POTUS Donald Trump

[Squirrel]

Liberal voters fell in line in 2016, thankyouverymuch. But they still get fingerpointed. So, yeah. Check the map. Clinton lost the Midwest because she didn't campaign there after she won the nomination.

I disagree with that. Again, it’s finger pointing and excuse making. Did it play a part? Yes, but it was not the reason on its own. If every Democrat and Liberal voter had ‘towed the line’ like Republican voters, and, well, no Russian interference, we’d see a different result. I know a lot of liberal voters in my part of the country who didn’t vote. I know a lot of Bernie supporters who voted Stein, because they just couldn’t vote for someone who wasn’t ‘their kind’ of liberal.

 

And I’ve seen that time and time and time again. The ‘Oh I can’t possibly’ snub.

[Badsmerf]

Conservatives are turning on Trump. I'm surprised... for many reasons. Trump is having a meeting with Congress (most of whom are too weak to call him out). I'm interested to see his approval rating after this.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I disagree with that. Again, it’s finger pointing and excuse making. Did it play a part? Yes, but it was not the reason on its own. If every Democrat and Liberal voter had ‘towed the line’ like Republican voters, and, well, no Russian interference, we’d see a different result. I know a lot of liberal voters in my part of the country who didn’t vote. I know a lot of Bernie supporters who voted Stein, because they just couldn’t vote for someone who wasn’t ‘their kind’ of liberal.

And I’ve seen that time and time and time again. The ‘Oh I can’t possibly’ snub.

There were a lot of reasons she lost. I don't know where your Stein-voting friends reside, but if they reside (and voted voter fraud libs haha) if they reside in Illinois, then a vote for Stein is a good place to do it, given Illinois being a lock. Taking for granted left-leaning voters in the neighboring Midwest states in general is definitely one of the big reasons she lost. No, not the only reason.

[Squirrel]

 

There were a lot of reasons she lost. I don't know where your Stein-voting friends reside, but if they reside (and voted voter fraud libs haha) if they reside in Illinois, then a vote for Stein is a good place to do it, given Illinois being a lock. Taking for granted left-leaning voters in the neighboring Midwest states in general is definitely one of the big reasons she lost. No, not the only reason.

Never mind then. I'm not talking just about this past presidential election here. This goes more toward my hope at the midterms. Democrat voters really do not turn out in the manner Republicans do. They just don't. And they don't fall in line in the same way Republican voters do, for the reasons I said. And yes, I know people outside of Illinois and have friends elsewhere who did exactly what I said.

[Squirrel]

Further ... I think the only way Dems flip the House and/or the Senate, is not because they themselves rally the vote ... because I think they will do what they always have ... been indignant and not turned out in the same way ... but because the Republicans will be indignant enough to either cross over or not vote, but I don't count on that because they do what they do. I don't know if what's happened with Trump will be enough to do that, but ...

 

The short of it is ... I really don't have much hope of anything changing, hence my 'doomed' comment yesterday. Or the day before. Or whenever it was. Time keeps marching on.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Further ... I think the only way Dems flip the House and/or the Senate, is not because they themselves rally the vote ... because I think they will do what they always have ... been indignant and not turned out in the same way ... but because the Republicans will be indignant enough to either cross over or not vote, but I don't count on that because they do what they do. I don't know if what's happened with Trump will be enough to do that, but ...

 

The short of it is ... I really don't have much hope of anything changing, hence my 'doomed' comment yesterday. Or the day before. Or whenever it was. Time keeps marching on.

 

If I were to bet in Vegas today, I would bet the results of the hoped "Blue Wave" will be somewhere between underwhelming and catastrophic.

 

Trump is an X factor of course, but as you said, Republican voters love him and you can count on them 100% to be there to vote on any ballot being handed to them.

[Mike Sixel]

in 20 years.....thirty percent of the population will elect 68% of the Senate......It might be time to redraw state lines.....

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Never mind then. I'm not talking just about this past presidential election here. This goes more toward my hope at the midterms. Democrat voters really do not turn out in the manner Republicans do. They just don't. And they don't fall in line in the same way Republican voters do, for the reasons I said. And yes, I know people outside of Illinois and have friends elsewhere who did exactly what I said.

Ok so I will admit it wasn't a very well thought out reply. However, why is the left of the party supposed to fall in behind the Pelosi and Schumer types? Why arent they asked to compromise or champion issues coming from their left (or better, step aside or retire)

[TheLeviathan]

 

Ok so I will admit it wasn't a very well thought out reply. However, why is the left of the party supposed to fall in behind the Pelosi and Schumer types? Why arent they asked to compromise or champion issues coming from their left (or better, step aside or retire)

 

Because the alternative is way worse.

