Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@Hodor: I wasn't necessarily trying to assert that people genuinely held the positions I was suggesting, more trying to demonstrate that they may not have thought their stated position through to the logical conclusion; it very well could be that we end up with someone so bad in 2020 that Trump (and he'd have to exceed expectations significantly to get even close to that point) would be the only viable option. That's exceedingly unlikely, but I do think it's important to remain vigilant about the emergence of an authoritarian wing of the democratic party seeking to capitalize on the erosion of political institutions that the Trump presidency will undoubtedly cause.
edited 27th Dec '16 5:33:32 PM by CaptainCapsase
Trying to create a widespread rejection of Trump made Hilary spend a lot of energy trying to flip red states when in hindsight we can say she should've been defending her firewall.
A landslide against Trump would be wonderful, but let's make sure there's a regular win in the bag before we place on chips on that, y'know?
edited 27th Dec '16 5:32:27 PM by Gilphon
Yeah and we won with both Bill Clinton and Obama, you're acting as if the Democrats have been out of power for decades. We appeal to these people with Bill Clinton and with Obama and you know what? We bloody won! We got some of these people on our side, we'd have probably got more of Bill Clinton and Obama had moved further from the post-Regan concencus on economics, Hillary Clinton tried to do that but got hamstrung by a perspective storm for the Republicans and the weight of Obama and Bill having embraced parts of the post-Regan consensus.
There's going to be a big difference in four years when Trump is the establishment candidate. Yes we need a win before we go for a sweep but we need a win across the board, the presidency isn't enough, abandoning the 50 states strategy cost us the House in 2010 and 2010 is a big part of why we lost 2016.
edited 27th Dec '16 5:34:13 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran@Silsaw: Yes, the swing voters. We never won with the base. For 8 Years it was "Deport dat Muslim kanyan Soviet who's taking our Jerwbs" or "where's the birth certificate?" Not the same people. So no, we never won with that base. Don't pander to them, they cannot be won over. Maybe that will change someday but for right now the Republican Party base is built upon homophobia, racism, and class ism as it's three most sacred virtues.
A lot of those swing voters just need some media to make the next person look good on TV. If we can do that and insult a huge portion of the Trump base than we could win.
@164,274: I'm not saying Trump is good or a dove, but people keep saying Trump is "good for Russian interests" as if there's something sinister about that, and I don't see how him not wanting to sabre - rattle with Russia like Clinton did is a bad thing. Plus, Clinton was also hawkish toward Iran. Pointless wars with both Iran and Russia would be even worse than JUST having one with Iran. Trade wars are not comparable since no one has to die in those.
![]()
That isn't the base people like Sanders are talking about, those are the hardcore Trump loyalists. The majority of his voters were simply Republican loyalists who voted along partisan lines, nothing more. Then you have a third category, the aging worker in post-industrial towns who sees their way of life slipping away, and who is desperate enough to vote for anyone who promises they'll fix their problems. Those people are more properly classified as swing voters than Trump supporters, and those are the people we need if we want to avoid losing the midwest.
edited 27th Dec '16 5:50:16 PM by CaptainCapsase
Russia backed into a corner is far, far more dangerous than Russia in a stable position as a middling great power. I don't think Trump's approach will work, but Kissinger's might as much as I find his track record in Indochina appalling (to say the least), and we desperately need a new framework for relations with Russia if we want to avoid the devastation that a war would bring.
edited 27th Dec '16 5:54:03 PM by CaptainCapsase
I agree with this. I think that it's not that all people are inherently awful and ignorant (or at least I hope they are not - otherwise we're basically screwed), but everyone has a lot going on in their lives that isn't politics and were not necessarily as informed as they could have been. Despite all of the complaints about 'biased liberal media,' even before his run the media should not have devoted so much positive attention to someone so morally bankrupt.
That being said, pretending that entrenched prejudice is not a problem and did not contribute to the election results is naive and unhelpful. Democrats can complain about identity politics all they want, but talking about these issues is vital, especially with voter disenfranchisement becoming as big of a problem as it is. And especially with the rise in hate crime.
edited 27th Dec '16 5:55:01 PM by Pseudopartition
That economic element is itself rooted in ignorance, though. If they knew what was good for them, they would have voted for Hillary rather than Donald "Fill the Swamp To the Brim" Trump.
And once again I need to point out that Hillary won resoundingly among Rust Belt voters who listed the economy as their primary concern.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."
Democratic support in the rust belt being down is definitely something economic though; turnout was down in many of the districts Trump won in, particularly among union members, and when you look at what's going on in these towns, it maps up very well with the places where life expectancy is actually decreasing, and which have gotten the short end of the stick from trade deals. Trump gained some voters there, but not all that many, the loss of the rust belt came from people who previously voted for Obama staying home, plus a handful of them switching to Trump.
edited 27th Dec '16 6:02:29 PM by CaptainCapsase
I could be wrong but the way I understood it was that rust belt voters already in a rather unfavorable position voted for hillary, while the slightly better off middle class voters went for Trump due to a mix of factors (racism, hillary smear campaign, etc), those of which simply didn't vote anyways.
edited 27th Dec '16 6:05:43 PM by Draghinazzo
Wasn't Clinton the one who helped make the Iran Deal? Or was that Carey? (Whose name I want to spell like my sister's but that is probably wrong.)
