2020 Election Thread!!!!!!!!!

[Sommerswerd]

Closest gore had was people voting for Ralph Nader. But Ralph Nader was never a democrat to begin with, and there will always be a fringe minority voting for third parties in every election.

You say "But" as if that makes him different from Bernie. Remember that Bernie wasn't a Democrat either.

 

[caketastydelish]

Yes, he was. Whether Bernie was a democrat "for long enough" is disputable, but he was definitely one during his campaign and leading up to it.

The Bernie or bust people (somewhere around 25% of berners were a part of it) made up a more significant percentage of potential voters than the Ralph Nader people.

Anyway, another reason why I don't like this "Bernie people cost Hillary the election and the Bernie or bust stole it away from her" is it implies what we feared all along.


That Hillary (and her fanbase) thought was entitled to those votes, or entitled to win the election for that matter. If you are a candidate running for president, votes are something you earn. If someone didn't vote for you, that is your fault for not voting for you, not their fault for failing to see how great you are. I can run for office right now (at least on the local level, surely) but if nobody votes for me (or a minority and I still lose the election) it is my fault, and my fault alone.

This is a free country where people have many choices, and the choice is not just vote for the D or the R, even though some of you would obviously prefer that. They can vote for an independent, they can do a write in, and they can not vote at all, and all of this is as valid as anything else. People can (and should) make their own choices.

To amplify this more, I was disgusted by the way Hilary was talking a week or two before the actual votes were cast. She was definitely talking like a president elect, like she was entitled to win, she was going to win, and she knew it... before the votes started being cast. That type of behavior definitely hurt her more than helped her. You should NEVER act that way, even if you're sure you're going to win, and even if you think you're 100 times better than the opposition. This kind of behavior makes you come across as arrogant and entitled. That was especially dangerous for her because many people already thought that of her anyway.

 

[Lexicus]

I can't think of any Democratic primary to general election in my lifetime with any equivalent to bernie or bust. Hell, even the Republican side probably hasn't had anything like it. Did (Bill) Clinton have anything like it? No. Did Gore or Kerry? Closest gore had was people voting for Ralph Nader. But Ralph Nader was never a democrat to begin with, and there will always be a fringe minority voting for third parties in every election. And there are also fringe minorities from the conservative side as well (Libertarian, Constitution party, etc).

John Kerry and Obama didn't have an equivalent either. So yes, the Bernie or Bust did make a difference.

You notice that none of this actually supports the central contention that Bernie or Bust lost Hillary the election. As I said, I believe that most if not all of the Bernie-or-Busters were never going to vote for Hillary no matter what. I don't believe her problem was the Bernie-or-Busters and would prefer not to see the electoral strategy in the next election designed to draw these people in, as I believe that would entail alienating the voters of color who are the Democrats' real hope in 2018 and 2020. As I have said fairly consistently since the election I think the Democrats' best hope is to try to drive turnout in this group, as one can point to the numbers in the key states and see that the margin of Trump's victory was smaller than the Obama-Clinton turnout difference in just a few heavily African-American cities. I think that this is because a lot of those people were rightfully wary of Clinton given her history of "helping to construct the modern prison-industrial complex" to paraphrase @Traitorfish

he was definitely one during his campaign and leading up to it.

By what definition? He was in the primary, but I don't believe he ever actually joined the Democrats and to this day, AFAIK, remains an independent Senator.

and the choice is not just vote for the D or the R, even though some of you would obviously prefer that.

I consider this to be an unfair characterization of my position, which is that those people who consider reducing harm done to real people more important than their egos should suck it up and vote (D).

 

[caketastydelish]

You notice that none of this actually supports the central contention that Bernie or Bust lost Hillary the election. As I said, I believe that most if not all of the Bernie-or-Busters were never going to vote for Hillary no matter what.

I don't believe her problem was the Bernie-or-Busters and would prefer not to see the electoral strategy in the next election designed to draw these people in, as I believe that would entail alienating the voters of color who are the Democrats'

Bernie Sanders gave a speech in Seattle where he was rudely interupted and even kicked off his own stage by the black lives matter people. That was very gracious of him. If they tried that baloney on me, I'd give every one of them a free trip to the hospital. But these 'voters of color' had their chance and screwed it up. Now they can suck it up and go cry to their mommas.

