Why did Trump win? New research by Democrats offers a worrisome answer

Didn't read whole thread. This is an easy one. How Democrats can salvage their party.

1. Start being a political party that addresses people via policy arguments, and not a cynical political machine that hires mentally ill winos to disrupt opposition events. As such, stop running candidates groomed up through machines like Chicago or "Clinton," and start grooming candidates that might be sold as outsiders or moderates.

2. Get better leaders. The fact that anyone could mention Al Franken or Elizabeth Warren and "candidate" in the same sentence demonstrates IMMENSE low awareness. I don't think the party leaders realize just how -repulsive- and slimy average Americans find Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters, the Clintons, and yep, Barack Obama. Get them OUT of your leadership and start over... or lose. Did the new DNC guy say "Right to lifers aren't welcome" or was that just BS. IF he SAID THAT? WTF? Nip that in the bud. The arrogant "we can go around insulting people endlessly" who MAY HAVE voted for us needs to stop from the leadership on down.

3. Stop letting dumbasses in union PR departments and 24 year old women's studies majors (and the guys trying to bed those trolls) design Democrat narratives and platforms... more importantly, stop letting those morons speak for the larger party. It is easy to become politically aware these days and thus much harder to fooled by obvious slant. When people figure out they were lied to they get POd, and they remember that at the voting booth. Yeah, Hillary Clinton can go around and say whatever she wants at an event about common people and then the next day people see some puerile screed about white privilege on Huffington Post? Disconnect.

4. Its own point, start creating and disseminating actual policy messages instead of BS lie narratives people are sick of and can see through. Ditch the "We need a $15 National Minimum Wage" "Free College!" "1% have 50% of the wealth" "raciss, misogyniss" crapola and start talking about finite POLICY. "We should be able to eliminate 20% of federal government waste by doing A, B, C." "We should be able to improve our infrastructure by diverting ABC and doing XYZ instead." "We will do ABC and XYZ." That's what Trump did, and every speech he gave reinforced those policy positions over and over. Democrats tend to pay lip service to policy while running the same old resentment ad campaigns. People aren't buying it any more.

Who'm I kidding, they are done, stick a fork, no way in hell will Democrats do what's necessary, they don't know how because unlike the GOP, they haven't had to EVER reinvent their whole party in response to extinction level event pressure.

 

Okay, seriously? The guy who was elected twice? The guy who was at 59% approval when he left office?

Stop mainlining the partisan blow.

 

Are we really still trying to figure out why Trump won? The Trump victory was an impassibility (much less a Republican come-back after 6 years of obstruction) until the DNC made that impossibility the inevitable out-come. It was everyone from the DNC, to MSM, to ballot-access rules (that worked hard to fight the Trump Presidency) that actually put Trump in office. In 2008 (when we had the housing market crash that cost, on average, 1/3 loss in investments) Obama beat Hillary in the primaries by less than 100,000 votes, but beat Republican candidate John McCain by almost 10 million votes with an electoral college spread of 365/173. But then in 2012 Obama only beat Mitt Romney by just under 5 million votes with an electoral college spread of 332/206. But lets look at those two election to find out what happened to 5 million votes that originally separated Democrats and Republicans.

In 2008 Democrats won 69,456,897 votes compared to Republicans who won 59,934,814 votes. But in 2012 Democrats only won 65,446,032 votes compared to Republicans who won 60,589,084 votes. So really what we have here is roughly 5 million voters that supported Democrats in 2008 didn't vote in 2012 in confirmation of Democrats that they supported in 2008, but Republicans grew their supporters by 1 million. That should have been the first red-flag that Democrat support was slipping. Voters weren't happy, voters weren't seeing a return on their investment. Every campaign promise made never came through (in fact the exact opposite happened). Sure, some of that was due to Republican obstruction, but not all of it. The Republicans didn't support Obama's international drone program (costing $523.9 billion, killing "who ever" which was called a war crime by the International community, and illegal by the US Supreme Court). Obama campaigned on endorsing existing gun laws instead of more gun regulation, it sure wasn't Republicans that pushed for more gun regulation after he was elected and then re-elected. Constantly the Black community reached out to Obama for support and were ignored by the White House (not Congress). Obama was too busy to here voters that were losing their jobs do to guest worker programs and outsourcing deals that he signed off on like trophies. The illegal immigrant problem we have (that Democrats pander to as if they can vote) mainly came from guest workers that overstayed their visa and had anchor babies.

