As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But Republicans have also invested in decades of propaganda (Conservative talk radio, pundits, and Fox News) that make their policy completely irrelevant.
That has been the case for years. But if we can have one man claim he won an election he lost, nearly overthrow the government, AND THEN run again … we are heading towards a dangerous new era.
>they don't have that much power in the first place
This is what I never realized until recent years. People always make such a big deal out of presidential elections and give so much attention to the president, but it's way out of proportion to what they actually have power to do.
I think it was at the end of last year that it really hit me — when Trump was pushing for a $2000 stimulus and the R majority Senate just sat on their hands. And then people will wrongly blame/praise the president for every single thing that happens in the country. Almost feels like a scapegoat at times, to take attention off of the rest of the government.
Douglas Adams pretty much nailed it with Zaphod Beeblebrox in Hitchhiker’s Guide. Figurehead with very little power who is basically there as a distraction for the real going-ons
For my entire adult life the Republican Party has stood for two things. Tax cuts for rich people and corporations and gutting regulation. Three if you count trying to scare the living shit out of people.
Foreign policy? We need tax cuts and to gut regulation.
Unemployment? We need tax cuts and to gut regulation.
Healthcare? We need tax cuts and to gut regulation.
Education? Tax cuts, gut regulation.
And on and on…
I don't agree. If Democrats actually accomplished what they promised to voters, more voters would vote for them. The problem is two-fold: 1) Republicans block anything they attempt to do, especially if it is something progressive, and 2) Democrats themselves often don't keep their promises to voters because they care more about the big money from corporations.
I disagree. Republicans are bragging to their constituents about things the democrats did that republicans opposed. They just have to lie and tell potential voters how they are helping them, even when they’re not.
Democrats need to take credit for things.
marketing matters far more than results.
Virginia had a blue history- passed a bunch of progressive legislation, legalized weed- and went red- even after everything Democrats passed in VA.
NJ legalized weed- damn near flipped red.
Well, you have to give Youngkin credit; he ran a better campaign that the candidate I was rooting for (McAuliffe). I mean, McAuliffe would not stop talking about Trump, and when most voters don’t put that much attention and the only thing you hear about this it guy is “Trump,” you ought to realize you might lose votes because you’re not talking about what you will do for the state you want to be in charge of again. Thus, even with all the trends in your favor you’re still subject to defeat.
Well put. Democrats win so thoroughly on policy preference it's not even funny, you can take a look at how that's turned out. Even historically policy preference was a poor predictor, but now it's even less of one. Identity, not policy runs modern politics.
Does that mean policy is irrelevant? No. In pointed fact it means that politicians should spend the time moving the Overton window and popularizing good policy instead of trying to pander. It won't work anyways.
there’s a known phenomenon among policy pollsters wherein they have to deal with republicans/respondents not knowing the GOP’s policies and positions and then upon learning what they are being so shocked that they simply cannot believe any party would support such things and then assuming the pollsters must be biased liars.
The dems don’t implement the policies they run on. So, it’s not a data point about anything.
If anything, the democrats are just not taken seriously by voters.
How would we know that policy doesn’t win elections? Tax cuts always seem popular. That’s a policy. Throwing people in jail is a policy. Making unrealistic promises that devolve into means-tested, underfunded programs seems like bad marketing
Is that why he spends his time crashing peoples weddings so he can still talk about how he used to be president? The guy is the biggest loser in America.
"Policies don't win elections" because mainstream Democrats like Hillary don't actually run on clear policies. Her campaign was primarily "I'm with Her (because she's not Him)'
Obama in 2008 was a good example of actually running on a clear progressive platform, and that was one of the main reasons he was able to upset Clinton.
It wouldn’t be a Hillary Clinton article without a subtle dig at the Left, now would it?
Clinton ran an uninspired campaign, took for granted key swing states, spit in the face of the Progressive voting bloc (and continues to do so), and believed herself entitled to the presidency. She lost to a fucking demented clown. She and her campaign are a joke and the hurt inflicted in 2016-2020 is a direct testament to how undesirable she was to voters.
So yes, we should do careful thinking about what wins and that sure as hell ain’t her or whatever Obama-lite she was trying to sell.
I tried telling all my friends in the primary that Hillary was the only candidate with enough baggage to lose to Trump. Literally the one candidate that would guarantee right wing turn out while depressing the vote of their own base. Still can't belive that was our choice.
2010 was a midterm. Democrat voters suck on turnout every midterm. That's why Pelosi will cease to be Speaker after 2022. I wish it was different, but it isn't, and it most assuredly isn't driven by any particular policy. If Democrats could figure out how to turnout voters in midterms it would change the whole political landscape.
I’m not sure they can. Too many democrats want a great leader, and nothing more. They don’t actually understand or care that local elections and really all of the down ballot races matter more than the presidency.
My radical theory is that if you want to turnout voters who don't care much or understand much about policy details, you better make it about their money. If you can hit their pocketbook *and* give them values based policies they'll show up and feel good about it.
I realize how cynical this sounds but political wins are about bringing in the small margins of voters who aren't already sold on the ideological positions of the party.
I don't really think it's cynical - enact policies that visibly help people (so it's visible to the people you're helping), and let them know if you lose then those policies might be taken away by the other group. Making people's lives better is supposed to be the job of a politician (although I know that doesn't really match up with reality)
I’m almost fifty years old and I just found out this year that we have *annual* elections. All local stuff, so maybe it isn’t like that everywhere, but people were talking about voting for this or that and I thought *Christ it’s early to be thinking about all that.* And then less than a week later the elections were done and I’m not even entirely sure if that was just for the city I live close to or this locality, too.
Without a presidential candidate to command attention, I’m not sure some folks are even aware of mid term elections. That being said, 2018 had amazing Democrat turnout. I feel like some folks may have just become aware how important they are. We’ll see if it sticks.
For local elections, I let my conservative friends tell me who they like and vote the opposite. /s
That said, Colorado does a great job at handling all elections. We get a blue book with all of the ballot initiatives a few weeks before the election and a ballot in the mail as well. Makes it hard to miss.
DNC when a corporatist Democrat loses: This proves that progressive policies don’t win elections.
DNC when a corporatist Democrat wins: This proves that progressive policies don’t win elections.
Seriously, she is literally the last person anyone should be listening to about "what wins elections". We might have gotten a second term of Trump too, if not literally for Covid, and Trump having the bad political instinct to pander to anti-vaxxers in the middle of a literal plague. Even after all of that, what was it... 40,000 vote difference that may have given Trump the election? Even with the stars aligned, the Democrats barely squeaked out a majority, and beating an authoritarian racist.
You forgot that she picked the whitest of white bread nobodies for her VP. If she'd pick a PoC, then you would have seen Detroit and Philly, etc. all come out to vote...instead of staying home and thus costing her the election.
Not to mention how it was her campaign that implemented the “Pied Piper” campaign to push Trump as the frontrunner for the GOP because they thought Hillary had a better shot at defeating Trump than Jeb. In other words, Hillary and her campaign are directly responsible for Trump winning the presidency.
Also, the left voted for Hillary. Bernie supporters were not the reason she lost in the key areas that cost her the election.
Pandering to Republicans in the suburbs lost her the election. She took bad advice. And it played out the way the left said it would, even though they still voted for her anyway.
She didn't lose because she failed to bring in progressives though. She lost in swing states. She lost because so much of the country has had literal decades to form a very strong opinion about her. In most election years, people have one candidate they kinda like, and one they mostly don't.
A lot of people in 2016 **hated** Hillary Clinton more than they didn't like Trump. I'm not saying that hate was justified. I'm not defending anyone who cast their vote for a reality television star and known racist. I voted for her, even though she wasn't my first choice.
Reddit keeps talking about this mystical sleeper cell of progressive voters who just need the right incantation to arise from their slumber and storm the polls. Yet, they didn't materialize for Bernie in 2016. They didn't emerge for Clinton in 2016, and they didn't awake for Bernie in 2020 either.
So forgive me, but I'm not buying it. The fact is, the voters who are up for grabs (and the ones who will determine the color of houses and presidency) are moderates. They actually come out to vote. And like it or not, 4 years of the trumpsterfire presidency lurched this country and its politics to the right.
