[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.

Honestly, I don't really think that was it. I'm sure it was for *some*, but I think it's more.... just lower on the priority list. There's a lot of competing problems that need attention, and if Candidate A says he'll fix ones that are most important to you, but won't help (or will even make worse) ones that aren't as important, you might go for him. (leaving aside the 'how stupid do they have to be to believe him' argument.)

I was thinking about this to myself, and an example occurred to me: if a candidate stood up and credibly said "I'll end the drone assassinations and the surveillance programs", that would be HUGE with me. Huge. I'd trade away a lot of stuff to get that. If that same candidate hated trans and gay people, a la Mike Pence? I might very well still vote for him. The trans crowd would say "You're immoral for f*cking up my life", but then I'd say back "It would be more immoral to value your convenience over the lives of real Muslim people that are being killed, without trial, right now."

I wouldn't *want* those things to happen, but in a world with competing priorities, people dying without trials based on suspicion, and foreign adventurism in general, strikes me as higher on the list. If I had a further choice of someone who also didn't hate minorities, of course I would go for that.

So, likewise, I think people are hearing Trump's "break up the elites" speeches, and they're buying into that. Foolishly, to my mind. But I think they're reacting to the very deep corruption in our society, the one where rich people don't have to follow the same rules that poor people do. Clinton is very, very strongly linked with that corruption, both through Republican maneuverings and her own actions over a prolonged period of time, and they don't want it anymore. And if, in exchange, they have to f*ck up the lives of blacks and gays and trans people, probably most of them don't really *want* that, but see it as lower on the list.

Now, some do, absolutely. The KKK marches, that bullsh*t. That's real, no doubt. I personally think that's probably the rabid Republican base, around 20% of the total population. But I think the remaining 30% or so are on much more of a spectrum, and find those ideas unappealing..... but not enough to overcome the appeal of preventing yet another corrupt politician from taking power.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Malor wrote:

We see it right here on GWJ, with a number of people being really sure that it's either the fault of the stupid voters or the Bernie supporters. For whatever reason, they just don't want to believe that Hillary was not a good choice.

Is there room in this narrative for those who think, rather than being one factor, it was a confluence of many? Somehow doubt it.

I doubt it too, if we're talking about the Social Justice Cookiemonster types. Whatever though, we know that already.

For others, I think of course it's a confluence of many, many things. Of course Trump's base was there because of racism, and the basket of deplorables was a real thing he never could have won without. Of course Hillary was correct that there was a vast, right wing conspiracy that tipped this election. Of course voter suppression is wreaking havoc on our democracy.

The thing is, all those things are outside of our control. The thing is, the narrative for a big part of a late segment of the campaign was about how the future showed up early, and we might actually flip Arizona. Maybe Georgia. Texas? We were one leaked The Apprentice tape away from taking control of even the House.

We couldn't be that close yet still lose, and still say that Hillary was a good choice. She was our Romney, and Trump was their Obama.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Malor wrote:

We see it right here on GWJ, with a number of people being really sure that it's either the fault of the stupid voters or the Bernie supporters. For whatever reason, they just don't want to believe that Hillary was not a good choice.

Is there room in this narrative for those who think, rather than being one factor, it was a confluence of many? Somehow doubt it.

Factors I have identified:

* D: doubling down on identity politics, pandering to minorities, expecting them to vote D simply in opposition of Trump's most objectionable supporters and messaging, and by so doing driving away potential swing voters (i.e. the "Deplorables" branding). Many minorities are also working class people, and the Democrats failed to counter the parts of Trump's messaging that resonated with them outside of identity politics.

* D: nominating an old career politician with little charisma and a lot of existing baggage to replace Barack Obama, possibly the most charismatic young political figure I've seen in my lifetime. The stark contrast here did her no favors.

* D: a false sense of security due to Obama's broad appeal, and his uncanny ability to package and sell neoliberalism to the masses. This probably influenced the party's overestimation of Clinton's chances in Obama-carried regions and resulted in the campaign ignoring states that were ultimately in jeopardy. The party correctly identified her as being essentially the same politically as Obama, and they erroneously assumed the same voters would keep buying more of what he had been from their new candidate. I think what was really going on is that Democrats liked Obama the person so much, they were especially quick to jump on the bandwagon and suppress any dissent regarding his policies, and a less charismatic vehicle for those policies was always going to have a harder time peddling them.

