2016 USA Presidential election thread II: And. Here. We. Go!

[Aerin]

She decided to be honest and say that coal jobs would need to transform into new types of energy jobs.

I think that this was the right tone for her to strike, on worker retraining. That being said, the only time I heard her talk about it on the campaign trail at all was during the 2nd Presidential Debate. Admittedly, that may be a failing on my part for not watching the right parts of her speeches, or not going to her website to see what her official stance was. I'm not going to claim to have an answer that would make everything right in this area though. I do think it would be wrong to write off such a big part of the country though, even if that demographic is in decline. I worry that if the Dems don't find a way to appeal to that voter they will find themselves in a similar position in 2020.

[Gredival]

I really hope the actual DNC takes a lot more away from this than you do. Because if not we're gonna see 8 years of Trump.

Respond to the rest of what I said.

I literally outright stated that a shift to the center isn't on the table. However I'm also not stupid enough to think that all that the Democrats need(ed) to do to win is give the far left an "affirmative reason" to vote with a progressive candidate.

The lack of party discipline makes the Democrats path forward narrow. The Republican moderates' willingness to hold their nose and vote for Trump is a huge structural advantage in allowing the Republicans to cast a wider tent (even if that tent only goes towards the right). I'm not sold that the Democrats can win just by casting their tent farther to the left due to bleeding in the center, but no party discipline makes casting the tent towards the center unviable.

As a result I'm pretty much resigned to a loss in 2020. "True" progressives will need to see a "true liberal" fail in 2020 ala McGovern and Dukakis before they accept that going to the left (absent something else) doesn't win elections. Then hopefully they come home (ala Nader 2000 voters going to Obama in 2008) or the country is lost.

[archibaldcrane]

As long as the next Dem candidate is sufficiently "inspiring", their policy positions matter little.

If this election, and Gore, and Kerry, and Obama's two elections have taught us anything, it should be that. Energizing low-propensity voters means we need someone charismatic and "likeable", not someone with a mastery of policy.

Because libs and dems are the worst.

[Tyrath]

I don't think they necessarily need a far left candidate to show up. They showed up for Obama and he's nowhere close. But they do need someone who has an air of progressiveness about them that Clinton was clearly lacking. To them, she looked like the same old warhawk. It obviously didn't help the amount of "scandals" the GOP was able to bring out about her. But this is why it would help to have someone who doesn't seem like they are waiting in line for over a decade. Makes them look less entitled and also makes it far harder for the GOP to create a decade long smear campaign to destroy her credibility.

I don't necessarily think Clinton was a weak candidate on her own. But once you factor everything else, she was a terrible choice (by no fault of her own). I also don't think the primaries were rigged, but the DNC heavily favored her and that kind of shit doesn't fly with these voters. Get rid of the amount of superdelegates and let the people decide. I know she would've probably still won without all the superdelegates but she would've come out looking better by having done so. The perception of the rigged primaries intensified due to that.

Whichever of you guys said that quote "Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love" had it exactly right. So you have that understanding, now what? Stop waiting for those people to be disillusioned and hope that they will fall in line. People who lose their ideals are honestly more likely to not show up next time. So I don't really accept this notion of waiting to lose even harder in 2020 and hope they wake up in 2024. Instead, the DNC needs to accept that these are their voters and they need to work to have a candidate that speaks to them too. Obama sure did. Even if he couldn't back up everything he said. Starting by appointing a new DNC chair thats endorsed by Bernie and several others is a good start.


Edit: Goddamnit Archi's point is probably the most important out of all of this. Obama sure as hell inspired everyone.

[dasva]

I really hope the actual DNC takes a lot more away from this than you do. Because if not we're gonna see 8 years of Trump.

Naw Trump already got his ego stroked he's gunna get bored long before then

[arus2001]

Yeah, kinda feel it imperative the Dem's next nominee have a squeaky fucking clean record, or as much as politics allow, to better focus on issues. I know some might argue that doesn't matter via Trump, but we gotta be mindful that all that snowballed against her, fact or fiction.

[Gredival]

So an "air" of progressiveness, even if you don't back it up in actual policy? Basically all this true progressive nominee, taking the left seriously, etc. was never about principle it just comes down to having the same type of politician except one that will give lip service.

