White Lives Matter

    As we were fretting whether 88% vs 92% of blacks would vote, we missed out on the "missing white vote". Ridiculous as Trump asking black voters to vote for him, he asked - directly if not obscenely.

    Sure, we tackled issues that affected white lives, but we didn't directly address "hey you, over there, I'm talking to you".

    We have advocacy for blacks, Hispanics, LGBT, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and so on. But advocacy for white Protestants, or "Evangelicals" always takes on the tone of talking to the Klan, an implicit distaste and condemnation.

    Salesfolks know you can't think contempt without it coming out to the customer. Our message to whites is "you can join our Big Tent if you embrace all our ideals". We don't demand that of any other group - we take them as they are, sympathise with them, try to work with them. The White Majority? Not so much.

    "Whitelash" was a taste of a pretty coherent response to our not so subtle wish that the perceived intolerant white majority would just fade into a minority. It didn't, and it won't for a long time, for many of us' lifetimes.

    Yeah, most of us see ourselves as white, but we aren't - we're somewhere else, and we qualify ourselves as somewhere else. Meaning we're not the customer for this message, and we're largely not ready to deliver or recognize it. 

    I have some advantage having grown up in the South, but I was never fully a Southerner and now I'm miles away physically and psychically. But I still recognize a diss when I see one.

    The old white Southern wing of the party is gone - Carter, Clinton, Gore, et al. Even there, Clinton long ago ceased to be Southern - he's global. Our farm team is in shambles.

    Brexit should have been our wakeup call, but it was cast aside as a European thing or as "illogical", self-defeating, voting against their own interests. But all our issues are a bit loony or more complex than we like to admit. We thought America would be horrified by Trump's language, but quite rightly, you can't pal around with Jay Z writing & singing about "Pussy" in wretched terms - read the lyrics, seriously - and then have vapors over a sadly much much calmer comment from Trump. And it taps into white anger over the double standard - blacks still run around yelling "pussy" and "motherfucka" and "nigga", but whites are 1 comment away from losing their job over racism or sexism, such as happened at colleges over #BLM or a Halloween costume. And you can bet most of white America is pissed at the rap dominated airwaves or music scene, when you find driving around a steady 24x7 Christian politicized message and even Christian rock.

    So what was our big offering for white America this time? Oh yeah, extend Obamacare to universal coverage. Brilliant - a policy they already hate so much they thrashed us in 3 elections over, and our response? "Make it bigger!!!" Sometimes we are teh stupid. 6 years later, do we even understand *why* white rural America hates Obamacare, and have we done one thing to address the issue, or if a misunderstanding clarify?

    What was the message in the last days of the campaign to a people afraid of immigrants and minorities? "We're busing in every Hispanic and black to the polls to carry the election and override racist white voters". And we're surprised that the missing white voter finally put down the TV remote and got out to vote?

    Next election we target 40% of these voters, these *people*. If we can't step inside their skin, understand their issues, find something we think we can offer, *TALK TO THEM*, we're lost. What was it Mike Tyson said - that Trump always shakes his hand, asks how the family is, and no one else does that. Okay, Tyson is pretty deplorable, but we have everyone lumped in the same basket.  (Yeah, I praised the use of the term, shaming to split the opposition, though still needs a counterbalance of "why we think you're valuable", not just "oh hey, you're not as deplorable as the rest).

    Bill Clinton apparently kept asking for more focus on messaging rather than get-out-the-vote operations, and we see Trump's results in that - he had a shit GOTV operation, but Republicans came out anyway. Why? The "dog whistles" work. Well, we need some dog whistles too - ones that fit our values as well, but that make their ears perk up - in a positive way. More diversity, more government health care, more trade deals... won't cut it. Trump provided an image of the inner city that no longer exists - guess what, sports fans - people don't care. They like their images, and for Baby Boomers and Gen X those are the images they were imprinted with. Deal. With. It.

    We spent June to September making Bernie and his fans happy - when we should have spent the time trying to make those missing white voters largely in rural and suburban areas who voted for him happy, or finding out better their discontent. Hillary did a very successful listening tour to become Senator and afterwards, and her Appalachian tour in 2008 was largely successful until she got called on "racism". She likely didn't have the time this time (and a foray into Kentucky/West Virginia got side-railed by a misquote over shutting down coalmines), but someone should have. Michael Moore pegged it - 

    "Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club and stood there in front of the Ford Motor executives and said if you close these factories as you're planning to do in Detroit and planning to build them in Mexico, I'm gonna put a 35 percent tariff on those cars when you send them back and nobody's gonna buy them. It was an amazing thing to see, no politician Republican or Democrat had ever said anything like that to these executives and it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, the Brexit states.

    "Whether Trump means it or not is kind of irrelevant because he's saying the things to people who are hurting. And it's why every beaten-down nameless forgotten working-stiff who used to be part of what was called the middle-class loves Trump. He is the human Molotov-cocktail that they've been waiting for. The human hand-grenade that they can legally throw into the system that stole their lives from them.

    "They see that the elites who ruined their lives hate Trump. Corporate America hates Trump. Wall Street hates Trump. The career politicians hate Trump. The media hates Trump after they loved him and created him and now hate him. Thank you media. The enemy of my enemy is who I'm voting for on November 8th. 

    "Yes, on November 8th, Joe Blow, Steve Blow, Bob Blow, Billy Blow, Billy-bob Blow, all the Blows get to go and blow up the whole goddamn system because it's your right. Trump's election is going to be the biggest 'f--k you' ever recorded in human history. And it will feel good."

    And we just assumed he was kidding, Michael being Michael, over the top. Once again we were wrong. How long till we get it right?


    PS - coming across this acidic self-congratulatory article from The Guardian, I must respond. 3 points they make in Brexit => 1) left is blaming others (should have chosen Bernie), 2) US was already heavy on racism/misogyny in 2012 but Obama won, 3) US is building surveillance state/war on terror.

    First thing: " those of us who tried frantically to warn Democrats that nominating Hillary Clinton was a huge and scary gamble — that all empirical evidence showed that she could lose to anyone and Bernie Sanders would be a much stronger candidate" - I have no proof whether Bernie would have been a more competitive candidate or not - but I can guess.

    Bernie would be a gamble too of course, polls or not - or perhaps best said, especially in light of now discredited polls: we simply don't know what mistakes were baked into those polls without some thoughtful analysis. But considering the conservatives have *increased* their share of legislatures & governorships to 2/3, I'd guess there's no pent-up demand for more socialism in the US that Hillary didn't already address - and a conservative-enough foreign policy that brought crossover Republicans that Bernie would have never gotten.

    [Edit to add: Bernie's trade message would resonate with the Missing Whites; universal health care not so much; free education doubtful, especially socialist connotations; raising taxes, fuhgettaboutit.

    As for outsider status, Bernie's been in Congress for 26 years. Just as Trump used the "why haven't you fixed it in all that time?" card against Hillary, it would have been just as (in)valid in Bernie's case - he's not superman, but Trump's audience doesn't seem to care.]

    And Bernie would be the antithesis of the US tilting towards #2 racism/misogyny; however Trump mined that vein successfully along with other conservative issues for an 11 point gain over Romney's take against Obama, and Bernie wouldn't be a salve to complaints about immigrants. And Obama was special in 2008, and still an incumbent in 2012. Sure, Bernie may have done better than Hillary outside of Philly, as he did in the primaries. But he largely had trouble drawing the needed big numbers *inside* the big cities, trailing Hillary's output significantly - so that the rough result would be not enough rural, not enough city. And the sheer joy of the right in overtly reveling in racist & misogynistic tropes is special this year - certainly bolstering Hillary's educated female take if not the highschool & below crowd.

    But for #3, wars and the surveillance state? . So how would he triumph over a candidate that spoke to America's growing global antagonism and desire for a safer non-PC surveillance state? Trump played both the anti-Iraq invasion (that he championed at the time) and the "turn it into glass" card while sucking up to our long-term enemy Russia including devastation in Syria while denouncing NATO and international defense agreements. Which of these violent mood swings would Bernie embrace, and which candidate would give the American right their "security Daddy" they always desire, building the bigger wall and keeping all ghosts at bay?

    At most, I see a Bernie nominee as a 2nd best choice for the disgruntled and partisan, just like McMullin was in Utah - but ultimately the GOP flocked back to Trump to win the election, principles be damned. This would have happened with Bernie in the race too. Parties matter.

    Second - "the mentality of the Democratic Party. Just think about who they nominated: someone who — when she wasn’t dining with Saudi monarchs and being feted in Davos by tyrants who gave million-dollar checks — spent the last several years piggishly running around to Wall Street banks and major corporations cashing in with $250,000 fees for 45-minute secret speeches" - right, but the right's 2/3 grip on power was solidified by A STOCK BROKER LAUNCHING THE TEA PARTY in answer to Obama's trying to get a grip on Wall Street's collapse and subsequent bailout *WHILE KEEPING BONUSES FOR THE RICH*, and now led by a BILLIONAIRE PROPERTY DEVELOPER FAMOUS FOR LEVERAGED BUYOUTS AND BANKRUPTCIES who wouldn't release his tax reports or detail his dealings with Russia. Please excuse Democrats if they don't find the principled lesson that's lurking in there. My guess is it's more about jobs, and not about Wall Street, which has always maintained a Wizard of Oz fascination for the have-nots.

