The Democrats are dead

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Fine, you want an in-depth assessment of your sophistry (again)? You got it.

More specifically, your 'multi-quote look at this look at that' post makes it difficult to understand your argument.

And that's my problem how?

No one doubts that small margins have big effects - indeed the Rs are consistently winning by small amounts of votes. You then seem to shift to an argument about the preference of the population being for Dems.

Wrong. My argument has always been about the preference of the nation as a whole. What is the political "pulse" of the largest number of Americans? Others have argued that there was a "red wave" or that the Dems are "dead" or that we lost because we don't have a message or "identity politics" or blah blah blah. NONE of that bullshit is applicable.

The nation as a whole (once again, meaning the largest number of Americans) leans Democrat. That did not/has not changed. There was no "red wave"; there was no lack of a unifying message; etc., etc., etc.

Get it now? I am refuting the notion that ANY of that blather (generated by the GOP/Russians and fostered by many--perhaps unwittingly--on the left) is in any way applicable.

The evidence supporting that refutation are the facts I've presented that you keep misconstruing in order to stuff your strawman, because you don't understand my argument, which is actually painfully simple and straightforward.

The objective condition of the United States' in regard to the majority's political ideology is that upwards of 2/3rds of Americans are Dem or Dem-leaning (as in Dem policies) as proved by Hillary's remarkable win (yes, she won the vote, but lost the WH). The fact that Trump won on a technicality (and by a miniscule percentage) DOES NOT TRANSLATE INTO AN IDEOLOGICAL SEA CHANGE--aka, a "red wave"--as others have argued.

It is not we who need to change anything. We didn't lose the election, we lost the technicality. Yes, that is ever present as a strategic concern in a general election. I am well aware of that fact and not denying it, but that point IS NOT GERMANE TO ANY POINT I AM MAKING.

Perfectly clear now what my argument is and has been? There was no red wave; Trump cheated. In doing an assessment of the political ideological leanings of the American electorate, we see that nothing fundamentally changed. So we are not correcting anything; we are not in a state of disarray (as the right is whispering in order to foster disarray); we don't need to make any radical changes in policy or focus as many Sanders bots keep blathering about (including the Big Bot Himself); etc.

The only change necessary is to improve our voter turnout rates.

So, to discover WHY we have lower voter turnout rates one must look at the details I am presenting and not at irrelevant distractions like, "Dude, look at the technicalities of the EC." Yes, I'm paraphrasing you to underscore the disconnect between what you are focusing on and how it has nothing to do with anything I am arguing.

So what?

Now you know the "what."

That preference doesn't really mean anything unless those people actually vote

Again, you've misunderstood the point. That preference proves that Hillary Clinton was the clear choice for the largest percentage of Americans; that her policies were the clear choice; that the country--as a whole--wanted her and the Democrats in the WH; that there was no significant "anti-Hillary" wave--i.e., "identity politics"--that acted against her, therefore Dems should not have run her; that there was no problem with her "message" or ANYTHING TO DO WITH HER PERSONALLY; etc., etc., etc.

Iow, ALL of the arguments we are seeing from the Sanders zombies (and those on the right who are fanning them) are false and/or of no great consequence in the election.

That preference, in short and combined with her actual voting numbers, proves that she was the right candidate with the right message and the right platform. That the ultimate prize--the WH blue ribbon--was not given to her has nothing to do with whether or not she was the right candidate with the right message and the right platform.

Perfectly clear now? Again, who was the fastest runner? NOT who got the blue ribbon. Because in this case, the blue ribbon was NOT awarded to the fastest runner.

Multiple people have pointed this out and you don't seem to be addressing the point.

You are mistaken in your assessment. Hopefully that has now been made painfully clear. For the past two years ALL we have heard is how Clinton was the wrong candidate and there was no message and "she couldn't even beat TRUMP!" and all manner of negative attack bullshit. Which this report repudiates conclusively.

