Seems to me the lesson has not been learned by the fake liberal Dems, BMGer types, and smug media people reacting to the Trump win.
These people – “these people” includes you people – believe all they have to do is get the average person to understand how racist Donald Trump is and how dangerous he can be. Once Joe Six-Pack sees this he’ll understand and vote for Democrat next time around. Simple.
What Schmucks. It’s the economy stupid. Period. Everything else is a place to expel anger. People are worse off than their blue collar and middle class parents and grandparents with little hope of retiring to a comfortable life in Florida as they did.
It’s the economy stupid. Not the statistical economy but the real economy. It is sucking for more and more people.
Sure the Democratic party is aware of it and yes they want to fix it and yes they will get to it but first everyone has to loudly and undeniably confirm their allegiance and true inner-feelings with a list of social and cultural issues. And then maybe they can fix the usury student loan rates used to fund the government. WTF
In most states it is tough to be a Democratic congresswoman with factory closings and economic decline in the district yet can’t get support from her party unless she leads a Planned Parenthood or gun control march down main street.
The liberal elite does not understand that the same congresswoman is working for everyone at home and each person has his and her own priorities like elderly parents, disabled children, housing, living wages, and employment opportunities.
Instead we have Katherine Clark wasting her meager political capital on crap that means little in her district but her makes her the darling of the clueless Dem elite, gets her name in the paper, and invites to functions with celebrities.
Gun control? GUN CONTROL?? – Oh wait, she got to hang out with John Lewis and some national face time.
Nobody in Burlington or Woburn or Medford or Revere cares Katherine. Accept the ones who own guns.
Pathetic. I’m telling you folks – she is beatable in the next democratic primary. Perhaps a dem takes her on as an independent?
And then to top it all off you a-holes nominate Hillary. Everyone warned you. The Obamas, The Kennedys, Lis Warren, me, and on it goes.
That’s why Donald is president.
But anyway the Dems have to quit demanding their social issues suck up all the energy.
It’s not about disfavoring the social issues it’s about remembering the party has other children. These are the voters who are moderate or more liberal than conservative yet least effected by the liberal agenda. They have issues too you know. and if they think they are losing their standard of living because of the liberal elite and their policies, well, as Richard Nixon said to Hunter S. Thompson “Fuck the poor.” You can’t blame people for thinking that way. That’s how the super rich feel about everyone.
So what’s the plan?
and an excuse to post a comment so people can know about my post.
Carry on!
I comment that this is my 1100th post and you downrate it. Am I not allowed to voice my opinion? I’m not making anyone read it.
Why would you downgrade me for simply speaking.
Wouldn’t it be better if you commented on the substance of my opinions and not my ability to express them. Isn’t that what an educated professional adult would do? I mean you claim to be one, don’t you?
Who are you again Fred? I know you claim to be some sort of big shot but what exactly is it that you do or have done that makes you never buy Renuzit>
Katherine Clark could be beat in Wakefield by a another Dem.
I hope you didn’t take money from Jen Migliore fort hat shitty campaign. Isn’t Saugus in Katherine Clark’s district? They went with Trump, didn’t they Fred?
And how many people in Wakefield and Saugus and Framingham and Woburn held their noses and voted for Hillary.
Yes spree Freddie my boy, you gal Katherine can be beaten. Happened before and can happen again.
Or is that just a Republican troll ‘ alternate fact’.
Wakefield is in the 6th CD.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
.
or should I call it another Republican ‘alternative fact’ ?
Saugus is in CD-6.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
But not Wakefield?
Wakefield is in CD-6.
” Facts are stubborn things.” JOHN ADAMS
Fred Rich LaRiccia
I just added a post specific to this issue. Perhaps you can add something of substance there.
” Put your enemy in the wrong and keep him there.” SAM ADAMS
And that’s exactly what I intend to do.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Unlike you, I have the guts to identify myself and my beliefs.
You are a shameless coward lurking in the shadows.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
How many of you typing with your toes?
But, as usual, Ernie is worth reading.
…who are friends/relatives/past or present co-workers of mine. (Not their real names)
Andy worked for a Fortune 500 company in the 80’s & 90’s. After the plants closed, he “retrained” and is now a truck driver. He travels from NY to Canada a few times a month. He and his wife are barely getting by. He and she voted for Trump.
Bert worked at Delco and when it closed down about 15 tears ago, he retrained to work in HVAC. He’s killing his body. It’s tough work at half of what he was making. His wife is taking care of their grandson as their daughter has mental health and substance abuse problems. She works part time for their church. They can’t see anyway they can ever retire. They both voted for Trump.
Cindy and Hal own a small business in Florida. The cost of health insurance just keeps getting more and more costly with less and less coverage. They both voted for Trump.
Yes, it’s “The Economy, Stupid!”….and when that worked for Bill, we all thought he was the smartest man on the planet. Years later, his wife denigrates that approach as being a “Single Issue Candidate” while she is THE most qualified ever and she has true inner-feelings with a list of social and cultural issues.
So my suggestion to all the marchers and sign holders is to focus on the economy and how if affects ALL of us. Trump is not going to be able to pull this off. We need to hit him on that.
Yes, even if it means being a “single issue party”. All the other issues don’t matter (or can’t be addressed) if we do not control the senate, house, White House etc…
Ernie severely underestimates how gentrified and progressive the 5th CD has become. It is doubtful a challenger running to the right of Clark could defeat her in a primary.
That said I actually agree with the first half of his headline. Newt is a cynical little shit, but he was right to say this is all noise to voters. All they care about is their security and jobs, and as long as he is ‘visible’ doing ‘that’ than he wins. We have to hit him on the jobs he fails to deliver, the jobs he destroys when he repeals ACA, and the jobs he will destroy by abandoning so many of these international agreements.