    Jobs *is* something Bernie addressed, but Trump still found himself benefiting as the "billionaire businessman", no matter how flimsy and scandalous his business career. Bernie as a poor Vermont commune socialist would still be unlikely to triumph over an actual "successful" businessman given the history of American socialism and the 2 decades-long growth of the conservative Republican juggernaut (masked only by our sometimes hold on the presidency).

    As for the female vote, with Trump taking 2/3 the white female high school & under vote, and Trump taking 45% of the white college & plus female vote, Hillary just 51% - an exit poll, so not entirely accurate, but still, roughly half - I'm just not sure I can speak to anything anymore. Help, someone - a reason, a guess, please.... a successful "don't vote your anatomy" campaign? "anyone but her" vs. "I'm with her" vs "I'm groping her"? I give up.

    [though note of caution - like exit polls supposedly showing Bernie had a majority of Hispanics in Vegas, the CNN exit polls on white women could be quite flawed]


    Macbeth chews a Big Mac with bovine intensity as he watches the Forest march in lock step toward his SUV.

    I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about, but you've got me convinced. Moooooo. Mooo Mooo. MMMOOOOOOOO!!!!

    Burnam Wood.  Trump loveth him some Micky D.

    Regarding the female vote, 94% of black women voted for Hillary Clinton. Only 4% voted for Trump. 



    Yes, I saw that - a liferaft of sanity in an ocean of incoherence. [though note of caution - like exit polls supposedly showing Bernie had a majority of Hispanics in Vegas, the CNN exit polls on white women could be quite flawed]


    Jason Sheppard

    Maybe black MEN didn't wanna vote for a woman who called them super predators.

    Like · Reply · 2 · 4 hrs

    Anthony Mills · 

    Austin, Texas

    Young blood--you fell for the okie doke and want to get others to buy in too. You were in diapers when the term was used and then 20 years later twisted and taken out of context and used for political points. During the height of the crack epidemic black children were literally being slaughtered in the streets in America. Clinton was endorsing policy that was widely supported among black people to address the crisis--and it was a crisis. Divide and conquer. It's working. This black MAN is smdh!

    Like · Reply · 5 · 3 hrs

    D'Angela Glenn · 

    Manufacturing Manager at HDT Robotics

    So now you are going to have Stop and Frisk laws put back in place... which you probably don't remember but they are worse than what is going on in the streets now... and will lead to so many young black men in jail... At least with Hillary we were hoping to reduce minimum sentences and reduce the prison pipe line.... You should have voted... THINK!!! Sometimes we have to work with what we get... We can't always get exactly what we want... Now you are going to have to fight and pray to not go backwards. 

    This is the background if you care to read it... Previous Supreme courts outlawed stop...See More

    Like · Reply · 2 · 3 hrs

    Hillary lost because the majority of white voters rejected her. For those who think Sanders would have done better need to look to Wisconsin where Progressive candidate Russ Feingold lost. In Silicon Valley, Progressive Mike Honda lost to business friendly Democrat Ro Khanna. 

    Feingold's an interesting case, losing for the 2nd time to Johnson, this time Johnson the *incumbent running as outsider*, with polls heavily favoring Feingold up to the end.

    Madison.com: During the campaign, Feingold hammered Johnson for his positions on the minimum wage, student debt and senior programs such as Social Security and Medicare. He cast himself as the candidate more attuned to the concerns of Wisconsinites, while portraying Johnson as an out-of-touch CEO who took a $10 million payout from the manufacturing company he co-founded, Pacur.

    During the campaign, Feingold had a more populist bent than in previous races, a sign of the economic times and the stresses facing the state's working class. He supported a $15 an hour minimum wage and making college more affordable for students. He also opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

    Feingold, who annually visited the state's 72 counties as a senator, did so again as a candidate. His travel became a central theme of his campaign advertisements as he said he listened to Wisconsinites who told him of their concerns about creating an economy that works for everyone.

    ...Johnson ran on the issues of economic and national security, which enabled him to focus on his work as a committee chair involved in oversight of key government agencies. He pointed to his ability to work in a bipartisan fashion to get bills out of his committee and signed into law.

    Johnson's campaign was slow to start, but once Labor Day rolled around, he went on air with ads that showed a more personal side. He championed an initiative called the Joseph Project, which linked Milwaukee workers to jobs in Sheboygan.


    A series of TV ads run by the Johnson campaign that emphasized the candidate's family and charity work was widely credited with giving him a boost in the campaign's final weeks.

    In polls conducted earlier in the campaign, many voters said they didn't know enough about Johnson to say whether they viewed him favorably.

    The Johnson campaign responded with a string of TV ads that featured Johnson changing his grandson's diaper and detailing his charitable work helping African-American men in inner-city Milwaukee find work.

    Mother Jones: Despite being the incumbent, Johnson painted himself as an outsider in a year that has seen voters turning on establishment politicians. Johnson trailed for much of the race but began to close on Feingold in the fall. That's when outside money began to pour money into the race, much of it to pull Johnson over the finish line. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, more than $14 million was spent to defeat Feingold and more than $8 million against Johnson. In the final weeks of the race, outside groups backed by progressives and conservatives poured money into the contest, including Americans for Prosperity, which is funded by the Koch brothers.

    Despite the outside boost, it's likely Trump and his popularity with white voters pulled Johnson to victory.

    Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel: During the campaign, Feingold had a more populist bent than in previous races, a sign of the economic times and the stresses facing the state's working class. He supported a $15 an hour minimum wage and making college more affordable for students. He also opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

    Feingold, who annually visited the state's 72 counties as a senator, did so again as a candidate. His travel became a central theme of his campaign advertisements as he said he listened to Wisconsinites who told him of their concerns about creating an economy that works for everyone.

    Johnson ran on the issues of economic and national security, which enabled him to focus on his work as a committee chair involved in oversight of key government agencies. He pointed to his ability to work in a bipartisan fashion to get bills out of his committee and signed into law.

    Johnson's campaign was slow to start, but once Labor Day rolled around, he went on air with ads that showed a more personal side. He championed an initiative called the Joseph Project, which linked Milwaukee workers to jobs in Sheboygan.

    Presumably Feingold was tapped into what ails Wisconsin, and communicated that to Hillary's team as well. Obviously polling didn't help them see the trends or Trump onslaught, and the articles note that the Trump effect seemed greater than anything else. Is the Republican megalomaniac half-tsunami repeatable, especially after Donald's been prez for a little while?

    There is a large basket of deplorables that voted for Trump. They will suffer the consequences of some of his decisions. Some may lose access to health care. Some may lose access to health care. They will double down on Trump in 2020 just like the white voters in Kansas reelected Brownbeck.

    What's with the white women out there who broke for Trump?

    The more I think about it, the more I think it's bullshit either intentionally or unintentionally to humiliate Hillary and women more.

    Here's a Hispanic group noting that the Hispanic-for-Trump vote is more likely 18%, not 25%, with Hillary getting about 79%, 3rd parties getting the rest. There was this same discrepancy In the Nevada primary, that allowed Bernie's backers to claim they had a majority of Hispanics - patent nonsense then and now, not to pick a scab.

    Again, these are exit polls (typically early???), not high precision sampling. If the pro-Trump Hispanic is over-represented, then the pro-Trump female may be as well. Anything over 1% is more than I can fathom, but the numbers bandied about simply seem odd and unlikely.

    Amanda Marcotte discusses the misogyny apocalypse in any case.

    Additionally, voter suppression and the heavy decrease of polling places in black majority region likely had a significant effect on both Florida and North Carolina races - I'd doubt if enough for the 120K & 180K differences, but combined with other factors always gives the GOP more room for error.

    I think that will turn out to be right.

    Not sure which part you're agreeing with (didn't help I was re-editing mid-comment).

    But what I say is probably irrelevant - "women for Trump" will go down in the 2016 lore as just another Hillary weakness, fatal flaw, measure of her unlikeability. Someone gave her 50+ % of the election, but in US media law, she must be losing 24x7 always, and so she has - even her strengths are her weaknesses. God help us.

    Nate Silver addresses the shift in the GOP's approach from Reagan to Trump, as well as what a 1% shift from Trump to Clinton would have meant - 307 electoral votes on the *other* side.

    There's a quite depressingly prescient article linked inside your link ... Silver took a beating in the late days of the campaigns for giving Trump better odds (though still bad) than most.  Sigh.

    Yes, the Huffpost fight et al

    it's the overall turnout numbers that mattered most.

    people wanna fight over which group done betrayed hrc more, and ok sure, that's important. 

    racism, sexism, gd brutality and hatred of trump.


    hrc turned out 10 million fewer dems than obama.

    trump turned out the same number as mitt and mccain.

    yes.... there was a third party candidate that took 4 million more votes this time.

    but with population growth and all, we're running a good 10-20 million voters hat should've, or rather, could've come to the polls, who ended up no shows. 

    that's the story of this election, and all the 58%/42% shit is second-tier.

    the dems had no motivating vision, no real offer, no storyline.

    and lots of reasons why. but i said all this back during the primaries. god love hrc, but at this stage of the clintons careers, they're not carrying a storyline around that has fire in the belly. 

    which is what you said, frankly. because, ok, sure, we didn't offer much for whites. true.

    but nor did we offer all that goddamn much to blacks or hispanics.

    just that we were better than a monster.

    thing is, EVEN FACED WITH A MONSTER, we won fewer from those groups.

    where there is no vision, the people perish.

    old quote, hackneyed now. 

    still holds though.