But then 2016 came around, and Democrats are only going to vote for Democrats just as Republicans are only going to vote Republican, yet the largest voting block is Independents (that's the real swing-vote) and Democrats ignored them. The entire entertainment community is liberal because it all comes out of two States (CA and NY), more specifically it all comes out of two cities (Hollywood and NYC). Well I hate to be the breaker of bad news but the way US elections work two cities don't have a larger voice than the 50 States. So as the Media, the DNC, and the Democratic Party were working so hard to shut out the voice and well of Independents to coronate Hillary (the least popular candidate they could find) and set her up to run against the softest target on the Republican ticket, it back-fired.

And now the next talk in on 2018, as if Democrats have ever been known to be the largest voters in the midterms. Don't bank on a come-back without the Democrats first cleaning their own house. MSM is no longer a reliable source. Colleges telling students that they can skip their final exams if they go out an protest against a sitting President is not patriotic (or a qualifier that students should receive credit towards their final exams for doing). If Democrats want back into the game then they are going to have to show voters that they are doing things for the majority of US citizens that are helpful (or dare I say "progressive") to the needs of States. Hillary lost the entire rust-belt, that's equivalent to Republicans losing the entire Bible-belt (it's unheard of). Those were White votes lost. The majority of the Black and Hispanic populations reside in primarily Red-States. That's how bad choosing Hillary was for the Democrat Party.

Now we can go back to 2000 and talk about Bush winning by losing half a million popular votes if you like, that was a close election splinting the electoral college by 271/266, but even Bush didn't sweep the Rust-belt.

 

He ran against two of the weakest GOP candidates ever, had a now utterly discounted, devalued, dethroned media that people still trusted then carrying his water for 9 years, and -how many- Congressional, gubernatorial and statehouse seats were lost with him in the WH?

Those 59% approval ratings are the only "partisan blow" on the table... they come from the exact same places that the 99% landslide noise came from. They are now empirically proven to be junk.

 

No the Democratic Party is the bigger liar because they claim to be worker friendly.
The GOP does not make such a claim although a candidate may.

White Men Not Welcome is a misquote. The full quote is Straight White Men . . .
Please the evidence is looking at, Straight, White Men appointments & staffing.
They love Not Straight, White, Barney Franks, y'see.
Please examine the evidence and get back to me. With specifics please.
Hint: Appointments by Obama & Hillary esp. to her campaign and the DNC.

Moi

r > g

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/is-it-true-part-deux.495478/
The Trade War is on. Support Milk producers. No milk.
Milk is gov't subsidized. Food Production is a national security.
Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us. ​

 

See "blow, partisan".

This is true, and that does, indeed, represent a massive failure by Democrats. But it's debatable how much of that is Obama's fault.

State and local races don't tend to be referendums on the president.

Congressional seats? GOP-led gerrymandering after the 2010 election means Democrats have to win a lopsided share of the vote in order to break even.

Indeed, Democrats won the popular vote for both the White House AND the Senate, and came really close in the House.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...mocrats-won-popular-vote-senate-too/93598998/

So the party that lost the popular vote in two out of three areas ended up controlling all three areas.

See "blow, partisan" combined with "ignorance, statistical".

 

No, not more to the right at all.

Trump doesn't want to reform or fix Medicare or Social Security. He wants those programs to be left alone. He's indifferent to budget deficits. Those are major differences to standard Republican talking point fare. I'm unclear in what way he is "more to the right."

 

Look, YOU asked how to fix a miserably failed party. I told you. If you want to seize on whether the average American finds Obama repulsive or not, one claim out of a dozen or more in the post, or wheedle back and forth about the popular vote (see "cognitive dissonance blow") fine. That's a -stellar- example of why Democrats lose and will continue losing, lack of perspective, inability to stipulate.

EDIT: Just trawled this up from one of your LW union or lobby shills right here on the front page of current events, and is a PERFECT example of what I'm talking about in the earlier post

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ave-one-year-left-before-a-trump-coup.503597/

If your party does not get a lid on this kind of wingnuttery and moonbattery, it's all she wrote. In the net age, it not only doesn't work any more, it POs people who feel dumber for getting conned into reading it, loses maybe millions of votes you can't afford to lose.

 

Nobody else ran on a border wall. Nobody else has gutted environmental regulations like he's trying. Republicans have never cared about deficits when they have the WH...except maybe Bush 41.

 

So a border wall is right wing? But a border fence is..what? Obama, Schumer and Clinton voted for the Secure Fence Act in 2006.

I guess I'm not clear why a border wall is a right wing position. Paul Ryan opposes it. Is he not right wing?