If “it’s the economy stupid,” then how come you don’t mention that Obama saved us from a new Depression and left office with full employment, an improving deficit, and healthcare?
And speaking of healthcare, the author wants to replace the immensely popular Clark, who has established herself as a world leader on online harassment and who is doing terrific work against guns, with someone like Steve Lynch — who voted against the Affordable Care Act!
How many true progressives does this community lose every year with these endlessly rehashed Republican talking points. When our opponents are fascists and totalitarians, the dangers multiply.
It was Obama and Hillary’s job to mention it and they didn’t. And Ernie has a valid point a lot of working families aren’t “feeling” like they recovered
You are the biggest freakin’ tool to touch a key board in a long time.
The stats you cite don’t measure up with what people are experiencing. Sure there are more jobs but what about jobs with real wages?
Are you living in the real world Mark? Are you a rich person? Do you have a trust fund? Is job security and economic well being for you and your children?
Do you really think the silent majority in Malden are concerned about gun control? Something that has no effect on them.
BTW, I’m just the messenger. Why so touchy Mark?
I agree with you and Newt that the only thing the silent majority* cares about are jobs and security, and that’s the only metric they are judging Trump by. They use out all the hot button issues including gun control which they are indifferent too. That said the CD-5 is no longer centered in Malden. It has large swaths of Arlington, Cambridge, Framingham, Natick, Melrose and that frankly outvote the Woburns, Reveres and Maldens-the latter of which is joining Medford in the “soon to be gentrified” category.
*not so silent and only an electoral one
I agree with a fair chunk of what you wrote but you are a foul mouthed do-nothing blogger and really need to tone it down.
… how did you know that I actually enjoy being condescended to by a prissy cracker with an etiquette fetish?
Sigh…
If only you’d turn your superpowers to good we might have been able to get The Donald to tone it down and we’d be spared my foul mouth. What might have been, and all that… But I guess brave new worlds require bravery so we’re stuck with Trump’s new world where a lack if shame stands in for courage.
…of either foul language or one BMGer presuming to know what another blogger does or doesn’t do.
I DO know that petr does nothing in real political life. He said so here on BMG. He also told jconway that jconway did bad political work simply because he disagreed with it. I do not always agree with jconway but when petr lectures jconway that it is morally wrong for him to be politically activ, it was was one of the most nastiest set of words here on BMG.
I remember when you told me I did not know anything about politics despite my nearly half century of involvement in politics. I twice asked you to mention one political thing you have done in your life. You failed to respond. You are on the wrong side of the equation.
So just chill.
The comment that this is a response to, which makes the thread a little incoherent. But we’re not going to have people telling each other to STFU. Sorry.
As in his original post above when he writes “you a-holes nominate Hillary (sic)”. I fully support you deleting the STFU comments. Yet I’ve felt you always had a double standard with Ernie…cutting him way more slack than others (yes, me…a few times my comments have been deleted, when Ernie said equally or worse). Yes, I know, you frequently suspend Ernie. But you let him back. Given that he regularly breaks your policies, policies that all of us other BlueMass visitors adhere to, it makes me wonder why you keep letting him back. Is it an audience thing? Are you, in a very small way, capitulating to the need to have eyeballs for ads?
I can assure you that the editors are not motivated by $ vis-a-vis this site. I wish.
Yeah, Ernie’s good at skating around the rules and sometimes outright breaking them. I guess I would say petr’s comment was aimed at someone in particular, not a general callout. But I take your point.
I always find it rich that an anonymous internet troll gets off calling people “fakes”. Very tough and brave. Whatever.
I rated your comment a plus, before reading the last part…am I the “anonymous internet troll gets off calling people “fakes”. Very tough and brave” your are referring to?
. . . when I began to doubt that I could count on anything, to see that EBIII is still babbling away, making no more sense than he ever has, like this whole nightmare of an election never even happened.
Yes Ernie, if only Katherine Clark would pay more attention to those boarded up factories in BURLINGTON, instead of all those “cultural” issues.
You should have checked out my last post, Ernie, to realize how wrong you are. But don’t ever change. You’re the reminder of a happier time
This is why we have President Trump? 62 million sexists who wouldn’t vote for Hillary because she’s a woman. Is that it petr?
God help us all.
Ernie, not your best post. So people can’t fight for what they believe because why again? Sorry, this is dumb. You can say they ran a crappy race, and a crappy primary, but not on board with people showing that they will fight for their rights.
that was pretty easy to understand. Where did you learn to read at one of those Betsy DeVos schools?
can I talk about education, or am I not allowed anymore?
… I think there is fair (sic) proportion of them who are racist. Majority probably both.
Either that or they are all just flat insane.
You tell me: A 70 year old Billionaire who regularly stiffs the help, has impulse control issues, five children from three women, multiple lawsuits, multiple bankruptcies and a worrying opaque relationship to a belligerent antagonist of the United States, who says egregiously racist and does egregiously sexist things. ..
Vs Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton is worse than all that? Really? Because she didn’t say enough about this that and t’other?
That’s your argument?
Anybody who voted for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton is either insane or they are racist and/or sexist. That’s the choice. There ain’t no other.
You. Are. Wrong.
I think Ernie is raising a fair point, although it sometimes gets lost in the somewhat gratuitous (and in my humble opinion, needless) attacks on other commenters. The Democratic Party can stand up for basic human rights for all, and our values, and still present a strong, compelling economic message that focuses on reducing wealth equality and increasing upward mobility. That second part of the message didn’t get nearly enough attention from the Clinton campaign.