The question we have to figure out is why did the 37% who wanted Clinton NOT vote? Again, the answer isn't "they didn't like her" or ANY of the negative bullshit from the Sanders camp/GOP/Russians, because for that 37% (that would have resulted in Hillary gaining some 10% total points over Trump) they expressly stated that they did like her and want her and would have voted for her, but they just didn't get off their asses.

So why didn't they? That is the question Dems need to solve for 2020. Why didn't 37% who expressed a clear choice for Hillary not get off their asses to vote?

Crystal fucking clear now? Dude.

 

[Deepak]

Multiple people have pointed this out and you don't seem to be addressing the point.

You are mistaken in your assessment. Hopefully that has now been made painfully clear. For the past two years ALL we have heard is how Clinton was the wrong candidate and there was no message and "she couldn't even beat TRUMP!" and all manner of negative attack bullshit. Which this report repudiates conclusively.

The question we have to figure out is why did the 37% who wanted Clinton NOT vote? Again, the answer isn't "they didn't like her" or ANY of the negative bullshit from the Sanders camp/GOP/Russians, because for that 37% (that would have resulted in Hillary gaining some 10% total points over Trump) they expressly stated that they did like her and want her and would have voted for her, but they just didn't get off their asses.

So why didn't they? That is the question Dems need to solve for 2020. Why didn't 37% who expressed a clear choice for Hillary not get off their asses to vote?

Crystal fucking clear now? Dude.

No I'm not mistaken in my assessment, because people with preference who don't vote by definition have no effect on who has and exerts political power. The nice thing about written discussions is that anyone is able to go back and read the OP and see that the point of the post is that while Dems have the ideological preference of the populace they're unable to successfully mobilize the Indolent Majority. Which is why your ranting about the preference of people who don't vote seems curious to me, and I'm guessing near everyone else who is reading your posts. Especially when the windmill you're tilting at is the concept that the Dems message is not resonating with people.

If you think that 37 percent didn't vote because they're a combination of people who thought Clinton had it in the bag and people whose votes were suppressed then god help us all. You seem to be taking the Clinton thing really personally - when I didn't actually bring her up. This is a problem that's existed for multiple elections, and truth be told will probably outlive Hillary. Shit - Dukakis was the better candidate, and I know from personal experience that the Massachusetts Miracle was the real deal.

The nice thing about time in the wilderness is that the environs are incredibly conducive to introspective thought - though you do have to be careful about which leaves you wipe with.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

No I'm not mistaken in my assessment, because people with preference who don't vote by definition have no effect on who has and exerts political power.

The nice thing about written discussions is that anyone is able to go back and read the OP and see that the point of the post is that while Dems have the ideological preference of the populace they're unable to successfully mobilize the Indolent Majority. Which is why your ranting about the preference of people who don't vote seems curious to me

Re-read what you just wrote one hundred times:

the point of the post is that while Dems have the ideological preference of the populace they're unable to successfully mobilize the Indolent Majority. Which is why your ranting about the preference of people who don't vote seems curious to me

Here, I'll make it childproof:

Indolent Majority...people who don't vote

What did you just quote from me?

The question we have to figure out is why did the 37% who wanted Clinton NOT vote? Again, the answer isn't "they didn't like her" or ANY of the negative bullshit from the Sanders camp/GOP/Russians, because for that 37% (that would have resulted in Hillary gaining some 10% total points over Trump) they expressly stated that they did like her and want her and would have voted for her, but they just didn't get off their asses.

So why didn't they? That is the question Dems need to solve for 2020. Why didn't 37% who expressed a clear choice for Hillary not get off their asses to vote?

Childproof version:

Indolent Majority...people who don't vote...37% who expressed a clear choice for Hillary

Clear?

If you think that 37 percent didn't vote because they're a combination of people who thought Clinton had it in the bag and people whose votes were suppressed then god help us all.