As I have said fairly consistently since the election I think the Democrats' best hope is to try to drive turnout in this group, as one can point to the numbers in the key states and see that the margin of Trump's victory was smaller than the Obama-Clinton turnout difference in just a few heavily African-American cities. I think that this is because a lot of those people were rightfully wary of Clinton given her history of "helping to construct the modern prison-industrial complex" to paraphrase @Traitorfish

Then why did they support Hillary in the primary, in the first place? Just like them, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

By what definition? He was in the primary, but I don't believe he ever actually joined the Democrats and to this day, AFAIK, remains an independent Senator.

Did Ralph Nader run in the democratic primary?

I consider this to be an unfair characterization of my position, which is that those people who consider reducing harm done to real people more important than their egos should suck it up and vote (D).

You yourself should suck and get/give D. But how many would be interested? The people who will 'get harmed' have nobody but themselves to blame. May they also 'get harmed' in 2020, unless things change.

 

[Lexicus]

You yourself should suck and get/give D.

C'mon, man, I'm trying to make actual arguments and this is how you respond? This is beneath you.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Anyway, another reason why I don't like this "Bernie people cost Hillary the election and the Bernie or bust stole it away from her" is it implies what we feared all along.

This whole argument is a strawman. Please quote me one single time saying that the Berniebros etc cost Hillary the election. I've never said or even implied that.

I have steadfastly maintained that Hillary cost herself the election. Not blacks, not Hispanics, not Berniebros... Hillary and her campaign lost, mainly because they focused on moderate Republicans instead of focusing on Democrats.

Then why did they support Hillary in the primary, in the first place? Just like them, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

If by "they" you mean "black people", I understand your confusion. Let me explain...black people almost never get a candidate we like. For us its almost always choosing between a turd sandwich and a snot burger. That's hard for a person who isn't black to get, I understand, but pointing to Hillary's faults and saying "So why'd you guys vote for her if you don't like her?" is like asking an inmate "Well if you don't like the food in jail, why do you eat it?" ... because the alternative is worse, and we're very accustomed to picking between two piss-poor alternatives.

And as for "crying to their mommas"... please... it sucks for most black people regardless of which white dude wins the election... crying? About what? Life?

 

[caketastydelish]

It appears you both have fallen for the trolling yet again. I apologize.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Apology accepted. On what post did the trolling begin? It's pretty unclear... was it the post about Obama's second term (post #493)?

 

[metalhead]

This whole argument is a strawman. Please quote me one single time saying that the Berniebros etc cost Hillary the election. I've never said or even implied that.

I have steadfastly maintained that Hillary cost herself the election. Not blacks, not Hispanics, not Berniebros... Hillary and her campaign lost, mainly because they focused on moderate Republicans instead of focusing on Democrats.

The Comey letter cost Hillary the election. Without it she almost certainly makes it across the finish line as the winner. To the extent she couldn't control that, or the fact she was born with lady parts, I'm not so sure it's her campaign's fault.

The loud voices on the left spent months saying basically, "We'll never like or trust you no matter what you do or say." So would continuing to woo them have worked? One could argue she chose the path that was more authentic for her. The strategy didn't work, but that doesn't mean it was the wrong one.

Her campaign's worst sin was focusing on Trump's awful statements and behavior as opposed to his history of abusing working people as the main line of attack. I still can't figure that one out. Americans may be weirdly uptight, but it's not like "grab her by the p____" caused 200 million monocles to simultaneously drop into brandy or tea.

 

[Lexicus]

The Comey letter cost Hillary the election.

Once again, the simple fact is that with such a small margin of victory, it is impossible to isolate the actual 'cause' of defeat. 538 made a strong case to blame the Comey letter but one can always ask why the election was close enough that the Comey letter mattered.

I prefer to focus on the things that the Democrats can change next time and say that those things cost Hillary the election, rather than things out of our control like the Comey letter, the racism and sexism of the electorate, and so on.

I will end by pointing out it's sort of ironic that most Democrats would agree that the media contributed massively to Trump's win yet suggestion that the media should perhaps not be run for profit will be met with horror by these same people.

 

[caketastydelish]

Apology accepted. On what post did the trolling begin? It's pretty unclear... was it the post about Obama's second term (post #493)?

Post 506.

 

[metalhead]

Once again, the simple fact is that with such a small margin of victory, it is impossible to isolate the actual 'cause' of defeat. 538 made a strong case to blame the Comey letter but one can always ask why the election was close enough that the Comey letter mattered.

I prefer to focus on the things that the Democrats can change next time and say that those things cost Hillary the election, rather than things out of our control like the Comey letter, the racism and sexism of the electorate, and so on.