Any post-mortem that just focuses on Comey and the Russian hacking scandal and doesn’t include economic issues is going to lead to the wrong answers for the best way forward for Democrats.
Ernie is a sexist who hides behind a pseudonym. It’s no surprise he excoriates Clinton and it’s even less of a surprise that he’s turning his rage to Katherine Clark.
He doesn’t like women. Don’t take my word for it. Nothing is ever really removed from the internet. It’s there for all to see.
As post-mortems go this is a singularly poor one. The attention gotten and given from the Clinton campaign was part of a clear cycle of positive feedback in the form of editorial encomium and popular excitement and many man public pronouncements of both the clear fitness and superior abilities of the candidate in marked, stark and striking contrast with the other candidate. Most everything that Hillary Clinton DID PUBLICLY say was met with clear PUBLIC approval. The word ‘landslide’ was used. Andy Borowitz was writing jokes about how the Republican Party wouldn’t bounce back until 2096. The Republican party itself was bracing for an imminent defeat.
And she lost. And the Republicans took back the Senate. But nobody knew UNTIL the loss was upon us. Everything she said was met with public approval. Every action she undertook was met with public approval. And, yet, she lost and we were all shocked that we didn’t see it coming… We didn’t see it coming because the loss was strictly and solely because of what is said and done in private. Not what was said and done in public.
Why is that, do you think? And why do you think that, had she said something else in public, it would have affected any different an outcome?
I have but two possible responses to this statement. It mirrors other statements others have made and tries to place the onus for losing solely upon the shoulders of Hillary Clinton.
The two, and only two, possible reasons for this are:
— It is itself sexist and is part of the reason Trump won. It buys into the notion of Secretary Clinton as fundamentally flawed because she is a women and thus tries to make her deserving of blame.
— it is stark terror at the helplessness you feel for having been on the shit end of this particular stick. What if — you ask yourself during your midnight trembles — what if Hillary Clinton did absolutely everything right and still lost? What if doing everything right isn’t enough? What will you do if doing everything right isn’t enough?
Either way, it’s very selfish to hazard these statements to the world: they allow you to either elide your own sexism or bury your terror in blaming someone else.
I, for one, am tired of it.
She was flawed because she was arrogant, paranoid, and felt that she was owed the position. She did not fight for it. Nothing in those faults are even remotely connected to her sex and could easily apply to a man.
I ask this as well as I stare with stark terror at Trump in the White House – what if Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee had not conspired to rig the primary in her favor? Would we have still lost with Senator Sanders? Maybe so, maybe not. In the least, going forward, let’s learn from that mistake.
…But they were not applied to a man… specifically the man she ran against… or is it your contention that he, in particular, escapes those exact accusations you’ve just made against her? If not worse?
Let us stipulate that she was flawed. What about her flaws are so egregious that anybody of sound mind is driven straight to the arms of Donald Trump?
If, in fact, we are assuming that flaws are disqualifying, you have to explain why Donald Trumps flaws are so much more acceptable than hers?
You can’t. Not without saying something publicly you probably have no trouble saying privately.
QED.
Again. What about Hillary Clintons shortcomings WITH RESPECT TO THE ECONOMY means Donald Trump is an acceptable alternative? Are you really judging Donald Trumps voters on the same merits, qualities and rationales as you use for Hillary Clinton and those who voted for her?
No. You are not. And I suggest the virulence of your response in continuously asserting this thinnest slice of non-reality, is exactly because you know I am right.
It’s the economy, stupid. While she and her supporters denigrated Bernie Sanders as a “single issue candidate” (kind of like Trump, as a single issue candidate – make America great again-)
Nope. People voted for her on particular and varied issues, each in accordance with their assigned demographic group as defined by the party. Women voted for her because of her stand on women’s rights. The gay community voted because of her stand on gay rights. Minorities voted because of her stand on minority rights, and so on, and so on…
And people voted for Trump because they were concerned about
You ought to look up “projection”…..
… Trump denigrated EVERYBODY. You want to make Hillary Clintons purported denigration mean more than Trumps demonstrated denigration. If Hillary Clinton (or by proxy in her supporters, which is not actual a germane part of this discussion) by denigrating people turned voters off… why does that specific charge not redound to Donald Trump? Secretary Clinton purportedly denigrates. Donald Trump actually and actively denigrates. But Hillary Clinton, according to you, has to be the one to pay the price for denigrating. Donald Trump, on the other hand, not only pays not a price for doing exactly what Clinton is purported to do, but ACTUALLY — according to you — REAPS the BENEFITS of her flaws… which are magnified in him…
Yeah, that makes sense…
He never denigrated them. He knew they liked ball caps and crude behavior. He delivered. Hillary and the Democrats (and the Republicans who lost to Trump) all ignored them, laughed at their ball caps, told them they were poor because they were “unskilled’ or “uneducated”, even though their parents did well in the past with the same education and skills.
We have Trump because our party has continued to ignore the working class, apart from mocking it.
… more people, in exactly that position, voted for Hillary Clinton. There is nothing about that position that required them to reject Hillary Clinton in any way close to the manner you claim. Most of them did not. Those who did reject Hillary Clinton embraced a candidate who has all her faults and worse. ‘Ball caps’ and ‘crude behavior’ is even more condescending and yes denigrating, if you would pause to think about it, coming from a New York Billionaire who, with regularity, stiffs the working class help at every chance he gets.
Your rationale is exploded. Anger at the economy is a cover story for anger at something for which utterances can’t be made.
Until you do, I’ve got nothing to say and no where to go with you and your adoration of Hillary Clinton for reasons I may never understand.