[Squirrel]

Ok so I will admit it wasn't a very well thought out reply. However, why is the left of the party supposed to fall in behind the Pelosi and Schumer types? Why arent they asked to compromise or champion issues coming from their left (or better, step aside or retire)

I’m not even suggesting that. But compromises need to be made. The conservative left voters won’t turnnout if the campaign is deemed ‘too liberal’ and the liberal left won’t turn out if their ideals aren’t met, either. The more inclusive the left tries to be the more fractured it becomes. At some point everyone all around needs to do what republicans do and that’s suck it up and vote even if your ideals aren’t being met completely. You can blame Pelosi and Schumer all you want but if you aren’t going to turn out and work hard to change from within you are always going to be outside looking in. And the best compromise is usually somewhere in the middle and neither side of the party is happy and a lot then turn their backs because it’s not ‘their way.’

[PseudoSABR]

 

I’m not even suggesting that. But compromises need to be made. The conservative left voters won’t turnnout if the campaign is deemed ‘too liberal’ and the liberal left won’t turn out if their ideals aren’t met, either. The more inclusive the left tries to be the more fractured it becomes. At some point everyone all around needs to do what republicans do and that’s suck it up and vote even if your ideals aren’t being met completely. You can blame Pelosi and Schumer all you want but if you aren’t going to turn out and work hard to change from within you are always going to be outside looking in. And the best compromise is usually somewhere in the middle and neither side of the party is happy and a lot then turn their backs because it’s not ‘their way.’

No comprises do not need to be made (in terms of whom we elect to office, after that point sure).  Comprises were made in 2016, and that gave us Trump.  The practical candidate is a loser for the Democrats.  I think there needs to be a cohesive, authentic message; that doesn't look overly crafted, and overly solicitous. 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

No comprises do not need to be made (in terms of whom we elect to office, after that point sure).  Comprises were made in 2016, and that gave us Trump.  The practical candidate is a loser for the Democrats.  I think there needs to be a cohesive, authentic message; that doesn't look overly crafted, and overly solicitous. 

 

I think the point is....once a person is nominated, even if we don't love them, we need to compromise and vote for them.....rather than split the vote on the left. Or not, but that would be my point.

 

As for "NO COMPROMISE", that't going worse and worse in Seattle for the left.

[Squirrel]

 

No comprises do not need to be made (in terms of whom we elect to office, after that point sure).  Comprises were made in 2016, and that gave us Trump.  The practical candidate is a loser for the Democrats.  I think there needs to be a cohesive, authentic message; that doesn't look overly crafted, and overly solicitous. 

Okay ... now we are circling back and rehashing and rehashing the 2016 election. And there will be no agreement there. I think Bernie was an extremely divisive candidate ... extremely. I know a lot of people, both from the middle and the coasts, who said Bernie or no one, and either voted Stein or didn't vote. And there are many who wanted Bernie and sucked it up and voted for Hillary ... but not enough did that. Not like the masses who sucked it up and voted for Trump. We can go over it and over it and over it and find all kinds of nuances of why it failed, and continue to blame Hillary, or the Russians, or look at the bigger picture ... and we are always go to come back to this impasse. The liberal voters need to all, no matter the candidate, suck it up and vote. That just doesn't happen on the left side like it does on the right side. It just doesn't. And never has. And the Dems that do get elected president, get elected largely because of the middle of the road independents. They are the swing.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Okay ... now we are circling back and rehashing and rehashing the 2016 election. And there will be no agreement there. I think Bernie was an extremely divisive candidate ... extremely. I know a lot of people, both from the middle and the coasts, who said Bernie or no one, and either voted Stein or didn't vote. And there are many who wanted Bernie and sucked it up and voted for Hillary ... but not enough did that. Not like the masses who sucked it up and voted for Trump. We can go over it and over it and over it and find all kinds of nuances of why it failed, and continue to blame Hillary, or the Russians, or look at the bigger picture ... and we are always go to come back to this impasse. The liberal voters need to all, no matter the candidate, suck it up and vote. That just doesn't happen on the left side like it does on the right side. It just doesn't. And never has. And the Dems that do get elected president, get elected largely because of the middle of the road independents. They are the swing.

I agree with this largely.  But I think you also have to think about turnout.  I don't think another moderate democrat is going to get the job done.  The candidate does matter.   For my part, I will vote for whomever they put forward.  But more of the Schumer, Pelosi crowd, I don't think motivates much any one; as tolerable as they might be.

[Squirrel]

I agree with this largely. But I think you also have to think about turnout. I don't think another moderate democrat is going to get the job done. The candidate does matter. For my part, I will vote for whomever they put forward. But more of the Schumer, Pelosi crowd, I don't think motivates much any one; as tolerable as they might be.