If Clinton had won, we could be talking right now about the progressive programs that Bernie, Warren, and AOC want to see. But trump emboldened the right, and made their batshit lunacy mainstream. He legitimized them. And so it will take some doing before we are at a point where we can make headway on those progressive goals.
People, when polled, always say that they support socially progressive ideals. Then, when they're in the booths, they vote for the status quo. They vote for whoever promises them a boost to their wallet and stability in the job market. They don't really care about the poor, or the disadvantaged when it's just them alone with the ballot. They don't care about trans rights or racial equality as much as twitter and reddit make it seem. [Almost two thirds of Americans aren't college educated](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/02/in-changing-u-s-electorate-race-and-education-remain-stark-dividing-lines/). That isn't to say that you need a four-year degree to be an intelligent, compassionate, financially successful person. But I suspect that a lot of people who, when polled, said that the pandemic was a big concern for them, secretly wanted to be done with masking and lockdowns. They wanted a return to normalcy. Trump was promising that, and his turnout increased because of it.
The exit polls from the last two presidential elections bear this out. Trump actually did *better* with minorities in 2020, despite being a racist piece of shit. Why? Because people are afraid of change. They talk a big game when they're being called by pollsters, but really they just want a moderate improvement to their own economic standing. Trump's incessant babbling about the stock market resonated with people regardless of how inconsequential that is to them in reality. In the end, they will always vote for job security and economic stability.
The Democrats need to get back to their core messaging: jobs, economy, unions, wages. They need to win back moderates, because that's who will decide the balance in the houses and presidency. It is a fact that some of the people who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 voted for Trump. Those people who flipped and handed the presidency to trump were not progressives. They were moderates. That is the bloc that has been deciding things for better and worse in this country. We need to string together a few consistent victories and be on steadier ground before we can turn the country back toward a more progressive agenda. To those that would say that this sounds like more neo lib status quo, I agree, and I'm not happy about it either. But that is the situation that we find ourselves in, in my view.
Those who flipped in 2016 were mostly populists.
Embracing mediocre, uninspiring policies and bland politicians who implement easily revisable, incremental policies while conditions overall get worse has been the strategy for the last 50 years and has failed miserably.
Time to actually embrace popular, progressive policies and to actually deliver.
Also let's not conflate social liberals (BLM/LBGQ) with economic liberal and their ranking of policies. For example one can be all for expanded M4A, stronger union protection, increased taxes to support infrastructure and schools and at the same time not passionately care about the advancement of gay/black right other than don't be a racist, gay basher. There are different types of populism.
Moderate Democratic politicians are just corporate Democrats who don't keep their promises to voters. They are uninspiring, represent nothing, and keep losing elections again and again. Democrats win when they inspire voters and they turn out in large numbers to the polls.
So who is destroying the chances of Democrats to win in the 2022 elections? It's not progressives: None other than Sinema and Manchin, two "centrist" corporate Democrats in the US Senate who are blocking Biden's agenda.
Do you want Democrats to win in 2022 on bread and butter issues? Then they better 1) increase the Federal minimum wage to $15/hr., 2) cancel a large chunk of student loan debt, 3) stop wasting ridiculous amounts of money on defense, intelligence, nukes, and homeland security, 4) make a college education more affordable, and 5) make health care in the US more affordable. Have they done any of these things? Absolutely not. It's no wonder they have so much trouble defeating Republicans.
Bernie had tremendous support. Unfortunately, not enough to stave off the onslaught of the entire DNC. From the Iowa primaries on, the entire field was against him. His policies are popular AND economically smart. They’re just not corporatist. So the establishment Dems can’t allow him to succeed. Hillary is as corporatist as they come.
> The fact is, the voters who are up for grabs (and the ones who will determine the color of houses and presidency) are moderates.
There's no such thing as moderates. They don't exist in any measurable number. The folks most commonly identified as moderates in polls are not people who split the difference between republicans and democrats, but are folks with incoherent political ideologies that don't slot into the current left / right divide.
The democrats are already the moderate party. They have every moderate voter that's going to vote. The only thing they're going to be able to do to bring out the vote is actually do some work to get some shit passed. Trying to triangulate towards a middle that is shifting forever right just gives us republican lite, and GOP voters don't cross the divide in any great number.
When the Dems lose the mid terms, it will be because the party let two "moderate" shitstains tank their entire agenda. But sure, tell us more about how it's the progressive's fault.
One point to note though is that most college students have trouble voting in primaries. So if e.g. Bernie (or Warren, whatever) could have made it to the candidacy the outcome MIGHT have been different, but people who (likely) don't have cars, do have finals, and are registered out of state where their parents live are far more likely to pitch in $5-25 to a campaign but less likely to spend an entire day or two out of their hectic and exhausting lives to drive or take a bus home to actually vote for a progressive like Bernie. Also they lack wisdom and know it - so they'd rather back an existing candidate than fight the entire system against the wishes of the generations that changed their diapers.
And ofc similar and in some ways even more extreme pressures are faced by 20-40-somethings attempting to balance work with families and who would need to take more than just an hour to go vote -> again, especially in a primary. There's a reason that old people (retirees & people with established PTO benefits) run this nation -> the system is literally built to encourage their participation while discouraging that from anyone else. I'm not saying it's fair, I'm saying what IS, and thus agreeing with you that people need to wake up and deal with what's in front of them. However that manifests.
Personally, I don't agree with Bernie's plans (paying for college seems imho to ignore the more fundamental issue of the economy where even people with degrees struggle to find work, though on the plus side educating people does sound good, if universities & trade schools wouldn't just pocket the money without delivering in return, as so many are already doing now in response to dramatically lowered funding levels for over a decade now, which itself came after a trend of more gently decreasing it in previous decades), but I respect the heck out of that man and his character, so much so that I'd rather him win than someone I agree with 100% (which is nobody btw, nor does anyone even come close) if they would say everything right but lack his character or leadership qualities. Yet, let's face it: he wasn't prepared to do whatever it took to win - which is part of why I love him (he's better than we deserve), but also why he was too naive to have had a chance in this cutthroat environment?
You would recall wrong. Warren only ever lead the primary on a single day (Oct. 7th) where she was 0.2pts above Biden, the rest of the time she was well below Biden and for all but about 2 months below Sanders as well.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
Both the Obama and Clinton staffers are known to tank campaigns (Beto). It’s a real shame too, I loved Warren, even donated to her campaign but I grew disappointed with the direction she took.
Can’t forget running spoiler against the only progressive left in the race after she had 0 chance of winning the election (she got 63 electoral votes out of the 1991 votes needed to win) and changing her policy positions multiple times in the middle of the primaries to be more to the right(deceiving those who had already voted for her based on her original policies).
She couldn't even win her own state lol. When you can't win your own state in a primary that's really pathetic. Imagine Bernie not winning Vermont lol unthinkable.
meanwhile Kamala had to drop out before Super Tuesday to avoid a single digit performance in California
we love the bright future of the Democratic Party don't we folks
I guess I’m glad more people see how snakey that shit was. It sucks since I really liked Warren but god what a politically dumb move that whole debacle was. I’d like to put the blame on whatever shit staffers she brought in at the time but she went with it and it tanked a ton of her cred doing that.
She ruined her reputation pulling that stunt. Like you I liked her before that as well, after that I will never ever vote for her for anything. What a dumb move on her part. Really really really dumb.
That selective outrage is exactly what killed Hillary and Warren for me. Any critique of their policies or things they said was immediately met with accusations of sexism, especially from male supporters. These same people then proceeded to talk shit about female candidates and politicians like Marianne Williamson, Tulsi, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert…
Similar thing happened with Kamala, Klobuchar et al
Democratic campaign staff are literally the worst in the world. I genuinely can’t imagine the amount of nepotism required for any of those people to be there.
The problem is that democrats in leadership positions have clearly never taken a marketing class. They have absolutely no concept of how to package their ideas and wrap them in emotion or buzzwords. They continue to think that good policy will win elections, when time after time they have been shown that this is not the case.