* D: failure to present any real alternative to Clinton in the primaries, allowing Sanders to gain popularity, and the contrast between him and Clinton was stark. Just as with Obama, Clinton just looks much worse next to that guy, although this time for different reasons (Sanders' populism got a lot of blue collar voters and liberals excited about the Democratic party finally moving beyond neoliberalism, while Clinton's corporate cronyism and warmongering was a flashback that really doused that excitement)

* R: a bizarre twist of fate wherein they nominated a crazy sounding guy who pandered to white nationalists, working class democrats, and fringe elements who just want to burn everything down, thus bringing new R voters to the table in the primaries, but who at the end of the day successfully whipped the GOP base into line as well. A huge victory for party unity above all else.

Clinton is apparently going to win the popular vote by 2 million plus. She'll have received the most votes of any candidate in history, save Obama.

I don't really see the point of focusing on the popular vote. If you lose the superbowl but get more offensive yards than your opponent, it doesn't matter.

A part of Obama's latest speech is probably worth quoting (LINK):

So there are gonna be a core set of values that shouldn’t be up for debate. Should be our north star. But how we organize politically, I think is something that we should spend some time thinking about.
.
I believe that we have better ideas. But I also believe that good ideas don’t matter if people don’t hear them. And one of the issues the Democrats have to be clear on is the given population distribution across the country. We have to compete everywhere. We have to show up everywhere. We have to work at a grassroots level, something that’s been a running thread in my career.
.
I won Iowa not because the demographics dictated that I would win Iowa. It was because I spent 87 days going to every small town and fair and fish fry and VFW Hall, and there were some counties where I might have lost, but maybe I lost by 20 points instead of 50 points. There’s some counties maybe I won, that people didn’t expect, because people had a chance to see you and listen to you and get a sense of who you stood for and who you were fighting for.

And it's important to remember that it's not just Clinton that lost, it's Democrats as a whole.

She was a bad candidate, but I think the Democratic Party was rotten to its core, and most other plausible candidates would also have been bad. If I had to sum it up in a single sentiment, it's basically that both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton were so goddamn smart and so goddamn likable that they covered up much of the Party's weaknesses elsewhere.

The Democratic Party was running from such a deficit in terms of selling any kind of actual solution, that they could only win with a truly exceptional personality that was able to distract voters from those issues (and the Party's historic inability to solve them). In absence of another cult of personality candidate they needed new solutions, but I think the Party was so thoroughly invested in perpetuating Obama's flavor of neoliberalism that it was structurally incapable of providing any alternatives in this election cycle.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I don't really see the point of focusing on the popular vote. If you lose the superbowl but get more offensive yards than your opponent, it doesn't matter.

This is an absolutely brilliant way of framing this argument. Thanks, Norman.

One can't have an honest conversation about 'what went wrong' without talking about the half of the electorate that stayed home. With all respect to George Carlin, 'If you don't vote, you can't complain.' In my opinion, the largest responsibility lies with those who couldn't even show up to write-in 'Eat A Bag Of Dicks'

If people don't even vote due to it 'not meaning or changing anything', what about doing the truly challenging things required to effect meaningful reform?

Alien Love Gardener wrote:
Malor wrote:

Pointing your fingers at the voters isn't helpful. They're the bosses. They're the ones the Democrats are supposed to be serving, not themselves. If they couldn't be arsed to vote, that's a problem the Democrats own.

When the bosses decide to go for a white supremacist mental toddler that is transparently unfit for the job, I would suggest they share a large degree of culpability.

I agree it's not exactly helpful* to straight up say it to their faces (because god forbid white dudes feel their safe spaces** have been violated and they get triggered by someone saying the r-word). But still, if you're going to have a full and frank accounting of the election, you're also going to have to deal with racism and misogyny being alive, well, and awfully appealing to a lot of voters.

*it's super cathartic though, especially if all you can do is helplessly stand by and watch as you guys self-immolate .

**everywhere

Placing blame is fine. I've done it myself with a scathing rant on Facebook about Trump voters and the appalling man they emboldened.

