Shaun King - The Democratic Party seems to have no earthly idea why it is so damn unp

[Kellhound]

Why she lost that vote could be reasonably tied to a dozen things, some her fault and some not. She chose not to campaign there enough. She didn't choose for Comey to break FBI policy and comment right before the election, causing a massive last minute shift red in the already high number of undecideds.

Pretty much any other Dem would not have had to even worry about the Rust Belt against Trump, and it is unlikely there would have been more than a fraction of undecideds that late in the game either.

- - - Updated - - -

"Only". Trump won the election with 46% of the vote. If you can get 31% of registered voters to support you, even when you run against everything the party claims to stand for, that's a good position to be in.

The Dems have the same 31% locked in vote.

[Torto]

This post is hard to parse. Are you operating under the assumption that urban areas did particularly poorly for Clinton?

I'm making no assumptions, I was just trying to grapple with the idea that 82% of the urban demographic are naturally of the left as stated by the person I quoted. Which I consider a brave assumption.

[Blur4stuff]

Polls like this on a large entity are very misleading. It's the same way with congress. Look how shitty their rating is. But when you ask people if they approve of their own congressman, suddenly those numbers flip in most districts.

With both the GOP and dems you'll get people that hate them because they are the "other team". People in the middle hate them because of vague reasons about things not going their way. Then some of their own members will be mad because they aren't going far enough to the left/right.

These numbers are next to useless and won't help solve much of anything.

[Slicer299]

No because the doctor who is specialized in this field resides here. I just love my wife and I have enough money. No worries I am not leeching off the wonderful hard working canadian people

Enough talk about it now please. We are off topic

That's something people don't realize about Canada, you're not allowed to move there if you're going to live off the government. Canada requires you to prove you will be able to support yourself before they let you do more than visit.

Getting to the topic at hand, such an idea/policy is considered racist to the current Democrat party in the United States. Trump has even called for such a policy in his talks about immigration reform, and he was of course blasted for being a vile racist for suggesting that people not be allowed to move to and remain in the United States if they are going to require public assistance. So while democrats in the US like to try and use Canada is an example of how the US show do things, those same democrats will accuse someone of being racist if they suggest the US emulates some of the actual laws and policies they have in Canada.

Same goes for Mexico. Immigration laws are much stricter in Mexico than they are in the US, yet the Mexican government files Friend of the Court briefs in US court cases accusing the US of having racist immigration laws. It's this sort of rampant hypocrisy that has lead to the massive unpopularity of the Democrat party. They've done nothing but accuse everything and everyone of being racist for so long that enough people have caught on to their act. Oddly enough, it was the conspiracy against Bernie Sanders that finally caused enough democrats to question what they were being told to the point that they finally started looking into some of these issues themselves, instead of blindly believing what the DNC was telling them to believe, that enough of them either didn't show up on election day, or didn't vote for Hillary.

Not saying it was enough to make them support Trump, although that's true for some of them, but Trump won states that a Republican had not won in a long time because enough people got sick of what the DNC was trying to sell them. It also didn't help that Hillary ran one of the most negative campaigns in history. A campaign that spent very little time focusing on policy. This is a link to a very detailed study on the matter, no it's not from Fox or anyone like that. I've linked to the original source, and to super liberal biased Vox article about it that couldn't find reason to complain about it's findings. Hillary far outspent Trump on advertising, yet only 25% of her advertising focused on policy issues. The other 75% was either spent personally attacking Trump or singing the praises of what a great person Hillary is. By comparison, 70% of Trump's ads focused on Policy.

https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/for...xml?format=INT

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...clinton-tv-ads

Anyways, long story short, and I can't believe I'm even saying this, Shaun King is right. America has spent the last 8 years rejecting progressive democrat policies. Democrats lost over 1000 offices on the state and federal level. So for anyone to claim that the majority of Americans support the Democrat party is utter lunacy. The electoral college did exactly what it was designed to do, it prevented heavily urban populated California from single handedly deciding the election. Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million, but won California by over 4 million. That margin in a single state does not mean a majority of the country supported Hillary or democrat policies. But Democrats losing a whopping 1042 state and federal offices in just 8 years absolutely proves a majority of the country does not support them or their policies.

[paralleluniverse]

They did rig it. Rigging doesn't simply have to mean all the voting machines didn't have a "Bernie" button on them. They rigged an election for a candidate who didn't need it rigged for them. They ruined their own credibility over nothing.

Wrong. They didn't rig it.

Name and prove one thing the DNC did to rig the primaries.

You have nothing, the emails have nothing.

