[Discussion] What comes next? Liber-all

American liberals and progressives now face their biggest challenge in a generation: What do we do with 4 years of a trump presidency, a republican congress, a likely conservative supreme court and most states under complete republican control?

This thread is not meant as a forum for discussing HOW or WHY democrats got destroyed in the 2016 election. It's meant for finding a way forward.

Actually, OG, the Democratic party is now free to have actual principles and believe in those principles openly and honestly. It would be amazing if the Democratic party reconstructed itself on issues they believed in so much that if they got hacked it wouldn't even matter.

DSGamer wrote:

Actually, OG, the Democratic party is now free to have actual principles and believe in those principles openly and honestly. It would be amazing if the Democratic party reconstructed itself on issues they believed in so much that if they got hacked it wouldn't even matter.

And this would be a Democratic party I could truly support!

oilypenguin wrote:

Podesta is officially blaming Comey for the loss.

I think, sure, probably a factor. But when you think about the person who won, it shouldn't have been close enough for Comey's idiocy to have factored in. I know how cathartic it can be to just lay the blame elsewhere but I don't think 100% of it goes on Comey and the press.

It's one of many things. I suspect Podesta is right, only it's a mistake to think the letter existed in a vacuum.

OG_slinger wrote:

So the "everyone" you mention is really white people. White people who apparently bought into Trump's xenophobic rhetoric, believed that a billionaire with a history of f*cking people like them over and exporting jobs overseas would improve their financial outlook, or who lapped up the conservative media portrayal that Clinton was the most distrustful and corrupt politician in the history of the world.

She lost, in part, because her own party wasn't even enthused enough to vote for her. Democrats' faith in their own party has taken a hit. They party can ignore this if they want to keep losing. Blaming the liars on the right won't bring back trust. They need leadership that's beyond reproach.

oilypenguin wrote:

I heartily recommend Great British Bakeoff.

All of this.

Just don't start the new season off with risotto and creme brulee.

Jolly Bill wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:

I heartily recommend Great British Bakeoff.

All of this.

Just don't start the new season off with risotto and creme brulee.

Spirit cooking then?

DSGamer wrote:

It would be amazing if the Democratic party reconstructed itself on issues they believed in so much that if they got hacked it wouldn't even matter.

What were the beliefs and issues revealed in Hillary's email hack that the Democratic Party broke or failed to live up to?

The 600+ item list of "let me project my pet conspiracy theories and read wild fantasies in between the lines of mundane work emails"? The idea that the DNC wasn't bending over backwards to help a primary candidate who wasn't really a Democrat and who had not helped the Democratic Party for decades by supporting candidates and raising millions and millions of dollars?

Believing in something isn't enough in politics. You have to be able to put those beliefs into policies and get enough votes to turn them into reality. A squeaky clean Democratic Party with rainbows and unicorn beliefs that will never be turned into policy would be f*cking worthless.

And the one thing you should have learned from the GOP over the last eight years is that purity of political beliefs is a dead end in a system that's designed to make people compromise in order accomplish anything.

EDIT:
Another point. The Republican Party is willing to disenfranchise millions of Americans just so they can stay in power and can put the things they believe so much in into policy. That's what the Democratic Party is up against.

OG_slinger wrote:

Believing in something isn't enough in politics. You have to be able to put those beliefs into policies and get enough votes to turn them into reality. A squeaky clean Democratic Party with rainbows and unicorn beliefs that will never be turned into policy would be f*cking worthless.

And the one thing you should have learned from the GOP over the last eight years is that purity of political beliefs is a dead end in a system that's designed to make people compromise in order accomplish anything.

Really? because I learned over those 8 years that you can have no policies only have belief and be rewarded with both houses of congress, the executive branch and the power to appoint a conservative judiciary. The f-ing trifecta - all without policies

I guess you could argue that your last sentence about accomplishing anything is true - they didn't accomplish anything but the rewards for that lack of accomplishment - ie that they do not need to compromise anymore (for at least 2 years) - seem to far far outweigh the downside.