Placing blame won't help the Dems win next time though. Despite what Breitbart and Stormfront tell their readers, there's no White Genocide coming. So, as a party, Democrats need strategies that go beyond just pointing fingers.

gore wrote:

The Democratic Party was running from such a deficit in terms of selling any kind of actual solution, that they could only win with a truly exceptional personality that was able to distract voters from those issues (and the Party's historic inability to solve them). In absence of another cult of personality candidate they needed new solutions, but I think the Party was so thoroughly invested in perpetuating Obama's flavor of neoliberalism that it was structurally incapable of providing any alternatives in this election cycle

I believe that we have better ideas. But I also believe that good ideas don’t matter if people don’t hear them. And one of the issues the Democrats have to be clear on is the given population distribution across the country. We have to compete everywhere. We have to show up everywhere. We have to work at a grassroots level, something that’s been a running thread in my career.

When I look at these two statements here is what I think.

Are Americans ready to listen to strong socialist ideas? No one at all, even Sanders was brave enough to come out and just say "Your manufacturing jobs are never coming back" and "another 3 million jobs are going to be taken by self driving automobiles". Americans couldnt handle Jimmy Carter telling them to turn down their heat and put on a sweater. The Dems need to start putting out a stronger socialist platform and framing it in a way that talks about quality of life vs just having money.

Malor wrote:

Almost everyone in this election was voting against, not for. And that responsibility is much more at the feet of the Democrats than the Republicans, because the Republicans didn't want Trump.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/Q2sbzHS.png)

Malor wrote:

So that's the question you need to answer. Why didn't they show up? What did the Democratic party do wrong?

Because the media breathlessly reported on every Clinton scandal, real or imagined, while only a handful of reporters did their job and attempted to vet Trump (and even then it was too little, too late).

And that was the mainstream media. The conservative media felt free to spew out an endless stream of conspiracy theory nonsense about Hillary that made her look like the single-most terrible person in the world and terribly corrupt.

And while you want to blame the DNC I'll put the blame where it actually deserves to be placed: voters.

Voters who didn't take the time to sort through the bullsh*t. Voters who were shown how much what they thought was real was actually bullsh*t and they still chose to believe the fantasy. Voters couldn't make heads or tails of things and just decided "f*ck it, I won't vote or I won't vote for President." Each and everyone of them made the decision that a Trump presidency would be better than a Clinton presidency, even if they didn't think about it in those terms.

More analysis of the data: http://electionado.com/canvas/147917...

OG_slinger wrote:

And while you want to blame the DNC I'll put the blame where it actually deserves to be placed: voters.

Voters who didn't take the time to sort through the bullsh*t. Voters who were shown how much what they thought was real was actually bullsh*t and they still chose to believe the fantasy. Voters couldn't make heads or tails of things and just decided "f*ck it, I won't vote or I won't vote for President." Each and everyone of them made the decision that a Trump presidency would be better than a Clinton presidency, even if they didn't think about it in those terms.

Blaming things outside your control for your own defeat is a useless exercise, even if you're right. If you want to win, you have to actually identify ways that you can adapt.

Do you want 8 years of Trump?... because that's how you get 8 years of Trump. /Archer

gore wrote:

Blaming things outside your control for your own defeat is a useless exercise, even if you're right. If you want to win, you have to actually identify ways that you can adapt.

You want to win? You run someone who's telegenic and charismatic who has been in office just long enough so they look like they have experience, but not long enough that they have any skeletons in their closet.

That will likely get you a winning candidate given the nature of today's media. But that doesn't mean you'd be getting the best candidate.

OG_slinger wrote:

And while you want to blame the DNC I'll put the blame where it actually deserves to be placed: voters.

It's the DNC and Hiliary's job to convince them. The same as Trump and the RNC.

cube wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

And while you want to blame the DNC I'll put the blame where it actually deserves to be placed: voters.

It's the DNC and Hiliary's job to convince them. The same as Trump and the RNC.

No political party or candidate exclusively communicates with potential voters directly . Their message is largely communicated and filtered through the media.