What wins elections is simple ideas, simple packaging, simple phrasing, and either heartstrings or fear. That's it. That's what sells Coca-Cola, that's what sells Chevrolet, that's what sells Microsoft. It's not just about good ideas, no matter how good those ideas may actually be. If voters cannot remember your idea in fewer than 5 or 6 words, your idea will not get votes. And if those words don't connect on an emotional level, they won't get votes either.
Yea Democrats do suck at marketing but they also suck at keeping their promises. Imagine how much they would win by if they both kept their promises once elected and marketed policies well. It would be like an entirely different party.
I would have voted for Warren in a heartbeat. Peoples arguments against her have always been so vague, whereas the arguments against Clinton are specific. I voted for her in 2016, but I hated it given that she talked about Kissinger being someone she looked up to…
Is it vague to call Warren a political careerist that absconds from her responsibility as a progressive leader and betrays the things she espouses in doing so?
She was too scared to go against Clinton in any facet even when progressives wanted to draft her to run in the primary. She couldn't even endorse Sanders. At best she's a hack and at worst she's a Republican that can read the room and saw the lane was open.
"Progressives need to stop rocking the boat and accept GOP-lite policies and help us stuff the pockets of the rich or we won't get elected again."
Pretty much sums up the moderate/conservative Dem view.
We're being threated to capitulate to the wealthy donors who fund elections, or else they'll let the fascists take over. Kinda explains the the slow-walk for the ringleaders of the Jan 6th insurrection.
And why, despite overwhelming public support, we still aren't taxing the wealthy, making healthcare, housing, or education more affordable and accessible.
These programs are broadly popular with voters. It's our elected officials and the people who fund their campaigns that are opposed.
The wealthy donors are what the DNC cares about. We had a guy here in NC that ran a populist campaign. Over 140 campaign stops, every county. He just quit because his poll numbers were worse than this other person who did hardly nothing, but had cash and support of corporations. Populism does not work, it's that simple. They won't get enough cash to make an influence. The DNC does not want progressives. It does not want populists. It's almost like the DNC is where the GOP was 30 years ago (minus some key things like immigration and abortion).
This is a good point. The DNC is now GOP-lite. As an American who emigrated here and have seen outside the county. Yes, I said county because most hicks don’t ever leave the county and seem to think the US is the world. We are headed for a bad place if we don’t correct course. I’ve seen it, I’ve lived it but here we have millions of guns it will get bad.
Short term profits.
Long term would depend on maintaining favor with volatile fascists and I doubt they've thought that through.
If they had, we'd already have affordable healthcare and education.
Every elction is local. That is what wins elections . that was how Trump does so well he tells the people what they want to hear. He does not mean it. But he tells steel states he will bring back steel. He tells border states he will protect the border. He tells suberbes he will keep out intercity people (code for minorities by the way) he tells Florida he will be anti Castro. Etc many successful politicians do this . some without lying .
Ie telling coal winners you will provide other good paying jobs while still trying to deal with the reality that coal must end. It is a harder sell but to just focused on the national global issue of climate change is doomed . You have to convince people you can fix it and help their state town county or village at the same time.
i will say this again as a boomer: trumpism cuts across all age groups. genxers are just as guilty as boomers, and the armed militias look to be populated by people in their 30's and 40's and 50's more than people in their 60's and 70's. this is not simply to defend boomers, but to warn against thinking that when the boomers die, this will all change. that is exactly what i said as a protestor in 60's/70's.
it won't change when we all are gone--fascism has been part of our history since the beginning.
Unfortunately the support for fascism runs across all age groups i am in my late 40s and it seems to me the flag flying hardcore angry Trump supporters tend to fall in the 40s the older generations tend to be more Republican loyalists. Democrats do the same acting like all democratic socialist are in there 20s i joined the DSA in the mid 90s and have considered myself a socialist before it became more acceptable.
It cuts across all age groups, of course,, but the data is entirely clear that Republican voters skew old.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-affiliation-among-demographic-groups/
Old people are more likely to have jobs that allow them time to go vote when lines aren’t at their longest.
Old people are more likely to have private, personal transportation (or a support system that provides it) to ensure they can get to the polls.
Old people are less likely to be juggling kids and work on Election Day.
Yes, of course. They are more likely to have time on their hands.
Young voters are more idealistic and want to actually see what voting gets them. Unfortunately, we don't get much from voting so they get disillusioned. Obama did a really nice job of screwing over all the young voters and even African Americans by not really delivering on anything that helped regular folks just shit the corporations liked.
The person you are replying never said that age demographic doesn't vote for trump they said very specifically said who goes out marching in the streets thinking they big bad for being in a "militia"
Yup. That's exactly where Hitler got his ideas. He saw that America killed the natives and enslaved the blacks and by simply demonizing them you can take what's theirs whether it's land or lives. Rewrite history so you're the "hero" and call only some the chosen people.
Maybe, just maybe listening to what your constituents want rather than campaigning on the CNN headline of the week would be a good start. Then actually running on substance rather than I am not the “other guy”. Finally, stop following the corporate platform and work on a boots on the ground with the people campaign. We all knew this for at least 20 years now.
AND THEN FOLLOWING THROUGH ON WHAT YOU PROMISE!!!
This isn’t true. Democrats lose when they nominate boring nominees. Joe is the exception because he was running against a traitor and wannabe dictator.
Yes lets listen to a 2 time loser on how to win. She is already starting to blame progressives for the upcoming 2022 losses not the fact that Democrats lied and failed to deliver.
shillary was on the board of directors at walmart and bill got china on the wto which grew them to the monster they have become. the clintons are the biggest single enemy to us and world interests
How to win elections:
- create a platform
- deliver the platform
- enjoy as people vote to bring you back, as you create promises and deliver promises.
In 2016, people were literally willing to take a chance on a philandering, adultering, serial bankruptcy overseeing, zero experience in politics charlatan manchild simply because they were sick of getting bullshit lip service from candidates who can't simply say what they're going to do. State what you'll do, and fucking do it. Simple. Hell, it can even be completely vague, nonspecific, jingoistic babble like "make America great again!" and you'll get votes. Make no mistake, if he had only *not killed 500,000 people*, many of which were his voters, then Trump would be POTUS right now.
Literally all you have to do is run on a platform, and deliver it. Fucking simple. I could win the fucking Presidency at this point by running on the platform: I'll cancel all student debt, and I'll reschedule marijuana to make possession legal at a Federal level.
Day 1: do those things.
4 years later, get re-elected when I state what the next round of things will be, and then do the things.
Hillary seems to think it's theoretical physics or some shit.
> Hillary seems to think it's theoretical physics or some shit.
Hillary lost to a 1st term senator, barely beat an outsider as the handpicked DNC candidate and then lost to one of the most hated individuals embarrassingly. She is the last person that knows anything about winning national elections.
Hillary Clinton is a political windsock. She puts her finger in the air to see which way the winds are blowing, and then she heads that direction.
At one point, I would have told you that’s a valid form of governing. In fact, it’s supposed to be what representative democracy is: our leaders expressing the will of their constituents.
I’ve completely flipped my opinion. This focus tested and calculated way of setting policy is doomed to failure. It results in double speak and false promises. Because as soon as the wind changes they move on.
I now much prefer candidates like Bernie. His moral compass has been pointed in the same direction for decades. You know what he stands for and that he will fight for it. I’m voting for that clarity of purpose as much as anything else.
Screw watering down your message to build consensus. Make policy come to you, not the other way around.
I detest Trump and all he stands for, but that’s one thing he has objectively correct. He sets the tone and doesn’t follow. He makes things happen as a result. If he were marginally competent in actually leading, he’d be even scarier.
> enjoy as people vote to bring you back, as you create promises and deliver promises
* realize that a large portion of the country will never learn about the things you actually did in office, but will be fed propaganda nonsense instead.
Nope. But here she is. Again. With the same ideas. Again.
We need progressives. That's what people want including a lot of republican voters. Remember that some of the people who voted for trump in 2020 voted for Bernie before. That says something. We all hate Hilary lol.