… since I don’t adore Hillary Clinton. I adore my wife. I adore my children. I have a niece who manages to be adorable despite her resemblance to my brother but I don’t adore Hillary Clinton. I am a scientist and in the same way that I don’t find global climate change a problem because I enjoy and adore more ice in Antarctica… I don’t find Donald Trump problematic because I adore Hillary Clinton.
That you think my defense of what is, and my refutation of what you wish to believe, has anything to do with ‘adoration’ is a spurious attempt to undermine my argument. Hmm.. So, maybe, I understand you so much more than you understand me.
Was it the deregulating of the banks, the commodities markets? Was it NAFTA and the kick in the crotch that it delivered to the working class? Was it welfare reform that helped to shame a class of people that Hillary referred to as deadbeats? Was it Bill’s treatment of women in his employ? Was it his plans to begin privatizing social security?
I’m just dying to know, from a scientific approach, you know…
… but, in contrast with the unacceptably appalling Donald Trump, why would you even feel the need to ask? I’ll eat vegetables I don’t like before I’ll eat shit. It’s really just that simple
You found both to he unappealing and so you voted for the one that to you, was not as unappealing as the other. That’s how we lost. People found Trump’s statements and behavior to be unappealing but they liked his economic message. At the same time, they felt the that Clinton’s statements and behaviors were not offensive, but they did not like her economic message. In either case, you and they (and I) held our nose and voted for one or the other.
I found one to acceptable. I found the other to be appalling. That, taken together, does not equal “you found both to be unappealing.” It minimizes what I find acceptable and dismisses what is appalling. Don’t do that.
Furthermore, I don’t accept that the one candidate was not objectively appalling — that is to say appalling wholly apart from my judgement on the matter — and which should, therefore, have disqualified him in the eyes of the vast majority of the electorate. This was the clear narrative that held right up until election night.
You act as though it is a, more or less, straightforward transaction. You act as though people voted for Trump despite the wholesale shredding of every norm, political, legal and cultural, including the norm — which you definitively hold to — of public approbation of sexist and racist behavior and statements.
This is clearly not the case. They voted for Trump exactly and precisely because he willfully and maliciously violated those norms: Not despite his behavior… Because his behavior. They didn’t like the norms of not being publicly racist and he trashed it. They rewarded him for that. They don’t like the norms of not publicly bragging about groping women and he wholly upended that.
Nor does the simple, simplistic phrase, ‘economic message’ give Trump the pass you think it does: his economic message is underpinned by his racist message: build a wall to keep the rapist mexicans out, and by the way, that’ll save your job… might, in fact be appealing to some… racists. Ban Muslims is similar. Bully the rest of the world into doing what we want? No different then bully them pesky women into compliance. Black people, whattya got to lose? Trumps economic message is of a piece with his racist message.
Asked what you found appealing about the Clintons and your reply was
And I agree.
Which is, decidedly NOT the same thing as “unappealing.” On the spectrum from unappealing to appealing, the phrase ‘nothing in particular’ suggests neither like nor dislike. And, in fact, my response was intended to take the focus AWAY from Hillary Clinton and unto the decidedly unappealing and demonstrably appalling nature of her electoral opponent. I don’t have to gin up any kind or enthusiasm, whatsoever, for Hillary Clinton to know, to a certainty, that Donald Trump is simply unacceptable.
No. You don’t. You want to assume a rapport so that I can fairly be tar’d with the brush of your disdain for her. But I reject that.
Hillary Clinton is an acceptable politician. Rejecting Hillary Clinton, out of hand, is not an acceptable position. Rejecting Hillary Clinton IN FAVOR of the clearly unacceptable Donald Trump is a monstrous act. Attempting to justify it is furthering the monstrosity.
…although I too might have said “nothing in particular” to the question of what I find appealing to indicate that it was not one thing, but the total package. If I had to design a candidate from scratch with the best combination of qualifications, positions on issues, and strength of character, I could have hardly done better than Hillary Clinton.
Dear God, Arrogant and Paranoid is what he was called on a GENTEEL day.
…but the complaint and frustration for some of us is that voters didn’t seem to care.
… they were worried about their pocketbooks, and Trump convinced them that their family’s economic future would be better were he POTUS.
Manners and fairness matter, but they matter less when you’re afraid of losing your job or not getting enough hours in the next pay period to make the mortgage payment.
(and I doubt I’m alone in this)?
I feel VERY economically insecure, but would never vote for a DUMB candidate (or for that matter non-DUMB Republicans, whose policies I know aren’t likely to help and probably even hurt).
And a Democratic State Committeeman to boot. Most people have far lower access to information or awareness of what’s going on. When you muddle the message with ten messages as Clinton did, you make it harder to reach those voters.
I don’t recall anyone doubting Obama’s committment to civil rights or economic fairness when all he ran on was “change”, easy to digest after eight years of garbage. Nobody accused “osama dead/gm alive” as being sexist or inconsiderate. Apparently “it’s the economy stupid” is now sexist-even though it elected the first Democrat after 12 years in the wilderness in 1992. Swing voters vote with their heart and their gut, not their heads. Ideological voters sort themselves into parties, the rest muddle through and change the channel to something else.
There’s already been a comment using STFU deleted today; let’s try to be civil.
Trump is the master of acting entitled. Now it happens that I personally think HRC deserved the presidency more than anyone in several cycles, but I never got the entitled vibe from HER.
NIXON — I cannot tell the truth.
DUMPF — I cannot tell the difference.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
…for reasons passing understanding, who held her to a higher or different standard on account of her gender.
BUT, with a male candidate who lost …
… and tell me how it’s not their fault that they lost.