In any case, Trump IMMEDIATELY started saber rattling at Iran with statements like "we should bomb them" because some sailors made some rude gestures at our guys. Or he just made up that scenario and said that's how we should respond. Clinton was not hawkish: she wanted Iran to keep to the terms of the nuclear deal. Trump would bomb them out of petty spite if his team doesn't keep a firm hand on him. Seriously, how the fuck is Trump the better one in this scenario?
![]()
From what I understand, part of it was "my decent paying job with benefits is in danger," as well. I am still not really sure how they rationalized Trump being able to fix that, though. Unfortunately, people will usually vote for (what they see as) their own self-interest over the safety of people they don't know.
edited 27th Dec '16 6:06:01 PM by Pseudopartition
I think turnout will indeed be important, but voter suppression is still one of the main things that has me concerned going forward. It very likely cost us this election, and unless some serious resistance is organized, it's only going to get much, much worse under Fuhrer Trump.
I mean, the key issue is ensuring that we're still going to have something vaguely resembling free and fair elections in four years' time - something that is no guarantee, what with the rising threat of American authoritarianism.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."![]()
Why is desperation bad? I think desperation, if properly channeled, could fix the Dem turnout problem. Voter suppression is bad but I think Hillary also lost due to a simple lack of enthusiasm. If people see their rights being directly attacked that could change.
edited 27th Dec '16 6:25:03 PM by Kostya
the appeal of Trump is 1) being the outsider who is not bound to the establishment 2) the idea he is a self made men who made is fortune and c) the idea he is a tought guy who dosent back down from everything.
Of course that is bullshit, but is easy to see how someone would buy that narrative
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"I suggest you read this thread again, nobody has suggested appealing to the racist Trump base, I'm having a hell of a time convincing people that we should appeal to anyone voted for Trump at all.
The press won't stand for you openly insulting a portion of voters no matter who true the insult is, nor will some swing voters stand for it. I'd rather we keep our mouths shut and win.
A: Trump is sabre rattling, have you seen his tweets about nuclear weapons recently? B: When did Clinton indicate she wanted to sabre rattle, it's possible to seriously oppose a nation without moving towards war, C: You're ignoring the fact that Trump has made several comments that undermine the entirety of NATO and as such he serves Russia's interests by putting all of Eastern Europe at risk by possible breaking up NATO.
No she wasn't, you made that up.
Please provide evidence that Clinton would start a war with Russia. No the Syria no-fly comments don't count, at no point did Clinton indicate that the no-fly would apply to Russia or that it wouldn't be one set up jointly with Russia.
edited 27th Dec '16 6:47:45 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI agree with Kostya that desperation might go the other way now and improve voter turnout for dems next time around. Hopefully....
Formerly known as Bleddyn And I am feeling like a ghost Resident Perky Goth![]()
There's some evidence to suggest Russian leadership was genuinely horrified at the prospect of a second Clinton Presidency seeing as they really, really hated the first one, and Clinton's continuation of the same post-cold war strategic doctrine regarding Russia would undoubtedly push us ever closer to the brink. Nothing on the scale of Trump though.
edited 27th Dec '16 6:54:38 PM by CaptainCapsase
@164,402: I don't know what you're referring to when you say we're not at peace with them. I don't think we should send people to die over every security threat, though.
@164,406: What about Clinton's support for outsourcing deals like TPP?
@164,409: Nope. Clinton called Obama "niave" for wanting to talk to Iran in 2008. She took credit for the Iran deal when it worked out, but the deal never would've happened if Clinton had her way. She also said she'd have sent troops back into Iraq sooner than Obama did. And she wanted to overthrow Assad even though we've already seen what happens when you overthrow the dictator of a country where Islamic terrorist groups have a large presence. She's as much a hawkish imperialist as any Republican, and occasionally Trump is even marginally less hawkish than she is (of course, he's just as bad or even worse than her at other times since he's not consistent about anything).
And now her campaign accuses people who discuss the corruption revealed in the leaked e-mails of being pro-Russia, just like Republicans accused anyone who criticized Bush of being pro-Al-Qaeda. The Democrats have become more and more Republican-like under Obama and Clinton.

@Silsaw: We tried that, for 3 decades we tried that since Reagan ruined thousands of people's lives. They won't listen. They WORSHIP him. Maybe we could run appeal to swing voters in rural areas true, but never pander to the kinds of people who gave Trump the election. Just get the next democrat a reality tv show. Lots of swing voters will say "Huh, an outsider. Cool" and vote on that alone.
edited 27th Dec '16 5:28:00 PM by Wildcard