POTUS Donald Trump

[Willihammer]

The one takeaway from this election should be that voters can't be lumped into different boxes and the guy who checks the most wins. Trump is for all intents and purposes, a godless east coast elite. He won the bible belt, because he was a stronger candidate than Clinton who was the weakest nominee since Al Gore. I really think you're short selling the capacity of the average voter to digest a candidates message versus "identifying" with them.

[Bark's Lounge]

 

Yeah, that ought to not be the case, but circling back to Emmanuel's advice, we need to start looking at the way things are and not the way we want them to be.  You don't win playing in some idealized world of how things "should" be.  It's just a simple fact that the vast majority of Americans are uncomfortable with atheism.  

Yeah, I understand that. Manipulation can be used for good or bad, if your are a non-believer, you keep it wrapped up tight, and pursue your cause. I would use it for good.

[Bark's Lounge]

 

The one takeaway from this election should be that voters can't be lumped into different boxes and the guy who checks the most wins. Trump is for all intents and purposes, a godless east coast elite. He won the bible belt, because he was a stronger candidate than Clinton who was the weakest nominee since Al Gore. I really think you're short selling the capacity of the average voter to digest a candidates message versus "identifying" with them.

Who are you replying to?

[TheLeviathan]

 

The one takeaway from this election should be that voters can't be lumped into different boxes and the guy who checks the most wins. Trump is for all intents and purposes, a godless east coast elite. He won the bible belt, because he was a stronger candidate than Clinton who was the weakest nominee since Al Gore. I really think you're short selling the capacity of the average voter to digest a candidates message versus "identifying" with them.

 

And I'd say you're strongly overlooking the evidence for how effectively a well-sold, dumb distraction can influence a campaign.  I mean, a god damn email server vs. being an atheist?  Which is the harder sell?

 

People seem to have taken the Dem campaign for the nomination as an accurate representation of what Bernie would face in terms of opposition.  Clinton played with the kid gloves and won 55-43.  The Republicans don't even own kid gloves.  

[Willihammer]

 

And I'd say you're strongly overlooking the evidence for how effectively a well-sold, dumb distraction can influence a campaign.  I mean, a god damn email server vs. being an atheist?  Which is the harder sell?  

I reckon the atheist is the harder sell. Again, Trump is essentially an atheist. Kennedy a Catholic, Obama an African-American. Identity has a tendency to take a back seat to message in this country, every time. Unless that identity is "crook."

[TheLeviathan]

 

I reckon the atheist is the harder sell. Again, Trump is essentially an atheist. Kennedy a Catholic, Obama an African-American. Identity has a tendency to take a back seat to message in this country, every time. Unless that identity is "crook."

 

Seriously?  For one, polling is clear that the majority of Americans distrust/dislike atheists.  Moreso than anything else, even illegal immigrants and Muslims.  So the atmosphere to use it is a fact, it's there.  Throw on top of that, the fact that Bernie has basically publicly stated the position and what is there left to sell?

 

Trump doesn't have to be an Evangelist.  He just has to be a non-atheist.  

 

And that's but one issue that could've been used to take Bernie down.  It may not have even been necessary given some of the others.

[Willihammer]

Polls also showed Bernie doing better against Trump than Clinton in a general.

You must have pretty low regard for an electorate to think some weak sauce religious smear would improve his standing. Especially coming from Trump.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Polls also showed Bernie doing better against Trump than Clinton in a general.

You must have pretty low regard for an electorate to think some weak sauce religious smear would improve his standing. Especially coming from Trump.

 

Why wouldn't I hold the electorate in low regard?

[PseudoSABR]

[Craig Arko]

How 'bout them apples?

[Bark's Lounge]

I like the people who post on this thread. Sure we have differences. But this is a smart group of people and we are not so far apart where we can't find common ground. Let's find it. Sacrifices need to be made, whether we are leftists or centrists or whatever. We are close and we need to bridge the gap.

