A new Tea Party for the Left

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

Even among politicians Hillary came off as someone most people couldn't relate to and she tried too hard at times, i.e. the mi abuela thing.  When it comes to a lot of the main candidates who ran for POTUS in my voting lifetime even if I didn't care for their politics or vote for them some came off like the type I'd have a beer with.  To me Hillary came off as the class president who gave you a fake smile and says hi but doesn't care to remember your name despite sitting next to you in some classes over the last 10 years.

I'm at a conference and one presenter was an economist who gave an example of how two people can see the recovery since 2008 as completely different things. The point was that despite growth, job gains and so on there's a lot of people who haven't recovered.  They've been out of work at times, watched jobs in their area get shipped elsewhere and when they do find work they're making less while the cost of everything has gone up. Hillary completely ignored these people while they bought what Trump was selling.  A lot of these people were also tired of the overly PC crowd who preach open mindedness but don't practice what they preach when someone doesn't agree with their point of view. The dems don't need to go further left they need to go more towards the middle.

 

[Angelsjunky]

One of my favorite Hillary cartoons:

[Angelsjunky]

12 minutes ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

Even among politicians Hillary came off as someone most people couldn't relate to and she tried too hard at times, i.e. the mi abuela thing.  When it comes to a lot of the main candidates who ran for POTUS in my voting lifetime even if I didn't care for their politics or vote for them some came off like the type I'd have a beer with.  To me Hillary came off as the class president who gave you a fake smile and says hi but doesn't care to remember your name despite sitting next to you in some classes over the last 10 years.

I'm at a conference and one presenter was an economist who gave an example of how two people can see the recovery since 2008 as completely different things. The point was that despite growth, job gains and so on there's a lot of people who haven't recovered.  They've been out of work at times, watched jobs in their area get shipped elsewhere and when they do find work they're making less while the cost of everything has gone up. Hillary completely ignored these people while they bought what Trump was selling.  A lot of these people were also tired of the overly PC crowd who preach open mindedness but don't practice what they preach when someone doesn't agree with their point of view. The dems don't need to go further left they need to go more towards the middle.

 

I agree with most of what you say here, including the PC crowd bit, but disagree on the last sentence - that's not why they lost the election (they were too far to the left; Hillary is actually a centrist), and "far left" and "PC" are two completely different things. They aren't mutually exclusive, but one doesn't equate or lead to the other.

PC is the left's version of authoritarianism - it is the soft dictatorship of everyone must think the same way about things, and it must be derived from undergrad multiculturalism classes ;). But there are forms of leftism that aren't authoritarian; that is the main misunderstanding of socialism, that it must be Soviet-style authoritarian communism. There are, in fact, many left-leaning folks and right-leaning folks that meet in terms of many libertarian values.

[Tank]

3 hours ago, Paul said:

Also, the protestors are really only united by their disdain for Trump—they might not necessarily like Hillary or Warren. 

excellent point.

i'd gather a fair amount of them likely don't have any idea who those two people are.

[Thomas]

I don't think he meant politically authoritative. I think he mean that many on the left, for example celebrities, are acting like a bunch of self righteous dicks and calling everyone on the right morons. 

[Spirit]

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

This is a very good point, one I might even steal from you and use to school my liberal friend. Although to be fair she also used the slogan "stronger together" (God damn bunch of feminist lesbians).

I think one of Hillary's flaws as a politician is that she is TOO strong, too guarded. If she had let people in, shown a bit of real, authentic vulnerability, I think she would have won more folks over. As I've said to some of my friends, she is an old school, 20th century style feminist - she tries to be (and is) as strong and macho as a man, yet hasn't learned how to publicly show a more feminine side. This has turned off Millenial and Gen X women, who are the beneficiaries of the old school feminists, but have also moved on. The Albright comment about "there's a special place in hell for women who don't support Hillary Clinton" probably lost her quite a few female votes.

 

 

You know, you're right.  "Stronger Together" was her other tag line.  I completely forgot that it was.  It was the "I'm With Her" that stuck with me.  And to be quite honest, I never thought anything about it until the day after the election.  Again, in that "what the f**k happened" moment. 

Adam had a great line that stuck with me.  He said ... geezzz ... maybe a year ago.  We were kind of comparing all of the candidates and describing how we viewed their message and demeanor.  He said of Hillary's pitch to America, "She really wants to be president."  And that's kind of how it came across.  Very much a, "it's my turn!"

