You're right - we need centrists, not socialists.
Why did the Democrats lose the election?
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
Oh yeah that did the republicans real well with McCain and Romney, didn't it? Please watch the video I posted to understand why are centrist is a very bad idea in these times, in short: people want change, radical economic reforms in favor of the working class, be it nationalist or socialist or anarchist or what ever, they DON'T want the same "do nothing" politicians they have been getting.
Yeah and? People are stupid, so? We still need them to get out and vote. Had we had a more appealing candidate their lack of responsibility would not be a problem.
You still haven't got an actual count of them - your claim there is straight from the Breitbart/Fox/CNN propaganda feed.
It says in the numbers that in the swing States more black votes went uncounted for Clinton than white Obama voters switched to Trump.
In other words, nothing to do with reality, and everything based on their immersion in decades of corrupted media.
That is standard Republican Party rhetoric since Reagan. Same old same old.
Sanders was a centrist. In reality.
So are you talking about image needs, or reality needs?
In comparison to the pig boar, either Democratic candidate was more appealing, so the stupid still had no excuse to squander their votes.
I think, by definition, the stupid need no excuse to squander their votes.
If you look at the two demonstrations, after Presidents Trumps nomination, the first was the left leaning women's rights and pro abortion march. The second was the pro-life march by the right. Which of the two seemed to be done by the more self controlled and sane people? Both are extreme positions, yet those on the far right were more self controlled.
This as reflected in the voting, with these same people, on the far right, more conscientious. Deep down, sth sides know you can't have the inmates run the asylum. The right stepped up and the left bowed down to get the right result.
If Hillary had been more toward center, like she had begun, she would have lost some of the support from the far left, who didn't vote. However, she would have gained more of the sober and conscientious crowd who was in the center. There were not a lot of difference in votes, in the pivotal electoral states, Those votes who decided these states, where leftist who had become more centered; sober blue collar.
Don't get me wrong, any extreme position will animate the supporters, since you will need to over compensate repressed doubt, thereby giving you what appears to be more drive and energy. While closer to the truth is more boring. Truth is what it is, and does not need the same level of salesmanship. This makes the mind more objective but will often reduce the emotional drive. My Spock has no emotions being less hysterical.
This as reflected in the voting, with these same people, on the far right, more conscientious. Deep down, sth sides know you can't have the inmates run the asylum. The right stepped up and the left bowed down to get the right result.
If Hillary had been more toward center, like she had begun, she would have lost some of the support from the far left, who didn't vote. However, she would have gained more of the sober and conscientious crowd who was in the center. There were not a lot of difference in votes, in the pivotal electoral states, Those votes who decided these states, where leftist who had become more centered; sober blue collar.
Don't get me wrong, any extreme position will animate the supporters, since you will need to over compensate repressed doubt, thereby giving you what appears to be more drive and energy. While closer to the truth is more boring. Truth is what it is, and does not need the same level of salesmanship. This makes the mind more objective but will often reduce the emotional drive. My Spock has no emotions being less hysterical.
Last edited:
Yeah and? how do we win next time? Yes the population is stupid, yes this is fundamentally their fault then, but that gets us nowhere because in the end of the day we need their vote to win: if we can't appeal to the stupid one way or another we lose.
Again how did Hillary move way from the center? What polices? What positions?, be specific. Did she move away from women's rights? Again was it how she moved away from TPP? Your argument is completely void by the fact the radicalized inebriated blue collar works put trump in charge. And again I refer you to analysis of trends around the world in developed countries: centrist positions are falling left and right to radical positions.
Last edited:
If you have appealed to the Republican core voter you have lost.
The Republican core voter cannot be appealed to except via the media operations that have their attention and permission tell them things. That means running a candidate approved of by the financiers of that median operation. That means running a collaborator with the fascist movement in American politics.
They have to be written off. Pandering and catering to the Republican core voter will ruin the country - if you are doing that, there isn't much point in "winning".
You win next time by fixing the vote counting so it can't be so easily manipulated, also the voter registration and voting procedures so the wholesale voter suppression that has become somehow normalized in this country no longer swings elections. Then you try listening to the people who have been right about the last five consecutive Presidential elections, and the major political issues facing the country for thirty years now, and the nature of the faction that has taken over the Republican Party, in choosing your candidate and strategy.
And to do that, you have to find some way of ridding at least one or two major media news outlets of anyone and everyone captive to the notion that all political issues, political events, political candidates, and political explanations, have two sides of equivalent validity which must both be presented with equal respect to establish objectivity and neutrality in a newscast. The country needs at least one good, reality-oriented, fact and evidence based, widely available TV news source - and getting that is going to be a hard struggle.