And most of the time the media wants to talk about things that have very little, if anything, to do with how voters or average Americans will benefit (or be harmed by) a particular candidate's proposed policies. They'd much rather cover politics as a horserace and talk about the things that will get them more viewers, readers, listeners, or clicks than help educate and inform Americans about which candidate is going to address the problems the country is facing.

Do you honestly think that the DNC or Hillary could have said anything to counter the media's week-long coverage when she had pneumonia? No. That became everything from she's going to die, she's weak (and therefore unfit for the presidency), to she lied to America about being sick (so we can't trust her).

But regardless of how sh*tty the media coverage was, it's still up to voters to do due diligence and use their brains to get to the bottom of things, to separate the BS from the things that really matter. And millions of them didn't.

The ease at which disinformation can be spread through absolutely-not-a-media company Facebook doesn't help your average citizen when it comes to due diligence.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I don't really see the point of focusing on the popular vote. If you lose the superbowl but get more offensive yards than your opponent, it doesn't matter.

The point for me is to continually remind the bigots that their orange messiah's win has some giant asterisks on it, and based on the tremulous posts I've been seeing, they're very aware of that and it scared them.

Malor wrote:

Honestly, I don't really think that was it. I'm sure it was for *some*, but I think it's more.... just lower on the priority list. There's a lot of competing problems that need attention, and if Candidate A says he'll fix ones that are most important to you, but won't help (or will even make worse) ones that aren't as important, you might go for him. (leaving aside the 'how stupid do they have to be to believe him' argument.)

How can you leave that aside though? If it were a slicker candidate, with a coherent set of goals, I'd grant you the point, even if it still boiled down to people doubling down on the "f*ck you, I've got mine" ethos. But it's Trump. He's so transparently awful. He's a mental toddler. A (probably) rapist, white nationalist mental toddler. Who advocates war crimes. All he has is the notion of being STRONG! WHITE! MALE!

I mean, just look at the notion of a billionaire(?) tv-star who flagrantly stiffs workers, coasts on abusing bankruptcy laws, commits fraud. All because he can can bribe DA:s and make it go away. What the f*ck does the whinging about elites mean coming from him? Nothing, unless it's coded cultural resentment.

And speaking of corruption, I hear Pamela Bondi looks like she'll score herself a post in the tump adminstration. All for dropping some *not* made up charges.

I mean...just...

The most generous take I have on this is that there are an awful lot of people who think their votes don't matter and hatefully, stupidly will indulge that nasty part of them that wants to kick their neighbour in the teeth. Even if rationality says it'll f*ck themselves over.

I dunno. Between this and Brexit, I think something's broken in me.

(And to be clear, I'm not advocating campaigning on any of this. I'm just saying that you should understand that this is what a lot of people are in the dark when you craft you message.)

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I don't really see the point of focusing on the popular vote. If you lose the superbowl but get more offensive yards than your opponent, it doesn't matter.

It goes to show you the people saying Clinton did not have people coming out to vote for her is a false narrative. What happened is more people in battleground states came out to vote for trump because "reasons"

Alien Love Gardener wrote:

Also: http://electionado.com/canvas/147917...

500 tweets to "Comey lost her the election"... that guy's part of the problem.

karmajay wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I don't really see the point of focusing on the popular vote. If you lose the superbowl but get more offensive yards than your opponent, it doesn't matter.

It goes to show you the people saying Clinton did not have people coming out to vote for her is a false narrative. What happened is more people in battleground states came out to vote for trump because "reasons"

Or the whole repeal the VRA thing went according to plan.

I can't recall if this was posted in this thread before, but it's probably worth revisiting this piece from the Primary season entitled The Smug style in American liberalism.

They really don't bury the lede, here's the opening paragraph, but the whole thing is worth a read - especially for those inclined to blame "the voters."

There is a smug style in American liberalism. It has been growing these past decades. It is a way of conducting politics, predicated on the belief that American life is not divided by moral difference or policy divergence — not really — but by the failure of half the country to know what's good for them.
Tyops wrote:
Alien Love Gardener wrote:

Also: http://electionado.com/canvas/147917...

500 tweets to "Comey lost her the election"... that guy's part of the problem.

It took me awhile to articulate why his argument (and others like it) frustrate me despite having lots of comforting facts and figures.
Bringing out comparisons to prior candidates and demographic statistics to try to explain that rationally, all these people should have voted for Clinton, either ignores or is ignorant of the fact that humans are rationalizing beings, not rational ones.
Also his argument basically boils down to the Dem's only needed to work slightly harder/smarter to have eked out a win; it advocates for doing the bare minimum. Prior to the election everyone's message was we wanted to see Trump lose in a landslide. We wanted to send a crystal clear message that love trumps hate, but instead we're on the receiving end of people saying jobs trump love. Not even real jobs, since neither Trump nor establishment Republicans are clearly not the people to look to if you want someone to actually create jobs, just lip service was enough. An uncomfortably large percentage of latinx voters and white women were willing to vote for someone who was unapologetic about his racism and misogyny because he was merely saying what they wanted to hear about the economy. Clinton won the popular vote by a larger percentage than Gore did against GWB, so I don't think the DNC needs to be demolished and rebuilt entirely, but it also can't just plug its ears and blame Comney (for keeping the email server in the news) and Bernie (for not being a silent victim of the DNC bias) for Clinton looking bad. Those were factors, but even without them we weren't going to get the landslide win we wanted.

gore wrote:

I can't recall if this was posted in this thread before, but it's probably worth revisiting this piece from the Primary season entitled The Smug style in American liberalism.

They really don't bury the lede, here's the opening paragraph, but the whole thing is worth a read - especially for those inclined to blame "the voters."

There is a smug style in American liberalism. It has been growing these past decades. It is a way of conducting politics, predicated on the belief that American life is not divided by moral difference or policy divergence — not really — but by the failure of half the country to know what's good for them.

I really wish we had an eyeroll emoji. That's a whole lot of words boiling down to "white people fee fees"

MrDeVil909 wrote:
gore wrote:

I can't recall if this was posted in this thread before, but it's probably worth revisiting this piece from the Primary season entitled The Smug style in American liberalism.

They really don't bury the lede, here's the opening paragraph, but the whole thing is worth a read - especially for those inclined to blame "the voters."

There is a smug style in American liberalism. It has been growing these past decades. It is a way of conducting politics, predicated on the belief that American life is not divided by moral difference or policy divergence — not really — but by the failure of half the country to know what's good for them.

I really wish we had an eyeroll emoji. That's a whole lot of words boiling down to "white people fee fees"

True, but more along the lines of "if you mock white people fee fees, you have no right to act surprised when they vote against you to get even."
Also that by being so ready to mock them, you're priming yourself not just to not help them, but to vindictively work against them.

Even had Clinton managed to get the electoral win, she would have still scraped out that win. While the future wouldn't seem nearly as dark as it does now had it happened, it still wouldn't have been a *good* win and still would have indicated that there is a *major* problem with the Democratic party. The fact that around half the population voted for a fascist (for *whatever* reasons) is still a huge problem regardless of whether or not that fascist won.

So sure, it's possible Comey was the reason Hillary lost whatever electoral votes she needed to win, but he wasn't really *the* reason for the loss because it shouldn't have mattered. She should have been far enough ahead despite any one thing, but she wasn't. What Comey did was vile, but it's a scapegoat to the bigger problem that there would have been no landslide.

bekkilyn wrote:

Even had Clinton managed to get the electoral win, she would have still scraped out that win. While the future wouldn't seem nearly as dark as it does now had it happened, it still wouldn't have been a *good* win and still would have indicated that there is a *major* problem with the Democratic party. The fact that around half less than a quarter of the population voted for a fascist (for *whatever* reasons) is still a huge problem regardless of whether or not that fascist won.

Either the candidate or the message or both weren't enough to get people out to vote. Voter suppression was a problem. How likable the candidate was was a problem. The press CONSTANTLY talking about emails and not issues was a problem. The trump campaign refusing to tell the truth and being outrageous and monopolizing any press coverage that wasn't about emails was a problem.

But the long and the short of it is that the message didn't get people out to vote. HOW and WHY that platform was the one decided on is what's wrong with the democratic party.

Also, how are we supposed to fight this:

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxVecSqUcAAxODr.jpg:large)

Just an outright lie. They aren't beholden to anything like journalistic integrity. What can we do about this?