    Yes, Quinn, we pissed away much of the time that could have been addressing issues on emails, or explaining away a 20 year old superpredator term or debating the sacrosanct difference between $12 and $15 that won't fucking matter now, and when police were killing black folks and Rahm was up to his ass in it I didn't see Obama championing it though I did see Hillary come out with a pretty strong statement. I dont think Obama has been strong for blacks or even Democrats aside from symbolism, and I think Hillary would have been better, more of a fighter, more thorough, then and now, but I lost and dealt with it the best I could. And because she's Hillary and a woman, she couldn't run far from being Obama 3.0 without seeming ungrateful and a traitor, she held Obama close and got whacked again for the establishment thing, with Bernie running on his ban fracking and free college and unicversal health care bullshit. Quinn, you know that over half of our oil and gas now comes through fracking - our economy would be in the sewer without it, Russia would own the EU, we'd be fighting a much bigger war in the Mideast and pushing up against China's need. Healthcare - Republicans and Independents hate it - but let's demand the Dems push another round rather than lay off and win an election. Free education? Fuck that - fix the problem with ridiculous loans, and then see if we need more. This was just pie for millennials. Who hardly vote, and easily waffle to a Jill Stein or Gary Johnson because they have no core issues or allegiances, as has always been. So we focused on their whims, to the convention and after - firing the outgoing head of the DNC was the yuuuge priority while Wikileaks kept grudges going, and not the real needs of our much more committed black constituency, the growing and promising Hispanic populace, and those missing White Voters that Hillary got smacked in Appalachia in 2008 for addressing and then had her coal comment this year misquoted. And all the while the press kept up Wikileaks' agenda and emails 24x7, even as Trump could say anything and everything and no one cared. How to cut through? I don't fucking know, but 2 weeks ago a young Hispanic college girl is telling me she's not going to vote cause she doesn't trust Hillary, and I'm thinking Jesus fucking Christ why don't you just going for bleeding yourself with leeches as your method of medical care and whatever other superstition and voodoo that's kept Trump as an alternative path on the road to hell. Hey Quinn, your Hillary hate can't blame her for Brexit, so I guess there's one thing she's not responsible for - or is it? Anyway, she's toast. Next election no AUMF vote to explain, no "Clinton dynasty" or "Bill's coat tails" or Clinton Foundation with something done in Haiti, no more running against and trashing the successful Clinton years, no more NAFTA as bogeyman, no creature-of-the-establishment cause we've lost the establishment, no more about cackling or inauthentic, no more Goldwater girl or bullshit "laughed at a child rape victim" or attacked Bill's victims or stuck by him in a loveless marriage for political reasons, no more "voting your vagina", no more about those speeches and transcripts, no more about raising too much money from Wall Street cause we the Dems will be broke and Donald will be flush with cash, no more worry about the environment cause if you don't trust her, wait a minute because an environment denier is now the head of the EPA. Hillary never  got to really pivot, but there was enough red meat for angry white rural voters, black males, Hispanics, millennials and whoever else felt they needed catering to over a cretin named Trump. The only ones I'm sympathetic to right now for being neglected are white rurals, especially uneducated, who've taken it on the chin with the economy and have major psychological/cultural issues that need addressing plus they're the fucking majority still and for a long time to come, gun-toting superstitious jingoist morons or not. In any case, everyone will get to blame it on someone besides Bill and Hillary for the first time in 25 years, so fuck off everyone.

    Beautifully said, as usual.  nothing to add. 

    Dude. You don't even bother reading anymore. I wrote my ten millionth note on here about the Dems, their vision, their overall direction.

    But back it comes, for the millionth time on TPM or Dag, about Hillary and how people feeeeeel about her and this and on and on about this individual, turning politics into People magazine and fabulous memoirs.

    It's in-grown, it's self-indulgent, it's liberal hyper-individualist and if you want it from this once-110%-rural-white-Protestant-male, I don't GIVE A SHIT about the individuals at the center of the Dems and their grand personal entourages. Because ALL of them cut our world loose! Why should I give a shit about the "grand" men and women of the Dem elite? 

    Look. In a parliamentary system, when one of the old Ministers gets worn, they get rotated out. They move to a smaller portfolio, or a commission or whatever. And new blood moves up. 

    The Dems never did that. And NO, Bernie wasn't it. But since Bill, there's been nothing. I worked on Biden's campaign in 1987. 


    That's 29 years at the absolute top level.

    He and Bill and Hillary and the rest have had their faces - and their lives, and their entire goddamn legislative histories - plastered all over the front of the bus, enabling and feeding a world of psycho-media coverage, while MEANWHILE.... the party and its vision fell to hell. 

    You wanna motivate rural whites? Well, why didn't the party ever come to grips with the job-crushing actions it was taking toward them? Why didn't it ever re-orient its cultural base to incorporate people along different lines? To cut the cake a bit differently? 

    To me, THAT is the sort of discussion that matters. It's NOT about HRC. I've had since 2007/08 where THAT was the debate. 

    Ok, sure, people feel bad. well, feel bad for a while. Learn what there is to learn within that frame. 

    But then, let's move back to YOUR original point, about what this whole politics thing is about.

    I liked Hillary's vision. Period.

    yeah, so your piece said it utterly flailed fo tens of millions of people, who aren't listened to, at all... but the vision was great.


    no wait, the opposite of that. it's not cool. 

    working people, rural people, people of colour had shit-loads of great reasons to hate on the major economic policies of our elites. aka the 1%.

    like free trade. like how taxes work. like how finance works. like lobbying and funding. like pay rates. 

    and the dems? their VISION has had free trade at the center for decades. and obama walked out and saved the bankers. the most unproductive, massive draw on the economy of any sector. 

    but ok, sure. the vision was great. all those poor rural whites? they just need better communications. better messaging. 

    what a load.

    way more work to be done than worrying about communications and how bad the bad media are.

    Uhh, Hillary wssnt in charge, except kind of ia bit n the 90's. go talk to the guys who were.

    Ok Quinn, why is it that democrats aren't getting more done? The very people who are complaning the most are the one's voting to stop liberal democrats from helping them. Why? Clinton left office with large job increases and modest wage gains. He did it while not just balancing the budget but producing a surplus. It's not like he passed NAFTA to suck up to the rich and that he didn't give a shit about the working class. Very few of the negative effects of NAFTA were felt by 2000. Surely Gore would have noticed negative trends and tried to do something about it. He surely wouldn't have given Clinton's budget surplus away with tax cuts for the rich. He wouldn't have invaded Iraq. So who is to blame, the democrats or the people who voted in the republicans?

    I've complained a lot about Obama here. But he was saddled with a massive recession. One doesn't turn that around on a dime. Yet after just 2 years the voters stopped him by turning the house republican.

    In Trump's election night speech he promised to put the country back to work with a massive infrastructure bill. Perhaps the same democratic bill that democrats have been fighting to get through the republican house and the republican senate for years. Is it the democrats fault or Obama's fault that they couldn't get it passed? Who is to blame for it, the democrats or the people who stopped the democrats by voting in a republican house and senate?

    It's hard to help people who actively work to stop you from helping them. I'll bet you that Trump's voters will be more forgiving of republican failures then they ever were about democratic failures or mistakes. And frankly, I don't think it's because of policy.



    Quinn, Hillary's message ain't so "cool" as has been noted 1000x, but as you have to be over 13 to vote, that may not matter. Half of Bernie's platform was whack, and he would have gotten stomped in front of a general election crowd when he had trouble winning primaries with true believers. Yes, his gut was in the right place. 4 years ago, I hoped and assumed someone else would come up and replace Hillary, but besides the old geezer from Vermont, no one stepped up. And when he got beat, we didn't circle around the winner to push all those memes that she agreed to at the convention, we kept kicking at her, even more than the Republicans did to their weird mutant candidate. How retarded are we? "Stronger Together"? We're the proverbial lobsters in the pail. People said Hillary needed to be tested, to sharpen her up. Fine, hone the message. But Bernie needed to be tested too - his bullshit half-formed platform stayed the same for months, just with blackmail added on to the end for gravitas. Sure, we needed to figure out the rural vote, because those folks hate Bernie too, but not as a protest vote. When Hillary *did* push for a white male effort, her own party slapped her down. People think the election process pushes candidates in the right way, but far from it. Anyway, the causes are a bit complex, and there are still unknown unknowns, we could have done better with white males, maybe pushed the solutions to the blacks shot in the streets that faded from view over time

    What she offered was dozens of good well thought out policy ideas and a firm understanding of the complexity of the problems each of those groups are dealing with. But that boring shit is just for nerds. Why couldn't she come up with one of those brilliant visiony things like Obama did, Hope and Change, Yes we can.

