|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Nov 15, 2016 1:01:03 GMT
Clearly what the Democrats needed to do in order to win the election was say some things during the campaign that would have annoyed a lot of their core supporters in California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts in exchange for winning some extra votes in the Rust Belt. You could say of course that it was a triumph of idealism that they refused to do so, but maybe getting into power was more important on this occasion.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 15, 2016 1:06:35 GMT
It's honestly just laughable. How the feck do you ignore the concerns of Ed Rendell about Pennsylvania? How the feck can you possibly think that making some effort in the rural parts of the state wasn't important? |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,291 
|
Post by maxque on Nov 15, 2016 1:48:14 GMT
Latest reports on Trump's appointments. There had been heavy rumors all day that the charmless neo-Con John Bolton was favourite for the job. However AP just reported that Rudi Giuliani is now the favourite So, another charmless Neo-Con, then. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,743
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 15, 2016 1:57:03 GMT
Clearly what the Democrats needed to do in order to win the election was say some things during the campaign that would have annoyed a lot of their core supporters in California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts in exchange for winning some extra votes in the Rust Belt. You could say of course that it was a triumph of idealism that they refused to do so, but maybe getting into power was more important on this occasion. It's almost as though Clinton was campaigning to win the popular vote (we mustn't piss off our 60% support in California 'cos that's 5 million voters) whereas Trump was campaigning to win the College vote (we just need to scrape past 50% support in Florida to get all of Florida's votes). Trump does seems to have won large states by just scraping over the line, whereas Clinton won large states by piling up useless majorities. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,997
|
Post by Khunanup on Nov 15, 2016 2:39:43 GMT
Latest reports on Trump's appointments. There had been heavy rumors all day that the charmless neo-Con John Bolton was favourite for the job. However AP just reported that Rudi Giuliani is now the favourite So, another charmless Neo-Con, then. No, a batshit insane one. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Nov 15, 2016 5:27:47 GMT
So, another charmless Neo-Con, then. No, a batshit insane one. He's going fucking senile. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,635
|
Post by mboy on Nov 15, 2016 8:33:46 GMT
Clearly what the Democrats needed to do in order to win the election was say some things during the campaign that would have annoyed a lot of their core supporters in California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts in exchange for winning some extra votes in the Rust Belt. You could say of course that it was a triumph of idealism that they refused to do so, but maybe getting into power was more important on this occasion. Yes, like she could have said "it's true that political correctness is becoming a problem in our discourse, and we will rectify that", etc. |
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,836
|
Post by Crimson King on Nov 15, 2016 10:14:00 GMT
Is there a bit of a double standard here? - Hillary proves that she was temperamentally unfit to be president by exhibiting a human response to a devastating personal and political shock, whilst Trumps behavior throughout the campaign is harmless eccentricity
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 15, 2016 10:52:37 GMT
@barctom To reiterate what others have said, there is legitimate attempts at voter suppression/whatever you want to call it. I specifically highlighted those 2 states as Wisconsin has made voter ID much more restrictive while North Carolina GOP removed early voting locations from black areas and openly bragged in a press release post election about how African American turnout was down. I fully accept part of the turnout in these states and the turnout in others was largely due to an uninspiring candidate, lack of economic message as nitory mentioned, lack of Clinton campaigning etc. However, I think it is important to highlight partisan voter suppression, particularly when there is really not a voter fraud problem in America of any magnitude, unlike in Britain to a degree. Finally, my points weren't just 'leftie'. I think the term 'white privilege' is pretty redundant and unhelpful, I don't think anyone really opposes gender neutrality (at least opposition to sexism) and I do think globalisation is good but those affected should get help in retraining and bringing different manufacturing/service jobs to their area. I also recognise the Democrats should have been more anti globalisation, even if it's just effectively token eg; Chinese currency manipulation, steel dumping, tariffs on those who break agreements etc. Please explain to me why ensuring there is proper ID for effective voter registration and not providing 'early voting locations' can possibly be termed 'voter suppression'? In Britain we do not have 'early voter locations' and are you suggesting that here we thus have 'voter suppression'? And do you think a desire to resist Democrats registering as many illegals as possible so as to 'harvest their votes' in custom built special centres is valid and a necessary part of what you think of as democracy? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2016 10:59:17 GMT
Clearly what the Democrats needed to do in order to win the election was say some things during the campaign that would have annoyed a lot of their core supporters in California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts in exchange for winning some extra votes in the Rust Belt. You could say of course that it was a triumph of idealism that they refused to do so, but maybe getting into power was more important on this occasion. Yes, like she could have said "it's true that political correctness is becoming a problem in our discourse, and we will rectify that", etc. Voters are by and large not stupid and know when politicians are lying. The Democrats don't "think political correctness is becoming a problem in our discourse" (rightly imo) and if they started talking like that they would simply make fools of themselves. Also worth noting that Clinton did attempt a bit of economic populism but no one seriously believed it. No, the main problem was that they ran a very cautious strategy on the poll-backed assumption that it was working. If they'd known it wasn't working they would have had to overhaul the entire strategy, not just tack on a bit of (perceived to be) red meat to a few swing voters. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2016 11:09:19 GMT