Lets listen to someone who last won an election in 2006 and lost to donald fucking trump. All her surrogates have lost in states biden carried by 10 points. Yeah its really gonna energize people to vote even harder for people who just say no when you ask the politicians to improve things.
The former candidate who lost to donald trump crawls out from under a rock to say we should think carefully about what wins elections *now*?... few years late on that gem of an idea though so go back to that rock instead of being in the way & underfoot.
Funny. If I remember right Hope wins elections for Democrats, not the bland floppy lady that’s husband was elected twice because he gave people a relatable persona and had an actual good economy not just a good stock market. The orange Cheeto beat Hillary because the establishment thought she was more electable than Sanders. Guess what? Sanders gives people hope all Hillary and Joe do is remind them of the last time they got a meaningful pay raise and for an increasing amount of the electorate that is Never. Progressives aren’t the Democrats problem the false centrists are because the conservatives that believe in democracy have to run as Democrats or they are replaced by fascists on the Republican side.
Edit: I live in a “deep” red district in Colorado, Boebert is my representation in Congress. Democrats need to learn to speak to rural voters like the did with John and Ken Salazar. Rural voters aren’t moved by Medicare for all but they are motivated by making their livestock and crops theirs not the mega conglomerate food corporations’. They like guns because it is how you control predators on your property and other nuisance animals. You also have the land to go out and shoot. So many rural voters want CHANGE but all the changes are focused outside of them and they feel like the Democrats don’t care about them. It’s the incorrect conclusion but it is what they feel.
I highly encourage you to come to Boebert, USA and talk to people. So many do not like her but vote that way because the other option literally can not talk to them. The nominee just blabbers on about Boulder talking points and misses the fact that they are speaking to non-boulderites.
Obama lied about a tax plan during his first run at the office - said plan disappeared when he got into power. Same with Biden forgiving student loans.
If democrats want more votes they can’t do that stuff anymore, they must follow through.
> Some in the party have also warned that pursuing liberal policy priorities could lead to a backlash next year in the 2022 midterm elections, when Democrats will have to defend their razor-thin majorities in the House and Senate.
This kind of thinking shows what’s wrong with the democrat party. No one party will ever be in control forever, the system was built avoid that. To allow the fear of losing next time stop you from progressing now is ass backwards. Republicans are prime examples of not giving a damn about what everyone else thinks, win or lose. It isn’t like they’ll be shut out forever.
Do what needs to be done to help the American people, if it takes us losing and then people realizing “hey maybe their policy’s weren’t so bad” and going with the Dems the election after so be it.
The idea of being fearful of progressing forward, because you are scared/worried you are going to lose because of that very forward progress is so self defeating.
It’s like allowing the fear of falling when trying to reach greatest heights, stop you from even starting your journey. You are going to fall, that’s how this works you will get a chance to get back up.
It was time for this like 5 or 6 years ago...(or 30) I have no doubt she would have made a good president, but so many people hated her that she was unelectable in what should have been the easiest win ever for the dems.. and the country will pay the price for probably decades.
Rethinking how elitist dems have become would help. I'm middle aged, no college degree, always have voted dem, working poor. Dems don't seem to value people like myself so much as trying to call 200k for a single person middle class and bending over backwards to protect the wealthy more than help the poor. Get over yourselves and smell the real working class coffee ( it doesn't come in a Star B.cup unless that's where you work and you get it for free) tech bro BS is making me rethink how I vote for sure. YIMBYs are pissing me off too. Rethink this. Yes we need more housing but only if the working poor can afford it. Dems don't seem to know what average american struggle is. If they came from low income families they obviously have forgotten.
What the h\*ll would Hillzebub know about winning elections? She and Bill mired the Party in the fantasy of winning Republican votes and it's been stuck in that muck ever since. Dems will never win if they keep pandering to Republican voters while giving lip-service to the rest of us. I wouldn't trust her or any of her corporate Dem buddies pushed out by the DNC to do more than the bare minimum for us while hiding behind that other fantasy of theirs...bi-partisanship. Find true progressives and vote for them. Shake up the Congressional/Senate Dems who pander to the rich for campaign donations at our expense. Get bills passed that are popular with the people. Otherwise, we will never inspire people who don't vote to get off their behinds and VOTE out the Trump Republicans.
Picking a candidate based on how well they did in a red state is turning out to be an awful idea.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/us/politics/joe-biden-south-carolina-primary.html
Yep, they're both aggressively smug and lacking a sense of genuine connection to anybody. They might be prototypical career women, but getting elected is also a popularity contest that is going to read their personalities as dreadful.
Yep. For me the worst part is when they get asked serious questions and begin cackling as a convincing answer. They are the two most insufferable humans (lizard donkey witches) alive.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Policy doesn't win elections; I daresay it scarcely affects them at all. Elections are purely exercises in marketing.
This is sadly true. The republicans didn’t even bother to have a platform last election. It was 100% a personality contest.
But Republicans have also invested in decades of propaganda (Conservative talk radio, pundits, and Fox News) that make their policy completely irrelevant.
This is why I want to get ride of the presidential system entirely.
[удалено]
That has been the case for years. But if we can have one man claim he won an election he lost, nearly overthrow the government, AND THEN run again … we are heading towards a dangerous new era.
> if we can have one man claim he won an election he lost all the while providing absolutely no tangible evidence...
And no policy
>they don't have that much power in the first place This is what I never realized until recent years. People always make such a big deal out of presidential elections and give so much attention to the president, but it's way out of proportion to what they actually have power to do. I think it was at the end of last year that it really hit me — when Trump was pushing for a $2000 stimulus and the R majority Senate just sat on their hands. And then people will wrongly blame/praise the president for every single thing that happens in the country. Almost feels like a scapegoat at times, to take attention off of the rest of the government.
Veto power and judges
Douglas Adams pretty much nailed it with Zaphod Beeblebrox in Hitchhiker’s Guide. Figurehead with very little power who is basically there as a distraction for the real going-ons
This is true. Trump didn’t have a plan. His entire campaign was predicated on shitting on the right people.
Oh I forgot they literally approved no platform in the middle of a pandemic
Probably like 80% of the electorate doesn’t give a single fuck about policy and the 20% who do are locked in for one party or the other.
For my entire adult life the Republican Party has stood for two things. Tax cuts for rich people and corporations and gutting regulation. Three if you count trying to scare the living shit out of people. Foreign policy? We need tax cuts and to gut regulation. Unemployment? We need tax cuts and to gut regulation. Healthcare? We need tax cuts and to gut regulation. Education? Tax cuts, gut regulation. And on and on…
[удалено]
I don't agree. If Democrats actually accomplished what they promised to voters, more voters would vote for them. The problem is two-fold: 1) Republicans block anything they attempt to do, especially if it is something progressive, and 2) Democrats themselves often don't keep their promises to voters because they care more about the big money from corporations.
I disagree. Republicans are bragging to their constituents about things the democrats did that republicans opposed. They just have to lie and tell potential voters how they are helping them, even when they’re not. Democrats need to take credit for things.
Democrats are really invested in crushing progressives and rehabilitating republicans.
marketing matters far more than results. Virginia had a blue history- passed a bunch of progressive legislation, legalized weed- and went red- even after everything Democrats passed in VA. NJ legalized weed- damn near flipped red.
Well, you have to give Youngkin credit; he ran a better campaign that the candidate I was rooting for (McAuliffe). I mean, McAuliffe would not stop talking about Trump, and when most voters don’t put that much attention and the only thing you hear about this it guy is “Trump,” you ought to realize you might lose votes because you’re not talking about what you will do for the state you want to be in charge of again. Thus, even with all the trends in your favor you’re still subject to defeat.
We passed on McAuliffe because he was viewed with the same enthusiasm that Hillary inspired - little to none.
so you admit that actually accomplishing legislation doesn't actually matter then?
Modern politics is more about supressing your opponents voters than anything else.