 

 

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

What Thomas said. On another board someone pointed out that the saying used to be "I don't agree with you opinion but I'll die defending your right to it" and now if you disagree with some you're racist, sexist, narrow minded and so on.  Both sides do it but it seems more prevalent among the SJW's and their flavor of the week which gets shoved down our throats to the point I'm almost against it because I don't want to hear any more about it. 

[Thomas]

Yeah I'm not sure why a subset of the left have completely embraced this form of idealogical fascism. Growing up I was always used to that from the right. Perhaps these two sentences are related. But it's pretty clear they aren't helping any. But Karl Rove thanks them all the same.

[Tank]

3 hours ago, red321 said:

I think one of the main areas the Clinton campaign failed was they didn't run on what they stood for. They ran on Donald is bad, Donald is evil. Very little focusing on policy differences and what the campaign stood for. There were stark policy differences and very little time was spent trying to highlight what she stood for in those areas.

Yes, people don't have the attention span...but very little effort was made in that regards.=

there's an old saying that goes "never argue with an idiot/moron. they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." she played right into trump's game plan.

i thought once the primaries were over that if she focused on what her plans were instead of going toe to toe with him on the insults, she would have destroyed him on 11/8. as it turned out, she played right into his hands. one of my friends said that essentially, she was up 3-1 and couldn't close the deal. feel free to add a brian fuentes/joe blanton analogy here.

[mtangelsfan]

The dems will bounce back.  People are fickle.  

[Adam]

They'll win next election unless they nominate poorly again

[Tank]

27 minutes ago, Geoff said:

 

You know, you're right.  "Stronger Together" was her other tag line.  I completely forgot that it was.  It was the "I'm With Her" that stuck with me.  And to be quite honest, I never thought anything about it until the day after the election.  Again, in that "what the f**k happened" moment. 

Adam had a great line that stuck with me.  He said ... geezzz ... maybe a year ago.  We were kind of comparing all of the candidates and describing how we viewed their message and demeanor.  He said of Hillary's pitch to America, "She really wants to be president."  And that's kind of how it came across.  Very much a, "it's my turn!"

one of my issues with her was that i couldn't really point to anything and say "this is what she accomplished as senator/first lady/SoS." so much of her message seemed to center around "it's time for a female president, and here i am."

[Thomas]

1 minute ago, Tank said:

one of my issues with her was that i couldn't really point to anything and say "this is what she accomplished as senator/first lady/SoS." so much of her message seemed to center around "it's time for a female president, and here i am."

What, getting everyone to say that she was the most qualified candidate ever wasn't sufficient for you?

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

Of course they will but they do it quickest by appealing to the majority instead of telling the majority they should think a, b and c about something most people can't relate to that doesn't impact their life. When people are missing school, need grief counsellors and signing a petition to "convince" the electorate to give it to Hillary the most un-relatable segment of your voters make you even less appealing to the middle of the road voters who got Trump elected. 

[IEAngelsfan]

34 minutes ago, Geoff said:

 

You know, you're right.  "Stronger Together" was her other tag line.  I completely forgot that it was.  It was the "I'm With Her" that stuck with me.  And to be quite honest, I never thought anything about it until the day after the election.  Again, in that "what the f**k happened" moment. 

Adam had a great line that stuck with me.  He said ... geezzz ... maybe a year ago.  We were kind of comparing all of the candidates and describing how we viewed their message and demeanor.  He said of Hillary's pitch to America, "She really wants to be president."  And that's kind of how it came across.  Very much a, "it's my turn!"

 

 

I'll take it a little further. She came across as "hey, not only is it my turn, but darn it, I've earned and deserve it! I've been the obedient Dem servant and waited for my time and now I want what is mine!"

The only thing is, she kind of forgot a little thing.......the voters.

 

[Jason]

8 hours ago, Geoff said:

I think red is spot on.  One of the things that occurred to me on Wednesday (while having a "how the f**k did this happen" moment), was the campaign theme.  Obama had "Hope & Change."  Trump had "Make America Great Again."  Both of those themes are about others.  They're about the people.   She had "I'm with her."  That's not about the people.  That's about her! 