 

I believe in this group of people, together, we can have a voice, and be effective outside of this platform.

 

Debate is good, but we need to band together. Let's start that conversation with an open mind. What do we do to fix it? How do we compromise and unite as one and compromise to get a piece of what we want?

 

The spoils don't go to the victors this time around. The reward goes to the folks who are willing to start a conversation on what we need to do to have an effect on what is going on and what will probably ensue.

 

If we band together we will all lose, but more importantly, we will all win!

 

I hope this starts a new conversation. We need it!

[TheLeviathan]

Noted lefty news site Slate sort of makes my point for me.  

 

Pretty forcefully too.  There's some stuff in there about polling his policies and the costs that are eye popping.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

I'm pretty certain of it.  Let's just look at a litany of things that Sanders had going against him over and above Clinton:

 

1) Sanders struggled (mightily by comparison) to generate any enthusiasm among minority voters relative to Clinton and she struggled in the general.  And those struggles may have been especially key in the swing states.

 

2) Sanders was an even more ardent tax and spend liberal.  Candidates as liberal as Sanders (Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern, etc.) have always been trounced.  Centrist Dems have been far more successful in the general because they attract centrist voters.  There is a reason those kinds of far left candidates have been smoked in the past.  

 

3) One of the opposition bits of research was a fictitious essay Sanders wrote about a woman enjoying being raped.  Do I need to elaborate on that?

 

4)  Bernie was unemployed until his mid 30s.  Clinton had a long record of public service.  Again, do I need to write that narrative, it feels like I don't.

 

5) He marched in "Die Yankee" parades.  Clinton had a long public service record and they made an email server make her look anti-American.  Sanders "Yankees will die"?  Almost too easy.

 

6) He's a Jewish socialist athiest.  You know what's even more unpopular than Muslims?  Athiests.  You know who liberals struggle to be excited to support?  Jews.  And again....need "socialist" be explained further?

 

I guess I could go on.  I'd love to see the rest of the opposition file the Republicans had, we only know some of the snippets above that leaked.  It's pretty pie in the sky to think he'd do something like win the Presidency.

I think I know what article you are referring to, and you sure are putting a lot of faith in it. It was an extremely raw and bitter article blasting Sanders and liberals in general for losing Clinton's election. Send me a link to this oppo research and I will look at it and consider whether or not to concede a point to you. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think I know what article you are referring to, and you sure are putting a lot of faith in it. It was an extremely raw and bitter article blasting Sanders and liberals in general for losing Clinton's election. Send me a link to this oppo research and I will look at it and consider whether or not to concede a point to you. 

 

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

 

Kurt Eichenwald has some pretty robust credentials.  And the larger point he and Slate make is one often overlooked: Clinton never attacked Sanders.  She didn't want to risk losing the support of his voters, but did so anyway to large degrees.

 

I get why people on the left (especially the farther left you go) want to believe that Sanders was the winning ticket.  It means your brand of politics just needs the limelight and you'll win.  That your ideas are mainstream enough to win.  But that really is a delusion.  It hasn't been earned yet and may be a long road to do so.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Noted lefty news site Slate sort of makes my point for me.  

 

Pretty forcefully too.  There's some stuff in there about polling his policies and the costs that are eye popping.

Dude, there were tons of articles written about all of Trump's liabilities and how the Democrats were going to make mince meat of him.(Didn't the National Review dedicate a whole issue to spelling out Trumps liabilities...)  We know how that turned out.  

 

Whatever Sanders' liabilities I don't logically see how it moves a Clinton voter to become a Trump voter.  Your arguments make some sense in the aggregate (atheist socialist jews are weird), but begin to break down when conceptualizing actual individual voters.   

 

I think the enthusiasm for Bernie alone would have made up the difference, but more than that I think his message and his character would have resonated with Americans far more than your willing to entertain.  

 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Spent some time out in the sticks this holiday season. People had had it with Clinton. The very mention of the word "Clinton" would have ended all conversation and forced you to get up and get your own dessert (gladly I didn't test the theory). The race was decided back when she announced her candidacy, whenever that was. And yet she still almost won. 

