald Trump coming a loooong ways away and chose to fight fire with vanilla ice cream. And they found themselves in this position the one time they ALSO had real fire...in Bernie Sanders!

Fight fire with fire. Trump was fire. Sanders was fire. Clinton was vanilla ice cream.

All this being said, some say Bill Maher is smug. But he doesn't live in a bubble and we ought to take more notice...



8-)
"Always go to your friend's funerals. Otherwise they may not come to yours."

- Yogi Berra (1925 - 2015)
User avatar
Minneapolitan
 
Posts: 1932
Joined: 25 May 2008, 06:56
Location: The Mill City - Minneapolis, baby!
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1392)
All-game rating: (1374)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Clinton's defeat

Postby Keirador » 09 Feb 2017, 04:45

Minne I overwhelmingly agree with your analysis, including that first post of yours which I referenced but I don't think I specifically attributed you, and yet I still feel like I need to push back on a couple points. They're minor, but I think they're important.

First, I find the casting of "regular people" vs. "liberals" to be inherently manipulative. Liberals are regular people. There's nothing abnormal about living in a city. In fact, there are some obvious, numerable advantages to living in cities: average wages are higher, economic mobility is higher, job creation is healthier, new businesses are formed at a higher rate, and to the extent to which innovation can be quantified, dense cities display more of it. Against this, conservatives have employed a strategy of paying homage to rural and small-town communities as being inherently superior in some unquantifiable way, that non-cities are "REAL AMERICA" and cities are. . . I don't really follow the argument, actually, that cities are fictitious? Or traitorous? For whatever reason, cities and their inhabitants just don't count as "real" or "regular." It's a communication strategy that seeks to actively deepen the urban/rural divide. It stokes rural egos while offering nothing tangible as a benefit, while alienating citydwellers and pushing us yet further into our cultural enclaves. Don't fall for it.

But the perception is what matters, not the facts.

Preach, brother. But if the perception is independent of the facts, what can we do about that? Just tell bigger lies?

No irreverent humor without being shunned by some latte-sipping college grad for not being "culturally sensitive." Honestly, when did "retarded" and "midget" become bad words??

I know this sentiment really well, and I understand it on a surface level, but it's empty and selfish. If rural people were being fined, imprisoned, or crucified for irreverent humor, I would be out there protesting. That isn't what happens, though. Nobody is threatening their right to be culturally insensitive. . . we're just not amused by it. And might even tell you so. At its heart, this is not about people demanding their right to tell whatever jokes they want, it's about people demanding their right that everybody laugh at their jokes. Some elements of rural conservative America have decided in recent years that telling a joke where the punch line is "toss the midget" is free speech, but having somebody say "that joke was really insensitive" is, somehow, itself more hurtful than the midget joke. It's free speech turned on its head. It's conservatives demanding a "safe space" in which their own speech cannot be criticized. Maybe it's an attitude we have to deal with politely to make electoral gains, but it's still wrong.

Rural America will progress...but it must be left to do so at its own natural pace

Huh. Do you think this is actually true? It seems to me that rural America needs MASSIVE investments in infrastructure, education, and social spending to progress, and it needs that money from urban areas that pay more in taxes than they get back. Rural Americans currently have a schizophrenic complaint structure, in which they are simultaneously being interfered with too much by government, but also being ignored and overlooked by government.

Many of the industries that sustained small towns are going away or are gone. And the culprit is overwhelmingly automation, not trade or immigration. The fundamental problem faced by ex-urban America is that it's not 1955 anymore and it's not going to be again, no matter what walls we build or what tariffs we place on imports. The way of life their parents enjoyed is just gone. Leaving them to just wish it would come back, or telling them to smarten up and get a better education, are exactly the policies we have offered for decades to no avail.
Did you know there’s a faceless old woman who secretly lives in your home? It’s true. She’s there now. She’s always there, just out of your sight. Always just out of your sight.
User avatar
Keirador
 
Posts: 8965
Joined: 01 Dec 2008, 21:36
Location: Living secretly in the home of every single resident of Night Vale
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1132)
All-game rating: (1133)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Clinton's defeat

Postby Minneapolitan » 09 Feb 2017, 06:33

Keirador wrote:I find the casting of "regular people" vs. "liberals" to be inherently manipulative. Liberals are regular people. There's nothing abnormal about living in a city. In fact, there are some obvious, numerable advantages to living in cities...


