What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[garbon]

Actually I'll expand in this instance. I don't think Trump is going to implode but he's quite confused if he thinks that the way to get the media to treat him more kindly is to berate them in person and on twitter.

Maybe he'll give this all up once he has more important things to be doing...

[Martinus]

I just think the left's response to this defeat is horribly myopic.

As someone who believes in liberal ideals, I can tell you clearly that the "social justice" strategy of achieving those has proven to be an utter failure and is pushing more and more moderates into the arms of right wingers everywhere.

But rather than taking this as a learning experience, all the Anita-Sarkezian-style fanatical ideologues take it as cue to double down (I remember the old Soviet line from shortly before the collapse of communism - "the class warfare intensifies as the revolution approaches its final victory" - I see the same sentiment here).

[garbon]

I just think the left's response to this defeat is horribly myopic.

As someone who believes in liberal ideals, I can tell you clearly that the "social justice" strategy of achieving those has proven to be an utter failure and is pushing more and more moderates into the arms of right wingers everywhere.

But rather than taking this as a learning experience, all the Anita-Sarkezian-style fanatical ideologues take it as cue to double down (I remember the old Soviet line from shortly before the collapse of communism - "the class warfare intensifies as the revolution approaches its final victory" - I see the same sentiment here).

I'm guessing this has nothing to do with what I posted.

Also, I don't really see anyone offering up what the left should be doing.

[Razgovory]

I just think the left's response to this defeat is horribly myopic.

As someone who believes in liberal ideals, I can tell you clearly that the "social justice" strategy of achieving those has proven to be an utter failure and is pushing more and more moderates into the arms of right wingers everywhere.

But rather than taking this as a learning experience, all the Anita-Sarkezian-style fanatical ideologues take it as cue to double down (I remember the old Soviet line from shortly before the collapse of communism - "the class warfare intensifies as the revolution approaches its final victory" - I see the same sentiment here).

Fine, we will recriminalized homosexuality.  Happy?

[OttoVonBismarck]

There's really two ways to look at the competitiveness of liberal ideas (and I'm not a liberal so I'm not necessarily concerned about those ideas being competitive, but I am concerned the liberals were unable to field a candidate to beat one of the biggest liars and frauds to ever live in America, let alone to have ran for President), one is the national election perspective, and one is the local election perspective.

Nationally, the liberals basically lost because they ran a mortally damaged candidate who, as proven, would struggle to beat anyone. For decades the GOP has effectively smeared the Clintons. I've always said the Clintons  were innocent about 90% of the time, but they acted guilty and deceptive 100% of the time, and the 10% of the time they were really behaving corruptly, justifies some doubt about all the times their various scandals were just manufactured by the far right smear machine. There's no reason to assume this would happen with any candidate. Obama has been in office for eight years, and despite being insanely hated by the same people that generate Clinton conspiracy theories, they never got any scandal to stick to him remotely like they have with Clinton. That's largely because Obama is just less corrupt, behaves more openly, and is all around a more decent guy than Bill and Hillary.

In spite of running a real bad horse, HRC was within 107,000 votes or so spread around a few Rust Belt states from the Oval Office, and won a commanding margin in the popular vote. So on top of being a bad horse, it's arguable HRC ran a dumb campaign. She invested a lot of resources in purple and even red states playing for a landslide, or a win by "denying Trump his base" and didn't play much defense in the states no Democrat can win without. All that money spent in places like Arizona, Ohio (where all the polls showed she wasn't winning), and even more "stretch" places like Georgia were a complete waste. She spent virtually no money and no time in Wisconsin or Michigan, and didn't pay nearly the attention she should have in Pennsylvania. Would a few visits and a few more ads have flipped those states? Who knows--I know they were close, and one candidate campaigned heavily in them (and was mocked for being a Don Quixote with no chance of flipping "Blue Wall" states), and the other largely didn't. Hillary's internal polling apparently showed Michigan was within 1 point the final week and they started to pour into there, but it was too little, too late.

All that is to say, if you want to double down on stuff like safe spaces, calling all white men racists etc--you'll probably win in 2020 (assuming Trump is doing a bad job, if he's doing okay, it's always hard to unseat an incumbent), or 2024. But I'm talking about the White House, all those demographic advantages the Dems have been crowing about are pretty real, and even apply to states like Florida and North Carolina where Donald was able to eke out a win. A slightly better candidate running HRC's exact game plan wins in 2020 or 2024.

The bigger issue isn't winning the White House, but Congress and the State houses. A lot of important governing happens at the State level, and only controlling (fully) 6 states sets you up for problems winning House/Senate races. I think the Dems had a bad beat this year for President, but are structurally in good shape to win the White House again, better shape than the GOP. But it looks near apocalyptic for Dems in the Congress, and that will cause serious problems with Dems actually governing long term. And the big demographic advantages the Dems have don't seem to translate into congressional and state elections. The electorate for those races in non-Presidential years is very different from general election years, and given the disproportionate power of "non-coastal" areas in Congress, running the Safe Space and fuck whitey playbook is at least in part why you've seen a complete collapse of Democratic support outside of ultra-liberal urban enclaves.