What's "right wing" in 2017 by your standards may not have been right wing a few years ago. Tell me, is free trade left wing? The Democrats this year seem to be taking the opposite position from Trump on everything so it's hard to keep track.

 

Most of the GOP had moved more to the center on immigration related issues and the democrats have moved to the left.
Schumer has said he's on board with trumps trade positions (if they ever actually happen), and those are definitely not RW views (I thought I mentioned that but maybe not).

 

Then you're saying that Trump and the Republican Party is less right wing than a few years ago. If I understand you correctly. Usually when someone on the left says right wing they are not talking about policy positions but how evil they think someone is.

 

I don't think being conservative mKes someone evil. I legitimately understand a lot of the views. Trump is more RW in most areas....basically all but trade and maybe spending. But I think those are more about short term gains that he think will help him than anything else.

 

Trump is the President so if he isn't a genius then all of the other candidates must have been _____________.

 

Again, Trump, if he had thrown his hat in the ring for the Democratic ticket, would have been considered a moderate Democrat. So far the only "right wing" position you've mentioned was the wall, and what, repealing some environmental regulations? That's it?

 

Nicely put. I think the 3rd bathroom had something to do with it too.

 

Sanskrit, I believe you honestly believe everything you wrote. The problem is that you are so far down the partisan rabbit hole that your honest thoughts amount to concern trolling.

I mean, come on. Look at what you wrote. You find the leadership of the Democratic Party personally repulsive. In another thread, you label as "partisan" things like not wanting gerrymandered districts, and wanting disclosure and transparency from my elected leaders.

So I find your credibility on these things suspect. Not because I think you are lying, but because I think you lack all perspective.

The Democrats DO put a lid on this kind of wing-nuttery. People like that do not hold positions of authority within the party. It's the GOP that has been co-opted by it's fringe, not the Democrats.

You point to a leftwing nutjob and act as if they are representative of Democrats, and ignore right-wing nutjobs -- some of whom hold elective office under the GOP banner.

 

A moderate democrat talking about a deportation force, punishing women for abortions and less environmental regulation?

 

Hillary Clinton so far ahead in polls that she ‘doesn’t even think about’ Donald Trump anymore.

 

The moment Hillary Clinton was forced to give up her dream


Every detail was designed to mark Hillary Clinton’s moment in history — from the glass ceiling at Manhattan’s Javits Center, where her supporters were gathered, to her at The Peninsula hotel where she could see Trump Tower, home to the foe she was set to crush. Then came the returns.

The campaign’s top brass, including [campaign manager] Robby Mook, John Podesta, and Cheryl Mills, joined Hillary and Bill Clinton on their floor at the top of The Peninsula hotel, a five-star facility a block from Trump Tower.

At the start of the night, the Javits Center was electric: it had the buzz of a debut performance on Broadway. Outside, a seemingly endless line formed down 40th Street, near artists who had sketched Hillary’s portrait next to Obama’s and vendors who sold buttons with the candidate’s name.


Supporters resplendent in their “I’m With Her” and “Madam President” T-shirts filed in and stood shoulder to shoulder as they watched the returns trickle in on the large television monitors overhead. Under the signature glass ceiling lit by an ocean-blue hue, they watched the network broadcasts and listened to a string of surrogates from pop star Katy Perry to Sen. Chuck Schumer fire up the crowd.

Clinton’s campaign anthem, “Fight Song,” blared across the room, and an official block party formed outside for a spillover crowd who held American flags and prepared for victory.

Mook and Jennifer Palmieri had been in a staff room on the same floor, watching CNN, when polls closed in Virginia and Florida at 7 p.m. As the first returns came in, Mook dashed into the room next door, where Elan Kriegel and a couple of his data analysts compared the results with the campaign’s projections. Having guided Terry McAuliffe’s gubernatorial campaign in 2013, with Kriegel at his side, Mook knew the nooks and crannies of Virginia precincts as well as anyone in the political universe.

It’s OK, he thought. It isn’t great, but it’s OK. Then a cluster of African-American-majority precincts around Jacksonville, Fla., came in. Those numbers looked strong, robust enough for a few fist pumps around the room.

“Florida started coming in fine,” one top Hillary aide said. “And then Florida started getting tight.”

F–k you, [Democratic pollster] John Anzalone thought. You’re being too pessimistic. From the boiler room, the veteran pollster and his fellow Clinton campaign consultant Jim Margolis were on the phone with Steve Schale, an old pal from their Obama days. It was 7:45 p.m., and Schale had called to say Hillary was in deep trouble in Florida.