 

At least people wouldn't have known who Sanders was. Any smears thrown at him would have sounded like politics and he would have been able to respond anyway. He wouldn't have been able to run up the popular vote but he also wouldn't have sent countless thousands automatically to the other candidate by mere mention of his existence. Considering where the race was lost who turned out, I think it more likely than not that Sanders would have beaten Trump.

 

Anyway, that's just my point of view. Others surely have seen it from their own POV whether it was similar or different. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

I get why people on the left (especially the farther left you go) want to believe that Sanders was the winning ticket.  It means your brand of politics just needs the limelight and you'll win.  That your ideas are mainstream enough to win.  But that really is a delusion.  It hasn't been earned yet and may be a long road to do so.

Look, socialism should have been politically dead within even the Democratic party.  Sanders success in the primaries was totally unanticipated.   More than that, this election should teach us being 'mainstream' can be a liability, and the populace is far more willing to overlook extremism and obvious flaws in favor of personality, authenticity etc.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

Dude, there were tons of articles written about all of Trump's liabilities and how the Democrats were going to make mince meat of him.(Didn't the National Review dedicate a whole issue to spelling out Trumps liabilities...)  We know how that turned out.  

 

No one was really understanding the Trump issue the entire way up to election night.  So that's sort of meaningless.  You didn't have to turn Clinton voters into Trump voters.  You have to argue that Sanders would have retained all of Clinton's support plus switched people over from Trump.

 

How much of the minority vote would Sanders have maintained given his total inability to generate it in the primaries?  Now throw in the fact that two of the prominent minority voting blocs (Hispanic and Black) are strongly religious...how does atheist play?  

 

Now you also have reams of evidence about him saying things that are anti-American.  How does that play with centrists or Rust Belt voters?

 

And now, most of all, you have to tell people that you will raise their taxes.  Everyone.  Every....single...person.  Something Slate's polling puts at having 15-17% support when given the details.

 

At some point, when do you give up the ghost?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

 

Kurt Eichenwald has some pretty robust credentials.  And the larger point he and Slate make is one often overlooked: Clinton never attacked Sanders.  She didn't want to risk losing the support of his voters, but did so anyway to large degrees.

 

I get why people on the left (especially the farther left you go) want to believe that Sanders was the winning ticket.  It means your brand of politics just needs the limelight and you'll win.  That your ideas are mainstream enough to win.  But that really is a delusion.  It hasn't been earned yet and may be a long road to do so.

I agree he has the credentials. I read two of his big books. 

 

But consider the first sentence in that article: "On Friday, I almost assaulted a fan of my work." He was nakedly bitter about the election and did not hide it. I can't take that article seriously. Sure, that opposition research against Sanders would have come out, but I think you are overestimating the impact it would have had, especially coming from someone who actually, you know, assaults women, and proudly. Unfortunately Clinton was the worst possible candidate and having her in the race shut off the discussion for many, many people. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

I agree he has the credentials. I read two of his big books. 

 

But consider the first sentence in that article: "On Friday, I almost assaulted a fan of my work." He was nakedly bitter about the election and did not hide it. I can't take that article seriously. Sure, that opposition research against Sanders would have come out, but I think you are overestimating the impact it would have had, especially coming from someone who actually, you know, assaults women, and proudly. Unfortunately Clinton was the worst possible candidate and having her in the race shut off the discussion for many, many people. 

 

The same guy who assaults women kept saying "email server" and turned that into a thing.  

 

I agree that Clinton was a terrible candidate to run against Trump.  The Left needed Biden or Obama, a centrist with personality and down-to-earth qualities who didn't appear to be a stiff.  Biden was the real key for the Dems.

 

Sanders?  Never would've survived being anti-American, socialist, athiest, dumps pollution on poor hispanics, and plans to raise everyone's taxes.  No one could.  That's a host of unelectable qualities all rolled into one dude.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

 

Kurt Eichenwald has some pretty robust credentials.  

