All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Maine Starfish]

Sanders wasnt the only reason. He was one of many however.

I largely agree that there are multiple reasons why Clinton lost, but that’s partly why the constant finger pointing at Sanders or Sanders supporters doesn’t make sense. It’s just a way for Clinton to not take responsibility for her campaigns mistakes, obviously all campaigns are going to make some mistakes, but it’s the constant attempts to not take any responsibility and to instead point fingers at something else. It just doesn’t work, and it’s not a way to bring about unity around the Biden nomination, it only leads to more mistrust and chaos. And Biden’s campaign very well may have the same issues, that is he does well in the popular vote but fails to win the key Midwest states necessary for the electoral college. There’s very little to suggest they have learned from the mistakes of 2016, and instead just want to blame others if they don’t eventually win.

Of course, as a side note, the current chaos and mishandling of the current coved-19 crisis by the current administration definitely appears to be a game changer. I expect Biden to win just because of that, provided everyone is able to vote in the fall. Hopefully voting by mail can be expanded in time, it looks like that’s going to be necessary.

[Maine Starfish]

You're saying that she made mistakes (like every campaign does) and equating that to running a bad campaign. For the last 50 years, in about half of all Elections, one candidate or the other gets less votes than the candidate from the same Party got in the previous Election despite population growth. A 'bad campaign' doesn't get a candidate more votes than any white male in history!

The decision to not campaign in key swing states is more than a mistake, it very likely cost her the election. She only just narrowly lost in Michigan and Wisconsin, if she had bothered to visit these states just once or twice, she very likely could have won. The decision to not visit them was a huge mistake.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Agreed, the idea that Clinton lost because of Sanders or his supporters or moving to the left just doesn’t make any sense to me. It seems like just another way to point fingers and refuse to consider that Clinton just wasn’t a very good candidate and ran a very poor campaign.

It’s just not accurate. All the data we have, even the internal data to her campaign nearly all agrees that she was winning and then the Comey letter gutted her. So it was people who were on the fence that were swayed by a last minute outside intrusion from the one thing she could never get out from under the whole campaign (emails).

[JackDaw]

The decision to not campaign in key swing states is more than a mistake, it very likely cost her the election. She only just narrowly lost in Michigan and Wisconsin, if she had bothered to visit these states just once or twice, she very likely could have won. The decision to not visit them was a huge mistake.

An outsiders perspective (I’m a Brit)...I thought she was unlucky to lose, things like her temporary health collapse cost her dearly.

The thing that puzzled me most is that she seemed extremely reluctant to attack the Donald, to call him out on out on his bullshit, and his rudeness to her in debates.

When the Donald’s appalling sexism with women became apparent I think if she had attacked more strongly..she would probably have won. (Perhaps her own husbands behaviour made this a difficult line of attack for her? It did cross my mind that Bill...in spite of his political expertise, actually lost her votes on balance.)

[PwrdOn]

An outsiders perspective (I’m a Brit)...I thought she was unlucky to lose, things like her temporary health collapse cost her dearly.

The thing that puzzled me most is that she seemed extremely reluctant to attack the Donald, to call him out on out on his bullshit, and his rudeness to her in debates.

When the Donald’s appalling sexism with women became apparent I think if she had attacked more strongly..she would probably have won. (Perhaps her own husbands behaviour made this a difficult line of attack for her? It did cross my mind that Bill...in spite of his political expertise, actually lost her votes on balance.)

Well for all of supposed status as a feminist icon, Hillary herself always seemed really loathe to lean into that because she was afraid of being painted as a shrill ball-busting feminazi. Nevermind that the Republicans attacked her for that anyway.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

An outsiders perspective (I’m a Brit)...I thought she was unlucky to lose, things like her temporary health collapse cost her dearly.

The thing that puzzled me most is that she seemed extremely reluctant to attack the Donald, to call him out on out on his bullshit, and his rudeness to her in debates. When the Donald’s appalling sexism with women became apparent I think if she had attacked more strongly..she would probably have won. (Perhaps her own husbands behaviour made this a difficult line of attack for her? It did cross my mind that Bill...in spite of his political expertise, actually lost her votes on balance.)

Right here is the problem. She was a bad match up for Trump and there were issues where she was hesitant to attack him because it meant getting dragged into a gutter war over things she’d rather not talk about. There’s more than a few women that would have been happy to stand next to Trump and talk about how Hillary herself tried to smear them as liars when they accused Bill. And Trump was goading her into that so her whole campaign saw it coming and didn’t want to deal with it.

Another was Trump’s taxes. She tried to go after him for that, then he started saying “well how about you release your emails first”. And right or wrong she knew it was just going to be a mudslinging match where she’d come out dirty and Trump being a pig wouldn’t mind the mud.