Even as a Sanders supporter, I wouldn't put all my eggs in his basket. Let him lead the way, but don't make the inverse of the mistake then DNC did and ignore or cut loose all the people that supported Clinton.

Stengah wrote:

Even as a Sanders supporter, I wouldn't put all my eggs in his basket. Let him lead the way, but don't make the inverse of the mistake then DNC did and ignore or cut loose all the people that supported Clinton.

The thing is, and Bernie himself would agree, is that we need MANY more "Sanders" (Sanderses?) throughout all levels of government. People with the caring and ethical quality of Bernie should be the norm and not the exception.

His endorsement has got Keith Ellison in a good position to take over the DNC. I think that's a great start!

I consider myself a moderate, but I haven't voted for a Republican since 2004. I honestly don't know what I am now.

My 1st Grade daughter came home on Tuesday and told me, 'I hope Trump wins because Hillary wants to kill babies'. After double-checking that this was coming from her peers and not the faculty, I chuckled and assured her that I didn't believe that and think her friends are misinformed. I did this with the confident assurance that, although my vote for Clinton last weekend would make little difference here in Kansas, that the rest of the country still preferred her over Trump. The polling and other data I followed supported that.

The day before, I'd spoken to an old friend of mine from CA who has deeply drunk the III%er Kool-aid, to the point of being involved in legal actions supporting their causes and giving material support to their groups. He asked me to defend my vote for Clinton given what he believed about her, giving both sound reasons and the usual hyperbole. I told him that even if I believed half of the sh*t people have said about her over the years, I'd still vote for her in this situation. Anyone who's known me for long (or the archetypes I tend to revere) knows that, when necessary, I'm pragmatic to the point of being Machiavellian. Between Trump and Clinton, Clinton was the only one I felt suited to play chess with Russia and China, maintain US hegemony and leverage that power to help lead us and others towards a more sustainable and prosperous future. The potential continuation of the ACA, more liberal SCOTUS nominations and improving protections of marginalized people weren't necessarily part of my calculus, but gave me some good feels about my choice.

Late at night, watching Trump emerge victorious, I heard fireworks and gunshots of celebration going off outside. I was just as stunned as many people at the outcome, but have come to realize we should've seen this coming. I ignored and dismissed the warning signs mentioned above and what they foretold. It's taken me since that night to really put some thoughts together.

What I'm left to cling to is the fact that Clinton lost fair and square and it's because Trump got more votes than she did. Clinton's 'deplorables' gaffe seems fairly equivalent to Romney's 47% dismissal last cycle. It may not have been decisive, but it surely played a part in motivating some people to show up just to stamp 'FU' on the ballot. And say what you like about our system, I don't know that changing it is in the cards. We wanted a referendum and a stern rebuke to Trump and what he represents. What we got instead was a referendum on liberal hubris and condescension. If you believe in self-rule and the principle of individuals exercising their right to choose their leaders through the voting process, you must take steps to win their support instead of chastising them to fall in line.

If the race truly came down to a 2% margin, how do we court votes that stayed home or voted another way? Out of those who voted, 40% of women voted for Trump. 25% of the Latino vote went his way. What were they voting for? What were they voting against? Is there a good faith discussion to be had about wedge issues like abortion? What do people really mean when they're talking about judicial activism? How do you reconcile bottom-up policy v. top-down? (State v. Federal)

This is what I'm asking myself right now..

GioClark wrote:

What I'm left to cling to is the fact that Clinton lost fair and square and it's because Trump got more votes than she did. .

She won the popular vote.

Also, the reversal of the VRA resulted in 300,000 people in WI being unable to vote, as well as a whole lot of shenanigans in NC.

bekkilyn wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Even as a Sanders supporter, I wouldn't put all my eggs in his basket. Let him lead the way, but don't make the inverse of the mistake then DNC did and ignore or cut loose all the people that supported Clinton.

The thing is, and Bernie himself would agree, is that we need MANY more "Sanders" (Sanderses?) throughout all levels of government. People with the caring and ethical quality of Bernie should be the norm and not the exception.

