Presidential Election 2016

[mister.shoes]

Also, this: http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/dona ... ebook.html

[Tiller]

I just came here to recommend reading this, and it is similar to what mistershoes just posted (which I've only just began reading): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... ness_pop_b

It's all about the Urban-Rural divide.

[mplsjaromir]

Looking back it should be obvious that choosing Hillary Clinton was the incorrect decision for the DNC. Lots of earnest and well meaning people tried to warn that Hillary would be a mistake. People tried to warn the DNC that the campaign needed to change its the course of its message. Those critiques were met with accusations of juvenility, misogyny, racism, and other misguided lobs to obfuscate the real weakness of Hillary Clinton.

She ran a rudderless campaign that stood for nothing. Not one animated Democratic Party group was given even lip service, nothing for labor, environmentalists, the anti-war bloc. You cannot count on the vote of people who hate Wall Street while taking a billion dollars from Wall Street. The only group the campaign seemed to care about winning was the wonk pundit class, she did great with that group.

Trump did not do well, he received fewer votes than Romney and McCain. The real story is that people did not bother to show up for Clinton. To the millions of voters who voted twice for Barack Obama, Clinton only served as a reminder of the ennui of late Capitalism. Most people know that Trump can't fix their problems, but Hillary did not even pretend to try.

The next administration will be bad for many minorities. Trump is being handed the keys to a souped up intelligence and assisnation machine. Remember those who got pissed at the exposing of domestic surveillance. Keep track of those who found nothing wrong with giving the president the power of sky robots to kill anyone in the world without consequence. Those who thought it was funny to misgender and torture a trans person because they exposed government corruption, keep tabs.

When the time comes do not nominate someone who tried to use Obama's blackness against him in the 2008 primary, or someone who called black youths 'super predators' or who championed the gutting of welfare to ensure the reelection of Bill "Bubba" Clinton. Hillary was not authentic as an anti racist. There is a reason than in raw numbers the turnout for the democratic party nominee for president among black women was down almost as much as it was for white men.

Going forward the Democratic Party can hold the line, and hope for an insanely charismatic candidate with an inspiring biography to rise to the nomination. If that fails, they should really look at ways to materially improve the lives of working people. By doing so the Democrats will have to take on the chore of fundraising outside of New York City, Greenwich, Palm Beach and Los Angeles. The party will be better for it. There are those who are ready to carry the mantle of Hubert Humphrey which was economic populism mixed with anti racism. The second recommendation would be if anyone mentions Andrew Cuomo, Martin O'Malley, Cory Booker or Gavin Newsom, pelt them with rotten vegetables.

How I feel at the momment (Slightly NSFW https://imgur.com/a/CmRor )

[amiller92]

The only part I don't like about this idea is I want a full-time chair. What would happen if he vacated his seat?

I really don't know how much difference it makes, but in thinking about that, he is one member of congress who already does not have to do much of what other members do: spend all of their time fundraising for re-election. Or heck, he even really doesn't have to campaign for himself.

Freed of those obligations, can he do that stuff on behalf of his party more easily than other members?

[amiller92]

It's all about the Urban-Rural divide.

I mean, we knew that as that trend has been ongoing. What we didn't know is (1) that they were quite as comfortable as they turned out to be with his racism and personal conduct toward women, and (2) that the urban side would fail to turn out in sufficient numbers to carry the day.

For all the analysis of Trump, what drove his election is not enough of the center-left coalition showing up to vote.

[fehler]

Ellison. Because if anyone knows how to win close elections in an increasingly divided country and deliver a national message, its the guy from the 5th CD of Minneapolis.

[amiller92]

Ellison, because we just learned what happens if you can't get young people, women and people of color out to vote.

Ellison gets grassroots. Ellison gets the needs for a more progressive and less corporate (got I hate the political use of that word) party.

Anyway, I think he'd certainly represent a new and different vision and I think he does a lot more for Minnesota politics than win his seat (which isn't hard). Frankly, Dem wins in statewide elections come pretty directly from the ability to turn out voters in his district. Which he does.

And I say that as someone who has been a Clinton Democrat. We centrists cannot be the face of the party anymore, in no small part because we've abandoned the racist dog whistles that made Bill viable. Which is a good thing.

[VAStationDude]

Ellison. Because if anyone knows how to win close elections in an increasingly divided country and deliver a national message, its the guy from the 5th CD of Minneapolis.

A black guy from Chicago with a Muslim sounding name and a black nationalist pastor is the most successful politician of a generation

[Tiller]

Energizer Bernie: How does Sanders keep going, and going, and going?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/energizer-be ... 00095.html

Old article, but one can hope for continued good health in 4 years.