I think Bernie is right that a focus on the working class is perhaps the way forward. The way I see it no party really represents working class interests, but once you've accepted that as a working class person (and I think most have), you're going to go with the guy who supports your values otherwise, and the GOP's values definitely mesh more with blue collar thoughts on society. If the Dems were actually the party of labor, it'd undercut a lot of that. But for too long they've just been the party of fat cat union interests (unions represent a paltry percentage of the working class), but haven't spoken to or done much for working class people. Trump/GOP hasn't either, but when you're willing to lie about it and combine it with all the social/cultural stuff where the GOP is already stronger with the blue collar crowd, it isn't surprising as to how they voted.

FWIW I'm not sure Bernie would've won, he's so far left, and apparently the opposition research book on him that the GOP had was grim, that people are probably overestimating his national electoral appeal. But blue collar worker rhetoric instead of focusing on all the racial shit is probably the way forward for Dems.

[Barrister]

I just think the left's response to this defeat is horribly myopic.

As someone who believes in liberal ideals, I can tell you clearly that the "social justice" strategy of achieving those has proven to be an utter failure and is pushing more and more moderates into the arms of right wingers everywhere.

But rather than taking this as a learning experience, all the Anita-Sarkezian-style fanatical ideologues take it as cue to double down (I remember the old Soviet line from shortly before the collapse of communism - "the class warfare intensifies as the revolution approaches its final victory" - I see the same sentiment here).

I dunno, pushing "social justice" seems to have worked wonders for how visible minorities and gays are treated.

And why bring up Anita Sarkeesian - a woman only famous for being the victim of a vicious online harassment campaign?

[Martinus]

I dunno, pushing "social justice" seems to have worked wonders for how visible minorities and gays are treated.

Perhaps, but that's not the end-all, even for people who belong to visible minorities or are gay. If I were a gay person in the US, I would be concerned about discrimination, yes (although once the gay marriage was won, I am not sure I'd care so much about passing federal workplace non-discrimination laws - not because I don't think they are right, but because I don't think they are very effective, as a homophobic employer can always find a way to fire someone they dislike even if there is a non-discrimination legislation in place, and I'd rather have the bigots show their true colours; and I couldn't really give a flying fuck about forcing some mom-and-pop Christian bakery to bake me a cake) but I would also care about stuff like foreign policy, approach to Islamic terrorism, taxes, free speech, law and order etc. (not saying that Republicans or Trump are better on these issues than Democrats or Clinton - but if I were a gay person in America I'd be irked by the identity politics deciding that being gay should define my views on everything else

And why bring up Anita Sarkeesian - a woman only famous for being the victim of a vicious online harassment campaign?

I just used her as an example of the kind of person I am talking about.

[garbon]

but if I were a gay person in America I'd be irked by the identity politics deciding that being gay should define my views on everything else

I guess it is good that most people don't actually try pushing that then.

[Martinus]

It's very possible that my views about what is happening in America is informed by media - it happened before. I guess I should really migrate to the US and see for myself some day.

[CountDeMoney]

WE HAVE WATCHED YOUR HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS IN POLAND

[garbon]

It's very possible that my views about what is happening in America is informed by media - it happened before. I guess I should really migrate to the US and see for myself some day.

The only thing I've personally been told as a gay person is that I can't vote Republican. So I did, twice. Now I won't as Republicans have passed into the basket of deplorables.

[Syt]

Doesn't he realizes the more he thrashes about, the more he's going to struggle?

Quetsion is: does it matter? He and his campaign were fact checked to hell and back on so many things, his opponent was endorsed by hundreds of newspapers across the nation, and in the end the electorate just shrugged and didn't care.

Why should this change now? He will have his minions dealing with the press, and his staunchest supportes will remain in their little right wing echo chambers, anyways. Wouldn't be surprised if he kept media contacts to those friendly outlets.

[garbon]

Doesn't he realizes the more he thrashes about, the more he's going to struggle?

Quetsion is: does it matter? He and his campaign were fact checked to hell and back on so many things, his opponent was endorsed by hundreds of newspapers across the nation, and in the end the electorate just shrugged and didn't care.

Why should this change now? He will have his minions dealing with the press, and his staunchest supportes will remain in their little right wing echo chambers, anyways. Wouldn't be surprised if he kept media contacts to those friendly outlets.

It might. I'd guess Republicans will only support him as long as it plays well with their constituents. If he fails to deliver on what is promised and media keeps covering that, might prove problematic.

At the very minimum, his strategy of berating them for not being kind is a policy that will make sure they stay unkind.

[dps]

It's very possible that my views about what is happening in America is informed by media - it happened before. I guess I should really migrate to the US and see for myself some day.

Actually, you probably should visit here.  And don't just go to the big cities on the coast;  visit flyover country, too.  Yes, you'll run into some bigots, but you'll run into a lot of people who will surprise you, too.

[mongers]

There's really two ways to look at the competitiveness of liberal ideas (and I'm not a liberal so I'm not necessarily concerned about those ideas being competitive, but I am concerned the liberals were unable to field a candidate to beat one of the biggest liars and frauds to ever live in America, let alone to have ran for President), one is the national election perspective, and one is the local election perspective.
...
snip
....
FWIW I'm not sure Bernie would've won, he's so far left, and apparently the opposition research book on him that the GOP had was grim, that people are probably overestimating his national electoral appeal. But blue collar worker rhetoric instead of focusing on all the racial shit is probably the way forward for Dems.

Otto, thanks for that, interesting perspective.