Then explain why 37% who expressed a desire to vote for Clinton didn't vote.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...burban-women-vote-republican-november/571720/

Those numbers, while perhaps a momentary reaction to gruesome news, fit within a larger pattern that has emerged over the past year: Women are moving to the Democratic Party en masse. A USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll released on September 26 counted a 28-point advantage for the Democrats among all women. Among married, white, college-educated women, a group long tied to the GOP, the Republicans now lead by only five points.

---

Looks like the GOP is the party that may well be doomed.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Fine, you want an in-depth assessment of your sophistry (again)? You got it.



And that's my problem how?



Wrong. My argument has always been about the preference of the nation as a whole. What is the political "pulse" of the largest number of Americans? Others have argued that there was a "red wave" or that the Dems are "dead" or that we lost because we don't have a message or "identity politics" or blah blah blah. NONE of that bullshit is applicable.

The nation as a whole (once again, meaning the largest number of Americans) leans Democrat. That did not/has not changed. There was no "red wave"; there was no lack of a unifying message; etc., etc., etc.

Get it now? I am refuting the notion that ANY of that blather (generated by the GOP/Russians and fostered by many--perhaps unwittingly--on the left) is in any way applicable.

The evidence supporting that refutation are the facts I've presented that you keep misconstruing in order to stuff your strawman, because you don't understand my argument, which is actually painfully simple and straightforward.

The objective condition of the United States' in regard to the majority's political ideology is that upwards of 2/3rds of Americans are Dem or Dem-leaning (as in Dem policies) as proved by Hillary's remarkable win (yes, she won the vote, but lost the WH). The fact that Trump won on a technicality (and by a miniscule percentage) DOES NOT TRANSLATE INTO AN IDEOLOGICAL SEA CHANGE--aka, a "red wave"--as others have argued.

It is not we who need to change anything. We didn't lose the election, we lost the technicality. Yes, that is ever present as a strategic concern in a general election. I am well aware of that fact and not denying it, but that point IS NOT GERMANE TO ANY POINT I AM MAKING.

Perfectly clear now what my argument is and has been? There was no red wave; Trump cheated. In doing an assessment of the political ideological leanings of the American electorate, we see that nothing fundamentally changed. So we are not correcting anything; we are not in a state of disarray (as the right is whispering in order to foster disarray); we don't need to make any radical changes in policy or focus as many Sanders bots keep blathering about (including the Big Bot Himself); etc.

The only change necessary is to improve our voter turnout rates.

So, to discover WHY we have lower voter turnout rates one must look at the details I am presenting and not at irrelevant distractions like, "Dude, look at the technicalities of the EC." Yes, I'm paraphrasing you to underscore the disconnect between what you are focusing on and how it has nothing to do with anything I am arguing.

So what?

Now you know the "what."

That preference doesn't really mean anything unless those people actually vote

Again, you've misunderstood the point. That preference proves that Hillary Clinton was the clear choice for the largest percentage of Americans; that her policies were the clear choice; that the country--as a whole--wanted her and the Democrats in the WH; that there was no significant "anti-Hillary" wave--i.e., "identity politics"--that acted against her, therefore Dems should not have run her; that there was no problem with her "message" or ANYTHING TO DO WITH HER PERSONALLY; etc., etc., etc.

Iow, ALL of the arguments we are seeing from the Sanders zombies (and those on the right who are fanning them) are false and/or of no great consequence in the election.

That preference, in short and combined with her actual voting numbers, proves that she was the right candidate with the right message and the right platform. That the ultimate prize--the WH blue ribbon--was not given to her has nothing to do with whether or not she was the right candidate with the right message and the right platform.

Perfectly clear now? Again, who was the fastest runner? NOT who got the blue ribbon. Because in this case, the blue ribbon was NOT awarded to the fastest runner.

Multiple people have pointed this out and you don't seem to be addressing the point.

You are mistaken in your assessment. Hopefully that has now been made painfully clear. For the past two years ALL we have heard is how Clinton was the wrong candidate and there was no message and "she couldn't even beat TRUMP!" and all manner of negative attack bullshit. Which this report repudiates conclusively.