Stop lying.

Here's what the email everyone claims proves rigging actually says: One random DNC staffer floats the idea that someone should get a reporter to ask Bernie Sanders what his religion is. EL OH FUCKING EL. Nothing happened but even if it did, that is the furthest thing from rigging.

[Deletedaccount1]

Wrong. They didn't rig it.

Name and prove one thing the DNC did to rig the primaries.

You have nothing, the emails have nothing.

Stop lying.

Here's what the email everyone claims proves rigging actually says: One random DNC staffer floats the idea that someone should get a reporter to ask Bernie Sanders what his religion is. EL OH FUCKING EL. Nothing happened but even if it did, that is the furthest thing from rigging.

I linked the Wikipedia article. One example from memory were staffers feeding negative info about the Sanders campaign to the press.

[Ryme]

It couldn't possibly be because not only do they seem out of touch, but their collusion and corruption has had a gigantic glaring light thrown on it.

(ps, no this isn't my absolution of the republicans)

[Mormolyce]

Trump was the GOP candidate, it should have been a landslide. Only hardcore GOP fans should have voted for him. True partisan voting only accounts for about 66%, evenly split.

I'd like to see the source on that 66%.

- - - Updated - - -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_D..._leak#Contents

An organization that claims to be neutral actively undermining an underdog in the election counts as rigging by definition.

"to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rig

Did you read what you linked? LOL.

[Deleted]

They are just too soft. How can anyone expect them to lead a country if they can't even climb a set of stairs without help.

We living in dangerous times of constant muslim terrorist threats and democrats ain't not gonna cut it to protect your children.

They are unpopular, because they are no good.


[Infracted]

Lol that infraction.... butthurt much, mod?

[paralleluniverse]

I linked the Wikipedia article. One example from memory were staffers feeding negative info about the Sanders campaign to the press.

Nope. The Wikipedia article does not say DNC were feeding negative stories about Sanders to the press. In fact, all these emails were after Clinton had effectively won, and none of them showed that the DNC actually did anything to rig the campaign against Sanders.

This is as fake as Trump's Obama wiretap bullshit. So stop lying. Produce the proof of rigging or GTFO.

[Deletedaccount1]

Did you read what you linked? LOL.

Yes but clearly you didn't.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. The Wikipedia article does not say DNC were feeding negative stories about Sanders to the press. In fact, all these emails were after Clinton had effectively won, and none of them showed that the DNC actually did anything to rig the campaign against Sanders.

This is as fake as Trump's Obama wiretap bullshit. So stop lying. Produce the proof of rigging or GTFO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_D..._leak#Contents

The emails include DNC staff's "off-the-record" correspondence with media personalities, including the reporters at CNN,[18][19][20] Politico, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.[21]

In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign.[22] The Washington Post reported: "Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. Basically, all of these examples came late in the primary—after Hillary Clinton was clearly headed for victory—but they belie the national party committee's stated neutrality in the race even at that late stage."[23]

In a May 2016 email chain, the DNC chief financial officer (CFO) Brad Marshall told the DNC chief executive officer, Amy Dacy, that they should have someone from the media ask Sanders if he is an atheist prior to the West Virginia primary.[23][24] In another email, Wasserman Schultz said of Bernie Sanders, "He isn't going to be president."[22]

[Deleted]

They are just too soft. How can anyone expect them to lead a country if they can't even climb a set of stairs without help.

We living in dangerous times of constant muslim terrorist threats and democrats ain't not gonna cut it to protect your children.

They are unpopular, because they are no good.


[Infracted]

I honestly don't see any reason for an infraction here.

The republicans are becoming too right-wing.

To counter it, the Democrats went way too far to the left. It's all being reflected in the world around us, with liberal babies being offended when you breath in their direction from 100 metres away, and hardcore republicans threatening to fuck everyone to death.

What happened to the Center Left and Right? The groups who could actually have a debate without it become personal or an 'invasion of my safe-space'?

My feeling is that the people who voted Trump didn't actually want Trump. They wanted a person who would force the people to tear down the political construct of the USA and reforge it anew.
Hilary was too corrupt, and Bernie was way too much like a soft pillow to do anything about real change. Trump literally forces you to make a choice, and that's what Americans need now. They can either sit back and watch their country go to ratshit, or they can stand up and make a change themselves.

[paralleluniverse]

Yes but clearly you didn't.

- - - Updated - - -



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_D..._leak#Contents

Oh great, more lies and misrepresentations.