People want to know what you're going to do for them, what you're going to bring to them.  Her answer was basically, "I'm going to let you support me!"

 

 

 

Well, being a woman was her main platform. #imwithher had the proper gender pronoun.

[Jason]

Everyone here having great civil discussions. This forum might get dull if this keeps up. As for the Democratic Party I think many on the other side equate them with all the celebs and SJWs and their BS. They should distance themselves from these people. They are out of touch with most Americans. I haven't been in college for almost 20 years but I think most of this is being bred in academia. I have (had) a close friend that just blocked me from everything because of my anti Hillary Facebook posts. She flew off the handle when Trump was elected. She is also an elementary school teacher and it makes me wonder how that comes out in the classroom. As for Hillary they were betting on her name a gender being enough to get elected. D'oh!

[Angels#1Fan]

8 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

 

I certainly hope so. The Democratic Party is an absolute joke, but the problem is they don't realize it (for the most part). I can't tell you how many of my Facebook friends keep harping on the "Trump won because racism," ignoring the fact that 5+ million more people voted for Obama than Hillary. The reason they lost is that they are dissociated from America - they ran an establishment politician--in fact, the definition of "establishment politician"--against a populist, and ignored the suffering of the white working class.

If that's true then how did Clinton win the popular vote?

 

[Jason]

3 minutes ago, Angels#1Fan said:

If that's true then how did Clinton win the popular vote?

 

People in a few densely populated, metropolitan areas don't have the same concerns as the rest of America. Oh, Californian voters aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. Maybe we should secede 

[ten ocho recon scout]

9 hours ago, Geoff said:

 

Really?  Seems to be a lot of them getting together to march through major cities the last few nights.

 

 

Those arent voters bro. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

6 hours ago, Tank said:

excellent point.

i'd gather a fair amount of them likely don't have any idea who those two people are.

Bingo

They all say trump is racist, and for the rich. (Fair enough point). But as a guy who grew up in a city notorious for race problems (black, mexican and asian), i can say 100 percent not liking the other guy isnt a a"white" thing, and nobody wants to kick down scratch to the guy below.

Nobody west of the 605 is going to open their wallet for appalacia for example...nobody is gonna give up their iphone for a flip phone so that someone from kentucky can get a house phone...

None of this bullshit youre seeing has anything to do with reality. Its anti-govt. For reasons both real and imagined.

Again, yell, march and protest, but dont interrupt someone else's life or damage property.

[Angelsjunky]

1 hour ago, Angels#1Fan said:

If that's true then how did Clinton win the popular vote?

 

Well, she was running against Trump - so a lot of folks weren't as much voting for her as against Trump. And let us not forget that he actually got a million fewer votes than Romney, while she got almost six million fewer than Obama.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

10 hours ago, red321 said:

I think one of the main areas the Clinton campaign failed was they didn't run on what they stood for. They ran on Donald is bad, Donald is evil. Very little focusing on policy differences and what the campaign stood for. There were stark policy differences and very little time was spent trying to highlight what she stood for in those areas.

This is pretty much what I told a friend when I was asked why I believed that Hillary lost the election. Her ads were focusing on Trump's foibles, while those who were feeling trampled upon by the system saw him as the bully who you called to beat up the person who has been bullying you. At times he seemed to be as much at odds with his own party (who actively tried to stop him from getting the nomination) as he was with Democrats. He was the ultimate anti-system candidate.

[Docwaukee]

There was no platform that could have changed anything.  It wasn't anything she said or did.  There was nothing that a career politician could have said or done.  It's all about who she is.  Her personality didn't help, but what she represented was the core problem.  She was qualified as one thing and one thing only.  Being a politician was her job.  It's essentially the equivalent of Kim Kardashian being famous.  She's qualified to be a celebrity.  I am not trying to diminish HRC's accomplishments other than to indicate that being a career politician was her downfall as it would have been anyone else's who had been thrust into a similar situation.  Certainly a more charismatic and likable person would have performed better.  But this was not about platforms.  Donald Trump trolled the American public every step of the way and it worked.  Hillary lost in part because of who she is but mostly because of who she represents.  

[InsideThePark]

Agreed, Doc.

Plus the emails, WikiLeaks, Comey's involvement and the ObamaCare premium hikes would have been tough for any politician to navigate through. Some of it was bad luck but a lot of it was a result of her own undoing.