Of course liberals are regular people, of course cities are normal. But when we're talking elections, rural America still matters. I personally know a number of people on the rural side who are middle-aged and have been completely apolitical their entire lives. This year, they were opening their mouths in favor of Trump (some very long and miserable crew deadheads... :roll: ). I know even more who are soft-line Democratic only because they're in a union. Their personal complacency in their job allowed them to vote on other issues - and they voted Trump too. Rural Minnesota is no different than rural Michigan, rural Ohio, and (much to our chagrin) rural Wisconsin. So when we see a difference of only 27,257 votes in Wisconsin, 11,612 votes in Michigan...this starts to become more of an issue. And let's not forget the house districts in this nation. As you've pointed out, much of our entire system seems based on land, not people.

As for your other points, I'll get back to this in a day or two. As I'm writing this, I'm about to head down to the corner for a drink...

:P
"Always go to your friend's funerals. Otherwise they may not come to yours."

- Yogi Berra (1925 - 2015)
User avatar
Minneapolitan
 
Posts: 1932
Joined: 25 May 2008, 06:56
Location: The Mill City - Minneapolis, baby!
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1392)
All-game rating: (1374)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Clinton's defeat

Postby uzes90 » 09 Feb 2017, 18:21

I find this thread fascinating.

I agree with what Keirador has written.
I find revealing what Minneapolitan has written.

But for me, the elephant in the room is the psychological make up of Trump -- his childishness, egotism, his Narcissistic Personality Disorder, his lying and misrepresentations.

Did people who voted for him ignore this? Are they happy with how he’s behaving now?

Minneapolitan – If you want to bother -- what do you think of what this guy wrote - http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/rural-america-understanding-isnt-problem
User avatar
uzes90
Premium Member
 
Posts: 272
Joined: 24 Dec 2010, 22:23
Location: ...appears here and there - now and then - to this one and that one...
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 2364
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Clinton's defeat

Postby V » 09 Feb 2017, 21:04

Seeing as the conversation has briefly turned towards Trump, I'd like to stir the pot a little with what is possibly mere conjecture, but not far from the truth, I believe.
Trump carefully conceals his true motives when taking actions in order to win, time & again, against opposition that are less devious. My example for debate is the "travel ban".
I believe this has little or nothing to do with national security or immigration for Trump, though he would never admit it. It is about the courts. He knew (& wanted) a liberal court would overturn his executive order. He probably designed the order in great detail to achieve this objective of getting a fight with the courts on his terms. Well he's got it.
Now the issue of travel from 7 probably very carefully selected countries will be conveniently played down, while we fight over "political judges", which is what he wanted. He'll probably win in the end & get his travel ban. Headline "Trump defeats political courts & saves the nation" or may be lose, Headline "Trump tries utmost to defeat court system that endangers Americans" or if he gets real lucky an immigrant from one of the 7 turns out to be a nut job gunman (or worse). Headline "President Trump prevented from protecting America by radical court system". I think the nature of the fight is carefully engineered so he cannot lose whatever the outcome.
Once their is consensus that the US court system is overtly political, without necessarily due regard for justice, then the true motive is revealed in "OK what do we do about it?"

Now don't go accusing me of supporting or agreeing with this agenda. My personal feeling is that it is always dangerous for governments to pick fights with courts, but I believe that is what is in progress. Trump will engineer it such that the courts are picking the fight with him, but the outcome is the same. I just keep suspecting Trump is still one step ahead of his detractors & they keep on falling for it. Especially as folks seem to think he is an egotistical imbecile, which could well be another example of what he wants opponents to believe, thus underestimating him. The "travel ban" is for me just the most blatant example of an action with an undeclared true agenda, nothing to do with travel.

