yes, right there is the problem. Plenty of problems with Hillary had nothing to do with her having a vagina, but pointing those problems out got a response from her followers of "sexist!" instead of dialogue, this bred animosity and only increased the dislike for Hillary. Imagine your trying to sell a car, how effective of a sale tactic would be to shame someone into buying the car: "Anyone that even questions how good this car is a horrible person!"... probably not effective. Maybe if you had focused on trying to sell Hillary, instead of trying to shame people into voting for her, we would not be in the hell we are now in.
logic is lost on you. I have no argument and then you present my argument, you do add insulting adjectives though, but that is about it. The "I gab them by the pussy I don't even wait" guy won the presidency and you say I have not proven that pointing out someone is a sexist, racist, facists, etc, is completely useless name calling, it even costs us more votes then it gains us? If you gave two shits about winning you would be backing me up: we need to focus on winnable candidates, candidates that are anti-establishment types with big inspiring ideas, focused on the stagnation of the middle class and political corruption as these problems have universal appeal across the political spectrum and also into the vast independent pool of citizens that generally don't vote, get even a tiny percentage of them to vote can change an election. We can't be pushing candidates with decades of baggage as "flip-floppers" and corrupt donor-lobbyist sell outs, whose only attractive points is they aren't trump and they have a vagina. Strategies like name calling and shaming are completely ineffective, strategies like promoting policies to help the middle class on the other hand are incredibly effective, even if those polices are retarded scapegoating in the case of trump, so desperate are voters for REAL change they will take anything other than more of the same.
Anti-discrimination positions are part of her appeal. And a core value of the Democratic Party. Maybe they just focus on internet security next time?
No you are conflating shaming tactics with anti-discrimination, saying women deserve equal pay for equal work is anti-discrimination, saying someone is sexist because they think Hillary is corrupt is shaming. This conflation has been done to such extent that the word sexist has been so over used, and is now useless to the point that someone that proclaimed he grabs pussy without permission or care is now president of the united states. Yes frankly you would probably get better traction with internet security next time! A more important core value of the democratic party was being pro-worker, pro-union, pro-middle class, these are values we have lost, and as a result we have lost the government. We must return to uplifting the working class as our top priority, or else we will not get enough votes to win back the government and hold it long enough to do anything meaningful.
That only proves that a cult of personality can win sometimes over meaningful issues. The Christian right, a core Trump constituency, mirrors the patriarchal values of bronze age Jews, so they don't give a shit about sexism. Or Democracy. They want a king. These people are the enemy.
The christian right were not the ones that came out in force for Trump, true most of them would vote for any republican, but what came out for trump that won it for him were independents and moderates that WE LOST. And it was not because of a cult of personality (well some it was), it was because he was presenting the problem (america is not great, the workers are suffering) and presenting solutions (build the wall. kicked out the immigrants and make better trade deals to bring back jobs and prosperity, make america great again) while Hillary was not presenting the problem (everything is already great) and presenting no solutions (will make small step changes here and there, vote for her). To defeat "the enemy" we need more votes, votes is what matters, votes is all the matters. How do we get more votes?
Once again: who is president now? We did not get enough votes. We sadly do not operate on popular vote, I would love to change that and there are schemes to acheive that but they won't be effective any time soon. So to get more votes where it counts we need to get the blue wall back up, the wall that fell because we failed to appeal to the working class.
Yep. You haven't even come up with a sensible argument against the imaginary namecalling you dreamed up - you are arguing in part that people become sexist, racist, fascist, etc, as a reaction to other people (even people they've never met, discussing politics thousands of miles away) inventing those names. You are also presenting us here with the Fox News "liberal" as if it were reality. The white Christian fundies came out in force for Trump. Among others. That is, statistically, false. Trump won by increasing the turnout of the core Republican vote - the white bigots and fundies - and suppressing the vote of everyone else (crosscheck, machine manipulations, coordinated media slander of Clinton, etc). The problems he specifically presented were largely mythical (hordes of Mexican rapists), and the very few solutions a combination of injurious and preposterous. (Saying you are going to solve something is not presenting a solution, it's presenting yourself). He sold that nonsense and pile of lies on the basis of his personal nature, including his personal strength and ability and so forth as proven by his supposed wealth and demonstrably fearless speech, and his shared bigotry and misogyny and lack of sophistication and so forth. He was fearless and strong (in speech), and he was also like them (in speech), and so - most importantly - he wasn't a "liberal", as slandered by thirty years of mainstream media propaganda. He was a Republican. Reagan, the Godfather, Patton, Wayne, Limbaugh, etc. A "real American". Disturbingly foulmouthed, maybe, but all real leaders (except Reagan) have their flaws. Look: We all know the working and middle class suburban and exurban white voters are in a psychological bind right now. They have fucked up their basic political responsibilities as adults, and at some level they know it. They voted for W twice, they voted for their local Gohmerts and Bachmanns several times, they were confronted with a black President and spun out into the nasty and senseless, and that's just since 2000. They got played in truly humiliating fashion by the liars they trusted - over and over and over. The old joke - "You're not really here for the hunting, are you" - is hitting home. But that doesn't mean we have to pretend that the talk radio wingnut line, the excuse cry-pillow handed to them by the pros manipulating their vote, makes sense in the real world.