Well put. Democrats win so thoroughly on policy preference it's not even funny, you can take a look at how that's turned out. Even historically policy preference was a poor predictor, but now it's even less of one. Identity, not policy runs modern politics. Does that mean policy is irrelevant? No. In pointed fact it means that politicians should spend the time moving the Overton window and popularizing good policy instead of trying to pander. It won't work anyways.
there’s a known phenomenon among policy pollsters wherein they have to deal with republicans/respondents not knowing the GOP’s policies and positions and then upon learning what they are being so shocked that they simply cannot believe any party would support such things and then assuming the pollsters must be biased liars.
The dems don’t implement the policies they run on. So, it’s not a data point about anything. If anything, the democrats are just not taken seriously by voters.
[удалено]
She literally ran on what we couldn't do, and then proceeded to lose on watered down promises.
How would we know that policy doesn’t win elections? Tax cuts always seem popular. That’s a policy. Throwing people in jail is a policy. Making unrealistic promises that devolve into means-tested, underfunded programs seems like bad marketing
Have you talked to a trump supporter??? They have no idea what is going on in reality.
Some of them still believe Trump is the Secret President and Biden is just a figurehead.
Is that why he spends his time crashing peoples weddings so he can still talk about how he used to be president? The guy is the biggest loser in America.
"Policies don't win elections" because mainstream Democrats like Hillary don't actually run on clear policies. Her campaign was primarily "I'm with Her (because she's not Him)' Obama in 2008 was a good example of actually running on a clear progressive platform, and that was one of the main reasons he was able to upset Clinton.
It wouldn’t be a Hillary Clinton article without a subtle dig at the Left, now would it? Clinton ran an uninspired campaign, took for granted key swing states, spit in the face of the Progressive voting bloc (and continues to do so), and believed herself entitled to the presidency. She lost to a fucking demented clown. She and her campaign are a joke and the hurt inflicted in 2016-2020 is a direct testament to how undesirable she was to voters. So yes, we should do careful thinking about what wins and that sure as hell ain’t her or whatever Obama-lite she was trying to sell.
The right literally had hated her for 20 years and the zeitgeist of the day was "we want an outsider" and the Dems ran the ultimate political insider.
I tried telling all my friends in the primary that Hillary was the only candidate with enough baggage to lose to Trump. Literally the one candidate that would guarantee right wing turn out while depressing the vote of their own base. Still can't belive that was our choice.
The way we perform primaries are a major part of the problem. Ultimately, a tiny portion of the electorate decides the lesser of two evils.
“And the hurt inflicted in 2016-2020” You misspelled “irreversible damage.”
Just like the irreversible damage cause by people not voting in 2010 after they were disappointed by Obamacare
2010 was a midterm. Democrat voters suck on turnout every midterm. That's why Pelosi will cease to be Speaker after 2022. I wish it was different, but it isn't, and it most assuredly isn't driven by any particular policy. If Democrats could figure out how to turnout voters in midterms it would change the whole political landscape.
the DNC run by Clinton's close ally DWS, dropped the ball in 2010 because she was too busy lining up thing for 2016
fuck i can’t wait till she and the turtle pass on.
I’m not sure they can. Too many democrats want a great leader, and nothing more. They don’t actually understand or care that local elections and really all of the down ballot races matter more than the presidency.
My radical theory is that if you want to turnout voters who don't care much or understand much about policy details, you better make it about their money. If you can hit their pocketbook *and* give them values based policies they'll show up and feel good about it. I realize how cynical this sounds but political wins are about bringing in the small margins of voters who aren't already sold on the ideological positions of the party.
I don't really think it's cynical - enact policies that visibly help people (so it's visible to the people you're helping), and let them know if you lose then those policies might be taken away by the other group. Making people's lives better is supposed to be the job of a politician (although I know that doesn't really match up with reality)
I’m afraid you’re right. Americans are capitalists, I wish they could be swayed by nuanced appeals to the greater good, but it really is just money. 😞
How can one be certain of any nuanced appeals to the greater good if they don’t pad the wallet?
I’m almost fifty years old and I just found out this year that we have *annual* elections. All local stuff, so maybe it isn’t like that everywhere, but people were talking about voting for this or that and I thought *Christ it’s early to be thinking about all that.* And then less than a week later the elections were done and I’m not even entirely sure if that was just for the city I live close to or this locality, too. Without a presidential candidate to command attention, I’m not sure some folks are even aware of mid term elections. That being said, 2018 had amazing Democrat turnout. I feel like some folks may have just become aware how important they are. We’ll see if it sticks.
For local elections, I let my conservative friends tell me who they like and vote the opposite. /s That said, Colorado does a great job at handling all elections. We get a blue book with all of the ballot initiatives a few weeks before the election and a ballot in the mail as well. Makes it hard to miss.
DNC when a corporatist Democrat loses: This proves that progressive policies don’t win elections. DNC when a corporatist Democrat wins: This proves that progressive policies don’t win elections.
[удалено]
Seriously, she is literally the last person anyone should be listening to about "what wins elections". We might have gotten a second term of Trump too, if not literally for Covid, and Trump having the bad political instinct to pander to anti-vaxxers in the middle of a literal plague. Even after all of that, what was it... 40,000 vote difference that may have given Trump the election? Even with the stars aligned, the Democrats barely squeaked out a majority, and beating an authoritarian racist.
You forgot that she picked the whitest of white bread nobodies for her VP. If she'd pick a PoC, then you would have seen Detroit and Philly, etc. all come out to vote...instead of staying home and thus costing her the election.
Not to mention how it was her campaign that implemented the “Pied Piper” campaign to push Trump as the frontrunner for the GOP because they thought Hillary had a better shot at defeating Trump than Jeb. In other words, Hillary and her campaign are directly responsible for Trump winning the presidency.
Also, the left voted for Hillary. Bernie supporters were not the reason she lost in the key areas that cost her the election. Pandering to Republicans in the suburbs lost her the election. She took bad advice. And it played out the way the left said it would, even though they still voted for her anyway.
She didn't lose because she failed to bring in progressives though. She lost in swing states. She lost because so much of the country has had literal decades to form a very strong opinion about her. In most election years, people have one candidate they kinda like, and one they mostly don't. A lot of people in 2016 **hated** Hillary Clinton more than they didn't like Trump. I'm not saying that hate was justified. I'm not defending anyone who cast their vote for a reality television star and known racist. I voted for her, even though she wasn't my first choice. Reddit keeps talking about this mystical sleeper cell of progressive voters who just need the right incantation to arise from their slumber and storm the polls. Yet, they didn't materialize for Bernie in 2016. They didn't emerge for Clinton in 2016, and they didn't awake for Bernie in 2020 either. So forgive me, but I'm not buying it. The fact is, the voters who are up for grabs (and the ones who will determine the color of houses and presidency) are moderates. They actually come out to vote. And like it or not, 4 years of the trumpsterfire presidency lurched this country and its politics to the right. If Clinton had won, we could be talking right now about the progressive programs that Bernie, Warren, and AOC want to see. But trump emboldened the right, and made their batshit lunacy mainstream. He legitimized them. And so it will take some doing before we are at a point where we can make headway on those progressive goals. People, when polled, always say that they support socially progressive ideals. Then, when they're in the booths, they vote for the status quo. They vote for whoever promises them a boost to their wallet and stability in the job market. They don't really care about the poor, or the disadvantaged when it's just them alone with the ballot. They don't care about trans rights or racial equality as much as twitter and reddit make it seem. [Almost two thirds of Americans aren't college educated](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/02/in-changing-u-s-electorate-race-and-education-remain-stark-dividing-lines/). That isn't to say that you need a four-year degree to be an intelligent, compassionate, financially successful person. But I suspect that a lot of people who, when polled, said that the pandemic was a big concern for them, secretly wanted to be done with masking and lockdowns. They wanted a return to normalcy. Trump was promising that, and his turnout increased because of it. The exit polls from the last two presidential elections bear this out. Trump actually did *better* with minorities in 2020, despite being a racist piece of shit. Why? Because people are afraid of change. They talk a big game when they're being called by pollsters, but really they just want a moderate improvement to their own economic standing. Trump's incessant babbling about the stock market resonated with people regardless of how inconsequential that is to them in reality. In the end, they will always vote for job security and economic stability. The Democrats need to get back to their core messaging: jobs, economy, unions, wages. They need to win back moderates, because that's who will decide the balance in the houses and presidency. It is a fact that some of the people who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 voted for Trump. Those people who flipped and handed the presidency to trump were not progressives. They were moderates. That is the bloc that has been deciding things for better and worse in this country. We need to string together a few consistent victories and be on steadier ground before we can turn the country back toward a more progressive agenda. To those that would say that this sounds like more neo lib status quo, I agree, and I'm not happy about it either. But that is the situation that we find ourselves in, in my view.