Also, double "NO NO NO":

Paul Ryan Says Medicare Privatization Is On
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... is-on.html
Chelsea Clinton Is Reportedly Gearing Up for a Congressional Run
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... l-run.html

[amiller92]

No, Bernie will not and should not be the candidate in 4 years. He will be too old. And as it stand right now, he again will not have built the necessary relationships within the party. (Although I'll grant you right now he's more appealing than anyone else whose name has popped up).

Medicare Privatization will be interesting. It could be a massively costly mistake by the GOP. I'd normally say that wiser heads among them would prevail so they'd not go there, but who is that right now?

[VAStationDude]

Medicare privatization and converting Medicaid to a static block grant would be massive over reach. The party base would go absolutely ape and Republicans, especially Senate republicans, know that.

The Clintons need to go. My biggest issue with Bernie is he doesn't seem interested in the nitty gritty of politics. He didn't build relationships with party loyalists prior to his run and that cost him the nomination. Clinton (and Obama) spent years building a stock of campaign allies among elected officials and people who volunteer their time to participate in state parties. Progressive outcomes don't come from the top down.

[amiller92]

Since that last post, I've had the realization that if Ryan proposes privatization and Trump says no, we'll be forever hearing about how Trump has proven himself a moderate (while he continues with whatever atrocities of his own).

[Tiller]

The problem is our bench is depleted, so there isn't really much of an alternative.

If he can still campaign like he can now in 4 years, and he thinks he's in good enough health to run for president (I trust his judgement), many others and I will hit the ground running to campaign for him. If he doesn't run, he will be the progressive wing's kingmaker, so whoever he supports will have a very good shot at winning the nomination. Maybe someone like Sherrod Brown or Jeff Merkley.

He's built up a lot of clout at this point, and for the next 4 years will be focusing on rebuilding the democratic party, from the ground-up, because it is in ruins. I would take it he'll establish plenty of connections and relationships doing that. He'll also make the party more progressive in the process, which would help any future progressive runs (whoever the candidate).

In terms of winning the democratic nomination, keep in mind Bernie would have won the nomination if 5% of voters moved from supporting Hillary to supporting him (for a net change of 10%). He did very well this time around, and there's 4 more years of demographic change between this election and next.

Edit: For the sake of having a visualization, these grey states would have flipped from Hillary to Bernie with the aforementioned 10% change, in addition to the margins changing in the blue and red states. (This is from 270 to win, so the numbers aren't exactly right, but they're roughly proportionally correct since delegates and electors are correlated).

[FISHMANPET]

I kinda wonder if Bernie ran with the intention of bringing light to his issues and not actually winning, then accidentally struck a populist chord of people that weren't happy with Clinton, and had to pivot to running a real campaign.

[mulad]

I'd prefer not to speculate on who's in the running for 2020 already. That's part of the whole problem we had with this election cycle, as people like Hillary and Jeb! were floated as possible candidates way too early and sucked up a lot of the air that could have gone to others.

There are more immediate concerns, such as building up a framework for local and state candidates for '17 (a lot of mayors and city councils) and '18 (MN governor and legislature, U.S. House representatives, and a U.S. senator -- likely still Klobuchar, but you never know).

[twincitizen]

The #1 focus absolutely has to be on the 2018 Governor's races (36 states!!!). To a lesser extent, Dems have an impossible fight to keep several Senate seats (and many are as good as lost already - see MO, IN, MT, ND, etc) and try to pick away at more US House seats. But yeah, financially and organizing/energy-wise, the #1 focus across the country has to be winning every possible governorship. I hope they (leaders of the Democratic party across the country) don't f*** it up. Here in MN, our job is to make sure we don't pick a Democratic nominee who's going to be starting with an arm tied behind their back (i.e. no Chris Colemans, etc.)

[phop]

What is actually bad about nominating Chris Coleman though? I definitely have a lukewarm reaction to him, but he seems better than 80% of the candidates that have been floated.

[Tiller]

Trump's New Deal for Black America
http://www.vladtv.com/article/221683/tr ... ck-america

Donald Trump's slogan for African-Americans has been, "What do you have to lose?" It's the mantra he repeated over and over again while proclaiming that black people live in poverty in neighborhoods that are more dangerous than war zones. According to Trump, black people have horrible educations and are jobless while living in squalor.

"Our government has totally failed our African American friends, our Hispanic friends and the people of our country. Period," Trump said during a rally in Akron, Ohio. Last month, he rolled out a new deal for Black America. Now that Trump has been elected as the 45th President of the United States let's see what happens.

A list of policies follows.

[FISHMANPET]

What the fuck is VladTV

[Tiller]

No idea, i was sent the link. Would it be reasonable to assume it's a part of the Putin-Trump campaign?

Edit: looking at the content of the site it may be a news site that caters to black americans (based on the amount of black americans everywhere).