It is ALWAYS the candidate’s fault when they lose. This is not a criticism of HRC, it is just an iron law. Every losing candidate has only one person to blame.
And its corollary is: Every winner has many people to thank.
… Al Gore. He used to be the next President of the United States. Derp.
Honestly. You’re making a fool of yourself trying to defend an indefensible position.
Politics is not mechanics. There is no certain lever, gearing, nor input/output function that guarantees a victory. A candidate can do everything right, and still lose. People don’t want to admit that, because it scares them, but it’s the truth.
Being ‘reality based’ hurts sometimes, donnit?
I am not going to take your bait, petr.
I answered. I didn’t want to, but I thought you deserved the respect of an answer since you bothered to ask what I thought was a deliberate question. I’m sorry you don’t like the answer. But you have to have at least considered the possibility, when you asked, that the answer would be one not to your liking.
I do think you are trying to defend an indefensible position. I apologize for the use of the word ‘fool.’ It was not intended as an insult, but as a warning and word to the a wise.
Sorry but I don’t think it’s sincere. You’re going to call me (or someone else) a fool before the sun sets.
It is Al Gore’s fault he lost. His lost HIS HOME STATE.
…And Mike Dukakis won his home state. Winning your home state is not determinitive of the wider outcome.
There is always something more, or something different, a candidate could have done. That doesn’t mean they would have won if they did it.
I repeat: politics is not mechanics.
. . . which, if you follow the logic of some people on this thread, should have guaranteed a landslide against an elitist like Bush who actually talked like an elitist.
What happened to “good jobs at good wages” ? Willie Horton.
There are groups that supported the Democrats last election. The absolutely worst thing the Democrats could do is to treat the people who voted for them like an embarrassment, or to tell them “We’re on your side, we just don’t want you to be so noticeable.”
just curious
Funny how when Elizabeth Warren made ending income inequality the centerpiece of her first campaign nobody here accused her of forgetting about women and minorities. I’m getting really tired of the argument that sexism and racism are the only explanation for why the voters rejected the neoliberal consensus on globalization. It limits the parameters of what policies and politics are possible on the left. You can wage a campaign against income inequality without automatically supporting bigotry-our own fucking Senator beat a proto-Trump running that strategy.
You seem to forget that one of the loudest voices attacking Ms. Clinton here repeatedly attacked the Massachusetts law making gender-based wage discrimination illegal.
I’m not sure I’m following your argument. To me, “income inequality” refers to gender- or race-based income discrimination. It is different from attacking income concentration. I see no way that one can oppose ending gender- and wage-based income discrimination without at least implicitly supporting gender- or race-based bigotry.
are you?
I’m not talking about you.
Warren recognizes the issues are separate but equally important, from
a Washington Post article summarizing her 2016 stump speech:
I think that’s a centerpiece that Trump rhetorically stole to great effect while Clinton made the former priorities the centerpiece of her rhetoric. That doesn’t mean Hillary’s policies weren’t better or that Trump is a liar-hers were and he is-it does mean that Warrens approach is the one to follow.
No one would accuse her of retreating to the center on any of these social issues, but she makes the economic arguments a centerpiece.
Put another way. The average swing voter doesn’t care one way or the other about any of the hot button issues. But say you’re putting money in his pocket or a job in her future and she will vote for a socially liberal candidate that emphasizes the economic issues they care about. Just as many of them voted for a half hearted socially conservative candidate that more directly made this pitch last fall.
So not sure who that was directed at.
…johntmay, who seems to think the only way to equalize wages by gender is to the disadvantage of men.
I think he is being a purer Marxist than us by saying such programs divide the working class against itself. I got into a Facebook argument with someone saying opposing the TPP is an act of economic nationalist against international worker solidarity. It was rather hard to follow.
I wonder how we shift the conversation around here to moving forward instead of rehashing the same argument into it’s fourth month. I don’t want to continue contributing to the implosion of this blog which used to have far more commentators and traffic.
…that a losing candidate absolutely and always only has him or herself to blame. There are always plenty of factors and circumstances beyond their control.
Bernie Sanders can’t be blamed for circumstances beyond his control. Really, how on earth could he possibly win an alleged honest election when party insiders, in direct conflict with party rules and the mood of the electorate, were clearly against him and out of his reach? You have a point there, and an upvote.
…maybe you can prove that his vote totals were a direct result of party action.
and you
…that showed a DIRECT connection between the party and HRC. Did they stuff the ballot boxes? Did they cut ads for Hillary? Did they donate party money to Hillary? Did they allow her to use party resources, but not him? All you have is a few staffers expressing their biases in emails intended to remain private, but NO actual action!
John is entitled to his views and we are to ours. Suffice to say, the DNC won’t be lead in such a tone deaf fashion again and we are on the only team left standing capable of beating this.
I think that the mere act of becoming a candidate requires that you accept that the loss is yours and yours alone, and the victory is shared among many.
We can observe that a Republican candidate for mayor of Boston ain’t going to win, and we wouldn’t call that candidate a poor candidate just because he lost. Still, the loss is his and his alone.
BMG is supposed to be the place for civil, open discussion and you go right to calling me either a sexist or a selfish fraud. Not much different – minus the swears, I guess – from what a lot of people accuse Ernie of doing.
I believe the Clinton was a far better candidate then the media and the experts give her credit for, and performed far above expectations. Other than the “deplorable” line, I don’t think she made many mistakes. Her debate performances, under intense pressure and with unrealistic expectations, were pretty much flawless. We did not lose because of the candidate.
