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
X4 Bill himself was guilty of causing Stop Helping Me at some points, his stupidity at a polling station turned a lot of people against Clinton and the madness of thinking meeting with people connected to the email case made the entire thing worse.
edited 11th Nov '16 1:48:48 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranCan we stop discussing what the democrats did wrong in some weird "the looser is guilty" narrative? The truth is that if the voters had truly thought about what they were doing, Trump wouldn't have gotten more than a fraction of the votes he got. If a serial molester with questionable motives and abilities could win this by attacking the very system he wants to be responsible one, this is on the voters and not on whoever run against him.
Yes morally it's on the voter but in the end we still need to work out why the Dems lost, because two years from now there will be new elections and the Dems need to win, I want to see landslides, I wanna see the Dems mounting a serious challenge for the governorship of Texas.
It's not about guilt it's about practicality. I get that people are currently grieving, I was the same after Brexit, but we're still a discussion forum and that means we discuss stuff.
edited 11th Nov '16 2:04:01 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThing is since we're not a parliamentary system US politics doesn't really tolerate the presence of third or fourth parties, not at the national level.
![]()
![]()
![]()
It's not about pinning the blame around anymore, it's more "how are we going to fight this in the future"? Even if we point our fingers at the right people it's not going to change anything in itself.
edited 11th Nov '16 2:10:00 AM by AlleyOop
The democrats lost because:
Hillary took the rust belt for granted.
Hillary didn't engage with rural white voters.
Hillary's campaign relied too much on the demographic shift in their favor.
Hackers, the constant mention of corruption and the email scandal took their toll. People believe "where there's smoke there's fire".
She didn't give anyone a passionate reason to vote for her besides "Fear Trump"!
The DNC helping her out in the primary against Sanders turned a lot of millineals off.
Her whole campaign's biggest downfall was straight up arrogance.
![]()
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty-state_strategy
edited 11th Nov '16 2:16:27 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedEh, if you want to blame anyone, blame the fourth estate, which worked overtime to keep Trump in the race, and treated complete bullshit dirt thrown at Clinton with great gravity. Because a close race means ratings.
Also, possibly there has been some innovation in misinformation. There were several separate efforts to sway popular opinion on social media via organized (paid) sockpuppeting. Those may have been disturbingly effective.
But mostly, I am sitting here on the other side of the atlantic and resolving to do my utmost to make sure electronic voting machines are never, ever adopted.
edited 11th Nov '16 2:20:51 AM by Izeinsummer
A return to this strategy might be effective in the midterms since — unfortunately for everyone — two years of the Trump administration trying to actually follow through on their platform will almost certainly cause a lot more hardship.
A few more Democratic governors, Congress people, and mayors in red and/or purple states would have an impact.
It's also imperative that the Democratic Party hang on to the seats up for re-election. We do not want Curt Shilling replacing Elizabeth Warren.
Another bonus is that having more Democrats in charge of said states may reduce the typical GOP voter suppression antics.
And of course, the Democratic Party has to figure out how to make social media work for them.
edited 11th Nov '16 2:30:55 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised@Swan: 8 years Democrat then 8 years Republican as a rule, much less a "steady rhythm" has almost no basis in fact. Since (and including) Abraham Lincoln, we've gone 4 years Republican, 4 years Democrat, 16 years Republican, 4 years Democrat, 4 years Republican, 4 years Democrat, 16 years Republican, 8 years Democrat, 12 years Republican, 20 years Democrat, 8 years Republican, 8 years Democrat, 8 years Republican, 4 years Democrat, 12 years Republican, 8 years Democrat, 8 years Republican, 8 years Democrat, and now we're looking at a minimum of 4 years Republican. There have been a few 8 years Republican/8 years Democrat exchanges, but they are definitely not the norm or anything to be particularly expected. However, what we can expect is that more than two back-to-back same party presidencies is extremely unlikely and has not happened at any point in the modern (Democrat/Republican) two-party system (the 20-year Democrat block was 13 years of FDR plus 7 years of Truman).
As for adding meaningful third or fourt parties, okay, just make them not insane and completely change our election system such more parties are actually viable. We don't have the kinds of strong regional parties that make additional parties viable with first past the post and anything that might resemble such just gets absorbed by the state wing of one of the two big tent parties.
Another plus side to getting Democrats in charge of "red" states is that they would have an opportunity to show those states' citizens that Democrats are not their enemies. Provided they don't screw up, of course.
Then, come the general election, it might be easier to get those same citizens to vote for the Democratic Party nominee.
edited 11th Nov '16 2:41:13 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised![]()
"8 years Republican, 8 years Democrat, 8 years Republican, 4 years Democrat, 12 years Republican, 8 years Democrat, 8 years Republican, 8 years Democrat, and now we're looking at a minimum of 4 years Republican." Notice something? With one exception that pattern has held since WWII is over.
edited 11th Nov '16 2:41:05 AM by Swanpride
I'm just kind of sad, because hypothetically the democrats could have had this in the bag, but instead of seeing the GOP as an opportunity, they took their win for granted. I feel like if they'd put anyone else forward they could have won. Someone who wouldn't have her qualifications, perhaps, but also wouldn't have her quarter century of widespread resentment (deserved or not) and an easily exploitable federal investigation.
"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"I really have a problem with the notion that they should have put someone who is less competent forward. And before someone whines about the so called scandals, they were mostly BS. If that is all they could pin on her after 20 years or constant investigation, she might be the cleanest politician which ever managed to make it that far.
![]()
TBF, not having as much baggage didn't prevent Al Gore or John Kerry from losing to Dubya. Obama's victories were due to him being the more charismatic candidate.
Her "scandals" were more or less nothingburgers and outright fabrications. We can blame the media for giving them so much attention.
edited 11th Nov '16 2:44:59 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedYeah, the emails should have been a brief embarrassment at most. I emphasized easily exploitable because regardless of the actual nature of it, it is very VERY easy to spin into the existing "Untrustworthy, Secretive Hillary, who will break every rule necessary to further her own power" narrative.
"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"@Swan: Carter, Reagan, and Bush the Elder (by the way, that's two failures of the supposed eight years rule - Carter broke it by lasting only four years, them George HW Bush broke it again by being elected after eight years of Reagan) still demonstrate that it's no hard and fast rule, and from a statistics point of view, it's still a pretty small sample size to go basing an actual rule off of.

The closest thing I had to exposure to black people growing up was watching The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.
Disgusted, but not surprised