Right, the candidate does matter. People want to be inspired, at least on the left they do. Obama was less progressive in terms of voting record than Hillary, or at least very similar. The first thing he did when he got to the Senate was to cozy up to Kennedy, Kerry and Reid, who were the insider party leaders at the time. That is party politics as usual. But he himself was why people voted not because he was some progressive outside the party norms because he wasn’t. He just made people believe he was.

[Squirrel]

And now trump says he misspoke????????

[PseudoSABR]

 

And now trump says he misspoke????????

What a goober.

[TheLeviathan]

It says a lot when that's the best pop-up job you can do. Yeesh.

[stringer bell]

In essence, Clinton lost by 70,000 votes in three midwest states. She wins those states, she wins the election. In comparing turnout there, it was uninspired liberals and African-Americans plus a fair amount of voter suppression, particularly in Wisconsin. Democratic voters are not as reliable as Republicans, but I believe they are more motivated than I’ve seen in decades. I think they’ll narrowly control the House, but the key is to gain or take over governorships, state legislatures and other partisan offices.

[D. Hocking]

 

And now trump says he misspoke????????

 

You know admitting a mistake is going to eat him alive and he will revert to his original thoughts at his next rally or even tonight on Tucker Carlson or in some early morning tweet.   It is like when he kind of walked back his Charlottesville statement.  Within a few days he had said enough things that were just as bad as his original statement and made his initial clarification null and void.

 

I am a little bit afraid that the GOP who spoke out against him are going shut their eyes and pretend his statement today nullifies his Helsinki press conference bombshells and pretend all is well and nothing will be done.  Unfortunately, I could also see the media moving on in a few days as well and then be "surprised" again when he says something similar at a later date.

[D. Hocking]

case in point (so much character, integrity, and moral backbone in Washington today):

 

Trump’s would/wouldn’t cleanup attempt good enough for Marco Rubio: "I’m just glad he clarified it. I can’t read his intentions or what he meant to say at the time. suffice it to say that for me as a policy maker, what really matters is what we do moving forward."

 

 

Asked on Fox News whether he buys Trump's "wouldn't" revision, Sen. Rob Portman says he takes the president at his word.

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

In essence, Clinton lost by 70,000 votes in three midwest states. She wins those states, she wins the election. In comparing turnout there, it was uninspired liberals and African-Americans plus a fair amount of voter suppression, particularly in Wisconsin. Democratic voters are not as reliable as Republicans, but I believe they are more motivated than I’ve seen in decades. I think they’ll narrowly control the House, but the key is to gain or take over governorships, state legislatures and other partisan offices.

 

Is this true though?  Just look at 2016 vs. 2012.  Where Hillary lost wasn't in the counties of major cities - uber-liberal Dane County (Madison) was no drop-off from Obama.  She did lose 40,000 in Milwaukee, (which does imply African American turnout is an accurate problem), but virtually every other county she lost was in rural Wisconsin.

 

So it isn't uninspired liberals.  I find that to be a false assessment people farther left use to try and pull the party left.  The facts don't bear that out.  

 

I hope Dems don't miss out on the right lessons from 2016, because we need them to stop getting their asses kicked up and down the ballot.  Build a wider coalition of voters and drum them up to get out and vote.  It's not as much about the policy as it is about the messaging.

[Mike Sixel]

At his word? he didn't apologize to the intelligence groups, and he said it might also be other nations too, maybe.....he didn't backtrack at all. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Is this true though?  Just look at 2016 vs. 2012.  Where Hillary lost wasn't in the counties of major cities - uber-liberal Dane County (Madison) was no drop-off from Obama.  She did lose 40,000 in Milwaukee, (which does imply African American turnout is an accurate problem), but virtually every other county she lost was in rural Wisconsin.

 

So it isn't uninspired liberals.  I find that to be a false assessment people farther left use to try and pull the party left.  The facts don't bear that out.  

 

I hope Dems don't miss out on the right lessons from 2016, because we need them to stop getting their asses kicked up and down the ballot.  Build a wider coalition of voters and drum them up to get out and vote.  It's not as much about the policy as it is about the messaging.

I think you're spot-on why Clinton didn't absolutely annihilate Trump... but I think she wins if she doesn't make so many left-leaning people say "meh" and take a pass.

 

Sure, the cities showed up but we're so much more liberal that it doesn't matter. What Clinton failed to do was inspire the people who are leftist but not rabid about it, which is part of your point. She couldn't inspire left-leaners who aren't in cities because she didn't talk to them. In fact, she called many of their friends and family "deplorables". I'm sure some agreed with that take but it was absolutely awful politicking.