Complete Strawman on your part, there are independents and moderate and 45% of Americans that didn't go and vote, NOT the Republican core, appealing to a few percentage of them to win does not mean we lose.
How is appealing to a desire for free healthcare, free education, higher wages, more economic stability to for the middle class and impoverished, us losing?
Are they in the "fundamentally stupid" faction you were talking about?
You mean for the past forty years, or next election?
Are you asking me, for example, how Sanders - the candidate who made that appeal in the last election - lost? You told me all the obvious stuff that happened (again) didn't matter, so you must have a better explanation.
By ordinary observation, looking at the obvious, he seemed to have lost on among other factors: race, DNC vote manipulation and suppression, name recognition, aspects of personality, and the interconnected fact that the US media gave Trump and Hillary thirty times as much exposure - and that's a low estimate - as they gave Sanders.
For example: The various empty podiums Trump was late for got more independent prime time TV big crowd exposure than Sanders the candidate. The vote count that included the superdelegates from the beginning, repeating over and over the visual impression that Sanders was hopelessly behind, got more prime time TV big crowd exposure than anything Sanders said.
But according to you, that wasn't important - everybody in the black community that went 80% + for Clinton and gave her the nomination knew all about Sanders already, you told me. Also, race had nothing to do with it - that's an obsession of the regressive left, not a real and central fact of US politics, I was informed.
So I'm casting about for ideas for which the visible evidence is less blatant - here's one: the continual pairing of Trump and Sanders helped legitimize the Republican Party, and delegitimize the Democratic Party. The Republicans went into the election with a legitimacy gap, due to Obama's responsible tone and behavior contrasting with the Republican craycray, and made up ground partly on the "both sides" narrative involving Trump and Sanders. And that worked in part because the Democratic Party establishment contributed to the delegitimizing of Sanders and the pairing that illustrated it.
That fits the overall media critique still just trying to get traction even in the wake of Trump: that "both sides" is a partisan propaganda meme, not a principle of journalism.
Sure, most humans are fundamentally stupid, maybe 5% of the population could make an accurate value judgment and risk assessment, we can't win elections on that.
Sanders managed to come out of nowhere and get over $200 million in small donations on that platform, had he more public recognition beforehand and had the DNC not been under Hillary thumb we would have won. Trump ran on a "Make America Great Again" platform of vague promises to improve the middle class and wins on that despite being a disgusting pig boar huckster, in fact it his ungulate nature helped him "hey this guy is like no politician we have ever had, this might actually work!"
When did I say such a thing?
What the fuck are you jabbering about? Some kind of media conspiracy theory? My theory backed by the evidence (did you watch that economist yet?) is that the working class are tried of conventional politicians that have yet to improve their lives, so they are willing to try a radical, and if the left does not provide one they will go right.
So I'm alienating the "working class" (meaning "white") by analyzing them as racist and the politicians they vote for these days as fascist, while you sit in their living rooms thinking they're stupid and think they don't notice.
And I'm weakening the cause by my regressive left PC focus on terminology issues, while you devote paragraphs of objection to my terminology and the disrespect I show by saying bad, bad words like "racist" and "fascist".
When did observation of rightwingies's overt behavior become accusation of conspiracy, and any accusation of rightwing conspiracy become "conspiracy theory"?
I watched that video twice, months ago and again a few days ago, and found that it largely agrees with my posting . I'm wondering whether you watched it carefully, or whether you "interpreted" it exactly as you "interpret" my posts. You don't seem to have noticed, for example, that I have commented on the specific content of the video as found in various places throughout its length - or maybe you're trolling again?
As far as your theory goes, the following needs some attention:
1) by "working class" you actually mean the white, racist, rural and suburban, indifferently educated, working class. No other faction of the "working class" voted for Trump.
2) by "improve their lives" you mean be recognized by their chosen media as having improved their lives - the many actual improvements in their lives brought to the white working class by the politicians they dismiss as conventional do not count in this assessment. Neither do the damages wrought by the politicians they formerly adopted as unconventional and "new" and "Morning in America".
3) by "radical" you mean, in the US, Republican rightwing flamboyance. An ideologically boilerplate stereotypical Reagan Republican fascist, like Trump, counts as "radical" because of their style. No radical on the Left gets a hearing on their media - whether or not the left "provides" one is irrelevant.
The working class, which is MORE than just working whites, cares most about economic improvements for them, calling them racist does not just alienate them but also tells them you don't care most about what they care most about, why vote for you?