I will end by pointing out it's sort of ironic that most Democrats would agree that the media contributed massively to Trump's win yet suggestion that the media should perhaps not be run for profit will be met with horror by these same people.

The not-for-profit media that we have has the same problem with artificial "fairness" that directs its coverage. It's not so much that for-profit media is awesome, as it is the alternatives seem no better, or worse. The profit motive isn't the primary offender here; nobody was worse at covering the election than the New York Times, and the reason why is not because they were trying to sell more papers.

 

[Lexicus]

The not-for-profit media that we have has the same problem with artificial "fairness" that directs its coverage. It's not so much that for-profit media is awesome, as it is the alternatives seem no better, or worse. The profit motive isn't the primary offender here; nobody was worse at covering the election than the New York Times, and the reason why is not because they were trying to sell more papers.

Artificial fairness is only scratching the surface of the problems with the media coverage of this election and more generally. The fundamental problem is that informed commentary takes a backseat to sensationalist garbage. In a universe where the companies that control media outlets exist essentially to sell advertising space there was no way that Trump would not dominate coverage and thus the narrative with his antics.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The public/consumers have to take some responsibility too... we can't put all the blame on them for feeding us crap if we keep on shoveling it down our mouths and asking for more.

 

[caketastydelish]

For what it's worth to all the people I pissed off in this thread, I've decided I'm going to vote for the democratic candidate in 2020 pretty much no matter who it is, and regardless of what baggage or scandals they may have.

I am nowhere near as left wing as the majority of the forum here, but this has to stop. My political opinion of America is "it's a pendelum that once it swings too far to the left it goes to the right, once it swings to far to the right it goes back to the left, this is how it fixes itself."

We are living in a time now what all kinds of outrageous things going on, including nazis marching down the streets and killing people, and the President of the United States taking the side of the nazis. It can safely be assumed that we are "moved too far to the right". And quite honestly, I've never seen anything like this. I will vote for the democratic candidate in 2020 even though I don't like them very much, because a regime change is very important to me.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I think it was the combination of the two elements of the press that metalhead and Lexicus point out that did us in.

They are driven by ratings, so Trump knew that he could get them to cover him by saying outrageous things. Then they feel obligated to give equal time to "both sides" of any matter, so panels would sit there trying to assign some meaning to some meaningless garbage Trump had uttered. Constant coverage. Endless "controversy." The reality show experience sped up to a daily, hourly pace.

 

[caketastydelish]

I specifically blame CNN the most. I can forgive Fox because Fox is always Fox, and they have the right to be Fox. CNN gave TONS of coverage of Trump's speeches. That is a crap ton of free advertising for his campaign. And yes, to some extent the journalists on CNN did criticize and call him out for being a racist, etc. But any publicity is good publicity (especially for someone like Trump and the shock-value type of campaign he was running). Trump got by far more coverage than anybody during the primaries. Even during the general election they tended to show more of Trump than Hillary. There are a lot of people who are going to vote for whoever they are used to seeing, even if they don't like them. Clinton's strategy (as well as the establishment that wanted her to get elected) was "just shut up and sit in the background, and let Trump destroy himself". That kind of a strategy is far too passive. You should be just as aggressive with him as he is towards you, especially when your side has far more facts, moral high ground, and other decent ammunition than the other side does. "I'm so much less offensive than Trump, therefore I am going to win" is not how it works. Perhaps it should work that way, but it doesn't.

 

[Gori the Grey]

You may not remember, ctd, but a while back I asked whether, if it ever came to that, you would tell us. So thank you.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-elections-again.608818/page-43#post-14691854

Are you willing to elaborate on the Trump actions that have brought you to this point?

 

[caketastydelish]

Openly siding with nazis. Trying to get Muslims banned from their own country. Trying to rewrite the laws in sexual assault court cases, removing good measures that make it illegal for the defense to bring up how many people the victim as slept with. That is one very specific example, but he has done tons of things of this nature which are trying to reverse social progress. It does not appear he was really serious about helping ordinary, blue collar whites even, so he definitely doesn't care about anyone else. Trying to ban transgender soldiers from the military. Refusing to sign the Paris environment/green deal. I could really be here till the cows come home.

 

[danjuno]

I'll google from one of the "thousands" that has so the same definition from top google results.
I don't get any of the same exact definition at all.

Those are all the same thing with different words. Honestly, watching you squirm is just painful.