I do think we lost in large part because the campaign let Clinton down. They made bad strategic decisions and failed to learn the lessons from the Democratic Primary. Not campaigning in the General Election in states that were crucial to her victory bordered on malpractice. And taking Trump too lightly, when the underlying dynamics of the election worked in his favor, was a big mistake. (To address your “Monday Morning Quarterback” comments, I wrote a column in the Boston Herald in December, 2015 that talked about all these issues and warned about underestimating Trump). I also think the campaign reaction to Comey missed a big opportunity to turn that issue around at the end of the campaign.
I don’t believe it’s selfish to “hazard these statements” – if we don’t figure out what happened and reach the right conclusions, we are likely to make the same mistakes again.
That’s not exactly what I did. In particular I make no assertions of fraud, whatsoever. To the extent that ‘open discussion’ is at odds with ‘civil’ I view your attempt to equate my writings with anyone else here as little more than a cheap shot. I honestly feel what I wrote. I wrote it. ‘Civil’ in this instance would go beyond politesse and into deception.
You said, above, “That second part of the message didn’t get nearly enough attention from the Clinton campaign.” which suggested you think Clinton bears some measure of blame for her loss. You have since expanded upon that view, which is very well. I, personally, think the initial statement sounded just like blaming the victim, which is chapter and verse from the sexists playbook. Maybe you aren’t a sexist. But that, to me, seemed like the employment of sexist logic. And I said so, in the spirit of open, if not civil, discussion.
You’re not listening. It is entirely possible that no mistakes were made. None. And still we lost. This is my second point. The major mistake you’re making is automatically assuming somebody made a mistake. Politics is not engineering. If a plane falls out of the sky and a catastrophe ensues… it is because somebody made a mistake: either the pilot who flew it or the engineer who designed it or the welder who built it… There is a clear, unimpeachable, line between doing something wrong and a catastrophe. This not true for politics. There is no straight line from an action to a consequence. A candidate can do everything well and still lose…. because there is no determinism in politics.
I really do think that people are scared of the notion that any given candidate could do everything right and still lose. I know that thought scares the dickens out of me. It makes me feel actual despair. I have to remind myself to hope against it. But that hope isn’t going to take the form of denying what I fear.
I’ve been working on political campaigns since 1990, and I’ve yet to see a campaign that made no mistakes. I think it’s very clear that mistakes were made on both sides in 2016, but that the mistakes made by the Clinton campaign were more harmful and, I would argue, more preventable. I believe we lost a very winnable race to an unbelievably flawed candidate (Trump) because the Clinton campaign – not the candidate – made serious errors in strategic judgement. I want to make sure we learn from them so that we don’t repeat them in the future – the stakes are way too important.
If you disagree and feel no mistakes were made and that even a flawless campaign would have lost to Trump, I disagree but respect your opinion.
… were they all losses? The contention is, in fact, determinism: that avoiding “mistakes” WILL avoid a loss. I’m certain that contained in the history of all your campaigns where mistakes were made some of them were…surprise… victories. In this we can see that the relationship between “mistakes” and the outcome is not causal.
The flip side of the notion that a candidate can do everything right and still lose is that a candidate can make many ‘mistakes’ and still win! This might even be a scarier perspective!
In the recent instance, at least publicly, Hillary Clinton was saying and doing everything right. It really does appear, however, that the electorate made the decision not on public utterances but on private ones: on complely unexpressed, non-public, sub rosa feelings they elected a candidate who actively and actually expressed clear disdain for long held norms of speech and conduct. They did this because they share his disdain. If, in the course of public feedback the Clinton Campaign acted on polls that were publicly approving of Clinton, how were they to get an inkling of the private utterances… ? The very real, but publicly un-expressed, rapport between Trump and the electorate? And don’t tell me it’s not there. Election night would not be half the shock it was without…
I am not being a bad Patriots fan by saying they had a lousy first quarter against Houston in the first round of the playoffs and had to turn it around. You bet they studied that quarter since they came out swinging this Sunday.
Similarly, we just lost a winnable election to Trump and it’s important to figure out why so we can avoid repeating these mistakes in the future. Blaming the voters is what poor campaign managers do, the fault lies not within our stars by within ourselves. All of us. Our movement can’t continue having one way circular conversations-our presence has to be felt where it’s never been known.
It seems to me that having the head of the FBI (under President of the candidates own party) announce ten days before the election that maybe the candidate has illegal emails on the computer of a suspected child-sex predator who happens to be married to the candidates closest aid and the FBI needs to check that out is an October surprise line no other. I’m very curious how you think that could have been turned around in that tiny window of time.
Here’s my take on the Comey issue. When Comey announced over the summer that they were not proceeding with the investigation and that what Clinton did was not a crime, Democrats and the Clinton campaign showered him with praise – talking about what a straight-shooter he was and how non-partisan / professional he was in that position.
When he announced eleven days before the election that he was re-opening the investigation, these same Democrats and the Clinton campaign did a 180 and questioned his integrity and his partisanship. It just wasn’t credible, and I think most voters saw through it.
What if instead Clinton had come out at a press conference, said that she disagreed with Comey’s decision but respected his office and his professionalism, said she was not worried because she had nothing to hide, asked people to allow him to do his job and follow all leads, and said that she was confident, as she always had been, that a thorough and honest investigation would conclude once again that nothing she had done was against the law? This would have shown voters she had nothing to hide, would have been seen by many as a stateswoman-like gesture and one worthy of the presidency. And it may have persuaded voters who were making last-minute decisions – many of whom polls show broke for Trump.
Just my two cents, but I believe that campaigns have a greater ability to move votes, especially if they react in the right way at key moments in the campaign. Maybe this wouldn’t have changed the results, but I do think it would have persuaded more voters than the “attack the messenger we just praised over the summer” strategy the campaign chose to employ.