A lot of this is a popularity contest, and perception can be everything. Trump’s dumb at a lot of things, but he’s great at optics, making sales pitches, and branding thing. Most people who were close to him thought he was a fraud, but most of his life he convinced the public he was was some symbol of wealth and success. The name Trump drew connotations of being rich. That’s his skill. Unfortunately it’s helpful in vain country in an election.

[InformationGeek]

Oh look, another crazy Republican that wants to sacrifice people to keep the economy going.

Rep. Trey Hollingsworth (R-Ind.) said Tuesday, as the U.S. grapples with the coronavirus pandemic, that the country will always have to choose a “loss of American lives” over a “loss of our way of life as Americans.”

Hollingsworth told Indianapolis's WIBC radio station that there is no “zero-harm” option when it comes to deciding when and how to reopen the American economy.

“Both of these decisions will lead to harm for individuals, whether that's dramatic economic harm or whether that's the loss of life,” he said. “But it is always the American government's position to say, in the choice between the loss of our way of life as Americans and the loss of life of American lives, we have to always choose the latter.”

Hollingsworth said that the decision that would do the most good for the most people would be to “get Americans back to work.” The Indiana lawmaker added that no “amount of legislation out of D.C.” is going to fix the crisis.

“It is policymakers' decision to put on our big-boy and big-girl pants and say, ‘This is the lesser of these two evils,’” he said.

“That is our responsibility, and to abdicate that is to insult the Americans that voted us into office,” he added.

[Mister Mets]

Can you name another Presidential nominee that wasn't a 'very good candidate' and 'ran a very poor campaign' that got 3 million more votes than their competitor?

It doesn't matter that she got 3 million more votes than her competitor, because the US has the electoral college system.

It would also be impressive if she did respectably against a strong opponent. It hasn't really been established that Donald Trump is a strong general election opponent, capable of outperforming generic Republicans.

He had the lowest favorability rating of any general election candidate for President, and that was before the media found a tape in which he bragged about grabbing women by the pussy.

You're saying that she made mistakes (like every campaign does) and equating that to running a bad campaign. For the last 50 years, in about half of all Elections, one candidate or the other gets less votes than the candidate from the same Party got in the previous Election despite population growth. A 'bad campaign' doesn't get a candidate more votes than any white male in history!

The main reason she got that many votes is that the population has been increasing, and every white guy to win the presidency since 1992 was under 51 percent of the popular vote.

It’s just not accurate. All the data we have, even the internal data to her campaign nearly all agrees that she was winning and then the Comey letter gutted her. So it was people who were on the fence that were swayed by a last minute outside intrusion from the one thing she could never get out from under the whole campaign (emails).

Given how close the election is, it's possible everything mattered.

The Comey letter hurt, but she might've survived that with a better ground game in the states she needed to win.

[Mister Mets]

It has absolutely nothing to do with that as I am not -- nor have I ever been -- a Democrat.

I'm just not a hypocrite when it comes to observing the obvious differences between the two parties.

It's not "liberalism" to point out the absolute trash presidents and Congressmen the Republican party has put out over the past few decades, nor their penchant for lies, warmongering, record deficits, and criminal behavior, or for relying on racism, xenophobia and homophobia to win elections.

Again, you might not find those things as problematic because -- to be blunt -- they don't affect you negatively and may work to your benefit.

However, when your lack of concern for my rights endangers my life, or the rights of women, or those in the LGBT community, we have a problem.

That has nothing to do with "tribalism" or "not understanding different views" -- it's about our right to be treated as equals in American society.

With that in mind I don't view this as so much a debate as it is a confirmation of what most here already know.

If the Republicans actually lived up to the values and ethics you keep espousing you might have a valid defense in that respect.

As it stands you're just here trying to point fingers at others in order to distract from the truth about your party.

He currently sits in the White House, protected by Barr, McConnell, Graham, and a host of other Republicans who share similar views on ethics.

You not being a Democrat doesn't change anything I've had to say.

Does this mean you do not vote in any Democratic primaries? If so, that would be a mistake as that's one way an ordinary person can have more impact on modern politics. If you do vote in primaries, it does seem that not being a member of the party is a distinction without a difference.

In the Republicans VS Democrats argument, the impression you've given is that you do not favor Republicans, so they would still count as "the other side." It does not appear that you are more likely to support and vote for Republicans for elected office than I am to support and vote for Democrats for elected office. I've supported the presumptive Democratic candidate for President for over an year, and expressed my preference for multiple Democratic candidates for key races last year, so if this is the benchmark for still being asked about supporting Republicans as responses to completely different points, anyone who is more likely to support Democrats for elected office is clearly on that side.