The question we have to figure out is why did the 37% who wanted Clinton NOT vote? Again, the answer isn't "they didn't like her" or ANY of the negative bullshit from the Sanders camp/GOP/Russians, because for that 37% (that would have resulted in Hillary gaining some 10% total points over Trump) they expressly stated that they did like her and want her and would have voted for her, but they just didn't get off their asses.

So why didn't they? That is the question Dems need to solve for 2020. Why didn't 37% who expressed a clear choice for Hillary not get off their asses to vote?

Crystal fucking clear now? Dude.

I actually agree with you. There is no doubt that the 2016 landslide republican take over every branch of government in the US was due to the piss poor democratic turnout. And it can't be blamed just on HRC. They didn't come out and vote for their local governor, their local representative, their local senator, their local school board representative, and etc. They didn't come out. I haven't heard anyone explain what happened. But I know this: November 2018 is the biggest election in my life. The left needs to get off their ass, put the remote control down, and vote. If the left doesn't participate this time, there's no doubt that we'll have 30 years of right winger rule.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Part of this is due to age differences. Younger voters are heavily Democratic, but do not turn out to vote. Especially younger women who have a very low voting rate. Black Americans do not like the GOP, but they also tend to not turn out to vote. Again, especially young black voters That may be changing, but the election, only two weeks away will be determined by turn out.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I actually agree with you. There is no doubt that the 2016 landslide republican take over every branch of government in the US was due to the piss poor democratic turnout.

That’s actually not what I said. I said we need to improve our turnout. What happened in 2016 was an anomaly; a statistically improbable event (that Nate Silver gave only a 10.6% chance of occurring) that nevertheless occurred and thereby resulted in a technical knock out, so to speak, in spite of the fact that Clinton actually knocked out Trump.

And it can't be blamed just on HRC.

Again, it can’t be blamed AT ALL on HRC. She won. And not just by some three million votes. That alone is definitive, but when you include the preferences of eligible voters who did not vote (for whatever non-partisan reason), she beat Trump by some eight to ten million votes at the very least, which would have been a landslide.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Part of this is due to age differences. Younger voters are heavily Democratic, but do not turn out to vote. Especially younger women who have a very low voting rate. Black Americans do not like the GOP, but they also tend to not turn out to vote. Again, especially young black voters That may be changing, but the election, only two weeks away will be determined by turn out.

Good point. I also think that there are many people (mostly older white people) who secretly agree with Trump and his BS. They vote for Trump, but lie to pollsters.

 

[Deepak]

If you think that 37 percent didn't vote because they're a combination of people who thought Clinton had it in the bag and people whose votes were suppressed then god help us all.

Then explain why 37% who expressed a desire to vote for Clinton didn't vote.

You explain it. You're scoffing at the suggestion that the Dems need a unifying message, so what exactly stands to be done? Thoughts and prayers? Are you going to oil up and wrestle the Reps into submission? How does one increase turnout for a party that's literally doing everything perfectly?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Early voting - First day in Nevada

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/bodes-well-dems-first-day-early-voting-nevada-staggeringly-high/

The final voter registration numbers released today show Democrats with 598,174 registered voters to the Republican Party’s 523,251 — a registration advantage of nearly 75,000.
...
Early voting in the Democratic stronghold of Clark County is going to be at least triple what it was in 2014. Looks more like a presidential year.
...

Stay tuned for more as it is reported. More like a presidential year? Or more like referendum on Trump and McConnell?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

If you think that 37 percent didn't vote because they're a combination of people who thought Clinton had it in the bag and people whose votes were suppressed then god help us all.

Then explain why 37% who expressed a desire to vote for Clinton didn't vote.

You explain it.

What are you, five? I have already suggested some reasons, the most logical being that they believed she was a lock (and/or that Trump couldn’t possibly win) so they didn’t bother. This is much the same phenom that happened with Brexit.

Other reasons that contributed were the standard election fraud/vote suppression tactics the GOP always has to rely on to cheat their way into power.