The white suburban and rural and southern working class. "We" took the non-white working class vote better than 4 to 1. "We" took the northern city working class, even white, easily.
what logic. since when has childish ranting ever been logic. hillary lost is not an argument. maybe if you understood why she lost maybe but you haven't even managed that. and if you dislike being called a child perhaps you should cease acting like one. in the 6 months following the election your sole goal is to browbeat everyone who voted for clinton in the primaries and prove you dick is the biggest. except it doesn't cost us votes. none of that had anything to do with why we lost the election not really as much as you continue to childishly whine about people attacking people is useless name calling your entire argument is just that attacking anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest. i'd back you except for the part you hell bent on proving yourself to be the biggest asshole in the world. your goal ios going to split the movement and i cannot accept such a losing position. and your to blind and entitled to see it. but your ideal candidate is a winning candidate. coal country won't support them. the way to win is make people think that you have their backs your not doing that. and hillary still should have one without russian interference and comney illagal swaying of the election until you understand why people actually voted for trump your never going to have the answer your just going to be part of the problem.
And trump took enough of the white suburban and rural and southern working class to win. Tell me, are these subhumans? Do they not have concerns that we could not meet? They want jobs and healthcare and futures for their kids just like the non-whites and the city whites. Oh that right they are racist bigots so fuck 'em right? Unfortunately for us they can still vote.
Are they subhuman? No. Do they have concerns "we" could meet? Sure. Clinton had compiled a long list, and had the policy wonk competence to get things done as soon as the midterms cleared out the Republican trash, for example. Clinton is not my idea of "we", but she was good for competent agency appointments and Court nominations. Did that earn her their votes? No. Has that ever earned anyone their votes? No. Will that ever earn anyone their votes? Probably not. Without the election rigging in key States, the massive capitulation of the corporate media to Trump, and the key influence of the Russian hacks, they would not have won. And that's a good thing, because pandering to them is not a good thing. There's not much gain in running a Reagan, W, or Trump, just to get that vote. What if you win? Would you really want to be in the Republicans's position right now?
Oh I agree she could have, but decades of mounting baggage meant few trusted her to try. Those people are not interested in slow baby step improvements from the most quintessential establishment politician we have got, that says everything is great already. And can we stop any of that from happening next time? No. So next time we need a better candidate, a candidate that no hacking can pull up dirt on, a candidate that has such voter appeal that no key state election rigging can stop.
There is no such thing as a candidate that cannot be slandered by lies, or a candidate that can appeal to voters without access to honest media, and remain safe from striking range of electoral fraud. Ask John Kerry, or Al Gore. Even Obama, riding the backlash against the worst President in modern history, a failed war and a collapsed economy and a drowned city all piling on at once, barely broke 51%, and lost most of the Confederacy, in 2008. The legal effort to forestall fraud in Ohio, with ripple effects in Florida and elsewhere, may be all that saved him in 2012.
Again, how did they win? By having absolutely no loyalty to the truth. I suppose one can get laid with such a strategy, but it doesn't lead to long term relationships.
Gradients and magnitude are beyond you I guess: some candidates are much easier to slander and harder to appeal to media (honest or not), and thus with less voters for them easier to lose to fraud. Hence why Obama won, twice, why Bernie would have won and why Hillary lost against even the likes of Trump. What is this babbling? These people expect results, better jobs, economic security, get them that and we can have their loyalty, don't get them that and they will grasp at anything, even a pig boar huckster.
Obama rode the W backlash and Palin fiasco, and when that faded circa 2012 required specific intervention to prevent losing by fraud in at least three key States that together would have cost him the election (Ohio, Florida, and another of the Rust Belt I don't remember). Al Gore and John Kerry went into their respective races almost impossible to slander in theory, on the same grounds you grant Sanders. They got slandered anyway, and taken down thereby (or at least brought to the point that the fraud could put over). Clinton was targeted by intensive and sophisticated electoral rigging efforts, which she did not adequately contest (possibly because she had taken advantage of some of them in the primaries), but they were set up to take down Sanders as well - and Sanders was probably not going to get the black vote in the first place, as well as being just as wrongfooted as Clinton by the blanket denials of voting fraud on the part of the Democratic campaign. Sure he might have won - but only maybe. If you don't do something about the Republican Party's influence in the corporate media and voter suppression efforts, there will be no such thing as a good Democratic candidate. Unless Trump is visited by the hurricane fairy and screws up a major war. Since that will be impossible over the next few years, best tell the truth and write them off. They will either grow up and learn, or they won't.
If all you care about is winning one election, this is the way, promise whatever they want. Otherwise, progressivism does just this, when possible. Education is a core Democratic value. But if people just want to continue as things have always been for the past several decades, that ship has sailed. To promise high wages on unskilled labor in dying industries would be a lie.
