I think this much is true: Trump is symptom of us not listening to each other.
The reaction to condescension shouldn’t be a “fuck you” vote for a horrible candidate. It should be to get fucking educated.
And the reaction to a “fuck you” vote from the rest of America shouldn’t be another pointless goddamn protest. It should be to get fucking educated.
The thing that Sanders (and Keith Ellison and many other progressive folks) have that HRC doesn’t is a similar rejection of that elitist attitude - an acknowledgement that folks are feeling scared.
I mostly agree with you Daedalus except for most (at least in the "flyover states) of the “Trump” voters its not so much a “fuck you” vote but rather voting for the group supporting a candidate with a more agreeable attitude.
Think of the independent voter in OH, IA, WI, or maybe even FL. They aren’t heavily invested in either party. They may be a sweet church-going grandma that would like a woman president but was told by her grandchildren that they would never again talk to someone who voted for Trump…so she kept her mouth shut and voted for the nicer party. They could be a middle aged urban professional who is tired of being told his/her ideas are too “conservative” instead of having a sensible discussion…so they kept their mouth shut and voted against their outspoken office workers. They could be a Midwestern born Catholic or Lutheran who were culturally taught to avoid conflict so instead of raising their voice on issues like choice vs. life, Trade, military…they just vote for the party they feel most comfortable with regardless of who the candidate is.
I will agree that the current anti-Trump protests are not helping. They just further to point out that the liberal-elite want their way no matter what.
Sanders versus HRC wouldn’t have mattered. Its the attitude of the supporters that matters more than the candidate, unless Sanders would have been able to convince his supporters to calm down and be reasonable, but I doubt that.
That’s novel. What do you see as Trump’s “agreeable attitude?”
What would “calm down and be reasonable” look like in the face of a candidate who is advocating for hate and violence? And how would it be different from “sit down and shut up” or some other form of condescending paternalistic effort to silence opposition?
Thanks for writing this. Right on cue, some comments suggest that playing ‘what if’ is a waste of time. Sure, that makes sense! What could possibly be learned? Why bother reviewing which assumptions were wrong, which research not done, whose expert opinions not challenged, and which decisions not fully thought through?
Quick suggestions for next time. If on the Republican side, someone like Trump beats their own insider candidates and draws stadium crowds, it might help to ask why, rather than spotlight the nastiest in the crowd and assume there’s nothing further to be learned. On the Dem side, when we have someone who is actually drawing our own stadium crowds, has a much higher likability score than Trump, is considered a genuine populist and outsider although he had been in politics for decades, has no bankster / lobbyist entanglements, and has a consistent message for a public openly craving such consistency, it might help to ask what can be learned as well.
Bernie would have trounced Trump in the General Election. The ‘but he would have faced a negative campaign’ argument doesn’t hold out. Hillary’s surrogates were already red-baiting, and it wasn’t going anywhere. He had remarkably little baggage, but fair enough, do the analysis. Take anything that Trump could have used against Bernie and match it against what they used against Hillary. Or against what was used against Trump himself. It’s not even close.
Major opportunity lost, so at least let’s not let the same experts and insiders who thought it was a waste of time to ask the right questions during the campaign persuade us it’s a waste of time to ask questions now.
We should remember that relying on polls for this election was not really as reliable as we’d thought. It’s esp. pointless in fantasy scenarios. The oppo research on Sanders was brutal. If he was actually in the general he would have been savaged, and there’s a fair chance he’d have gone down in flames.
That was definitely the Dems received wisdom. Mind you the same analysts also thought Trump was among the weakest of the candidates HRC might face. Which is one of the reasons her team encouraged the media to give publicity to Trumps primary campaign.
So I wouldn’t necessarily place much weight on the campaign strategists thinking.
Bernie loses PA, you can’t make the map work in a meaningful way for him except in MI. There is no landslide if Bernie runs.
If you are working for change in 2018, you have to give up the idea that Bernie was infallible and embrace the view that matches the people of that region - which means populism in the north and rural areas, and still courting the vote in the city.
There is no single right answer before the ever united religious Republicans.
But it’s probably better to do an honest post mortem than to just mutter “let’s not start playing the blame game”.
My own 2 cents (if it’s worth even that) is that you can’t always tell black lives matter, or other progressives to shut up and take one for the team. Ultimately they will have to have something positive to vote for. And HRC wasnt that candidate. So it wasn’t a collapse of the Dem vote. It was just a marginal loss of enthusiasm, as you might expect after two terms of “hope and change” brought neither.
I don’t think pinning the whole lack of primary competition on the established Clinton coalition is entirely fair and misses a massive problem in the Democratic Party; there’s no deep bench. There’s not really an up and coming batch of Democrats making names for themselves in state governments like the Republican Party has. Who are the strong competitors that should have primaried against Hillary and Sanders (plus that other guy I can’t be bothered to look up now because he got 3% of the vote)?