This exactly.

There isn't a single political savior out there. We need to band together and start training some politicians.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:
GioClark wrote:

What I'm left to cling to is the fact that Clinton lost fair and square and it's because Trump got more votes than she did. .

She won the popular vote.

Also, the reversal of the VRA resulted in 300,000 people in WI being unable to vote, as well as a whole lot of shenanigans in NC.

Does any of that explain why half the voters went to Trump?

bekkilyn wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Even as a Sanders supporter, I wouldn't put all my eggs in his basket. Let him lead the way, but don't make the inverse of the mistake then DNC did and ignore or cut loose all the people that supported Clinton.

The thing is, and Bernie himself would agree, is that we need MANY more "Sanders" (Sanderses?) throughout all levels of government. People with the caring and ethical quality of Bernie should be the norm and not the exception.

Bernie is the #1 most popular person in the senate. People trust him. That's what he brings to the table. No one expects him to do everything.

26.5% went to Trump, 26.5% went to Clinton, and about 2.4% went to neither, though the counts aren't finalized and won't be until mid December. And the rest didn't vote.

Gremlin wrote:

26.5% went to Trump, 26.5% went to Clinton, and about 2.4% went to neither, though the counts aren't finalized and won't be until mid December. And the rest didn't vote.

I'm going assume you're responding to me. This is precisely why I said voters instead of people or country.

Got anything else? I'm just as interested in courting support from people who stayed home.

GioClark wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

26.5% went to Trump, 26.5% went to Clinton, and about 2.4% went to neither, though the counts aren't finalized and won't be until mid December. And the rest didn't vote.

I'm going assume you're responding to me. This is precisely why I said voters instead of people or country.

Got anything else? I'm just as interested in courting support from people who stayed home.

Just trying to clarify. I don't know why people went to Trump, or at least not well enough yet to venture to speak for them. I mean, I started a thread because I wanted to know what people were upset about and what ideas they wanted to follow. I've gone out of my way to talk to people. I have no idea how to persuasively convince them, yet. I have a somewhat better idea of what independants want that the left can deliver, mostly because the people who felt left out by the Democrats have been talking about it for at least the past year.

Thanks Gremlin. I'll join the conversation over there as well.

bekkilyn wrote:

The thing is, and Bernie himself would agree, is that we need MANY more "Sanders" (Sanderses?) throughout all levels of government. People with the caring and ethical quality of Bernie should be the norm and not the exception.

Yes! This. Not everyone is going to live to the ethical levels he's managed, and we shouldn't expect that, but a general raising of the bar is very important.

As I keep saying with regard to our foreign adventurism and drone wars.... the first step to convincing people that your way is better is to actually be better.

As a local union president, I'm clearly biased in my opinion, but as with most things in life I think we already know what Democrats need to do if we want to see our values reflected in the policies of our gov't: organize, identify candidates for local office, and run those races hard.

This isn't new or novel thinking here. Several other people have said something similar in this thread already. This is how the Republicans carry out their agenda even though a majority of Americans polled are with us on social issues.

Down-ballot and non-presidential elections aren't sexy, but they are the way gov't gets done.

Good Twitter thread on effectively communicating with your Congress person.

https://twitter.com/editoremilye/sta...

I worked for Congress for 6 years, and here's what I learned about how they listen to constituents.

I've read so many postmortems on what went wrong and I'm convinced that they all went wrong all at the same time. That at the end of the day we can break it down to -

30% cause A
25% cause B
22% cause C
etc...