You call a voter they are racist and fascist you think they will vote for us?
Your "both sides meme" argument is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Well I pointed out the time range and even the exact second he states that bernie was our chance on the left and we blew it, and you fail to acknowledge that.
No I mean the working class, again trump made gains verse the previous republican candidate in every demographic with the exception of women overall. I mean CLASS issues EVERYONE can agree on including yes white, racists rural and suburban, indifferently educated, working class. Obama campaign was on "Hope and Change" we won enough of the "white, racists rural and suburban, indifferently educated, working class" to get two terms, Instead running a corporatist who campaign slogan is that she has a vagina, well we get trump.
No clue what you are jabbering about here.
Yeah your too delusional for reason and facts to penetrate.
You have never used the term in reference to anyone but uneducated white people.
Nope. That's why I don't do that, when looking for votes.
He probably didn't. Certainly not as far as you know - since you keep posting those percentages, I'm assuming that's what you're talking about?
Nobody much agreed on Trump except white people with lower levels of education. And they still like him - they approve of what they've been told by their only sources of information that he's been doing as President.
Agreed.
Last edited:
Goody, you live in your world then and I'll live in mine.
Anyways back to my points why we lose:
1. Running Hillary Clinton
2. Running Hillary Clinton
3. SJW/Regressives
9. Conservatives media.
douwd20
Registered Senior Member
Your points. Yes. Remember this exchange?
Because what you have to deal with
and what the American public has to deal with, centrally, in combatting the faction that brought Trump to the White House and the current batch of Republicans to control of Congress
is that amnesia. That dissociation from reality.
It's been less than a year since it was happening right in front of everybody, and already the conventional wisdom is gathering around this: the problem was "the Left".
"The Left", see, is idealistic. Unrealistic. A "fact" so well established it can be argued the other way: that everything unrealistic is the province of the Left.
The Dems lost (and never mind how Trump won) because they something something yadda yadda "the Left". "The Left" is the reason the Dems ignored (or took the wrong side of) key economic issues, and lost the uneducated white working class vote, and sucked up to Wall Street, and dithered around with the faintods about Trump's crassness while he was eating their lunch on bedrock issues by lying to the white working class,
and getting as much media time as he wanted, literally scheduling his own TV appearances, to do that. Empty podiums with the hope of Trump got more mass market TV exposure than Bernie Sanders actual policies and programs.
They also got more exposure than the issue of vote suppression and voting machine issues in the swing States. Remember in 2012 when a last minute threat of a lawsuit in Ohio, with discovery and subpoena power attached and the prospect of expanding it to a couple of similar States, preceded the sight of high level Republican media pundits visibly flustered on live TV as Ohio voted for Obama? The disbelief in their voices and manner? There was no such threat in Michigan or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin, where Trump suddenly and oddly decided to spend last minute campaign time. The recount effort had no such backing set up. And no mention of this quite obvious and historically significant (http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/...he-2004-ohio-presidential-election-was-hacked
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine/mia-in-voting-machine-war_b_2054411.html
circumstance in the major media.
Or was consolidation of the media under rightwing corporate control also the fault of "the Left"?
Last edited:
Iceaura,
I explained how trump won before: he rode a wave of anti-establishement sentiment from the working class that we the left failed to take advantage by not putting forth our own anti-establishment candidate and instead steaming rolling over him with false queen Hillary instead.
Your theories about the right wing media are irrelevant, unless you think huffington post, verge, mother jones, etc, are also part of the right wing media. And yes part of the problem was the left, the left that rallied the alt-right into existence, the left that coined "berniebros" and demanded we elected Hillary Clinton or else we are sexist, the left that could not understand the zeitgeist of the time and are still blaming conservative media when even the conservatives didn't want trump, but because ALL media is now based entirely around clickbait they could not take their eye off his magnificent disaster form even if they wanted to!
I explained how trump won before: he rode a wave of anti-establishement sentiment from the working class that we the left failed to take advantage by not putting forth our own anti-establishment candidate and instead steaming rolling over him with false queen Hillary instead.
Your theories about the right wing media are irrelevant, unless you think huffington post, verge, mother jones, etc, are also part of the right wing media. And yes part of the problem was the left, the left that rallied the alt-right into existence, the left that coined "berniebros" and demanded we elected Hillary Clinton or else we are sexist, the left that could not understand the zeitgeist of the time and are still blaming conservative media when even the conservatives didn't want trump, but because ALL media is now based entirely around clickbait they could not take their eye off his magnificent disaster form even if they wanted to!