 

But the bigger problem going forward is that the Democratic party has abandoned the rural (mostly white) vote entirely. They don't need to cater to them at the expense of others, they just need to talk to them like they're people and address their real problems in honest ways.

 

What the Democratic Party badly needs is a 40- or 50-something Bernie Sanders with a sharp wit to just harass and **** with Trump on his level.

 

Damn you, Al Franken.

[TheLeviathan]

Many of the problems facing minorities are now afflictions that your average rural white person can at least relate to.  That's why I keep saying - emphasize health care, wage growth, and the trade war that is punishing them.

 

That's how the blue wave happens.  Appealing to butt-hurt Bernie voters on the far left?  Losing strategy.  Guaranteed.

 

Also, just to add to your post - liberals keep wanting to talk about their policy being "left enough".  What policy did Trump run on?  Not a one that I can recall.  He ran on messaging.  Not policy.  Who the hell cares if the next Democrat is campaigning on European healthcare or Obamacare?  That's not the point.  Run on making the system better and emphasizing how Trump has done nothing.  You don't have to have detailed policy, you just have to message the hell out of that.

 

For the life of me, I can't understand how smart liberals can't get that through their heads.  They slap fight about "not being liberal enough" on policies when policies mean diddly squat to voters.

 

Messaging.  Broad messaging.  Win some damn elections.

[gunnarthor]

 

 

 

Messaging.  Broad messaging.  Win some damn elections.

"It's the economy, stupid" was messaging. "Read my lips, no new taxes," messaging. "1000 points of light." "Contract with America." "Yes, we can." 

 

Yeah, messaging is important.

[TheLeviathan]

 

"It's the economy, stupid" was messaging. "Read my lips, no new taxes," messaging. "1000 points of light." "Contract with America." "Yes, we can." 

 

Yeah, messaging is important.

 

It might be 85% of the equation for most candidates.  The other 15% is that the candidate can be authentically tied to the message.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Many of the problems facing minorities are now afflictions that your average rural white person can at least relate to.  That's why I keep saying - emphasize health care, wage growth, and the trade war that is punishing them.

 

That's how the blue wave happens.  Appealing to butt-hurt Bernie voters on the far left?  Losing strategy.  Guaranteed.

 

Also, just to add to your post - liberals keep wanting to talk about their policy being "left enough".  What policy did Trump run on?  Not a one that I can recall.  He ran on messaging.  Not policy.  Who the hell cares if the next Democrat is campaigning on European healthcare or Obamacare?  That's not the point.  Run on making the system better and emphasizing how Trump has done nothing.  You don't have to have detailed policy, you just have to message the hell out of that.

 

For the life of me, I can't understand how smart liberals can't get that through their heads.  They slap fight about "not being liberal enough" on policies when policies mean diddly squat to voters.

 

Messaging.  Broad messaging.  Win some damn elections.

So it's fault of the liberal wing of the party that Clinton, the moderate, couldn't come up with a compelling campaign message? ok sure

[PseudoSABR]

The whole reason I want the Democrats to run a progressive is because of messaging (notwithstanding that I largely believe in the policy). 

[TheLeviathan]

 

So it's fault of the liberal wing of the party that Clinton, the moderate, couldn't come up with a compelling campaign message? ok sure

 

No, that's Clinton's fault.  She had bad messaging and wasn't authentic.

 

What liberals have done in the aftermath is completely miss the lessons to be learned.  Now every lefty wants to pull the party to the left to solve her failure.  Here's a few examples (and you've heard versions of this in this thread.  Often attacking anyone who isn't as far left as they are):

 

"Clinton lost because Bernie supporters didn't vote for her!"  Um....no.  Even if tens of thousands of Bernie voters stayed home, they likely did that in Oregon, California, and New York and their votes are meaningless anyway.  Look at the data in the relevant states.  This was not one of the factors that caused the loss.  

 

"Clinton's policies weren't boldly left enough!"  Policies are irrelevant.  They shouldn't be, but they are.  The goblin in office didnt' have a single coherent policy.  Neither did Obama either, for that matter.

 

"I'll be damned if we capitulate to white hicks!"  Well, ok, but that's largely why you lost.  She lost three key midwestern states and got her ass handed to her by the rural and black vote.  Not leftists sitting out.  That's just a fact, sorry it's inconvenient for anyone's personal politics...but do you want to win or do you want people to agree with you?

 

If you're a doctor treating this problem, you look at the actual facts.  Not what you want them to be.  You don't take the medicine you want, you take the one you need.  Hillary lost because of arrogance and indifference to poor and rural whites and less appeal to black voters.  She lost  because she was inauthentic and couldn't message to people outside the 40% of people who vote Democrat.  Not because socialists weren't appeased.