Another choice quote from his article:

 

"A certain kind of liberal makes me sick."

 

Here's an immensely talented guy who took the election as hard as anyone, apparently. He simply has the platform to be widely read. Of course he is going to paint Sanders in the worst possible light in such an article so close after the election. 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

The same guy who assaults women kept saying "email server" and turned that into a thing.  

 

I agree that Clinton was a terrible candidate to run against Trump.  The Left needed Biden or Obama, a centrist with personality and down-to-earth qualities who didn't appear to be a stiff.  Biden was the real key for the Dems.

 

Sanders?  Never would've survived being anti-American, socialist, athiest, dumps pollution on poor hispanics, and plans to raise everyone's taxes.  No one could.  That's a host of unelectable qualities all rolled into one dude.

I agree with your second paragraph. The last paragraph is just opinion and guessing, and in my opinion and guessing I disagree strongly. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

I agree with your second paragraph. The last paragraph is just opinion and guessing, and in my opinion and guessing I disagree strongly. 

 

The last paragraph is not just opinion though.  He has stated to be an atheist.  His plans did call for a tax increase on all people - including the middle class - to pay for it.  He did attempt to dump toxic waste in poor Texas towns.  He has been an active socialist throughout his life.  

 

The only thing that isn't a fact is that he's anti-American.  I believe he's the opposite.  But things he's done and said?  Way easier to spin as anti-American than a damn email server.  And they did that.  Chanting "die yankee!" - you don't have to try very hard on that front.

 

How many Trump voters are flipping for that?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

The last paragraph is not just opinion though.  He has stated to be an atheist.  His plans did call for a tax increase on all people - including the middle class - to pay for it.  He did attempt to dump toxic waste in poor Texas towns.  He has been an active socialist throughout his life.  

 

The only thing that isn't a fact is that he's anti-American.  I believe he's the opposite.  But things he's done and said?  Way easier to spin as anti-American than a damn email server.  And they did that.  Chanting "die yankee!" - you don't have to try very hard on that front.

 

How many Trump voters are flipping for that?

I think you got it backwards. It's the Sanders voters who flipped for Trump (yes they exist), not Trump voters who might have reluctantly settled for Sanders, though that too. Sanders had the better economic message. Clinton not only didn't have a message, it wouldn't have been heard if she did due to people's irrational feelings against her. Lots of people despised Trump but voted for him anyway.

 

Trump by far has the worse character issues - sexual predator, bankruptcies, life of luxury while stiffing workers, anti-veteran, sexual predator, did I mention sexual predator? Actually, if Sanders once chanted "die Yankee" it might have picked him up a southern state or two.

[PseudoSABR]

 

No one was really understanding the Trump issue the entire way up to election night.  So that's sort of meaningless.  You didn't have to turn Clinton voters into Trump voters.  You have to argue that Sanders would have retained all of Clinton's support plus switched people over from Trump.

 

How much of the minority vote would Sanders have maintained given his total inability to generate it in the primaries?  Now throw in the fact that two of the prominent minority voting blocs (Hispanic and Black) are strongly religious...how does atheist play?  

 

Now you also have reams of evidence about him saying things that are anti-American.  How does that play with centrists or Rust Belt voters?

 

And now, most of all, you have to tell people that you will raise their taxes.  Everyone.  Every....single...person.  Something Slate's polling puts at having 15-17% support when given the details.

 

At some point, when do you give up the ghost?

No one was understanding the Trump issue? Que? Look, I think no one was understanding the electorate.  What Slate said about Bernie, esp. in isolation, is meaningless.  Trump's victory, and our inability to predict it, is meaningful because it actually happened.

 

Right.  Sanders would have retained nearly all of Clinton's support.  You leave unaddressed the huge enthusiasm gap between both Clinton and Trump and Clinton and Sanders.  People were stoked about Sanders; ape-**** stupid into him.  Clinton was a wet-noodle handshake enthusiasm.