[4saken1]

Well for all of supposed status as a feminist icon, Hillary herself always seemed really loathe to lean into that because she was afraid of being painted as a shrill ball-busting feminazi. Nevermind that the Republicans attacked her for that anyway.

Yes. I know that Sanders pretty much spoke his mind no matter what people thought of him, and commend him for this trait. Hillary, I feel, tended to try to calculate each move and determine what the public's response to it would be. Sometimes she likely benefited from it, while other times she fell flat and should have just let loose with what she was actually thinking. I think that a lot of people would have respected her more if she had done this and had a fuck the consequences attitude. 30 years of being under constant attack made her a little on the defensive, I think.

Right here is the problem. She was a bad match up for Trump......

I don't think she was a bad match at all. Her losing was a fluke. As you stated before, she had a comfortable lead right up until Comey made his infamous statement. Yes, her failing to campaign in a couple of states that she wrongly assumed were hers by right likely had an effect, but she had Trump dead to rights before that. It was her Howard Dean 'YEAAAHHH' moment.

[Scott Taylor]

Hillary lost for many reasons.

[4saken1]

He had the lowest favorability rating of any general election candidate for President, and that was before the media found a tape in which he bragged about grabbing women by the pussy.

For Republicans and viewers of The Apprentice, this was likely a feature, not a bug.

The main reason she got that many votes is that the population has been increasing, and every white guy to win the presidency since 1992 was under 51 percent of the popular vote.

It would also be impressive if she did respectably against a strong opponent. It hasn't really been established that Donald Trump is a strong general election opponent, capable of outperforming generic Republicans.

As I stated before, this is often not the case. Nearly 50% of the time, one candidate or the other gets less votes than the candidate from that Party in the previous Election. If Trump was a 'weak' opponent, he would have gotten fewer votes than his predecessor in the previous Election, despite the increase in population.

Given how close the election is, it's possible everything mattered.

The Comey letter hurt, but she might've survived that with a better ground game in the states she needed to win.

Except when you look at the comfortable lead that she had before the statement as opposed to after. Apply those margins to the states that she lost (not entirely statistically accurate, I know), and she would have won those states handily. I agree, though, everything does matter! Felony disenfranchisement matters. Voter ID to combat a crime that is virtually nonexistent matters. Closing polling places in poor neighborhoods matters. Purging 'black sounding' names from voter rolls matters. Spoiler votes matter. Manufacturing false equivalencies that 'both Parties are exactly the same' matters.

[4saken1]

Hillary lost for many reasons.

Indeed she did! Some were her own. The less likely people are willing to accept their culpability in this, though, as well as the consequences of their choices, the more likely we are to repeat the same mistake.

[InformationGeek]

Over in Ohio, more stupid people!

A Ohio Senate candidate took part in a protest Monday of Gov. Mike DeWine's handling of the coronavirus shutdown, accusing the fellow Republican of fear-mongering and calling him a tyrant.

About 100 protesters gathered outside the Statehouse during DeWine's appearance at his daily news conference inside. At least one protester wore a Donald Trump hat, and many carried signs expressing opposition to the governor's stay-at-home order or waved American flags.

In the crowd was Melissa Ackison, a Republican from Marysville running for the open District 26 seat. She said she agrees with Trump's assertion that the president has authority over state governors in deciding to lift restrictions on the economy.

"In a time where full-on unconstitutional tyranny is on display, the president is doing exactly what the patriots elected him to do, and I knew it was only a matter of time before he would flex his muscle and authority to save Ohio from unprecedented overreach," Ackison said.

Ackison, who faces state Rep. Bill Reineke of Tiffin in the GOP primary, said she participated in the protest to send the message that "enough is enough" and that it's time to "get Ohio back to work."

"The original model, along with the president's condemnation of the World Health Organization's handling this pandemic inappropriately, is all that the public needs to know," she said. "We have children to feed, businesses to run, employees to pay, and Ohio must end this shutdown now. Those with high-risk categories and compromised immune systems can shelter safely at home while the rest of us can exercise our constitutional liberties to work and take care of our businesses and children.

"Patriots who love and respect our liberties and the Constitution are sick and tired of the fear-mongering while the governor and (state Health Director) Dr. (Amy) Acton continue to hide the numbers from the public."

[Scott Taylor]

Indeed she did! Some were her own. The less likely people are willing to accept their culpability in this, though, as well as the consequences of their choices, the more likely we are to repeat the same mistake.

Mainly I blame that people bought into what the media were saying that she was sure to win. And they just didn't concern themselves that the opposite might even happen. Messaging is very powerful stuff and the clear message leading up to that fateful November was that Hillary would for sure win.