    Or "Make Democrats Great Again". anyone using that? "Weekend at Bernie's 2"? You know half the time slogans only look good in retrospect, when they've won.

    yes, Bill complained about their messaging, but folks made him toxic too - his supposed "racist" comments in 2008, right up their with Hillary making the Secret Service carry her bags. Fuck it, dude - it's over. Bernie can run at 77 years old or maybe Warren will pull together the flame or something else, and they can learn all the mistakes of the Clinton Dynasty years to not repeat. I'm exhausted. The purity police and Republicans and Comey and media and Wikileaks and Susan Sarandons and Hals & Wattrees and whoever can have this shit sandwich.

    In 5 minutes I walk out into the most beautiful city in the world, far from America, and I'm going to enjoy it for a change, while it lasts.

    You lucky dog, you're in Paris!

    Cool, another thing we can fight about.

    "Tastes great!" "Less filling!"

    Listen to our Canadian friend, people. Look, it wasn't just Hillary who lost. Dems lost governor and senate races too. For the past 6 years, we've been telling ourselves that Republican candidates are too extreme to win, that their obstructionist tactics will backfire, that Latinos and millennials will defeat them, that Donald Trump will bring down the ticket.

    Well where are the Democrats now? Nowhere. They have less overall power in state and federal governments than at any point in a century. The party has not been this irrelevant since 1908.

    So what does this mean? It means that something is seriously fucking wrong with the Democratic Party! It's not messaging or likeability or GOTV or global trends. Today's Democratic Party is fundamentally broken.

    Oh we can whine on about the media or third parties or sexists or racists or morons or Russians or Republicans or gerrymandering or voter suppression or the FBI or Bernie or Hillary and whomever else we blame for Democrats' political irrelevance. We can reassure ourselves that the "fever" will break someday as Obama put it or that demographics will work out sooner or later. But that accomplishes nothing. And until people wake up and recognize that, well duh, maybe something is seriously fucking wrong with the Democratic Party, we will never escape from this shit-hole that we're sinking into.

    88% of African-Americans, 65% of Latinos, and the majority of Asians voted for Democrats. 58% of whites voted for Trump. What message are not white voters hearing? Obama never got the majority of white voters either.

    Ok, I think we know this. At the risk of repeating myself I've been posting for years that we're losing. So do we need a policy change? Should we have condemned BLM for causing riots and pushed for stop and frisk to end the gun violence in Chicago? Should we have promised to stop Planned Parenthood from selling baby parts? Should Hillary have promised the coal miners a new coal fired power plant in every state instead of 500 million solar panels? Should we have condemned China for creating the hoax of climate change? Should we admit that Obamacare was designed with death panels to kill grandma and promised to repeal it. Should she have promised to deport 11 million illegal aliens instead of comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship? Should we support tax cuts mainly for the rich to stimulate the economy? Should we have co-operated with Bush and helped him privatize Medicare and SS? 35% tariffs on all goods from Mexico and China? Should we have voted for Webb in the primary because a white male conservative democrat will do better?

    I'm not sure policy has anything to do with it but if that's the problem what do you think we should change? If it's not policy what is the problem? I don't know how to talk to people who believe conspiracy theories, are not grounded in reality and don't know or understand policy and how it affects their life. I have my own ideas about what we should do but I'd like to hear you or Quinn share your ideas before I share mine.

    It's not policy. It's vision--overarching goals, big ideas, and a narrative that weaves all the policies into a compelling story.

    And believe me, I wish I had one to offer.

    We're getting our asses kicked by the t.v. media mix. Essentially Fox sets the story line and everyone follows.

    I don't say this as an excuse.

    Fix this t.v. imbalance and oh, by the way, a candidate without a personal story which gets unending attention, and without a "t.v. personality", will never win a major election. Trump ruled the media even when the polls said HRC was ahead.

    We live in a society of fantasists and if a party doesn't recognize this and feed people what their brains are expecting, a kind of drug dependency, there is no reception of a follow-on message.

    Elites selling social welfare is a dead end.    


    Again, this is not just about Trump. There are thousands of Republican state legislators there who are not TV personalities and have no media exposure.

    Media is a big part of the political mix--but it's more a tool than a driver. The conservative movement have used media more effectively than liberals have. Liberal versions of Fox and talk radio have failed.

    We've been running against the majority of the population for over 10 years. Since Bubba, we let Republicans claim the yokel vote as a starter along with all Protestants, all rural voters, all non-elite true white patriot Americans, plus anyone in the growing military. That's a helluva lead in any contest, and the presidency is just a cherry on top of that decaying wedding cake out of Great Expectations with rats running in and out. 

    Okay, I don't know if countering a Trump with a Sanders is our ultimate Fantasy Football - which one can dream up the most ridiculous unlikely budget and solutions and then the winner gets into office and lets everyone completely down and watches it all turn into chaos. How many times can we or they rinse and repeat that magic potion? 

    Or we put together a team that can make magic messaging that goes with slightly hyperbolized reality and then get it done? Without the internecine warfare? we came close to doing that, but message was lacking a bit as was 50-state push or something much stronger than swing state analytics.

    I agree that our message is too much on our product and not on the customer, especially our biggest potential customer that we scare off and then go more niche marketing to still be a success, pulling it from all around the edges.

    It's also funny all the comparisons with how Obama did, his turnout WITHOUT MENTIONING THE FUCKING 2008 MELTDOWN. America nearly elected McCain despite Bush running the economy into a ditch and sticking us in Iraq illegally. It probably says a lot for optimism about Obama, the black and liberal groups and get out the vote, but either WE SUCKED THEN or AMERICA IS LOONY. I know which I think, but you go to election with the electorate you're given. by the way, the reason we nearly lost 2008 despite the obvious is what we still havent figured out. 2 good sets of data now.

    (it might havebeen good to tell the Republicans "Shut the fuck up, Donny" back in 2009 and on through 2016, but we didn't elect John Goodman prez, so we are where we are)

    The problem goes much deeper than messaging. Poor messaging might explain an election loss. It does not explain 35 years of political decline across tens of thousands of jurisdictions all over the country.

    Your eleventh paragraph makes it sound as though Democrats should have been sympathetic to xenophobia. Yeah, the white working class supported Trump because they were upset about their troubles, but I can't accept that as an excuse. The Democrats would have done much more for the working class than Trump will. Their platform included a $15 minimum wage, the Paycheck Fairness Act, paid family leave, support for unions, and skepticism about free trade.

    No, it doesn't make it sound like that at all - it says 1) if you're doing something that enrages xenophobia, don't be surprised that they respond, and 2) maybe with all this xenophobia around we should have a more creative response than just "your behavior is deplorable".  Unless we want to continue to lose the white vote in droves - not just Hillary, but all the legislatures and governorships for years and years - then keep on keeping on.

    While we're obviously happy with our own message for the white working class, just as obviously that white working class either wasn't impressed or believed in a businessman more or had some other grudge that made them flock to Trump in droves. Trump's anti-Christian, anti-sensical messages make it again obvious that it's not even about "do this right thing, make that improvement". It's message over specific policy - he could say "shave your cat and teach it the fandango" and those would have voted for him - unless it was specifically trade or immigration or something that really got their goat, but something...

    Remember, Wisconsin *rejected* unions before Hillary came on the scene. Why? Russ Feingold went to 70 counties on a listening tour - he thought he had the needs and wishes of the people figured out, and he's one of the most sensible in the party. I very much doubt Wisconsin workers are clamoring for a $15/hour wage across the board - that's a liberal policy, and they're rejecting anything smacking of feminism, so not the Paycheck Fairness Act either. *THEY DON'T MIND VOTING AGAINST THEIR OWN INTERESTS*.

    Try thinking this: "what would Jesus do". Seriously.

    That would be problematic

    In Ezekiel 16:48-50, God compares Jerusalem to Sodom, saying "Sodom never did what you and your daughters have done." He explains that the sin of Sodom was that "She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me."

    The Trumpsters fit the description of why a nation fell.

    Wrong testament, but whatever.

    Submit to a corrupt justice system and accept a death sentence without a fight? Willingly and humbly let your enemies hang you on a cross until you die? That plan doesn't work for me.

    Hmmm... was thinking of earlier dealings with normal people, not the pharisees and Romans and what not.  more of a mood/thought experiment that might not work...

    Great post, Peracles.

    Having grown up in S. Ohio and living in rural Texas at the moment---thinking about shutting down the environmental business and spending more time in Vermont---it's really true that elites diss the folks out here, maybe I do it myself.  I underestimated how much they really do dislike HRC. 

    I don't understand the women vote at all. Maybe underneath many feel that, said and done, it is still Daddy who should protect the family and bring home the bigger paycheck. Or maybe it's me who thinks that.

    A guy here, friend and neighbor, thought Trump was scary, but still voted for him. I wonder how he will like Medicare vouchers.

    Good post, PP.  So now we know where the Dems went wrong.  But nobody has yet explained which part of the Republican message was so appealing they've now won enough seats everywhere to set up their own country.  You just know they're sitting in back rooms somewhere plotting and planning and maybe even drafting a new consitution.

    Trump will be their puppet and they'll be feeling like it's Christmas every day, with gifts that keep on giving. And we'll be licking our wounds, old and new, and blaming the Democrats, giving their punishment a much higher priority than what we should be giving the Republicans.  Because they've done the worst thing they could ever do. They let us down. 

    Since Reagan's time, they've painted Democrats as weak on anti-security, anti-American, anti-God, anti-white, anti-money, anti-male, anti-jobs. Everything's been a war on them that they have to stop.

    We're continually winning elections by 5% when we do. We need the 20%. We won't take back 34 red legislatures overnight, but we can try taking 10 of them next time, hard. Takes money - but it seems we had a ton of money this time - I don't know what happened to the down-ticket races, whether we just blew it or it was harder than thought or we didn't put money in the right places - but if we actually said what we were using it for, there are donors like the guy from Facebook and Soros that will put up $50 million at a time, which is largely matching anything the Republicans did this time round. Forget the goddamn presidency - focus on the states now, find the the swing states and then some for legislatures and then go for them. As we saw from this election, it was just a few percentage points across a number of states (with a shift of 1% it would have been Hillary at 307 electoral votes; a shift the other way she would have had maybe 170). Get it on, bang a gong.

    Having read all the above comments, I am angrier than ever.  

    The most atrocious and uncouth person to ever run for president got 90% of FREE media coverage.  Why?  Because the same people who watch "Say Yes to the Dress," "The Apprentice," Jerry Springer and Dr. Phil, believed his complete and utter bullshit and WATCHED the Trump Shit Show.  Why?  Because they wanted to believe that a "billionaire" really, really cares about them and will bring back steel, coal, and so many jobs.    

    Did the media challenge any of this?  NO. They didn't.  They just continued to harp on Hillary's emails as though she used them to send US secrets to foreign countries.  That was the only thing they pressed.

    Did the media press him on his taxes?  No.  Did they press him on his fake charity? NO.  Did they insist that he put his businesses in a blind trust, as they did with the Clintons? NO.  And all of a sudden there is a discussion about how it never came up.  

    Was there any alarm about the antagonistic enemy of the US publishing (through the US News Media) hacked, and adulterated emails to paint the worst possible image of the Democratic side,and not one from the GOP side.  The Russians interfered with our hallowed election and no one batted an eye.  Could the media have said, "We will not publish unsubstantiated and illegally hacked emails which are presented for the sole purpose of leaning the American election towards the desires of another country?  Could they have denied this illegally obtained information?  YES.  Did they?  NO

    Hillary was surging, so Comey sent a letter to GOP Congresspeople that had the desired effect to once again awaken unjustified suspicions about Hillary.  He then wrote, "Never Mind." once the damage was done.  Was there any alarm about our own FBI going against policy to influence an election?  Can anyone imagine the shitstorm if the FBI had done this against Trump?

    Our election was stolen, and it was stolen by an effort of the FBI and Russia.  I cannot be complacent.  What has happened is wrong.

    I believe that the GOP plan is to impeach Trump and have the ODIOUS Pence take over.  At least Trump used to be a semi-Democrat.  Our country has been invaded, but I'm thinking that Outer Space Invaders would be friendlier to earthlings than the Republican Party.

    The media was worthless. They will never develop the backbone to challenge Trump. They will pretend that Trump's presidency as something normal.

    They keep chanting:  what did Hillary do wrong? What is wrong with the Democrats?  


    I find it hard to listen to the news anchors now.

    I haven't watched a news program since Tuesday night.  Not one. I don't want to see clips of Trump speaking words out loud and I don't want to hear what the pundits have to say about what happened, and of course, WHY it happened.  I've had enough.  For a while, at least.  Feels pretty good, but as you can see, I'm online. Can't quit cold turkey.

    I am with that. I may go the whole four years not listening to that.

    Hey Ramona. Even trying to surf the web, can't get rid of the SOB.

    No, but I can censor anything I don't want to look at.  I can mute the sound.  Nothing can get to me unless I let it.

    Well, I have been watching it, and it is worse than you imagine,  They are in respectful awe at the view of "The Peaceful Transition of Power."  They show Obama shaking hands with the guy who called him a fraud, and they show Michelle, who was dissed for wearing a sleeveless dress sitting down and making nice with Mrs. Trump

    The oooohs and ahhhhhs are really hard to take especially when we all know the shitstorm that would have erupted if the FBI and Russia had been unsuccessful at getting their puppet elected.  There would have been lawsuits and challenges, and likely riots by the Trumpets.  Not one word about The Donald promising to accept the election results.....................if he won.

    The other message is an oh-so genuine wonderment of what Hillary did wrong.  She just couldn't deliver.  Not one bit of self-examination about the unfairness of the harassment they hurled at HRC about her charity (which actually IS a charity, but it accepted money from bad people -- none as bad as Donald, though), and her emails (which were never hacked).  No questioning of their own motives as to why they let D get away without forcing him to release his taxes, explain his slush fund (otherwise known as his charity), or pounding him on his general uncouthness and complete ignorance of the job he wanted.  

    It is a crime they got away with, and they just blame Hillary.

    The media is complicit, not worthless. Ailes created a propaganda machine and even got to host one of the debates. Rush Limbaugh has been the official propaganda organ for the troops for decades now. Wikileaks and Russia or whoever knew they could drip oppo research to the media and they'd just play it and examine it and keep it rolling. The media created contests where there were none - first pumping up Bernie's chances (sorry guys), pumping up Trump vs the numbnut field of Republicans, and then the steady drain of emails and untrustworthy and so on. The one caveat there is they couldn't have known America would swallow Trump's crazy so well, even at its most scandalous, except knowing he's good on reality TV. I need to go back and watch Chayevsky's "Network" again to see how prescient.

    (note the media has lost its ability to actually explore issues. in the debates half the moderators explicitly made it a point not to "fact check", and that's the norm, cause they don't do that on evening news either - they just report he said/she said, and Republicans learned how to control that cycle)

    CVille, good points. It's extremely hard to deal with this, especially when family and friends just didn't take things like the Russian intrusion seriously.

    This is a god damned occupation.

    Just because I think it belongs in this discussion, some excerpts from a recent piece... It's nowhere near the new vision that people need. But at the least, I think it sticks its thumb in a sore spot. Namely, that the Dems have completely enormously allied to Wall Street, the 1%, Finance, or whatever you wish to call it. And for me, the interests of that social slice, and those organizations, are - at present - deeply and fundamentally opposed to what is needed for positive social change. Q


    Millions of Americans registered a protest vote on Tuesday, expressing their fierce opposition to an economic and political system that puts wealthy and corporate interests over their own.... I strongly supported Hillary Clinton, but Donald J. Trump won the White House because his campaign rhetoric successfully tapped into a very real and justified anger, an anger that many traditional Democrats feel.

    ... It is no shock to me that millions of people who voted for Mr. Trump did so because they are sick and tired of the economic, political and media status quo.

    Working families watch as politicians get campaign financial support from billionaires and corporate interests — and then ignore the needs of ordinary Americans. Over the last 30 years, too many Americans were sold out by their corporate bosses. They work longer hours for lower wages as they see decent paying jobs go to China, Mexico or some other low-wage country.

    They are tired of having chief executives make 300 times what they do, while 52 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent.

    Many of their once beautiful rural towns have depopulated, their downtown stores are shuttered, and their kids are leaving home because there are no jobs — all while corporations suck the wealth out of their communities and stuff them into offshore accounts.... Too many families exist in despair as drugs, alcohol and suicide cut life short for a growing number of people.

    President-elect Trump is right: The American people want change. But what kind of change will he be offering them? Will he have the courage to stand up to the most powerful people in this country who are responsible for the economic pain that so many working families feel, or will he turn the anger of the majority against minorities, immigrants, the poor and the helpless? 

    Will he have the courage to stand up to Wall Street? Or, will he appoint another Wall Street banker to run the Treasury Department? Will he really take on the pharmaceutical industry and lower the price of prescription drugs?

    Let’s rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and create millions of well-paying jobs. Let’s raise the minimum wage... help students afford to go to college... expand Social Security. Let’s reform an economic system that enables billionaires like Mr. Trump not to pay a nickel in federal income taxes. And let’s end the ability of wealthy campaign contributors to buy elections.

    I believe strongly that the party must break loose from its corporate establishment ties and, once again, become a grass-roots party of working people, the elderly and the poor. We must open the doors of the party to welcome in the idealism and energy of young people and all Americans who are fighting for economic, social, racial and environmental justice. We must have the courage to take on the greed and power of Wall Street, the drug companies, the insurance companies and the fossil fuel industry.


    Blacks and Latinos also suffer from the economic downturn, yet majorities realized that Trump was a con man. Blacks left areas in the South when employment opportunities dried up. Hardworking blacks rejected the con. "Hillbilly Elegy" notes that some whites choose to stay in areas where job opportunities are scarce. Trump is not going to bring back mining jobs. Why are white voters gullible? The Trump Organization is poised to directly profit from actions taken by president Trump. Trump is Wall Street on steroids. 

    So, blacks always leave places that are economically on the decline? Last I checked, a few stayed in the South, even with lousy or no jobs. Same with the Northern inner cities. People - of any and all colour - choose to stay in economically down areas for a whole lot of reasons, some good, some maybe not so good. 

    And gullible voters, voting against their interests? Yeah, haven't heard much about that before in history.



    The trend in for blacks to leave inner cities


    South Side Chicago is also following the trend


    Economics trumps nostalgia. 

    Regarding the racism within voters, both Democrats and Republicans have percentages with negative impressions of blacks. Those negative feelings are highest among Trump voters


    And yes, rmrd, absolutely, racism played a huge role. Seriously. It's a mammoth, evil force in society. And Trump is calling it out. All I would say is that there are other fractures in the American sediment, and we need to see how the run as well. And more power to black people and black voters for having the sanity, and the heart, to not support that bastard.  

    Democrats don't get the votes of most white people. Democrats get the votes of the overwhelming majority of blacks, Latinos, and Asians. Even white women voted for the misogynist Trump. I don't think that there is anything that someone other than a white person can say that will address these facts regarding the white community.

    "Or, will he appoint another Wall Street banker to run the Treasury Department?" - uh, he just offered it to Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase, who likely is turning it down. (High) Hope and (Spare) Change.

    Hillary to Goldman Sachs: ""When I was a Senator from New York, I represented and worked with so many talented principled people who made their living in finance. But even thought I represented them and did all I could to make sure they continued to prosper, I called for closing the carried interest loophole and addressing skyrocketing CEO pay."

    Hillary at campaign inauguration: "Striking a populist note, Clinton, who announced on Sunday she was running for president in 2016, said American families were still facing financial hardship at a time "when the average CEO makes about 300 times what the average worker makes."

    "I think the subprime market was sort of like the canary in the mine," she said. "You know, it was telling us loudly and clearly, ‘There are problems here.’ "

    It didn’t become law, but Clinton sponsored a bill to implement these policies in September 2007.

    The first time she mentioned derivatives was in a November 2007 speech in Iowa.  (A derivative is a financial product that allows investors to hedge against price fluctuations in an underlying asset.)

    "We need to start addressing the risks posed by derivatives and other complex financial products," she said. "You can't let Wall Street send the bill to your street with the bright ideas that just don't work out. Derivatives and products like them are posing real risks to families, as Wall Street writes down tens of billions of dollars in investments. Companies are taking the loss of a billion here and a billion there simply because the securities they own are worth less than they thought."

    In the same speech, she spoke again of the risky lending that led to the subprime mortgage crisis, adding that she called on then-President George W. Bush to convene a conference to find a solution.

    And she also pushed for more oversight of financial markets: "So as president, I will move to establish the 21st-century oversight we need in a 21st-century global marketplace. I will call for an immediate review of these new investment products and for plans to make them more transparent."

    This November speech angered some of Clinton’s Wall Street donors, according tothe New York Times.

    At the tail-end of her campaign, in March 2008 -- still before the financial crisis hit a peak later that summer -- Clinton released a six-point plan to increase financial regulation. The plan included, in part, more oversight of derivatives and other new financial products, establishment of mortgage standards and strengthened some consumer protections.

    Oops, Quinn's gonna get angwy, but maybe if Bernie had compromised a bit more on these SHARED CONCERNS, say before the convention, we'd have a unified policy, rather than him hoping Trump will offer something for him to work with him on.

    Are you seriously so lost in the personalities of this thing that you believe HRC was ever a threat, in any way, to reel in Wall Street?

    Get OVER the personalities involved. Seriously. Do you think I posted this here because it was goddamn BERNIE? Like my previous comment about vision, that you instantly turned into some sort of attack on blessed HRC. 

    I've had to listen to Americans driven mad on personality politics since at least 2008. I KEEP TELLING YOU I DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THESE PERSONALITIES,A ND THAT IT IS UTTERLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO BET SO HEAVILY ON THEM.  ut trying to debate politics on any American blog these last years is like having demented children roaring at you about whether Mommy is better than Daddy. Holy shit. Do you think I give two sweet f*cks about your attachment to HRC or hatred of Bernie?

    Are you capable, in any way, of stopping arguing like this is People magazine? When did peoples brains turn completely to gruel? I keep stripping the names off to try and discuss it, but nosirree, baaaaaack around we must come.

    But hey. What's another 8-10 years of the Democratic Left devoting their time trying to shove their heads up the ass of one FABULOUS leader or another.


    Here. Try this. I helped get Bill in. But I'm really sorry the dumb bastard sold his ass to finance. On that, he was an utter tool, a fool and a sell-out. And I wish he'd piss off out of politics for life now. He's crooked, and he's utterly lost as a friend of working people.

    See that? It's not so hard. TRY SAYING IT ABOUT HRC. Get her out of your head space. Think about the PEOPLE of the United States and not about the horse-shit role-playing assholes presently on stage. 

    People need to unleash their powers and their skills in ways which don't involve backing some half-assed political 
    "leader" for a few years. 

    Peace out. 

    How 'bout this? You fuckers nominated the wrong person, as you usually do. Please don't do it again.

    Okay. You are right. Now you can help me with my campaign. :)

    I'd rather lose with Hillary than win with Webb. We nominated the best person for the job.

    You don't understand - it's part of our brand - "the gang that couldn't shoot straight"

    It's been five whole days, but it's only now I can laugh about it. Just a joke, folks. A poor attempt at levity in a world that's gone much darker. It was hard losing America and fellow Montrealer Leonard Cohen the same week.

    I had to drop by to see how the dag community was handling all this. Much as I expected -- a lot of either blaming or deflecting of blame. Some good arguments on all sides, not that it makes things better. Peracles had the best line: "Either we (Democrats) suck or America is loony." Maybe both. Good to hear Quinn's take too.

    But blame is not really the point in this strangest of all elections. A dysfunctional political system is going to give you a dysfunctional result; Trump as much as Hillary was just along for the ride.

    Anyway, as I read the comments, I realized that I'd already written something relevant, back in August (actually, little more than a link to a post in, of all places, DailyKos). My warning about "societal collapse" sounds almost prescient. Worth a re-read: http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/whats-matter-white-trash-hillbillies-app...

    I'll check back in two or three years to see if anyone's actually paid attention.

    I'm just on the way to a WaPo article on the algorithm that is said to have misled our plucky heroine...I'll be back.




    Dear God, what farce. 

    Like watching 538 put up those astonishingly useless "probability of winning" percentages. Seriously, I spent years of my life buried in polling. And the idea that with multiple states running at less a 1% gap, and enormous reasons for Trump backers to lie about their views, and with motivation to turn-out sitting right at the margin, these ass-clowns were showing numbers over 80%. It was sheer madness.


    Wow. Turns out you can fool some of the people all the goddamn time.

    Great piece, acanuck.

    As you know, the Annapolis Valley is basically on the Northern end of Appalachia, and not only suffers from the older vices - there were 7 separate stills in my village of 480 growing up, incest, shot-guns and the lot - but the problems today are also extremely similar, no jobs, failing marriages, transience, lousy housing, oxy, and age. 

    And people who simply think the anger and protest from those folks are somehow all about "racism" are, to be blunt, fools. These people are drowning, and - bottomline - they don't give a damn how other races are doing. They just know that what the powerful has done has driven their region's decline.

    I've been saying for years, if we had designed our free trade deals not so much to gut manufacturing, but instead to cut the fat from our white collar professions and bullshit financial and managerial occupations - that suck up enormous amounts of our economy doing nothing in particular - and opened it wide open to cheaper services and pros from Asia and elsewhere - and then told our whining uselessly-educated white collar types that we had "retraining" programs for them - INSTEAD of targeting manual work in our trade deals - you'd have heard a different song. 

    I've got 6 living sibs. Of the 7 of us, 4 chose to stay home, and 3 of them have 2 degrees. Of those 4 who stayed home and made their living there, not one has ever earned, in any one year, over $35,000.

    But if they had left, to save their asses? It would have just furthered the collapse of the area and its people. And all those trade deals and the benefits they brought? You must be joking. We lost pulp and paper mills, food processing, you name it. Were the "net benefits" of those trade deals transferred back to the area? Well, some would say the shirts are cheaper and so, win/win, right? 

    To me, watching families disappear into the arms of oxy says that maybe that "cheap shirts + no jobs" deal wasn't so great. 

    Anyway. I'm a fan of throwing  all the lawyers, accountants, marketing people and other professionals out in this street, and telling THEM, "Hey. Don't worry. Next time you need your taxes done, it'll be $10 cheaper. Win/Win." 

    People who think this rage is all about race are missing it. These folks would burn the world to the ground, no matter the colour involved.

    Because their world is ashes.

    Trump voters rejected Progressives like Russ Feingold, Mike Honda, and Zephyr Treachout. 

    All right so NAFTA was a big mistake. But you know, it was passed 22 years ago. Those rural areas voted red when the electoral college stole the election from Gore. Hillary did better than he did. Where was all the anger when Bush did nothing to help the rural areas? Apparently they weren't that pissed. They went red again and re-elected him. We won with Obama but those rural areas still went red. Then those red areas came out to vote better than us and we lost the house. Those rural areas out voted us again and we lost the senate. Those rural areas stopped Obama from doing anything after two years. And you're trying to tell me it's all about NAFTA. You're trying to tell me it's that they are just so economically distressed. They were just as economically distressed when they re-elected Bush. Those rural white folks don't make the republicans pay for leaving them economically distressed, just the democrats. Those poor struggling white folk are pretty selective in who they blame for their problems and who they choose to punish for them. If in two years they are still economically distressed are they going to punish the republicans for their failure the way they punished Obama after two years? Think the republicans are going to lose the house or the senate in 2018 when Trump doesn't fix their problems? I don't. I just don't buy the poor struggling white folk argument.