 

Frankly, I don't put a lot of stock in minority voting in primaries (for a variety of reasons); moreover, the same reasons why Clinton was preferable to Trump hold (or even become more true) for Sanders.  And there's simply no evidence to believe that Sanders' atheism would move black and Hispanic voters to phony like Trump.  Come on. 

 

 Part of the reason I believe he would have won is his ability to authentically speak to working-class, even rural Americans.  He had a genuine anti-establishment message that would have resonated.   By contrast, I think he would have made Trump seem elite.   

 

That Trump was the opposing candidates makes it far easier for Sanders.  Sanders lack of policy specificity and ra-ra-screw-the-man routine would have far more play against Trump than someone wonkish like Paul Ryan.  But then again, we though political wonkishness would benefit Clinton to Trump's detriment.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think you got it backwards. It's the Sanders voters who flipped for Trump (yes they exist), not Trump voters who might have reluctantly settled for Sanders, though that too. Sanders had the better economic message. Clinton not only didn't have a message, it wouldn't have been heard if she did due to people's irrational feelings against her. Lots of people despised Trump but voted for him anyway.

 

Trump by far has the worse character issues - sexual predator, bankruptcies, life of luxury while stiffing workers, anti-veteran, sexual predator, did I mention sexual predator? Actually, if Sanders once chanted "die Yankee" it might have picked him up a southern state or two.

 

Clinton absolutely had a message.  Now you're showing your own bias.  

 

I'm not saying Trump wasn't worse as a person (he clearly was.  He's awful), I'm saying what he was worse about was something his voters didn't care about.  How many of those Sanders voters stay when they find out they get a sizable tax increase? According to polling, the support collapses quickly and precipitously. 

 

As it has, historically, for all far left candidates.  While your speculation may be right, there is a significantly more sizable set of evidence that it's pretty delusional.  The Slate articles above, hardly anti-Bernie as a site, lay it out pretty well.

[kydoty]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_589a45f1e4b04061313a1fbb

 

This man is a 70-year-old King Joffrey.

[TheLeviathan]

 

 Part of the reason I believe he would have won is his ability to authentically speak to working-class, even rural Americans.  He had a genuine anti-establishment message that would have resonated.   By contrast, I think he would have made Trump seem elite.   

 

And you lose every single one of those working-class, rural Americans the moment they find out their taxes increase significantly.  And, if any are holding on, you for sure lose them when you ask them to vote for a guy that is no on God and has a long, sordid history of anti-patriotic behavior.  (Or, at least, reams of examples that don't need much push to look that way)

 

The Slate articles come from a site that has no bone to pick with far left ideals.  It has every reason to back Bernie and argue he could have won.  The arguments made are well researched and thorough.  It seems like you're dismissing them because you don't like the conclusion.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Clinton absolutely had a message.  Now you're showing your own bias.  

 

I'm not saying Trump wasn't worse as a person (he clearly was.  He's awful), I'm saying what he was worse about was something his voters didn't care about.  How many of those Sanders voters stay when they find out they get a sizable tax increase? According to polling, the support collapses quickly and precipitously. 

 

As it has, historically, for all far left candidates.  While your speculation may be right, there is a significantly more sizable set of evidence that it's pretty delusional.  The Slate articles above, hardly anti-Bernie as a site, lay it out pretty well.

I'm not sure what Clinton's message was...."everyone better together" or something like that. A message like that is not going to get it done. Or as Bush senior might say: "naat gaana doit"

 

I don't know what actual proposals Sanders was planning for taxes but I doubt "tax the middle class!" was among them. If for some unknown reason it was, I agree he get crushed.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't know what actual proposals Sanders was planning for taxes but I doubt "tax the middle class!" was among them. If for some unknown reason it was, I agree he get crushed.

 

Here is a link.  Everyone but the very bottom sees a tax increase, including the middle class.