Sounds about right.

[BerenTebogo]

So an "air" of progressiveness, even if you don't back it up in actual policy? Basically all this true progressive nominee, taking the left seriously, etc. was never about principle it just comes down to having the same type of politician except one that will give lip service.

Sounds about right.

You have to remember, just like the majority of republicans are too stupid to understand actual policy and blindly follow whatever speeches fall in line with their silly preconceptions, the majority of the dems do that with speeches that speak to their myriad feelmachines.

[Byrthnoth]

As long as the next Dem candidate is sufficiently "inspiring", their policy positions matter little.

If this election, and Gore, and Kerry, and Obama's two elections have taught us anything, it should be that. Energizing low-propensity voters means we need someone charismatic and "likeable", not someone with a mastery of policy.

Because libs and dems are the worst.

Where is BG's superlike button?

[Deftscythe]

So an "air" of progressiveness, even if you don't back it up in actual policy? Basically all this true progressive nominee, taking the left seriously, etc. was never about principle it just comes down to having the same type of politician except one that will give lip service.

Sounds about right.

More like a left version of Trump in so much as a nominee who can tap into people's emotions, but on policy is just going to sign w/e his party puts in front of him.

[Tyrath]

So an "air" of progressiveness, even if you don't back it up in actual policy? Basically all this true progressive nominee, taking the left seriously, etc. was never about principle it just comes down to having the same type of politician except one that will give lip service.

Sounds about right.

Well yeah. We're talking about what its gonna take to win aren't we??

If we were going by qualifications and policy Clinton would've had it in a landslide.

[Greatguardian]

Operation High Road, the plan to treat voters like intelligent, rational creatures capable of complex thought was an unmitigated disaster. Bring on the hype machine. Corey Booker / Stephen Colbert 2020.

[ThreeOneLead]

Corey Booker would be just a terrible nominee


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Minions]

I'd vote for a Stewart/Colbert 2020 Ticket.

[Dantrag]

I'd vote for a Stewart/Colbert 2020 Ticket.

Would probably be a land slide tbh.

[Krandor]

At least Republicans won't be able to use the zero actual experience argument against them.

[Drai]

On the subject of free college and blue collar jobs, what do you all feel is a viable solution to this? As more people opt to go to college to better themselves, this leaves more jobs in fields such as construction and service industries in higher demand, thus you would expect companies to offer increased pay to entice people to accept these jobs, and in lieu of increased pay, then some other benefits to compensate would you not?

But we also run into the issue of Jobs in certain industries being phased out due to progress, looking specifically at the manufacturing industry, specifically the automotive industry, a lot of people over certain ages who work in these industries aren't yet at the age where they can retire, but are too old to potentially be retrained in a completely different field.

And finally you have the Businesses themselves who hire in these industries, what incentives do they have to increase pay for their workers if all it does is lower their profits?

One option I was thinking of was the government offering compensation to businesses based on certain requirements, maybe tax breaks for offering pay to workers a certain % higher then industry standards? Or something like Grants payed to workers who lose their jobs due to progress and can't be retrained, or are within a certain number of years from retirement? Would love to hear peoples ideas on what they feel would be good solutions for things like this?

[Fiye]

Have we hit the era of personalty presidents that do whatever congress pushes in front of them yet?

[Lokus]

Yeah, kinda feel it imperative the Dem's next nominee have a squeaky fucking clean record, or as much as politics allow, to better focus on issues. I know some might argue that doesn't matter via Trump, but we gotta be mindful that all that snowballed against her, fact or fiction.

If anything, this election has taught us that only Dems care about how squeaky clean their candidate is because the Reps sure as hell didn't.

[Mertron]

an old article a couple of my old professors have been posting today

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...dept-education

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said Wednesday he would use the U.S. Department of Education to police speech on college campuses.

During an interview, Glenn Beck asked Carson if he would shut down the Education Department as president.
“I actually have something I would use the Department of Education to do,” Carson explained. “It would be to monitor our institutions of higher education for extreme political bias and deny federal funding if it exists.”

i may need to find a new title for my lecture on "Donald Trump and Ben Carson: What a bunch of fucking morons"