Again, interested in all viewpoints (including those that call me a conspiracy theorist:-) I've never had that accusation before.
Platinum Classicist
Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished.
V
 
Posts: 546
Joined: 04 May 2014, 21:28
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1664
All-game rating: 1689
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: Clinton's defeat

Postby Minneapolitan » 09 Feb 2017, 21:12

uzes90 wrote:Minneapolitan – If you want to bother -- what do you think of what this guy wrote - http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/rural-america-understanding-isnt-problem


Thank you for the article. I find it very accurate and I encourage everyone to read it. However, because the central theme in the article is how religious fundamentalism shapes the rural white worldview, I strongly suspect this article is really about the American South (and to a lesser extent, the rural Mountain West).

The issue is how do Democrats win Midwestern elections, not Southern elections. Rural Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, northern Illinois and Indiana, and particularly Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa, are all largely Catholic or Lutheran - not Southern Baptist or Evangelical. Issues raised in the article that are not directly related to religious fundamentalism, such as willful ignorance of the qualities of government, certainly are a problem in the rural Midwest. But rural Midwesterners tend to be a little more open-minded because the Catholic and Lutheran churches don't (for the most part) preach the types of things that lead people to believe what they do in the American South. The Upper Midwest in particular (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, the Dakotas, northern Illinois), surely more than any other part of the country, was overwhelmingly settled by immigrants straight off the boat from Germany, Ireland, and Scandinavia - mostly after the Civil War. Believing all the crazy shit that Southern Baptists and Evangelicals believe en masse is just not in our Midwestern character.

The Democrats are not likely to win southern votes any time soon - and that's okay. Mathematically, we don't need them. Obama won North Carolina in 2008, and Bill Clinton won Georgia in 1992. If the Democrats pulled their head out of their ass they could win those states again (Florida isn't the South - Florida is Florida). Crunching the numbers, South Carolina is the only other southern state the Democrats could possibly win maybe a decade from now - and even that's a reeeeeaal stretch.

But regarding the truths that do apply to rural Midwesterners, Democrats can try to change them but at the same time must acknowledge and accept that the perception of liberals and liberalism that drives voters to the right is still there - and deal with it. For Democrats to simply brush this off and claim moral high ground does nothing to win elections.

Liberal beliefs mean dick if we're not winning elections.
"Always go to your friend's funerals. Otherwise they may not come to yours."

- Yogi Berra (1925 - 2015)
User avatar
Minneapolitan
 
Posts: 1932
Joined: 25 May 2008, 06:56
Location: The Mill City - Minneapolis, baby!
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1392)
All-game rating: (1374)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Clinton's defeat

Postby The O » 13 Feb 2017, 20:21

Let's not also forget that the system is bigly ;) weighted against the urban areas. California gets 2 Senators while the Dakota Territory (now North and South Dakota gets 4). If the House was weighted properly, then Wyoming is to 3 electoral votes as California is to X number of votes... the computation would be somewhere around X=198. California has 1 electoral vote for every 677,355, while Wyoming has one electoral vote for every 187,923. Also, large urban centers bring in 85% of all of the nation's GDP leaving rural areas as takers in this system. Follow that up with a large push of gerrymandering as well as now legal voter suppression of certain voters.
All of that combined means that rural votes are weighted much more than urban and suburban votes.
User avatar
The O
 
Posts: 2398
Joined: 06 Dec 2008, 01:52
Location: Chicago
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (953)
All-game rating: (885)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Clinton's defeat

Postby Foibleson » 24 May 2017, 15:39

Just read how she lost in her own words:

"How I Lost" by Hillary Clinton

http://www.orbooks.com/catalog/how-i-lost/
User avatar
Foibleson
 
Posts: 94
Joined: 21 Jan 2015, 02:38
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1075)
All-game rating: (1095)
Timezone: GMT-6

Previous

Return to Debates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest