US Democratic Party still doesn't understand why it lost to Trump

Just out of curiosity, do you consider the White House "anti-establishment"?

See. the long-term problem is that when the toxic harvest these conservatives sow finally comes in, they will try to blame everyone else.

And the thing about civilized society is this: In a world when people believe things should be better than simply putting down the lot of 'em, why would these people continue insisting on this cycle of self-harm?

This idea of admirable nihilism is as stupid and selfish as can be.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Trump is the single most media-powered, medial dependent, media enabled, media inhabiting, candidate for President the US has ever seen. Or for any other office, local or national, maybe - can anyone think of a another? He has no political existence outside of the media - he lost the vote in his home State and his major employment State both, the places where people knew him and his family and so forth outside of a TV screen, more than 2 to 1. He is the only Presidential candidate ever seen who probably - no joke - couldn't get elected dogcatcher in his home town.

The idea that Trump is "anti-establishment", that Trump is somehow not a creature of the media in the first place, that the Dems are the Party that has lost touch with "reality" - the only sources of bewilderments that fanciful are talk radio and television. And social media, of course.

Meanwhile, in bubbleworld:
- Media cease to be "media" when they support Republicans - as most US corporate media do. It's magic.

- Movie and TV stars who endorse Republicans, finance Republicans, and run for office as Republicans (like Reagan, Eastwood, and Trump himself), are not from "La La land" - only the Democrats from California are from "La La land".

- And the "establishment" does not include large corporations and their powerful, wealthy executives - not at all. They are the victims of the establishment, and that's why they have to pay death tax - which is why all the good jobs they meant to hand out vanished.

And that's how Trump won - he was in touch with that "reality". Plus he was white, and racially bigoted, and not shy about it - so the white bigots could identify with him, in the standard post-Nixon white identity politics that has been shoveling Republicans into power since 1968.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The US is not in a migration crisis, and migration doesn't have all that much to do with Islamic extremism in the US.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Surely getting elected on a promise to build a ridiculously expensive border wall between Mexico and the USA means something to you?
Surely getting elected on a Muslim travel ban also means something to you?
Not having a migration crisis? eh!?

( I did refer to the world and not the USA in my comment btw)
Where have you been for the last 10 months or so...
The thing is, that silly wall is actually well on it's way to being built and no one is actually trying too hard to stop it.

Reality has nothing to do with it.. it is the perception of the swinging voter that does.

Hillary failed to acknowledge the swinging voters main concerns. She lost the election because of it. IMO

 

The US is not having a migration crisis. Take it or leave it.
The working class directly affected by immigration, the black and brown wage laborers in the southern tier and southwest, voted for Clinton.

No, it isn't. And no one is trying very hard to build it, either. It might get started, but it's a boondoggle - not an actual priority.

Swing voters had almost nothing to do with it. The Trump voters were the standard Republican base (including many who had not voted at all before), their major concerns were black people's entitlements, jobs, guns, and abortion/gays (that's one issue, in Jesusland), and their worldview was that Clinton was a weak and corrupt nannystater who was pandering to black people while Trump was a strong regular anti-establishment white guy like them who would enforce the laws Obama had neglected.
And without voter suppression and vote count manipulation in key States, Trump would have lost anyway. Clinton won the popular vote by a fair margin - it was nowhere near the closest popular vote in American records.

Besides:

You are contradicting yourself. What Hillary did or did not "acknowledge" had little influence on the Trump voter's perceptions.

 

Definitely. And had she supported the various White Supremacist organizations throughout the country (or the anti-abortion groups, or the climate change denial groups) she would have seen a similar increase in popularity. Again, though, there's a question of how much you are willing to give up in integrity to win. And if the answer is "a lot" - you probably shouldn't be running to begin with.

 

It has very little to nothing to do with white supreme-ism and all to do with paranoia, islamophobia, and national border security. ( read : National Security generally)

Any way it is why the Dem's are going to lose the next election that really matters... and until they can get a handle on why they lost this last one they ain't got a hope...IMO

 

Pretty hard to be a party of logic and reason trying to get the vote of a bunch of uneducated, ignorant, and afraid voters...

 

Same thing.

 

Putin.

 

With all the really nasty anti-dem press just now happening overnight here, one could assume that the Republican media machine has shifted gear... honey moon period is over guys...!

 

Ahh... democracy for the common man...is surely cursed, with such conditions, is it not?

 

White supremacy is based on xenophobia, islamophobia and fears over national border security. That's why the white supremacist groups have been celebrating their presidential "win."

If you lived in circa-1930 Germany, would you encourage candidates to swing more pro-Nazi so they could win more elections? After all, unless they get more in line with what the people want, they ain't got a hope . . .

 

Xenophobia , Islamophobia and fears over national border security are not the sole province of white supremacists. I am surprised you seem to think that this is so?

The fears listed are present in all races regardless of skin color or political persuasion. What makes you think other wise?
Fear of Neo-Nazi, white supremacists ( fascism ) is also present across all races. Neo Nazi, white supremacists are a show case of what paranoia and fear looks like. IMO.

 

The paranoia, Islamophobia, and national "border security" issues are almost entirely subsidiary aspects of white fundie supremacism, in the US. (They are, for example, as you can see, conjoined with "crime" and "BLM" and "gun control" and gay marriage and Obama's birth certificate - otherwise completely disconnected issues)

They can't get the bigot and fundie vote without pandering to the bigots and fundies - the white supremacists.
The non-voting group - the largest pool of persuadable voters in the electorate - is more liberal on average than the voters. Pandering to b&f conflicts with pandering to the non-voter.
It's likely that no pandering would be enough - that pandering by Dems would not suffice to shift the Trump voter's perceptions, as there is no reliable way to communicate with them or convince them of one's pandering bona fides. There is a fairly large category of Genuine Article voters out there, for example, who will vote for real bigotry over pandering on grounds of honesty alone.
And the Dems already have a large national voting majority without the bigot and fundie vote.

As evidence, note that the Dems have been trying to pander to the b&fs, moving increasingly toward them in policy and rhetoric, since 1980 - and losing more and more people to the non-voter category as well as the Genuine Article category, along with the elections involved, all that time.

Since 1968 Dems have been sacrificing their integrity and ethical grounds for supposed electoral advantage, pandering to money and bigotry and ignorance for votes, and have lost majority control of the national, State, and city level government to what we see in the Republican Party in consequence.

Meanwhile, the Republicans have chosen to gather the the worst of America into one pile, and plant their flag on it. The consequences - Capture the Flag On Shitpile Hill being won by the likes of W and Trump - should be theirs to enjoy. They've earned the credit and the glory of this achievement - make sure they get all of it. Don't fight over scraps. It's unseemly, and it won't get that many votes anyway.

 

In the US, it is so - to within roundoff error.
There is no vocal, voting group of black, brown, or red people organized around the issue of illegal white immigrants and their crime wave against nonwhites, for example - despite more than sufficient cause, in the incoming Irish terrorists and the startling ex-Soviet Mob.

Only white people voted for Trump, essentially. Or Romney. Or McCain/Palin. Or W&Cheney, for that matter.

Sorry to have edited around a response, btw. Second thoughts are most of my thinking.

 

ok... I get it.. you are actually serious.
I guess one could say that the typical bigot white supremacist is essentially founded on xenophobia to begin with. But even an African American, Chinese American, or "other" American can be xenophobic and concerned about border security ...yes?

You are defining xenophobia as white supremacist and I find that intriguing. Perhaps that is part of the problem we are discussing. That the Dems only acknowledge white supremacists and neo nazis as being xenophobic when the entire nation is suffering it in some degree.

 

Extraordinary times require extraordinary actions.
ISIL has basically scared the sh*t of most Americans. ( most realize that you can not win a war against an ideology using guns and bombs - Is there a locally grown suicide bomber under your bed?)
Xenophobia gets a new name: Radical Islamic extremism.
Islamophobia becomes the buzz word of the decade.
Many nations around the globe endure sudden shifts in political direction ( toward the alt right due to border control and xenophobic issues)
Europe opens doors to Syrian refugees. ( then immediately regrets doing so)
Brexit referendum defies the punters and gets up and then is aggressively demonstrated against....
One of Trumps first promises "Muslim travel ban", build the wall etc.

Seriously it would be really easy to make a case that Xenophobia, Islamophobia are considerably bigger issues than just being some white supremacist neo nazi ideology.


IMO the issue facing the USA transcend partisan politics. Which is why the republicans were surprised by Trumps win. Trump could have run as a moronic independent and still won. ( wait! .. he did run as a moronic independent pretending to be a Republican... and he did win even after being proved to grab the kitten etc no less.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

..)

 

Not in the US. They are founded in racism, the legacy of plantation slavery.

They didn't vote for Trump.

No, I am correlating the two, as a political fact.

The entire nation is not who launched Homeland Security, the Guantanamo Bay torture center, and two land wars in Asia Minor; the entire nation is not who cheered for building a wall across the Mexican (but not Canadian) border, or voted the current Republican Congress into office. The entire nation is not who advocates cozying up with Russia (white) but not China (yellow) or India (still working on that one).

 

yet after writing all that, how far away from success was Hillary in obtaining the Presidency?

Apart from an obsolete elect. college Hillary won many more votes than Trump. Yes?
So I fail to see how you can justify your bleak, morbid, dark, view of the voting electorate.

She had an opportunity but failed to listen to her potential voters properly... a standard failing of most politicians yes?
Trump though did listen to his "deplorables" and managed to succeed when all polls were suggesting other wise.