" The emails include DNC staff's "off-the-record" correspondence with media personalities, including the reporters at CNN,[18][19][20] Politico, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.[21] "

DNC and media talk! Wow!!! Except this was not about Bernie Sanders. Look at citation 18, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH BERNIE. No rigging here.

I mean, did you even read the Wikipedia subheading? Clearly not. It says "Media", separate from subheading "Bernie Sanders' campaign".

"In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign.[22] The Washington Post reported: "Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. Basically, all of these examples came late in the primary—after Hillary Clinton was clearly headed for victory—but they belie the national party committee's stated neutrality in the race even at that late stage."[23]"

The opinion of one WaPo reporter. So what proof does the reporter provide of DNC rigging the primary against Sanders. He cites the religion story. So no proof. No rigging here.

" In a May 2016 email chain, the DNC chief financial officer (CFO) Brad Marshall told the DNC chief executive officer, Amy Dacy, that they should have someone from the media ask Sanders if he is an atheist prior to the West Virginia primary.[23][24] In another email, Wasserman Schultz said of Bernie Sanders, "He isn't going to be president."[22]"

Ah, yes. Here it is. The smoking gun everyone points to where one random DNC staffer floats the idea that someone should get a reporter to ask Bernie Sanders what his religion is. EL OH FUCKING EL. Totally rigged! Nothing happened but even if it did, that is the furthest thing from rigging. No rigging here.

You have provided ZERO evidence the DNC actually did anything to rig the primaries against Bernie. Get the damn proof or apologize for being a liar.

[Deletedaccount1]

Oh great, more lies and misrepresentations.

You have provided ZERO evidence the DNC actually did anything to rig the primaries against Bernie. Get the damn proof or apologize for the being liar.

I'll apologize. I am sorry that you are such a hopelessly blind partisan that you can't look at evidence presented to you (that matches the definition I gave) in an objective way and are needlessly hyperbolic and dismissive.

[Poppen]

Talcum X lol

I'm not going to bother reading what a white guy who lies about being black has to say.

[RickJamesLich]

Except those jobs are never coming back. So a bunch of misinformed people voted for a guy who lied to them and now we are blaming the left for that? Unreal!

Is Trump saying that he's going to be bringing old manufacturing jobs back? Or is he simply trying to keep the current ones here in the US? How are people misinformed when he's actually said that he's planning on doing this and thus far has been following through? I'm curious

[Revi]

For all their flaws, the current unpopularity of the Democrats should be taken as a sweeping indictment of the electorate at large.

When much of the same electorate hailed as progressive, open and correct for the past two Obama elections are now trashed as racist and ignorant for supporting Trump, it seems there's something very wrong with how people judge the electorate or analyze their motivations.

[sheggaro]

What amazes me is that a guy like Trump won to begin with. Can you imagine how badly the Dems would have lost had they not run against someone with Trump's polarizing personality? Someone like Mitt Romney or McCain would have eaten the Dems alive.

The way I see it the Dems are all to willing to throw the white majority under the bus to appeal to minority votes, through that they divide the country too. They're bad people in my book, who don't deserve to hold office. The only 'Democrat' who didn't do that (if memory serves) was Sanders, his message was one of unity even though I disagreed with his solutions. But I respected him, I think he's a good man. Hillary and Obama on the other hand are spineless wretches, no more, no less.

[Mormolyce]

Yes but clearly you didn't.

I like how you even posted the dictionary definition of rigging so you can't move the goalposts and pretend you didn't mean actual rigging.

- - - Updated - - -

What amazes me is that a guy like Trump won to begin with. Can you imagine how badly the Dems would have lost had they not run against someone with Trump's polarizing personality? Someone like Mitt Romney or McCain would have eaten the Dems alive.

Imagine how easily the Republicans would've won if they'd put something resembling a human being at the front of their campaign.

They might've even gotten more votes than Hillary!

[Delana]

I want to move Left But I don't want to move Populist, to me on both the left and right populism is almost always irrational and deeply unrealistic, and just leaves everyone disappointed once the reality of actually governing hits. Or used as an excuse to move countries in authoritarian directions.

So you're a technocrat. How is that not authoritarian?

When things go well, the people live their lives and let their politicians do their jobs. The people are generous and permit a certain degree of graft and corruption from their politicians as long as they deliver good quality of life. When the politicians (technocrats) fuck up, you get populism to fix it as the people's forbearance reaches its limits.

Being against the populist half of the cycle ab initio is to give unchecked power to the people in authority. Not to mention that branding the people as "irrational and deeply unrealistic" is itself at best undemocratic. At worst it's a dangerous line of thought to walk down.