“It’s in real bad shape,” Schale warned his friends. “What the f–k are you talking about?” Anzalone asked. Hillary was on her way to turning out more Sunshine State voters than any previous candidate of either party. Yeah, Trump was winning exurban and rural areas, but surely Democratic hot spots like Miami-Dade and Broward would erase the deficit.

No, Schale explained, Trump’s numbers weren’t just big, they were unreal. In rural Polk County, smack-dab in the center of the state, Hillary would collect 3,000 more votes than Obama did in 2012 — but Trump would add more than 25,000 votes to Mitt Romney’s total. In Pasco County, a swath of suburbs north of Tampa-St. Petersburg, Trump outran Romney by 30,000 votes.

Pasco was one of the counties Schale was paying special attention to because the Tampa area tended to attract retirees from the Rust Belt — folks whose political leanings reflected those of hometowns in the industrial Midwest. In particular, Schale could tell, heavily white areas were coming in hard for Trump.

Hillary sat stone-faced, trying to process the unexpected and abrupt reversal of her fortunes. “OK,” she said over and over as she nodded. It was all she could muster.

Down in Florida, Craig Smith’s phone rang. The former White House political director, and the very first person hired onto Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, had been ignoring calls and texts. This one, he took. The raspy voice on the other end of the line asked him if Florida could be turned around.

“Sorry to be the one to tell you,” Smith said in an Arkansas drawl echoing the former president’s, “but we’re not going to win Florida.” Bill hung up and called Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who was eager to depart Virginia for the victory party at the Javits Center. Don’t bother coming, Bill told him.

Bill had a sinking feeling that the British vote to leave the European Union had been a harbinger for a kind of screw-it vote in the United States. He’d seen the trans-Atlantic phenomenon of populist rage at rallies across the country, and warned friends privately of his misgivings about its effect on Hillary’s chances. “It’s like Brexit,” he lamented. “I guess it’s real.”

At 11:11 p.m. the AP called North Carolina for Trump. Hillary was leading in Pennsylvania, but many of her strongholds had already reported vote counts.

Twenty minutes later, Fox News called Wisconsin for Trump — a judgment that other news agencies declined to validate for hours. The writing on the wall was clear. It was just a matter of time before Donald Trump would be declared successor to Obama.

When he was sure there was no path to victory, and after having conferred with the president, Simas placed a call to Mook, who was in Hillary’s suite at The Peninsula. “What’s going on in your camp?” Obama’s aide asked. “I don’t think we’re going to win,” Mook replied. “I don’t think you are either,” Simas agreed. “POTUS doesn’t think it’s wise to drag this out.”

Mook now stood between a president interested in ensuring the smooth, democratic transfer of power after Trump had complained for months that the election might be rigged and a candidate who hadn’t yet given up on the idea that Rust Belt states might flip in her direction.

The president wants you to concede, Mook told her, adding his own analysis: “I don’t see how you win this.”

“I understand,” she said. But she used her place in history as a shield. “I’m not ready to go give this speech.” Hillary wasn’t quite ready to put an end to the dream she’d pursued for at least the past decade.

“You need to concede,” President Obama told his former secretary of state. For the past eight years, their interests had aligned almost perfectly. She’d lent him credibility with her own supporters and in the Washington establishment. He’d given her the State Department springboard from which to relaunch her political career.

He needed to ensure that the end of his presidency didn’t devolve into a post-election circus. He had vouched for the sanctity of the electoral process and he needed Hillary to follow along.

She wasn’t ready yet. Pennsylvania was gone. The AP declared Trump the winner of the election. Now the president — the one who had convinced her to take the State job by framing it as a patriotic call to duty — was asking her to do the right thing for the good of her country. He wanted her to make it abundantly clear to the public that she wasn’t going to fight the result.

Kellyanne Conway picked up Huma Abedin’s call and handed her phone to Trump. Hillary took Huma’s phone and faked a smile with her voice. “Congratulations, Donald,” she said, suppressing the anger that touched every nerve in her body. “I’ll be supportive of the country’s success, and that means your success as president.” Trump credited her for being a smart opponent who ran a tough campaign. The denouement lasted all of about a minute.

Not long after the concession call, Abedin approached her once again, phone in hand. “It’s the president,” she said.

Hillary winced. She wasn’t ready for this conversation. When she’d spoken with Obama just a little bit earlier, the outcome of the election wasn’t final yet. Now, though, with the president placing a consolation call, the reality and dimensions of her defeat hit her all at once. She had let him down. She had let herself down. She had let her party down. And she had let her country down. Obama’s legacy and her dreams of the presidency lay shattered at Donald Trump’s feet. This was on her. Reluctantly, she rose from her seat and took the phone from Abedin’s hand.