    Jesus Christ ocean kat.... only one party runs against the Government. 

    The other one runs for it, and then can't actually make it work, because the GOP stops them. 

    How about we try something different? 

    Yeah, we been watching too. But the poor distressed rural white folks isn't the whole story. Might be a big part, might only be a small part of the story. Playing that line to the hilt to explain it isn't going to help us figure out what the other parts of the problem are and what to do differently.

    Here's the thing. Hillary would have done much more to help those poor white folks than Trump. Trump will likely do nothing but if he does what he's promised he'll actually hurt them. I don't know how to convince them of that. Obama would have done something to help them if they hadn't voted in republicans to stop him. I don't know how to convince them of that either. Gore would have tried to help too. Those are the points that you don't seem to be addressing. You're talking around them.

    I talk to right wingers now and then who come to visit the ghost town. They seem to have a need to push their views on people. I don't know what to say to them. I don't know how to talk to people who make factually incorrect irrational statements. I don't understand them.

    Here's a story. I was talking to a camper here who was complaining about his Canadian employee. He was explaining how difficult is was to get her employment papers. Every year he has to go through this hassle. I was sympathetic until he said, "The only way you can get a green card in this country is if you're going directly on welfare." Then started the anti Mexican rhetoric which of course I responded to and there was a big argument.

    So don't tell me it's all about being economically distressed. We'd all like to try something different. But what? I don't understand these people and I grew up in a rural community. I don't have an answer.

    Do you?

    Just so we move this along with some clarity on where we agree ocean-kat.... I tend to agree with you that:

    "Hillary would have done much more to help those poor white folks than Trump. Trump will likely do nothing but if he does what he's promised he'll actually hurt them. I don't know how to convince them of that. Obama would have done something to help them if they hadn't voted in republicans to stop him. I don't know how to convince them of that either. Gore would have tried to help too."

    Now, the one proviso is that Trump may accidentally, almost as an unintended consequence, so some things that end up helping them. And it's important that we're aware of that. He could bash some trade deals, open up more mining and such, and gear up more military recruitment.... and those could all end up with more jobs for these regions. 

    But in terms of health care? Education? Long-term economic hope? Long-term survival? He'll be endlessly worse.

    Ok. So we agree that far.

    And I also agree that there are many other factors in play.

    I think our question is - on this front, as with racism/sexism, the power of the elite/1% and many others - how do we bring forward better approaches? 




    Oh shit, I thought *you* were about to tell *us*. I'd say make a more forceful invitation of the only marginally deplorable whites into the big tent and flesh out some of the offerings for more groups, but people dont want policies - they want email scandals and to bitch, and then vote for the guys that fuck them every time in the name of the red white and blue. The fact is, they didnt all vote for Trump - many voted for the likelihood that Trump wouldnt matter, and that itd be red over blue from the bottom up, and it's just their football team, like the old guy in a bar in east Kentucky who handed me business card saying "cowboy". Kentucky. Delusional. If they were worrying about jobs, they wouldnt give a shit about stupid fucking emails. They wouldnt be joining some 4 year quixotic quest over a dead ambassador in the Mideast (when the Republicans hate the State Department to start). Unemployment's gone way down, troop deployment's way down, almost no terrorist attacks unlike mass gun shootings by weirded out cowboys. But these folks just wanna blow shit up. Great, they did it. Again. I'm just so newly sympathetic. In the primaries didnt politicians hang out in these states for months asking their every pleasure? Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Michigan, where else?

    The causes of why so many places became less viable are certainly linked to trade deals. They are also involved with radical changes in the means of producing things.

    To ask that those deals be made with an eye toward what it does to people in certain places is going to require a fundamental change in our market created environment. And that won't ever happen if people think it is a simple matter of getting back what was once their special place.

    When things were good, it wasn't because of something they did that made it so. They just happened to be in the right place at the right time. There is some kind of fundamental connection between privilege and passivity.

    So, you are right, it is about much more than racial identity but racial identity itself is about much more than itself.

    Nice to see all the big brains back revving up their neurons again. I find myself agreeing with everyone's comments which I took as an unlikely sign of hope for the direction of the Dems going forward, or more likely a sign of my own depressed confusion. It's a real consolation to read you all. 

    My own half-assed and uncooked chocolaty moelleux thoughts on the situation: Just juxtapose Trump's jobs speech with Hillary's:



    Trump's is a solid tight story about evil enemies abroad and from within (those bastard corporate elites) explaining why things seem on the wrong track, and so how to fix them. Hillary's is a checklist of donor pleasing tax breaks and incentive schemes to make a great situation even greater. 

    When you have a significant majority of the electorate saying the country is on the wrong track, for whatever reason, the latter strategic approach to messaging seems about as intelligent as a bag of rocks. Trump is a lying con-man of the highest order with the mental faculties and attention span of a lobotomized newt, but *somehow* he comes out looking like a disciplined astute political genius by comparison. 

    The 14% swing among poor whites between Obama 2008 and Trump 2016 comes down to the latter grabbing the economic justice banner in a way that Hillary decided not to. 

    Simple solution: take the banner back, and you have your electoral majority back. 

    Nice to see all the 


    As I walked in numb disbelief through the bleak and broken landscape,  I saw small groups of people huddling together for comfort after the earthquake--many had been out of touch until their hour of shared disaster...

    Oh, a storm is threat'ning
    My very life today
    If I don't get some shelter
    Oh yeah, I'm gonna fade away

    You ask why I don't live here??


    Honey, how come y'don't  MOVE??!!

    This was not intended as a prophecy at the time...


    By jollyroger on Wed, 03/09/2016 - 1:36am |

    'Honest and trustworthy" continues to be HRC's deficiency.



    LOL, umm they voted for Trump sooo.... LOL. Sorry Jolly, the only conclusion we can get from this is Americans are dumb. I mean you read the NY Times story about the folks at Carrier who believe they will no longer lose their jobs in 2019 when Carrier opens its factory in Mexico. They really believe Trump can stop that, while Trump has his ties made in factories overseas. Their wakeup call is their jobs are still moving to Mexico.  Seriously, none of this is because she is a liar, all of this is because Americans are dumb and they learn lessons the hardest way possible. It's fucked up, but it is reality.  Your prescience is vastly overstated!



    Obey, Quinn, acanuck, stratofrog... I feel like I'm at a funeral. It's wonderful to see so many relatives, but I wish it were under happier circumstances.

    Seeing Quinn and Genghis in agreement. Strange days indeed... Nice seeing old friends!

    Yeah, I feel like I just went over a waterfall, you know, and am just being tumbled and churned and now and then surfacing and grabbing a breath, and then back under.

    Hardest thing is that whenever I feel like I've surfaced and pulled my thoughts together, a speedboat full of blind, shrieking, self-righteousness Twitter idiots hurtles past and I'm buried under another wave. 

    Seriously, it's the near-hysteria from MY side that is driving me nuts right now.

    I have absolutely no doubt that this bastard and his advisors are evil, and haven't a good bone in their bodies, but there's always an admixture of cupidity, stupidity, and some various other idity's that means they're not SIMPLY going to replicate the 30's.

    It's always different.  

    And it's important to try and figure out how, so we can haul them into certain deals, and waylay them on certain issues, and align our forces in certain ways.

    But this goddamn shrieking that IT'S THE 3RD REICH AND IF YOU DON'T GO APE-SHIT WITH US NOW, THEN WE'LL ALL BE OVENED, well.... I donno what to do with that.

    Shorter: this all sucks, it's dangerous as hell, and I still can't seem to find which end is up.

    But good to see you all! wink

    And in the name of God, can people stop saying "NORMALIZE?" 

    It's basically a new, made up, academic-sounding word, right? 

    So EVERYBODY gets to shout it like the shoutiest of new undergrads.

    And the purpose - assuming we want to communicate with at least a couple of people who aren't us - is utterly lost. 

    People don't get it. "Normalize?" Don't "normalize?" Wha?



    -- Headline, Manchester Guardian, Dec. 31, 1926

    Do you like how I hit both your comments with one quote? I'm pretty impressed with myself, myself.

    What gets me is "weaponized." I see journalists using this cliche du jour several times a day.

    PS In all seriousness, your point about figuring out how Trump's brand of evil will play out is right on the mark. I think the strongman populist-chauvinists of the 21st century--Putin, Erdogan, Chavez, Duterte, Orbán, Berlusconi--offer more useful models than the old fascists of the 20th. Not that Trump is exactly like any of those guys, but he resembles them much more than Mussolini or Hitler.

    I think your PS gets at the real question of the day. WHAT KIND of authoritarian shit-heel will Trump be?

    And I GET why people are scared shitless. 

    Here's a couple of thoughts I've been swapping with a British friend:

    1. We know Trump is into personal aggrandizement and financial cons. Absolutely. What is less clear is whether, beyond his personal affairs, he is into inflicting real-world suffering and violence on people. That's a bit different thing. His daughter has strong Jewish links, and he and his family have actually crossed party lines, racial lines, many times. So YES, he's racist. But a lot of people are, and have been, but without becoming Nazis-esque monsters. Think of that entire world of racist-as-hell Southern politicians we've just come through.