…for the Clinton operation to notice a problem with so little time left. Until the polls started to close on election night they thought they had this and with good reason. As for Comey, yes, we praised him when we thought he did the right thing and criticized him when we thought he messed up. I don’t see that as an irreconcilable contradiction, but rather different assessments about different decisions at different times.
Too many Democrats living in bubbles. Too many wishful thinking pollsters living in bubbles. Too many working class voters living and voting outside the bubbles. “Not enough time”? Yeah, I agree. When you make so many mistakes, time becomes a very big issue. The Titanic did not have enough time to avoid the iceberg. Proper planning and a dose of humility might have saved both.
time, Christopher. They do internal polls all the time, and probably get the results more quickly.
…who generally knows what he’s talking about, and no, johntmay, polling done well by reputable firms as these were do not constitute “bubbles”. I don’t think even internal polls would have caught the post-Comey shift quickly enough to redirect resources while some voters were already going to the polls.
How long are we going to argue about the primary and election? Executive orders and legislation are being filed written by the Koch brothers to deregulate the chemical and fossil fuel industry, privatize NPR and PBS (no doubt to weaken any critical Media), pass strict voter ID, and another one that keeps slipping my tongue-oh yeah Repealing Obamacare!
This cabinet is the dim and dullest in modern memory and aside from some tough questions, confirmations seem to be breezing through. The neocon cave on Tillerson is the nail in the coffin to any kind of resistance from the right. It will be up to all of us-the Clintonites and Sanderistas to defeat these bastards and protect the public.
How we best do that is an important and critical question, and it’s critical we learn from our mistakes. But no-Hillary didn’t rig the convention and no-Bernie’s run didn’t cost her the general. We can agree a lot of sexists and racists feel far more empowered than the did before November, while many who feel economically disenfranchised mistakenly enabled them. Both huge problems that will require unity to solve.
The economy is doing just fine. We have medium to long range problems with providing jobs, but it’s not the economy that’s the problem. It’s the politics that have brought us to this point.
Twenty to thirty years ago, working class voters decided to redistribute income upwards. “Working class voters” took chump change so the rich could get most of the nation’s income. “Working class voters” were more worried about poor people cheating on welfare. They were more worried about getting tough on crime. They got bought off by penny ante tax cuts and politicians who promised to act on their class resentments.
I’m getting tired of all this whining about the white working class. They are as responsible for their situation as anyone else. It takes a sizable dose of liberal elitism to ignore their responsibility for their fate and blame everyone else. They may feel sorry for themselves. Everyone feels sorry for themselves. Your feeling sorry for them isn’t going to help. They still aren’t going to like you. Until they get real about their situation, their lives aren’t going to get better.
JTM is doing what needs to be done: reaching out to people, talking to people. I don’t think he’ll find much solidarity in the mythical white working class–these people don’t see themselves as anything other than middle class–but he will find solidarity with individual people. The key is reaching out to people, talking about the issues, sharing experiences.
Working class voters decided to redistribute political power upwards. They took Reagan at his word that government was the problem. Today, many still do. Trump means to take care of that. I had a sliver of hope that he would do the right thing, but in only days, that hope is gone.
Which gets us to this: How do we re-claim the majority of working class voters?
Hint: Not by calling them racists, bigots, misogynists….
I think we treat working class voters like people. I’m highly educated. I have a salaried job with decent, though increasingly costly, benefits. My family income is less than many of my so-called working class neighbors.
I’m not angry at them. No reason they shouldn’t make as much or more than I do, but I don’t romanticize them as I think some of our liberal brethren do. In my admittedly small pond, I have had some influence on people by doing a few things:
1) respecting their opinion and their entitlement to it
2) providing them with information for them to make the best decision for themselves (not necessarily what I want them to do)
3) being honestly partisan without being deceptive or combative
From what you’ve written, it sounds like you are doing much the same thing. We need to organize, but I’m not sure how to do that. In my own town, I have some ideas, but people aren’t going to get organized by having meetings. They need to start with a project of some sort. But we need to rebuild community. Anything that depolarizes the electorate is good.
After 30 to 40 years of movement conservatism, people have gotten selfish and intellectually lazy. The Republicans have gotten to the point where they change reality to fit their beliefs. Trump is only an extreme example. Ryan’s budget and fruitless attempts to repeal Obamacare are examples. Democrats need voters to be informed enough so they can decide what they think is best.
I have never heard a good reason for electing Trump. I suppose there are some, but most people had stupid fucking reasons that ignored what Trump clearly was and failed to balance the risks with the hoped for benefits. Until voters take more responsibility for their votes, and the results, we’re fucked. Voters need to step up.
And I haven’t romanticized them, I’ve been upfront that they made a selfish and ill informed vote. That’s precisely the problem. People don’t know their neighbor let alone care about him or her anymore. They don’t care about civics or civic engagement-many don’t have the time but a lot more have the time but lack the interest. That kind of project will take a much longer time but will pay off with more progressive policies and ultimately a better democracy.
Stuff like getting money out of politics, killing the electoral college, non partisan gerrymandering and maybe expanding the House should be a slam dunk. Making it easier to vote should be a slam dunk. The fact that these have become partisan issues speaks volumes about how unhealthy our democracy is and how too many voters disregard it. But it starts with your town, your block, and your neighbors. NH can wait two or four years-we got a lot of outreach to do in Massachusetts.
How about non-partisan redistricting? Redistricting has to be done from time to time one way or the other. Gerrymandering always suggests nefarious motives, sometimes even non-partisan, or perhaps more accurately bipartisan, ones.
A rhetorical slip up.