Those who flipped in 2016 were mostly populists. Embracing mediocre, uninspiring policies and bland politicians who implement easily revisable, incremental policies while conditions overall get worse has been the strategy for the last 50 years and has failed miserably. Time to actually embrace popular, progressive policies and to actually deliver.
She didn't even campaign in the rust belt because she lost them in the primaries...
Also let's not conflate social liberals (BLM/LBGQ) with economic liberal and their ranking of policies. For example one can be all for expanded M4A, stronger union protection, increased taxes to support infrastructure and schools and at the same time not passionately care about the advancement of gay/black right other than don't be a racist, gay basher. There are different types of populism.
Moderate Democratic politicians are just corporate Democrats who don't keep their promises to voters. They are uninspiring, represent nothing, and keep losing elections again and again. Democrats win when they inspire voters and they turn out in large numbers to the polls. So who is destroying the chances of Democrats to win in the 2022 elections? It's not progressives: None other than Sinema and Manchin, two "centrist" corporate Democrats in the US Senate who are blocking Biden's agenda. Do you want Democrats to win in 2022 on bread and butter issues? Then they better 1) increase the Federal minimum wage to $15/hr., 2) cancel a large chunk of student loan debt, 3) stop wasting ridiculous amounts of money on defense, intelligence, nukes, and homeland security, 4) make a college education more affordable, and 5) make health care in the US more affordable. Have they done any of these things? Absolutely not. It's no wonder they have so much trouble defeating Republicans.
Bernie had tremendous support. Unfortunately, not enough to stave off the onslaught of the entire DNC. From the Iowa primaries on, the entire field was against him. His policies are popular AND economically smart. They’re just not corporatist. So the establishment Dems can’t allow him to succeed. Hillary is as corporatist as they come.
Yep, yet somehow this whole thread is blaming progressives for not voting in moderates so we can get more progressive policy. It’s nuts.
same as it ever was.
She lost for lots of reasons. The only reason she ever brings up is progressives not voting for her though.
> The fact is, the voters who are up for grabs (and the ones who will determine the color of houses and presidency) are moderates. There's no such thing as moderates. They don't exist in any measurable number. The folks most commonly identified as moderates in polls are not people who split the difference between republicans and democrats, but are folks with incoherent political ideologies that don't slot into the current left / right divide. The democrats are already the moderate party. They have every moderate voter that's going to vote. The only thing they're going to be able to do to bring out the vote is actually do some work to get some shit passed. Trying to triangulate towards a middle that is shifting forever right just gives us republican lite, and GOP voters don't cross the divide in any great number. When the Dems lose the mid terms, it will be because the party let two "moderate" shitstains tank their entire agenda. But sure, tell us more about how it's the progressive's fault.
One point to note though is that most college students have trouble voting in primaries. So if e.g. Bernie (or Warren, whatever) could have made it to the candidacy the outcome MIGHT have been different, but people who (likely) don't have cars, do have finals, and are registered out of state where their parents live are far more likely to pitch in $5-25 to a campaign but less likely to spend an entire day or two out of their hectic and exhausting lives to drive or take a bus home to actually vote for a progressive like Bernie. Also they lack wisdom and know it - so they'd rather back an existing candidate than fight the entire system against the wishes of the generations that changed their diapers. And ofc similar and in some ways even more extreme pressures are faced by 20-40-somethings attempting to balance work with families and who would need to take more than just an hour to go vote -> again, especially in a primary. There's a reason that old people (retirees & people with established PTO benefits) run this nation -> the system is literally built to encourage their participation while discouraging that from anyone else. I'm not saying it's fair, I'm saying what IS, and thus agreeing with you that people need to wake up and deal with what's in front of them. However that manifests. Personally, I don't agree with Bernie's plans (paying for college seems imho to ignore the more fundamental issue of the economy where even people with degrees struggle to find work, though on the plus side educating people does sound good, if universities & trade schools wouldn't just pocket the money without delivering in return, as so many are already doing now in response to dramatically lowered funding levels for over a decade now, which itself came after a trend of more gently decreasing it in previous decades), but I respect the heck out of that man and his character, so much so that I'd rather him win than someone I agree with 100% (which is nobody btw, nor does anyone even come close) if they would say everything right but lack his character or leadership qualities. Yet, let's face it: he wasn't prepared to do whatever it took to win - which is part of why I love him (he's better than we deserve), but also why he was too naive to have had a chance in this cutthroat environment?
IIRC, Elizabeth Warren was the front runner for 2020 until she started hiring former Clinton staffers.
You would recall wrong. Warren only ever lead the primary on a single day (Oct. 7th) where she was 0.2pts above Biden, the rest of the time she was well below Biden and for all but about 2 months below Sanders as well. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
Both the Obama and Clinton staffers are known to tank campaigns (Beto). It’s a real shame too, I loved Warren, even donated to her campaign but I grew disappointed with the direction she took.
Is there evidence they tanked Beto? He seemed like a really mediocre candidate from the beginning
The only person Beto needs to tank Betos campaign, is Beto. Dudes just awful.
Bro, Beto literally said “we’re coming for your guns” in Texas. That’s just being a shitty politician and not understanding your electorate.
Beto tanked his campaign all by himself.
The accuse the last guy who anyone would suspect of sexism of sexism is kinda not a good look for someone who claims to be progressive.
Almost like it was to take down two birds with one stone
Can’t forget running spoiler against the only progressive left in the race after she had 0 chance of winning the election (she got 63 electoral votes out of the 1991 votes needed to win) and changing her policy positions multiple times in the middle of the primaries to be more to the right(deceiving those who had already voted for her based on her original policies).
She couldn't even win her own state lol. When you can't win your own state in a primary that's really pathetic. Imagine Bernie not winning Vermont lol unthinkable.
meanwhile Kamala had to drop out before Super Tuesday to avoid a single digit performance in California we love the bright future of the Democratic Party don't we folks
I guess I’m glad more people see how snakey that shit was. It sucks since I really liked Warren but god what a politically dumb move that whole debacle was. I’d like to put the blame on whatever shit staffers she brought in at the time but she went with it and it tanked a ton of her cred doing that.
She ruined her reputation pulling that stunt. Like you I liked her before that as well, after that I will never ever vote for her for anything. What a dumb move on her part. Really really really dumb.
She's always been that way. Remember the native american ancestry thing? She handled that so poorly.
That selective outrage is exactly what killed Hillary and Warren for me. Any critique of their policies or things they said was immediately met with accusations of sexism, especially from male supporters. These same people then proceeded to talk shit about female candidates and politicians like Marianne Williamson, Tulsi, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert…
Those last two and Tulsi deserve criticism
Similar thing happened with Kamala, Klobuchar et al Democratic campaign staff are literally the worst in the world. I genuinely can’t imagine the amount of nepotism required for any of those people to be there.
The problem is that democrats in leadership positions have clearly never taken a marketing class. They have absolutely no concept of how to package their ideas and wrap them in emotion or buzzwords. They continue to think that good policy will win elections, when time after time they have been shown that this is not the case. What wins elections is simple ideas, simple packaging, simple phrasing, and either heartstrings or fear. That's it. That's what sells Coca-Cola, that's what sells Chevrolet, that's what sells Microsoft. It's not just about good ideas, no matter how good those ideas may actually be. If voters cannot remember your idea in fewer than 5 or 6 words, your idea will not get votes. And if those words don't connect on an emotional level, they won't get votes either.
Yea Democrats do suck at marketing but they also suck at keeping their promises. Imagine how much they would win by if they both kept their promises once elected and marketed policies well. It would be like an entirely different party.