You're scoffing at the suggestion that the Dems need a unifying message

No, I’m countering the sophistry that (1) Hillary didn’t have a unifying message (or had a “bad” message) and that’s why she lost and (2) if Dems don’t have a unifying message, all will be lost for us.

so what exactly stands to be done?

MY question exactly. And to get to the answers we FIRST NEED an accurate assessment of the political pulse of the Nation and a non-Republican/non-Sanders camp breakdown of exactly what did (and did not) happen in 2016. HENCE everything I’ve been doing itt. It starts with the understanding that Hillary won (and won big). Iow, looking at the fastest runner, NOT who was given the blue ribbon on a technicality.

Are you finally up to speed now?

How does one increase turnout for a party that's literally doing everything perfectly?

Cute, but essentially correct. And reminding people that Hillary won and that this is OUR country and there was no “red wave”—iow, countering the ongoing narrative that has sprung up on the right and the Hillary hating left over the past two years—and the biggest reason why all of this Trumputinian nightmare happened in the first place is because too many of us didn’t think our votes would count and/or didn’t think it mattered were dead fucking wrong.

Iow, “Turnout” should be our unifying message and any other negative criticism—from the right or, most importantly, the left—should be vehemently squelched just as I am doing itt.

 

[Elixir]

When you are on a ship that is sinking, standing around crying about the lack of a "unifying message" is utter stupidity.
You either stop the leak, or abandon ship.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

When you are on a ship that is sinking, standing around crying about the lack of a "unifying message" is utter stupidity.

Particularly when it's a meaningless distraction--with little to no impact--created by your opponents to sow discord and (ironically) division.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

When you are on a ship that is sinking, standing around crying about the lack of a "unifying message" is utter stupidity.
You either stop the leak, or abandon ship.

What if the unifying message is how to stop the leak?

 

[ruby sparks]

I have already suggested some reasons, the most logical being that they believed she was a lock (and/or that Trump couldn’t possibly win) so they didn’t bother. This is much the same phenom that happened with Brexit.

I have indeed heard it said that low turnout adversely affected the Dems more so that the Republicans. Also, the two big parties tend to get 'turns', so perhaps the Dems were up against it.

Regarding disunity (and this relates to turnout as well) how much of an effect do you think disenchanted Sanders supports had?

My hope is that whatever the answer, it won't be a factor this time (midterms I mean). If so, it's arguable they don't need a new unifying message.

I don't think the Dems are dead at all. They lost an election by a very small margin and as you say they had more votes. I think there's extra hand-wringing this time because of the man who got in.

All that said, I also read that Trump did energise a working class white vote too, and that Hilary didn't get the black votes that Obama got.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Personally I do not think the Democrats are dead. My reason is that I think the Republicans do not want them to be dead. People were making similar proclamations about the Republicans when Obama won.

Neither party could last as permanent second-place. Nor could the United States operate as a single-party country. If a major party were to fall, we'd temporarily have a one-party country, but only until a viable second party arises which I think would not take long.

During that brief interim of one party rule, we'd have conservative and liberal and hard right and progressive politicians all in one party, and the primaries would be very interesting. Meanwhile we'd have a smattering of small parties. Either the one big party would fission (like the Democratic-Republicans did into the Democratic Party and the Whig Party) or a small party would cross a threshold (like the Republicans did taking the place of the Whigs).

The problem is, if a big party fell, the replacement party might not play the power-sharing power-swapping game. The two parties keep each other in power. If they absolutely had do in order to preserve the system they would support each other. Neither of them likes outside agitators.

Meanwhile, in the short run, I don't see good things for the Democrats. They still have a chance on taking the House, but not the Senate. Under that arrangement, articles of impeachment against Trump or Kavanaugh would be a farce.

Meanwhile, if you do want to put a nail in the coffin, I saw an article this morning about how Hillary wants to run in 2020.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Meanwhile, if you do want to put a nail in the coffin, I saw an article this morning about how Hillary wants to run in 2020.