    2. Comparing Trump to the 30’s fascists doesn't work in m,any ways. Trump inherited wealth. They were often penniless. He’s a billionaire. He fucks global models - they had undescended testicles. Trump owns enormous, lavish, publicly-loved hotels and TV shows. He runs a major beauty pageant. 

    This is not a tiny worm of a man like Hitler. With all that wealth and status, he looks more like a Berlusconi, perhaps.

    3. Today, he named a Republican hack as his Chief of Staff. But then an alt-right racist as his Head of Strategy. Announced he wanted to reverse Roe v Wade on abortion, but then supported gay marriage. Renounced deporting all 11 million illegals to just the 2-3 million illegals who have broken a law. Said he wants a wall in places, but a fence in others. Announced he’s not going to prosecute Clinton, threatened someone else with legal action. Tough to determine how a man like that will act.

    4. Some of his policies will be, strangely enough, those I believe the Democrats should long have pursued. Populist in nature, they also have a real-workd economic case in their favour. For instance, he wants to rip up or renegotiate the big trade deals. He wants to slap China down for currency manipulation and for producing too-cheap goods by abusing labour. He wants a huge infrastructure spend. 

    Now, what we need to prep for here are that these policies may just, like some of Reagan's, result in job growth. Especially if he combines them with tax cuts, and repatriation of US corporate dollars sitting offshore. So we shoyldn't automatically predict economic collapse. [And also, we may want to be ready to dig open the inevitable corruption that will happen here.]

    5. He’s got Newt Gingrich and Rudy Guiliani and Chris Christie with him. These are utterly detestable men. But. They have RUN major cities like New York, or the state of New Jersey, and fancy themselves as thinkers and men who will have a “legacy.” Shits, yes, but not simply worms and petty murderers and career-losers like many Nazis. They may want some sort of elite APPROVAL for their actions.

    So, as you say, he could be a "Putin, Erdogan, Chavez, Duterte, Orbán, Berlusconi... or a Mussolini or Hitler." I think it's worth thinking about these clown-monsters. Especially now. One of my studies from college days, who really helped me keep my eye on the Tea Party, was Pierre Poujade. 


    One thing we can say about Trump, his self-interest outweighs ideology, which makes him more like Belusconi and Erdogan than Chavez or the old-school fascists.

    Two, he seems more spontaneous than any of these guys. There is no master plan; he just careens off the wall in whatever direction seems right at the moment.

    Three, he can't control his mouth.

    Four, he's a bad manager. We've already seen major shake-ups and factional battles in his campaign. It's just going to get worse. The Priebus-Bannon combo is a recipe for civil war.

    Five, he always, always counterpunches, no matter what direction the hit comes from.

    Upshot: a very erratic presidency, not smooth like Putin. One week, he'll badmouth NATO, the next talk tough against Russia. He'll pledge support to Israel, then dog whistle about Jewish financiers. His unruly team will go in all different directions.

    Biggest threats:

    1) He gets caught in an escalating cycle of vitriol with some foreign leader that leads to war

    2) He falls under the spell of some Rasputin who really does have a seriously evil master plan (e.g. Bannon)

    3) He politicizes our institutions--courts, military, police, intelligence, media--enabling him to subvert the state to his whims, like Putin, Erdogan, Chavez.

    4) He works with Congress to gut progressive institutions--Medicare, SS, education, etc.

    While I've been spending time, like everyone else, being scared shitless of what these bastards can do, there is, in fact, a very different line of thought we should consider.

    Namely, that these ass-clowns are... ass-clowns. 

    The gang that couldn't shoot straight. 

    Not far-seeing, perfect-planning, ultra-powerful figures who will initiate some grand New Right/Reich.

    Trump has failed at most of his businesses. Almost unbelievably at times.

    He was a shitty debater. 

    He is, as you say, a disastrous manager.

    He has no attention span, can be goaded, lured, and conned like a teenager.

    Newt is also a klutz, who has spun disastrous decisions multiple times.

    Christie and Rudy are past their prime, or have just had their public personas broken.

    Ryan doesn't know whether he hates them all or not.

    And they could EASILY step into 101 traps.

    For instance, an aggressive step into Social Security or Medicare. 

    Or an ill-conceived foreign adventure.

    A clash with a little guy that makes them appear as bullies.

    Or... a clash with a pop culture figure who maintains a lot of respect. Imagine a serious Trump vs Springsteen clash. 

    Or a bad tax cut announcement.

    Or a head-on run-in in a California or New York or Chicago where... they lose.

    When ass-clowns have their aura punctured, the air can go out in a hurry.

    And to my mind, that's what these guys are. Fuckwits. Morons. Guys from the 1880's who stumbled and face-planted their way into money and success in the 2010's. Players whom history will deal out of its deck. 

    We should be aiming to puncture these guys and see if we can get them out sooner, rather than later.

    Too much fear and respect is not a great tactic.


    He's a man-child with self-esteem issues and little interest or capacity for management and policy. Sure. But goading him into stupid fights HAS JUST BEEN TRIED, NO? With such awesome results. 

    What's that line about wrestling pigs in shit...

    How about acting like grown-ups instead, putain merde tabernacle! 

    Find wedge issues to hammer separating Trump's base from the hardline corporate conservative government that this is shaping up to be. Throw the kitchen sink at Pence, Mnuchin, Bolton and co on big finance, gutting safety net, on Iraq and foreign policy over-extension. 

    Make THEM damaged goods and drive Trump back towards the center. He's an asshole, but he's pragmatic when it comes to changing tack (watch his two successful campaign reshuffles) and is addicted to approval of any kind. The least worst kind of populist. Work with that. 

    That's all I got... 



    I love it and I agree. We can do this the right way. And the fight begins with Medicare privatization.

    5) Pre-midterm 'limited' bombing 'response' on Iran.....lots TV stuff blowing up....acts to rally  pissed GOP Base to vote. Then.....

    Iran hardliners set gulf on fire, oil skyrockets. Post midterms turns out US. needs to invade Iran to secure Gulf of Hormuz/coastal areas. Body bags.......2020 GOP turns the war over to Dems.


    P.S. I really CAN'T believe that Garudian headline. Holy shit. "Normalise." 

    Except we have the worst of 2 worlds - Chavez' party couldn't really survive without him, nor wouldn't Erdogan's. But the Reoublicans have kept and expanded their lockhold on state houses before Trump, and that's ignoring their corrosive effect. So far it's been a perfect storm for the wanKKKers.

    Quinn, it's just a pizza parlor - we have those down here in the lower 48. Lay off the anchovies - high in mercury, probably have your head toxic by now. Unless by "speedboat" you're back on the bathtub meth again, in which case God help us all....

    It's not the 3rd Reich but all the elements are there if Trump wants to go there. He's got his brown shirts if he wants to use them. All he has to do is tweet: Where are my supporters? Why aren't you out there confronting the rioters protesting me?

    I don't think Trump is going to go there. Best guess is Pence is the real president and the republicans will set policy. I think Trump is a narcissist seeking adulation from the crowds. Not a psychopath seeking power. He's not a dictator like Hussein that used to have torture and rape in his prisons taped so he could watch for entertainment. But you know, Trump is unstable enough that I'm just not sure where he'll go.

    Mr. Mackeen!! Always good to see your all-caps is still fully functional! ;0) And nice to see the dead thread heads still around ;0)

    I hear you have an actual functioning hockey team of some sort this year

    From the outside, looking in, it seems like a lot of fuss about little:  one lying manipulator beat another lying manipulator.  Big deal.

    Anybody with two eyes could see that Trump was an asshole and an idiot.  Everybody knew that, including his voters.  What made him attractive was precisely his lack of principles and therefore his unpredictability.

    With Clinton, you knew what you would get:  more of the same.  If you liked the state of the country after 8 years of Obama, and wanted more of it, you voted Clinton.

    A vote for Trump was a Hail Mary pass.  With Trump, anything might happen, including maybe good things.  A vote for Trump was a vote for Hope and Change.

    "With Clinton, you knew what you would get:  more of the same." - no, that was part of the bullshit that made this such a long hard slog. No, Hillary wasn't to be Bill's 3rd term, nor Obama's 3rd term - she had different objectives and a different style, believe it or not, despite being a woman, she's even a different person. But thanks for playing.

    Thanks for saying that. I am so sick of this thoughtless meme about HRC that is nothing but GOP talking points.  LAZY!!!!!

    A vote for Trump was a suckers bet. He has never been held accountable for anything in his life. Bankruptcies, frauds (TU), groping, lies, contractor nonpayment, false promises. 

    Now he is in the most seriously accountable job on earth. Put there by a minority of voters to 'get heard'.

    He wants to go home on weekends. He wants more rallies of supporters. He is avoiding the press and lashing out with tweets. He won't last.

    We do know that you voted for a racist who placed an anti-Semite in s powerful position in the White House.

    It was not a personality contest.

    The candidates were the extensions of what got them to where they were.

    The idea that voting for Trump was a challenge to the status quo is a pipe dream.

    His transition team of Lobbyists and Old School Conservatives has put months of speculation to rest before a fortnight.

    Latest Comments