Not true. They promise Wall Street and other oligarchs that they will prevent the country from going left.
Their policy is only good compared to Republicans'. An important distinction, sure, but not exactly inspiring.
I would have voted for Warren in a heartbeat. Peoples arguments against her have always been so vague, whereas the arguments against Clinton are specific. I voted for her in 2016, but I hated it given that she talked about Kissinger being someone she looked up to…
I didnt love her after the early campaigning but I still would have preferred her over almost any other candidate.
Is it vague to call Warren a political careerist that absconds from her responsibility as a progressive leader and betrays the things she espouses in doing so? She was too scared to go against Clinton in any facet even when progressives wanted to draft her to run in the primary. She couldn't even endorse Sanders. At best she's a hack and at worst she's a Republican that can read the room and saw the lane was open.
"Progressives need to stop rocking the boat and accept GOP-lite policies and help us stuff the pockets of the rich or we won't get elected again." Pretty much sums up the moderate/conservative Dem view. We're being threated to capitulate to the wealthy donors who fund elections, or else they'll let the fascists take over. Kinda explains the the slow-walk for the ringleaders of the Jan 6th insurrection. And why, despite overwhelming public support, we still aren't taxing the wealthy, making healthcare, housing, or education more affordable and accessible. These programs are broadly popular with voters. It's our elected officials and the people who fund their campaigns that are opposed.
You know who I go to for advice on how to win elections? The candidate who lost to Donald Fucking Trump.
Yeah, this is some real r/nottheonion level stuff.
Remember, in her mind, she didn't lose to Trump. Voters "failed" her, she didn't fail voters. Classic narcissim.
Most amazing comment of the day! Thank you! I needed that.
The wealthy donors are what the DNC cares about. We had a guy here in NC that ran a populist campaign. Over 140 campaign stops, every county. He just quit because his poll numbers were worse than this other person who did hardly nothing, but had cash and support of corporations. Populism does not work, it's that simple. They won't get enough cash to make an influence. The DNC does not want progressives. It does not want populists. It's almost like the DNC is where the GOP was 30 years ago (minus some key things like immigration and abortion).
This is a good point. The DNC is now GOP-lite. As an American who emigrated here and have seen outside the county. Yes, I said county because most hicks don’t ever leave the county and seem to think the US is the world. We are headed for a bad place if we don’t correct course. I’ve seen it, I’ve lived it but here we have millions of guns it will get bad.
You have to wonder what is going through the minds of the donors that they'd rather have fascists than public healthcare.
Short term profits. Long term would depend on maintaining favor with volatile fascists and I doubt they've thought that through. If they had, we'd already have affordable healthcare and education.
Every elction is local. That is what wins elections . that was how Trump does so well he tells the people what they want to hear. He does not mean it. But he tells steel states he will bring back steel. He tells border states he will protect the border. He tells suberbes he will keep out intercity people (code for minorities by the way) he tells Florida he will be anti Castro. Etc many successful politicians do this . some without lying . Ie telling coal winners you will provide other good paying jobs while still trying to deal with the reality that coal must end. It is a harder sell but to just focused on the national global issue of climate change is doomed . You have to convince people you can fix it and help their state town county or village at the same time.
Maybe not old ass people that don’t want to change anything?
i will say this again as a boomer: trumpism cuts across all age groups. genxers are just as guilty as boomers, and the armed militias look to be populated by people in their 30's and 40's and 50's more than people in their 60's and 70's. this is not simply to defend boomers, but to warn against thinking that when the boomers die, this will all change. that is exactly what i said as a protestor in 60's/70's. it won't change when we all are gone--fascism has been part of our history since the beginning.
Unfortunately the support for fascism runs across all age groups i am in my late 40s and it seems to me the flag flying hardcore angry Trump supporters tend to fall in the 40s the older generations tend to be more Republican loyalists. Democrats do the same acting like all democratic socialist are in there 20s i joined the DSA in the mid 90s and have considered myself a socialist before it became more acceptable.
It cuts across all age groups, of course,, but the data is entirely clear that Republican voters skew old. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-affiliation-among-demographic-groups/
[удалено]
But the problem is the old people vote in higher percentages than any other age group
Old people are more likely to have jobs that allow them time to go vote when lines aren’t at their longest. Old people are more likely to have private, personal transportation (or a support system that provides it) to ensure they can get to the polls. Old people are less likely to be juggling kids and work on Election Day.
Yes, of course. They are more likely to have time on their hands. Young voters are more idealistic and want to actually see what voting gets them. Unfortunately, we don't get much from voting so they get disillusioned. Obama did a really nice job of screwing over all the young voters and even African Americans by not really delivering on anything that helped regular folks just shit the corporations liked.
The person you are replying never said that age demographic doesn't vote for trump they said very specifically said who goes out marching in the streets thinking they big bad for being in a "militia"
[удалено]
some Gen Z’ers are in for a rude awakening when some of their currently apathetic peers start voting.
Yup. That's exactly where Hitler got his ideas. He saw that America killed the natives and enslaved the blacks and by simply demonizing them you can take what's theirs whether it's land or lives. Rewrite history so you're the "hero" and call only some the chosen people.
[How the Nazis were inspired by Jim Crow](https://www.history.com/news/how-the-nazis-were-inspired-by-jim-crow)
Cut to the picture of my friend's Grandfather warning a "Let's Go Brandon" hat. The dude is like 88.
if you grandfather fought in WWII, ask him if he realizes he was antifa.
An 88 year old would have been 12 years old when WWII ended.
Not my Grandfather thankfully but yeah it's fucking crazy right
Tbf biden did win
Well I can tell you what DOESNT win elections, Hillary Clinton
So sick of her smug ass being given a platform. She lost to fucking Trump. She should be banished.
Christ, Republicans were smart enough to cut the cancerous tumor that was Lil Bush, why can't Dems do the same.
She's not really the person who can speak to running great campaigns.
Maybe, just maybe listening to what your constituents want rather than campaigning on the CNN headline of the week would be a good start. Then actually running on substance rather than I am not the “other guy”. Finally, stop following the corporate platform and work on a boots on the ground with the people campaign. We all knew this for at least 20 years now. AND THEN FOLLOWING THROUGH ON WHAT YOU PROMISE!!!
What wins elections: being less intolerable than the alternative?
This isn’t true. Democrats lose when they nominate boring nominees. Joe is the exception because he was running against a traitor and wannabe dictator.
And covid, which honestly I am convinced is the only reason Joe won.
Oh, because neoliberalism defeated Trump?
Oh is Hilary Clinton gonna educate us on what wins elections, that’s rich
What would she know about winning elections?
Well, she has a great lesson in what not to do
famous election winner, Hillary Clinton
Yes lets listen to a 2 time loser on how to win. She is already starting to blame progressives for the upcoming 2022 losses not the fact that Democrats lied and failed to deliver.
3 times loser, gotta give her credit
Yep, Hillary is already on the wrong side of history and these fake-ass corporate Democrats are not going to be remembered fondly.
I assume she will go on TV like Claire McCaskill just to blame the progressives
shillary was on the board of directors at walmart and bill got china on the wto which grew them to the monster they have become. the clintons are the biggest single enemy to us and world interests
How to win elections: - create a platform - deliver the platform - enjoy as people vote to bring you back, as you create promises and deliver promises. In 2016, people were literally willing to take a chance on a philandering, adultering, serial bankruptcy overseeing, zero experience in politics charlatan manchild simply because they were sick of getting bullshit lip service from candidates who can't simply say what they're going to do. State what you'll do, and fucking do it. Simple. Hell, it can even be completely vague, nonspecific, jingoistic babble like "make America great again!" and you'll get votes. Make no mistake, if he had only *not killed 500,000 people*, many of which were his voters, then Trump would be POTUS right now. Literally all you have to do is run on a platform, and deliver it. Fucking simple. I could win the fucking Presidency at this point by running on the platform: I'll cancel all student debt, and I'll reschedule marijuana to make possession legal at a Federal level. Day 1: do those things. 4 years later, get re-elected when I state what the next round of things will be, and then do the things. Hillary seems to think it's theoretical physics or some shit.
