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

[kuronosan]

To my recollection, the Tea Party was born from massive popular unrest with the preferential treatment of banks, corporations, and finance firms, and was almost immediately co-opted by banks, corporations, and finance firms.

This. Their motto was "Taxed Enough Already" but then were hijacked by hyper rights.

[zoobernut]

that's a pretty reductive view. the Tea Party rose more as a reaction to the end of the Bush-era (particularly the great recession) than it did to Obama's election; a reaction to the massive explosion in federal debt, the TARP program designed to bail out brokerages and bankers as homeowners lost their properties or declared bankruptcy, the generalized notion Wall Street and Washington elites were finna be alright as average citizens were left to flounder. Obamacare + the stimulus package + continued trillion dollar deficits certainly intensified the protest movement as they felt a pile on of grievances, but the notion they are analogous to the present day 'not my president' protests is entirely fallacious.

in fact if memory serves Obama's favorability rating immediately following his election was something like 70%, he was an incredibly popular incoming president, and the tea party protests did not begin until a few months into his presidency as individuals began to view him as a continuation if not an intensification of Bush-era corporatism and governing irresponsibility, and of course as the recession intensified.

I really appreciate your in depth analysis and you are quite right but I am not just referring to the tea party in politicians but also all of the "tea partiers" that spent years protesting all over the country. The tea party movement was much more than just the politicians who identified as tea party members. It was also many regular people out protesting with cries very similar to "not my president" and lots of tea party shirts/hats and don't tread on me flags.

Also while the Tea Parties rise may be more complex than what I wrote it was certainly used in the fashion analogous to the protests happening now.

[dasva]

This. Their motto was "Taxed Enough Already" but then were hijacked by hyper rights.

Seems to be a common theme almost any movement these days. Popularity rises and then shit gets hijacked by generally more extreme elements or at least ones with different agendas and then shits on everything and leaves a huge mess for everyone else to deal with

[kuronosan]

Bernie was hijacked by hyper lefts, and to be fair he's further left than I am.

[myreality]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/vi...emocracy-video

Barack Obama: fake news is a threat to democracy – video

[ThreeOneLead]

Tyche,

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-s...icaid-cutbacks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mertron]

Tyche,

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-s...icaid-cutbacks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

but at least we're getting rid of them thar fuckin mexicans

murica

[Galkaeater]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/vi...emocracy-video

this whole fake news thing sounds desperate

[Gredival]

The rise of the internet and social media as people's #1 source of news creating an echo chamber is definitely damaging, but there's more to it than just fake news.

[6souls]

Truly a musical and political genius.

Says he would have voted for Trump, but donated to Hillary.

[Vandalhart]

Ehh, he'll probably claim it was Kim.

[Gredival]

http://www.economist.com/news/united...feat-democrats

AGHAST at the defection of millions who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 but for Donald Trump in 2016—notably working-class whites in the Midwest—the left wants the Democratic Party to snatch up the banner of economic populism and declare war on Wall Street, big business and other global elites. At post-election gatherings like the Democracy Alliance conference in Washington, DC, it is an article of faith that Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the snowy-haired, finger-jabbing scold who lost the Democratic presidential primary to Hillary Clinton, would have trounced Mr Trump in the general election.

Such Democrats are making a mistake. It is as if America’s political classes are bent on copying every part of Britain’s current flirtation with who-needs-experts populism. Not content with holding an election that saw voters sharply divided by education, age, geography and attitudes to social change—as happened with the Brexit referendum—American leftists seem ready to follow Britain’s Labour Party down the path of self-righteous irrelevance.

[....]

To simplify, populists of the left talk about fairness: an abstract idea. They call for government to break up big banks, make sure the rich pay taxes or erect tariff or regulatory barriers to keep globalisation at bay. Populists of the right happily borrow leftish lines about putting domestic workers first, and curbing the might of international finance. But then instead of talking about fairness, they talk of safety and control, of defending precious values that are under assault, and of keeping The Other at bay. Rather than fixing the system, they talk of taking their country back. If it suits their needs, populists of the right will present government itself as an agent of tyranny. Those are potent slogans that appeal to the gut, not the head—and in America just helped Republicans to elect a billionaire who calls tax-avoidance “smart”. They are reasons why the centre-left should beware of choosing to fight the right on populist ground.

The hard lesson of 2016 is that mainstream politicians do not yet have a perfect answer to the demagogues sweeping the West. Mrs Clinton was a clunking candidate who—disastrously—took the Midwest for granted. But her larger problem was that she could not match Mr Trump’s willingness to tell angry workers whatever they wanted to hear, as when he promised to bring back coal-mining jobs, or manufacturing from Asia. Every rich-world politician knows what voters want: to be shielded from competition that they feel is unfair or unbearable, whether from machines or foreigners. But no responsible leader knows how to do that without harming the economy. As Mr Booker says: “You can’t create policy against a microchip.” As they enter a spell in the wilderness, Democrats cannot out-promise Mr Trump. They need to out-think him, by finding policies that work in the real world, in ways that voters can touch and feel. They have four years.

[kuronosan]

So the democrat problem is that weren't Republican enough. Mmkay.

[Salodin]

So the article says dems need to learn to overpromise more. Sounds about right.

[Gredival]

So the democrat problem is that weren't Republican enough. Mmkay.

Just like how Dems fall in love instead of falling in line.

[Salodin]

Love how successful pragmatism was this election.

[Gredival]

If we can get a candidate who can get away with bald faced lying and holding contradictory positions, I'm all for it (Obama did get away with "clean coal.")

However I think that demographic tilts to the other side already.

[kuronosan]

I think the real problem is that democrats don't get turnout because they don't overpromise enough.

[archibaldcrane]

All the overpromising in the world didn't help Bernie in the primary.

[kuronosan]

All the overpromising in the world didn't help Bernie in the primary.

And yet here we are, months after you said there was no way Trump would win.

Even if he was "weaker than Hillary", at least his ass was out there talking with people instead of hosting fundraisers.