And that would be a perfect example of the unjustifiable negative attack narrative I was referring to previously. Hillary won. A proper, unbiased, dispassionate post-mortem on 2016 (as I have provided) establishes that fact conclusively. She not only won, she won by at least eight to ten million votes when factoring in preference of eligible voters.

That she isn't POTUS is a different matter, just to be clear once again, because for some bizarre reason nobody seems to be able to comprehend this basic fact.

When looking at who the clear choice was for the majority of the voters, that candidate was Hillary Clinton. In a record breaking landslide, when, again, you factor in preference. Even without that, she was unquestionably the winner of the popular vote, which, once again, establishes that she was the candidate of choice for the nation as a whole.

 

[RVonse]

Personally I do not think the Democrats are dead. My reason is that I think the Republicans do not want them to be dead. People were making similar proclamations about the Republicans when Obama won.

Neither party could last as permanent second-place. Nor could the United States operate as a single-party country. If a major party were to fall, we'd temporarily have a one-party country, but only until a viable second party arises which I think would not take long.

During that brief interim of one party rule, we'd have conservative and liberal and hard right and progressive politicians all in one party, and the primaries would be very interesting. Meanwhile we'd have a smattering of small parties. Either the one big party would fission (like the Democratic-Republicans did into the Democratic Party and the Whig Party) or a small party would cross a threshold (like the Republicans did taking the place of the Whigs).

The problem is, if a big party fell, the replacement party might not play the power-sharing power-swapping game. The two parties keep each other in power. If they absolutely had do in order to preserve the system they would support each other. Neither of them likes outside agitators.

Meanwhile, in the short run, I don't see good things for the Democrats. They still have a chance on taking the House, but not the Senate. Under that arrangement, articles of impeachment against Trump or Kavanaugh would be a farce.

Meanwhile, if you do want to put a nail in the coffin, I saw an article this morning about how Hillary wants to run in 2020.

If the Democrats completely failed we will still have the Trump party and the Republican party. Most Democrats can't even see this, but there is far more difference between the party of Trump and the Republicans. They do not see that there are Republicans who hate him even more than they do. Honestly in fact, such a scenario would be far superior to what we now have with the current paired globalists party of Republicans and Democrats who are actually the party of one excepting for trivial differentiation like identity politicking. It just stands to reason, sooner or later even the slowest among us will come to realize half of the population are actually not racist or sexist. And when that finally happens, the Democrats better come up with a better trick in their bag!

And yes, I agree with you. The emergence of Hillary again WILL make the aforementioned become a reality sooner rather than later. She is a globalist on steroids.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

For a party who hates him so much, Trump seems to have an awful lot of support from those Republicans.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Then explain why 37% who expressed a desire to vote for Clinton didn't vote.

um ... *raises hand*... because she did a piss poor job of motivating them to come out to vote for her? Because while most of them see her has clearly preferable over Trump, so is cancer? Because she trotted out clearly empty platitudes, sold out to wall street, and had a "no, we can't" attitude? How many of these non-voters do you think even read her platform or knew anything much about her other than she was Bill Clinton's wife, took money from wall street, and opposed Donald Trump? She could have had every policy position perfect, all you heard from her was "Stronger together!" "Break Down the Barriers" "I'm with Her!" "No, Bernie we can't". The first two of those may have worked if she sounded even remotely genuine. The last two showed her true self.

The vast majority who did vote for Hillary Clinton did so because she wasn't Donald Trump. She lacked the enthusiasm and positive energy of a winner. It was a lesser of two evils election, and the greater evil won.

You keep going off about how you don't need a strong positive unifying and inspirational message to win elections, but then you point to Obama, who did so and won, and Clinton, who failed miserably to do so, and lost to Trump. People need something to vote for. Better messaging, without even changing anything else about her, could have won her the election. Her ego did her in. Apparently not enough who shared her ideas were nonetheless "with her".

This isn't very complicated. Clinton failed herself, and her country.