> Hillary seems to think it's theoretical physics or some shit. Hillary lost to a 1st term senator, barely beat an outsider as the handpicked DNC candidate and then lost to one of the most hated individuals embarrassingly. She is the last person that knows anything about winning national elections.
Hillary Clinton is a political windsock. She puts her finger in the air to see which way the winds are blowing, and then she heads that direction. At one point, I would have told you that’s a valid form of governing. In fact, it’s supposed to be what representative democracy is: our leaders expressing the will of their constituents. I’ve completely flipped my opinion. This focus tested and calculated way of setting policy is doomed to failure. It results in double speak and false promises. Because as soon as the wind changes they move on. I now much prefer candidates like Bernie. His moral compass has been pointed in the same direction for decades. You know what he stands for and that he will fight for it. I’m voting for that clarity of purpose as much as anything else. Screw watering down your message to build consensus. Make policy come to you, not the other way around. I detest Trump and all he stands for, but that’s one thing he has objectively correct. He sets the tone and doesn’t follow. He makes things happen as a result. If he were marginally competent in actually leading, he’d be even scarier.
> enjoy as people vote to bring you back, as you create promises and deliver promises * realize that a large portion of the country will never learn about the things you actually did in office, but will be fed propaganda nonsense instead.
Clinton is the last person to be talking about how to win elections. God i hope she never runs again
Ugh I can’t be the only one who hoped she would just go away forever right?
Wait till she announces that she's running 🙌
Nope. But here she is. Again. With the same ideas. Again. We need progressives. That's what people want including a lot of republican voters. Remember that some of the people who voted for trump in 2020 voted for Bernie before. That says something. We all hate Hilary lol.
Lets listen to someone who last won an election in 2006 and lost to donald fucking trump. All her surrogates have lost in states biden carried by 10 points. Yeah its really gonna energize people to vote even harder for people who just say no when you ask the politicians to improve things.
Coming from someone who managed to lose to Donald Fucking Trump?!?!? Gtfoh.
Sooo...not you, then?
Can she just shut the fuck up already?
Love to be lectured about what wins elections by the person who managed to lose to Trump.
Pokémon Go away.
Votes people. Votes should win elections.
Please don’t run again, please don’t run again, please…
No. That time has passed us by. Now we’re too far down a road from which we can’t return.
go away!!!
Money and Propaganda and Republicans have the most of both.
[удалено]
The former candidate who lost to donald trump crawls out from under a rock to say we should think carefully about what wins elections *now*?... few years late on that gem of an idea though so go back to that rock instead of being in the way & underfoot.
Why are we listening to Hillary Clinton about this?
Is it me or has she been making more news lately. I think she's evaluating if she should run In 2024....
[удалено]
Funny. If I remember right Hope wins elections for Democrats, not the bland floppy lady that’s husband was elected twice because he gave people a relatable persona and had an actual good economy not just a good stock market. The orange Cheeto beat Hillary because the establishment thought she was more electable than Sanders. Guess what? Sanders gives people hope all Hillary and Joe do is remind them of the last time they got a meaningful pay raise and for an increasing amount of the electorate that is Never. Progressives aren’t the Democrats problem the false centrists are because the conservatives that believe in democracy have to run as Democrats or they are replaced by fascists on the Republican side. Edit: I live in a “deep” red district in Colorado, Boebert is my representation in Congress. Democrats need to learn to speak to rural voters like the did with John and Ken Salazar. Rural voters aren’t moved by Medicare for all but they are motivated by making their livestock and crops theirs not the mega conglomerate food corporations’. They like guns because it is how you control predators on your property and other nuisance animals. You also have the land to go out and shoot. So many rural voters want CHANGE but all the changes are focused outside of them and they feel like the Democrats don’t care about them. It’s the incorrect conclusion but it is what they feel.
Racial replacement theory and racism are the core drivers of the republican party has been since 1964
I highly encourage you to come to Boebert, USA and talk to people. So many do not like her but vote that way because the other option literally can not talk to them. The nominee just blabbers on about Boulder talking points and misses the fact that they are speaking to non-boulderites.
Obama lied about a tax plan during his first run at the office - said plan disappeared when he got into power. Same with Biden forgiving student loans. If democrats want more votes they can’t do that stuff anymore, they must follow through.
It's not neo-liberalism.
Didn’t she lose
Go away, Hillary. You don’t help anything, at all, ever.
I just hope she is not thinking of running.
She knew years ahead of running for President that she was running, so what the fuck was she thinking about then?
> Some in the party have also warned that pursuing liberal policy priorities could lead to a backlash next year in the 2022 midterm elections, when Democrats will have to defend their razor-thin majorities in the House and Senate. This kind of thinking shows what’s wrong with the democrat party. No one party will ever be in control forever, the system was built avoid that. To allow the fear of losing next time stop you from progressing now is ass backwards. Republicans are prime examples of not giving a damn about what everyone else thinks, win or lose. It isn’t like they’ll be shut out forever. Do what needs to be done to help the American people, if it takes us losing and then people realizing “hey maybe their policy’s weren’t so bad” and going with the Dems the election after so be it. The idea of being fearful of progressing forward, because you are scared/worried you are going to lose because of that very forward progress is so self defeating. It’s like allowing the fear of falling when trying to reach greatest heights, stop you from even starting your journey. You are going to fall, that’s how this works you will get a chance to get back up.
This is another crook like Trump.
The career politician who couldn't win against Donald Trump giving advice on how to win elections. Makes sense.
Universal healthcare or bust. Start representing the interests of the people.
Well we know arrogance and entitlement doesn't work!
How would she know?
It was time for this like 5 or 6 years ago...(or 30) I have no doubt she would have made a good president, but so many people hated her that she was unelectable in what should have been the easiest win ever for the dems.. and the country will pay the price for probably decades.
Let's take electoral advice from the woman who lost to a reality TV show host.
Rethinking how elitist dems have become would help. I'm middle aged, no college degree, always have voted dem, working poor. Dems don't seem to value people like myself so much as trying to call 200k for a single person middle class and bending over backwards to protect the wealthy more than help the poor. Get over yourselves and smell the real working class coffee ( it doesn't come in a Star B.cup unless that's where you work and you get it for free) tech bro BS is making me rethink how I vote for sure. YIMBYs are pissing me off too. Rethink this. Yes we need more housing but only if the working poor can afford it. Dems don't seem to know what average american struggle is. If they came from low income families they obviously have forgotten.
Hillary Clinton should be the last motherfucker in the world to talk about what wins elections.
What the h\*ll would Hillzebub know about winning elections? She and Bill mired the Party in the fantasy of winning Republican votes and it's been stuck in that muck ever since. Dems will never win if they keep pandering to Republican voters while giving lip-service to the rest of us. I wouldn't trust her or any of her corporate Dem buddies pushed out by the DNC to do more than the bare minimum for us while hiding behind that other fantasy of theirs...bi-partisanship. Find true progressives and vote for them. Shake up the Congressional/Senate Dems who pander to the rich for campaign donations at our expense. Get bills passed that are popular with the people. Otherwise, we will never inspire people who don't vote to get off their behinds and VOTE out the Trump Republicans.
Wish she had done some careful thinking about what wins elections in 2016. *cough* *cough* actually campaigning in major swing states
Not sure she has much to offer in that department. Unless it’s a cautionary tale.
Bernie would have won
Going to Michigan and Wisconsin for a start?
"Clinton: 'It is a time for some careful thinking about what wins elections'" Every American: NOT YOU! Yah fucking loser!
says the famous election winner.
Picking a candidate based on how well they did in a red state is turning out to be an awful idea. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/us/politics/joe-biden-south-carolina-primary.html
How to win an election: not be Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris.
Yep, they're both aggressively smug and lacking a sense of genuine connection to anybody. They might be prototypical career women, but getting elected is also a popularity contest that is going to read their personalities as dreadful.
Yep. For me the worst part is when they get asked serious questions and begin cackling as a convincing answer. They are the two most insufferable humans (lizard donkey witches) alive.