It’s not gloating until afterwards. I remember a lot of, scratch that, 100% of Hillary supporters through the entire primary season ignoring polls and telling Bernie supporters they needed to follow marching orders and line up behind her because She’s The One. Totally dismissing their own own true political convictions by which they should have gone with Bernie and against which HRC’s real experience and choice of campaign managers leant - and I’m not talking about the damned emails. DNC $$ from payday lenders, the bailouts, exec pay combined with this stuff was impossible to defend and pissed people off across the political spectrum - especially those who were motivated enough to come out and vote. So many people on FB were asking if Bernie supporters would vote for HRC “when” not if she won the primary, I thought the asking of the question was organized from campaign HQ.
Again, its not the candidate. They are a figure head for the mood of the party and most people are reasonable enough to understand that a President, Governor, Mayor, etc. does not have the infinite power to rule as a king. While I agree Trump and maybe a fringe section of his supporters are in no way “agreeable”, anyone on facebook, twitter or reading a newspaper sees violence and anger coming in waves from the left.
How are the extremists on either side different? On right side are those that hate immigrants, minorities and all others that are seen as a threat to their preferred way of life. On the left side are those that hate pro-life (anti-choice), creationists (anti-evolution), non-politically correct and all others that are seen as a threat to their preferred way of life. The big difference is the right extremists are doing their hate spewing in rural bars and greasy spoons while the left extremists are doing it on social media, traditional media and in riots. The left is a victim of their ability to get their message heard, I guess.
An honest postmortem isn’t just a review of six month old polls and pining for ones preferred candidate.
One thing people need to look at is how Dems lost with a two million vote lead. These tiny counties in swing states that could have been targeted for almost no money. And should be targeted now through the next cycle - for almost no money
What are we voting for in elections, if not candidates?
If you want to have a real conversation, you have to realize this: it is not identity hate that motivates people on the left. If you ask anyone if they hate pro-life people or creationists, you will hear a truthful answer: “No.” People hate the damage they do to their country and their loved ones and their planet. People hate that they’re stuck in ideology and can’t find a way out. People don’t hate their identity, though. They don’t hate what they are, or even what they think. You can believe every sperm is sacred all you want, the problem is when you do damage to people who don’t share your belief.
This is an important difference between the Right and the Left in America today.
You’re demonizing. If you’re a human being worthy of respect, then so is every single person out there demonstrating in the streets. If you can’t realize that, then you aren’t interested in conversation.
And Trump could have just co-opted whatever Bernie’s more popular policies were and said he could do it even better and these people would have bought it. Trump was never smeared as a “socialist” and all that type of shit though so it’s apples and oranges. He is largely seen as a successful busnessman. I voted for Clinton in the North Carolina primary because there is no way Sanders could have won this state in the general election, and there were no other candidates running. The majority of white people in America simply don’t agree with Sanders’ policies, or at least don’t want to pay for them.They just don’t. At least in my state. If you don’t know that then you don’t know these people. Most don’t want to pay for others people’s kids college tuition. You’re projecting your values onto other people. And the right wing smear machine would have fucked him up just like they fucked up Clinton. It’s what they’re good at. And yes, sadly, a lot of people won’t vote for a Jew. If Sanders was the nominee I would have vigorously supported him and there was no reason for Sanders’ supporters not to do the same for Clinton. If they couldn’t do that or they fell for Trump’s bullshit that’s their own fault. Not mine.
An important lesson to take away here is that the right wing smear machine didn’t fuck up Clinton. It’s not attacks that beat her. It was a lack of enthusiasm for her.
The majority of people in America don’t agree with Trump’s idiocy, either, they just think if he fucks stuff up for the folks in charge maybe something will change.
They’re wrong - in part because Trump is embracing all the right wing demagogues that caused the problems in the first place - but their motivation wasn’t mostly “I think this guy is a great idea.”
In my opinion they liked his over the top, asshole, “politically incorrect”, bully personality more than anything. I don’t see how Sanders could compete with that. People claim they hate bullies but that was all bullshit. Dems needed someone who could totally humiliate him and Sanders and Clinton weren’t up to the job. Bigger primary next time.
There are some amazing Democrats in California who are arguably to the left of HRC. Our senator elect Kamala Harris who replaces Boxer (instead of Feinstein, unfortunately) and Loretta Sanchez who ran against her. Jimmy Gomez, just re-elected in the State Assembly. Xavier Becerra who has served in various offices since the 1980s. Ted Lieu who served in the military and is a Major Air Force reservist, clerked in the notoriously left 9th circuit court of appeals, and has deep knowledge of tech and enviro issues.
The majority of people in America don’t agree with Trump’s idiocy, either, they just think if he fucks stuff up for the folks in charge maybe something will change.
They’re wrong - in part because Trump is embracing all the right wing demagogues that caused the problems in the first place - but their motivation wasn’t mostly “I think this guy is a great idea.”
I think it’s a really good point. HRC was perceived as a status quo candidate. That Trump asshole was perceived as the change candidate. Whose fault was that?
Given that the median American is doing crap, it’s not so weird she lost.