The Democratic Elites are not stupid people. Mainly products of Ivy League educations, they’re some of the smartest on our planet.
Most (but not all!) are also raging Neoliberals who believe, or at least are OK with, no-holds-barred human Darwinism. They want to win, for themselves and for their families. And they do win for themselves and their families, by serving the interests of the wealthy and the powerful; they serve us up on a plate, and are richly rewarded.
The ClintonDNC’s focus on social issues is purely a ruse to distract the suckers in the 99% from their awful economic agenda. Why else would Brock’s online trolls scream “Misogynist! Racist!” at any Democrat who dared to bring up the importance of reversing the 99%’s decades-long economic plummet? Pay no attention to the ugly truth behind the curtain – if you make any attempt, we’ll gaslight your ass.
And here we are. President Trump, solidly-Republican Congress, and no price to be paid by the Neoliberal Democratic Elites.
Basically the divide is between people that supported a candidate who actually excited independents as well as Democrats and who brought thousands of new members into the party. But it’s easier to blame him instead of their candidate, propose running a vindictive challenge against him, and somehow blame those of us on the ground warning about a populist insurgence that we are part of the problem. Also it’s fun to see racial justice debased as a crutch to use against the populist liberals by the very beoliberals who backed stop and frisk, three strikes and welfare reform.
I can say from personal experience it is impossible to build a successful third party in today’s climate with today’s rules. I was more than happy to come home to my party during this time of transition hoping it would get its act together-but it has to recognize why it lost. Failing to embrace populism as to be at the top of the list.
…at least on this site blaming Bernie Sanders for Hillary Clinton’s loss, certainly no talk of challenging him. Sanders was a powerful surrogate for Clinton in the general, and the fact that some voters seemed to ignore his surrogacy in favor of someone who was a fraud from the word go, is all the more reason I can’t let Trump voters off the hook so easily.
I have now seen the 50 state strategy post wherein it is proposed to challenge Sanders, and I feel the same way jconway does as to the merits of that one.
There was a lot of that during the primary and Dave from Hvad-a great guy doing great work offsite-had a rather silly recent post saying the same thing. And I feel like that’s the proxy argument, no?
Generally the Bernie camp is saying “it’s the economy” while the Clinton camp
Is saying “it’s racism and sexism” when the reality is it’s both. Nobody here is doubting that a racist and sexist candidate won running a racist and sexist campaign. Period. Where we disagree is what was the primary cause
of his success and her failure.
I don’t think she talked about jobs enough which is the one thing all his issues link back to. Nation build here so we have jobs here. Build walls and erect tariffs to bring jobs back here. Ease financial and environmental regulations to build more jobs. Make America Work Again is really what it means, and we have to concede that the Midwest firewall has been hammered by globalization and deunionization and our party did little about either.
The first bill the Democrats caved on was card check, then we asked unions to give up their health plans to make ACA work, then Obama flip flopped on marriage equality but was nowhere to be found when protestors occupied the statehouse in Madison to stop Walker or in Michigan to stop Snyder. His second term agenda was devoted to more free trade and more immigration.
Bernie country in the primary was Trump country in the general. 23 counties in six states flipped from single digits over Romney to double digits against Clinton. We give Trump too much credit when we say they voted for him and his fascist agenda, they just felt her agenda was more of the same jobless recovery and they wanted something new even if it was something risky. The sooner we get this the sooner we can win.
So the two pronged approach is essential. We have no power right now other than civil disobedience so march away! At all the bad policies. But when election time rolls again in the midterms hit him on jobs, hit him on failing to deliver, hit him on making health care expensive again. Call his tariffs the trump tax and blame him for rising costs. Blame him for inflation. And see what we can do.
or start at third party.
The folks running our party will never, ever, be successful (for the 99%). They worked to rig the primaries, then lost to Donald Trump for chrissakes.
Donald #%*&ing Trump!
Clinton won more popular votes and more pledged delegates-even if I’d agree the super delegates really stacked the deck early and the fundraising was difficult for Bernie until after NH. But he was then on an equal footing in terms of airtime and funding and the debates helped him even more. There is no doubt in my mind that Clinton was the more capable president, but Bernie was far more capable as a candidate and his message suits the current climate much better.
But the torch passes on. Let’s see if Harris, Gilibrand, Kloubuchar or a governor takes on this mantle. Who knows-there could be a state senator out there who’s inspired to run for office by Bernie and is viable in a few years time not unlike my old neighbor in Hyde Park.
…sitting with fellow Democrats, one in particular who was either employed by MIT or somehow connected to it. He kept insisting that education, improved skills, and training were key to reversing wealth disparity in the “global economy”, yada, yada, yada…
I asked him a simple, basic question: What should a fair wage be for retail clerks, coffee shop workers, hotel housekeepers, and that entire spectrum of people that will not be replaced by automation, do not require a college education, or rare skills that few can master, and are no doubt needed by us all?
His reply was in step with Republicans in many ways. To him, those are transitional occupations and that the people in those occupations (in his words), “better themselves and find more satisfying work'”. In other words, they need to be more like him.
We DO need to encourage and offer better education and access thereto, but that is a long term solution. We ALSO need to see to it that every job pays a living wage in the meantime.
And just about the highest level of income/wealth inequality in the nation.
Yeah, I believe that making education available to all is a basic right and I see education as more than an economic tool. Education enhances the quality of ones life and need so be seen in that light. Schools are cutting back on music, art, languages…..because those are not “job focused”.
We need a sustaining wage for all in some manner. Tax credits, basic income, a higher minimum wage. I have no argument against people who want to work for more, that’s their option. Me? I prefer to work for enough to enjoy a simple life.