11-16-2016, 10:37 AM
(11-16-2016, 12:41 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: They DID put forward a populist message. But for some reason it did not communicate. Hillary wasn't a strong enough advocate, and her surrogates could not compensate for the weakness of the candidate. Also Trump made trade a big issue, and Hillary having supported some of the past trade deals was not a strong enough advocate for fair trade, even though she opposed the TPP. Also, the heartland folks were not that interested in feminism, apparently. It's true that the message did not come through strongly enough. And at the end, Hillary's advertising concentrated on how bad Trump was, not what she offered them. That happened when Comeygate threw them off message.
Bernie did, Clinton did not. Try, "I keep a public position and a private position".
Hillary was a member of the political establishment, but the pundits kept putting forward the idea that this really makes her a member of the "establishment," when it doesn't at all. So, poorly educated folk are easy prey to such nonsense as calling Hillary part of "the establishment." Out for the Establishment's blood? That rings hollow when they voted for the worst sort of Establishment greed. And when things were getting better in spite of what the same Republicans had done to them by blocking the recovery and making it tepid. There's no excuse for the "uneducated" not to know that. And when you say "the Dems put up a candidate," that's more of the same loose talk. The "Dems" were millions of voters who elected Hillary as their nominee in primary elections and caucuses.
A member of the establishment is always a member of the establishment... Besides, again, things are not better here. Methinks folks either chose 3rd party or Trump who was never in Washington before. Yes, the Democrats put up a candidate and he won Oklahoma. That person was Sanders who the DNC ass raped.
The Dems did none of the things you accuse them of, but the Republicans and the media were able to tag them with all this nonsense. Hillary had to mention that recovery had happened under Obama; there was no choice about that.
A better wording would have been there has been a recovery in some places but not in others, which is true.
She mentioned over and over, and so did Obama, that there was more to do, that America needed to be made whole, and often specifically mentioned the areas that voted for Trump such as the upper midwest and appalachian states. Her appeals fell on deaf ears, just because the pundits and Republicans made her out to be some kind of crook or establishment elitist, which she wasn't at all.
1. Have you ever checked out Wikileaks?
2. What proposals were made for rural America. In fact what proposals were made for Mississippi valley Blacks, Native Americans, Asians? Poverty is not an urban issue, right?
Just because she made some money because of what she had done? By concentrating on the fact that she gave a speech on Wall Street, instead of seeing through Trump's lousy proposals, the less-educated whites proved their status by not being able to follow the facts and make the right decision. In some ways, it might be interesting that Hillary did as well as she did.
Geez, it looks bad, that's why. Those who pay the piper get their tune played. The Democrats had someone who got it, but again, dirty tricks. The DNC can't deny this.
And I'm sorry if she had to tell coal miners that retraining is necessary, but there is no alternative if we are to have a liveable planet.
She said she was going to put the coal mining business out of business and put coal minors out of work.
And again, what retraining? Retraining for what jobs? There are no jobs.
Their jobs are probably not coming back, even under Trump, and again if they can't see that it's their own damn fault. Maybe Silicon Valley can be faulted for all their innovation that is putting old blue collar workers out of work, but it's a stretch to blame "Democrats" or "Hillary Clinton" for this.
Yes, those jobs are gone. I don't blame Clinton or the government even. It's shitty "Free Trade". That's why the TPP and other crap needs to crash and burn.
And I don't think you answered my questions about these people at all. I honestly don't know how these white people survive out there in those small towns and continue to exist in such numbers. If their farms and factories are gone, why don't they move to the cities?
What a stupid question. Here's the answer. It costs money to move and folks in small towns own their shacks. Said shacks aren't perfect and look awful, but they are paid for and they do provide shelter. How on earth are folks in say Appalachia going to afford shelter in say California? I mean, where I live in rural America, a shack can be had for about $12,000. The property tax rent is around $100/year. That means one can do what I do and make a go of it in minimum wage America. If simply moving to an urban area, then why does poverty exist in Detroit, Compton, and East LA? Does San Jose have some jobs handy? If so, can some immigrant make enough swag to afford decent shelter? I mean, could even myself move to San Jose and get a job that pays out enough to afford the type of house I have here? [2 bedroom/1 batch, basement, etc?]
Why do they support cutting off any benefits to themselves? What do they do out there? I'm not putting them down for all that, I just find it hard to imagine.
Now that's a valid question. I have no idea about this shooting oneself in the foot.
You call the people on the coasts elites, but that's bull. We outvoted you, so what is "average American" then? We just were not allowed to get the president that we and all Americans voted for by majority vote. It's nothing but a power play by you folks, this electoral college.
Uh, I think that's because the US is a constitutional republic, not a plebiscite democracy. I think the founders set things up that way to prevent tyranny of the majority.
Quote:In the long term some form of guaranteed minimum income is the only answer, but that requires overcoming centuries, millennia even, of cultural conditioning involving the belief that the only valid source of income is from one's own labor. In the mean time, folks here in the heartland need jobs. and folks in the big cities on the coasts need to quit treating folks out here as objects of contempt and scorn. You might not agree with their religious convictions and what you perceive as "backward" social attitudes, but they are still human beings who deserve respect.
Admittedly your first sentence is true IMO. But you keep repeating that nonsense in your second and third sentences above. Get over it. There are no Democratic politicians who scorn the folks out there. That's not what Democrats do, or even Republicans.
How about this "basket of deplorables"?
Politicians don't scorn people to get their vote.
Clinton did.
They don't even come out to the coasts anyway, since there are no swing states there. So no, they don't come out here and scorn people out there.
See above.
NO, that's just not what politicians do; certainly not Obama or Hillary; they did the opposite. It's just a complete non-issue, but you like so many on internet forums just plain repeat the same nonsense after you are corrected and corrected over and over again.
Pot, kettle, black. It is Eric who goes on over and over about trickle down economics. I guess Odin did what he did for the same reason.
It is insane, to be polite about it. And no we don't agree with their religious convictions, and if they want respect, then they need to stop imposing them on the rest of us, and yes we're going to tell them to stop doing it.
I'm not into the "old time religion" myself. Who is pontificating about religion? Dunno, maybe I just go immune and it just gets default ignored.
If the folks out there need jobs, which of course they do, then they need to stop voting for the folks that take them away. It's up to them to see through the nonsense. They failed. The failure is largely their own. And no, the politicians don't say that. I say that.
I'm not sure. Even Oklahoma went for Bernie. But then again Bernie never did the other "old time religion" of political correctness.
You can't blame the elites for what the people did. The heartland people voted for the elites--- again! It's on them.
I bet Bernie would have won. Prairie populism is alive and well. Hopefully the DNC will learn from this experience and not choose winners and losers. I also hope it gets rid of its cabal of political hacks, AKA "super delegates".
---Value Added 