....but that's not going to stop the myriad of pundits decrying one single cause while completely ignoring or disregarding all the other factors. In my view they include

- a flawed candidate (yes Trump was flawed too but he represented what people perceived as change).
- scandals scandals and scandals - these included ALL the Clinton family scandals from Bill's affair, to his pardons, to Hillary Bengazi (right or wrong), to emails
- a flawed party that also played in the scandal pool that included sabotaging the Bernie campaign in unfair ways and Donna Brazile working at CNN and secretly passing debate questions to Clinton. These left impressions of scandal in voters minds
- an energized Trump base and a demoralized Democratic base
- slight influence of third part candidates
- questionable campaign strategy decisions like ignoring the working class and taking certain states for granted
- a VERY strong desire for change. This is why Obama got elected and it's again why a president got elected. People wanted change in 2008 and still want it today. It can be argued that Obama, being a centrist, didn't deliver the kind / level of change people expected (and really no one can since everyone's definition of "change" is different)

I'm sure I'm missing a few and I'm not sure how much weight to give each cause. I think each point played against each other in complicated ways that make weighting them impossible

RooksGambit wrote:

I've read so many postmortems on what went wrong and I'm convinced that they all went wrong all at the same time. [...] I'm sure I'm missing a few and I'm not sure how much weight to give each cause. I think each point played against each other in complicated ways that make weighting them impossible

Yeah. I'd throw in the media, particularly the TV news: free Trump coverage, kept harping on emails instead of discussing issues, refused to believe that a Trump victory was even possible. The three major TV networks spent just 32 minutes this year on issues. 32.

I keep rewatching this video and how George Stephanopoulos laughs at the very idea that Trump might be nominated.

RooksGambit wrote:

- an energized Trump base and a demoralized Democratic base

It's hard to claim an energized Trump base when, as it stands now, Trump got half a million fewer votes than Romney, who was a Republican candidate with exceptionally luke-warm support.

RooksGambit wrote:

- a VERY strong desire for change. This is why Obama got elected and it's again why a president got elected. People wanted change in 2008 and still want it today. It can be argued that Obama, being a centrist, didn't deliver the kind / level of change people expected (and really no one can since everyone's definition of "change" is different)

Some wanted change. Personally I voted Hillary because she would largely continue Obama's policies, which have been pretty danged decent for the country, she could bring about achievable change. I think the idea that there was a very strong desire for radical change was really just largely younger Bernie supporters projecting their desires on everyone else. But then Bernie didn't turn my political crank at all.

And I don't know what to say about the Republicans who wanted change because their view of America has been so warped by conservative media that they might as well be living on another planet.

Good read to those of us that don't necessarily believe the solution to this is to listen to those who voted for Trump

http://www.alternet.org/election-201...

An interesting article, but I had a couple mental comments while I was reading it:

Latinos and African Americans remain worse off than the white working class—which is still the “largest demographic bloc in the workforce”—by pretty much every measurable outcome, from home ownership to life expectancy. Where are these appeals for us when we protest or riot against the systemic inequality we live with? Where are all the calls to recognize and understand our anger?

Probably because people figure that you weren't stupid enough to vote for a guy that so obviously hates you. All the analysis is about what went wrong, and the fundamental assumption is that, if you're black or Latino, you wouldn't have been part of that. Maybe that's not accurate, but actually making your case instead of snarking would be good. If you want Latino and Black anger to be considered, explaining why their anger made them vote for Trump would be an excellent first step.

If they voted for Clinton, then they channeled that anger into the best available choice. I don't think it would have been a good choice, as she's helped to enable horrific systemic crimes against minorities, but it was the best available option, and that part of the discussion is already settled.

Bernie Sanders issued a statement saying Trump “tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media.” I read it at least three times and couldn’t find the words “white supremacy” anywhere in it.

Probably because those people wouldn't vote for Democrats anyway. Sanders is focusing, here, on the people the Democrats should have won, and didn't. Do you want him courting the votes of white supremacists? Because that's almost directly what you're asking for here.

I don't think you want the Democrats going after that demographic.

The only people who were surprised by white people voting for white supremacy is other white people.

There was certainly a chunk of people voting for Trump with that exact goal in mind, but I suspect the great majority of voters in this election were voting against, not for.

So, uh, anyone post this yet?

Lots of NSFW language.

garion333 wrote:

So, uh, anyone post this yet?

Lots of NSFW language.

I think it's worth contrasting and discussing this and the article TheGameguru linked.