“Mr. President,” she said softly. “I’m sorry.”

 

The deportation force was a planted statement, but the abortion thing is a good point...assuming you believe Trump cares about abortion.

 

there is many many problems with your ideas

first you don't create infrastructure projects for the sole purpose of creating jobs there need to be an economic need for those projects so they can be self sustaining example you don't build a huge airport in a small rural community you don't build an 8 lane bridge connected to a two lane county road to cross a small creek
and if that intasctrutre project purpose was to create jobs you would give all the workers shovels and hand tools not allow heavy equipment so more people would be required to work on the project

second problem with the government inundating tax money to bolster the economy the economy gets dependent on that tax payer money it gets addicted to it and when that government money stops being provided the economy reverts back to where it was before the government spending started

third to grow economies you have to create wealth not redistribute it and all government spending does is redistribute wealth government isn't capable to create wealth they produce nothing
what your idea does is the same as taking a bucket of water out of the deep end of the pool dump it into the shallow end of the same pool then claim you raised the water level of the pool

this is the deal with capitalism it doesn't need the government for it to work it needs the government to keep it from working to well

 

Thank you, Captain Obvious. The point is to put in infrastructure that supports the long-term economic growth of the region, but with an eye toward revitalizing the neglected areas. Either by building something directly in the neglected area, or by putting in stuff elsewhere in the region that helps the residents of the neglected area.

Oh, FFS.

Since I'm not talking about the kind of spending that creates dependency, you have no point.

 

First, spare the "concern trolling" flagrant projection. there are about 15 posters on this forum that do nothing but that, and they are all LW. I'm not one. Show me a "concern troll" pretty much anywhere who numbers their points.

I'm anti collectivist, if that's "partisan" fair enough. The interesting thing is that the numbered things I posted, I hear from people who never talked about politics before turn of the century and the net. Again, you asked, I answered. Your response is a good example of why, despite how I hate when people hyperbolize "the end of Trump" "the end of the GOP" the Democratic Party is in deep danger of becoming irrelevant if they stay within their established track.

Look, we just had a special election here that the Democrats -could have- easily won. There was a fractured, unprepared GOP field full of less than stellar candidates, and there was a huge Democrat war chest raised from out of state. So who do they run? A THIRTY YEAR OLD who looks YOUNG for his age (and more than a bit creepy)? Seriously? (one of my points) And what do they do with all that money? 9 mill? Run attack ads 24-7 and nothing else? Yep. Had they learned something from Trump, they would have found a gray-haired 50 year old with a paunch who eats barbecue and started holding rallies day in and day out, cut the ads in half or more. CINCH. There would be a Democrat sitting in Newt Gingrich's old district right now. As it is, they could still win the runoff, it just won't be the layup opportunity they had. They acted like a machine (one of my points) ran dishonest ads that didn't fess up to him being a Democrat (people f-ing HATE that) instead of getting out in front of people and making policy arguments (one of my other points).

That's not what I posted. I claim that average Americans find them repulsive, and they do. For example, go on youtube and search "Nancy Pelosi" see page after page of almost wholly negative vids come up. Same for the other "leaders" I listed. Contrast this with the disconnected LW pap that comes out of MSM. Do the same youtube search on Trump, and though you will see lots of negative vids, there are lots of positive also. Contrast MSM coverage 89% negative.

Yeah, talk about "concern trolling" that little troll thread took the cake. Sell it elsewhere, you know full well everything you listed as "nonpartisan" was lifted straight off DNC talking points, as other posters pointed out as well.

As far as wingnuts and moonbats, Democrats are getting hammered with that because they never stand up and rebuke ANTIFA, Radical Islam, Loony Feminists, Hypocritical "Science Marchers," Atrocious, PR trainwrecks like this that do IMMENSE damage when not defused and deflected:



I guess the DNC thinks it needs the votes. Contrast Donald Trump, an undiluted brand, watch one rally, watch em all, same talking points over and over. Wall, ACA, ISIS, Trade, Regs, Tax, Jobs. OTOH, HRC had all these lunatic dilutive things going on that Democrats end up owning by default by not rebuking them and distancing themselves. In other words, the DNC needs to NOT be telling pro life they aren't welcome and instead spend that time telling the country that they -aren't- ANTIFA, feminists, race-baiters, Bill Nye the Sex Junk Guy.

 

*Sigh.* Thanks for proving my point.