Yes, like she could have said "it's true that political correctness is becoming a problem in our discourse, and we will rectify that", etc. Voters are by and large not stupid and know when politicians are lying. The Democrats don't "think political correctness is becoming a problem in our discourse" (rightly imo) and if they started talking like that they would simply make fools of themselves. Also worth noting that Clinton did attempt a bit of economic populism but no one seriously believed it. No, the main problem was that they ran a very cautious strategy on the poll-backed assumption that it was working. If they'd known it wasn't working they would have had to overhaul the entire strategy, not just tack on a bit of (perceived to be) red meat to a few swing voters. It seems Bill Clinton had major misgivings about complacency in the rust belt states and failure to pay enough attention to white working class Democrats. He was overruled, even though Hillary had the resources to do what he suggested. The Democrats won the popular vote, and "should" have taken the presidency. This will be remembered as one of the greatest strategic failures in political history. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 15, 2016 11:31:45 GMT
Is there a bit of a double standard here? - Hillary proves that she was temperamentally unfit to be president by exhibiting a human response to a devastating personal and political shock, whilst Trumps behavior throughout the campaign is harmless eccentricity Yes. Most certainly. Not uncommon on both sides. But it doesn't matter. She lost. She won't stand again. Game over. Insert another coin to continue playing. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 15, 2016 11:43:40 GMT
No, a batshit insane one. He's going fucking senile. Yes...he is seriously past his best |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Nov 15, 2016 12:51:01 GMT
One can only hope, but it does seem incredibly unlikely that she'll make another go at it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2016 13:13:06 GMT
One can only hope, but it does seem incredibly unlikely that she'll make another go at it. The finger of blame was being pointed at Hillary Clinton from the moment it became clear she had lost (as I commented on the election thread). Now it is becoming clear how badly she and her advisors messed up, her position as Scapegoat-in-Chief is assured. Besides, she'll be 73 in 2020, and if Trump were to stand again, the Democrats would surely wish to put forward a younger candidate. |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Nov 15, 2016 13:21:14 GMT
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 15, 2016 13:29:03 GMT
Yes, like she could have said "it's true that political correctness is becoming a problem in our discourse, and we will rectify that", etc. Voters are by and large not stupid and know when politicians are lying. The Democrats don't "think political correctness is becoming a problem in our discourse" (rightly imo) and if they started talking like that they would simply make fools of themselves. Also worth noting that Clinton did attempt a bit of economic populism but no one seriously believed it. No, the main problem was that they ran a very cautious strategy on the poll-backed assumption that it was working. If they'd known it wasn't working they would have had to overhaul the entire strategy, not just tack on a bit of (perceived to be) red meat to a few swing voters. The thing was they probably didn't even need a total overhaul of the strategy, just a bit of attention to Wisconsin, Michigan and rural Pennsylvania would have probably seen her safely home. Losing Michigan and Wisconsin through complacency is bad enough but largely ignoring rural Pennsylvania is even dumber. They were spending an absolute fortune in the state and while understandably the focus the was turnout in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh plus targeting swing voters in the suburbs it was just crazy to largely ignore the rural/small town areas. Obviously they were never going to win there but are still plenty of Democratic voters there who are part of their coalition in the state. Plenty of people on this forum have been involved, or even run, parliamentary and/or council elections and while you might focus your efforts on your strongholds or marginal parts of a constituency/ward you don't simply ignore your weaker areas. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 15, 2016 13:31:16 GMT
When this election is over the GOP are going to try very, very hard to forget that anything happened at all this year. Just browsing through some of the old posts on this thread. I find this one particularly amusing. If John Bolton becomes Secretary of State some of your comments about the "blood thirsty warmonger" Hillary Clinton might also look amusing. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,743
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 15, 2016 14:07:53 GMT
I see they got the LibDem campaign team to draw that chart. |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,790
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Nov 15, 2016 14:15:34 GMT
Few more ElectionNights:
CNN: The best coverage i found so far, inclusive analyzing CountyResults in FL, NC, MidWest:
FOX: I found only LocalStations, therefor with lots of local analysis: 05 Atlanta:
10 Phoenix:
RT: Putin's channel, so mainly pretty women talking with FringeFigures like LarryKing, exMN-Gov. J.Ventura, strange SandersSupporters and RightWingers (RT-Germany is liked by some LEFT-voters and loved by many AfD-ones...), results appeared mostly in the SubLines without details:
PBS: As the PublicB.S., they weren't too pleased by the OutCome; also no InDepth-Analysis of CountyResults:
FUSION: Florida-based new big channel:
ABC: Seemingly only a chatting of people with low knowledge and interest, i felt soonly asleep:
CBC: CanadianB.C. was quite openly biased and had no detailed results&analyses, too:
SKY: Last, but not least:
|
|
